A photograph of a ten year old Brook Shields taken from the knees up, naked, oiled up and wearing heavy makeup was to be hung in a pornographic exhibition at the Tate Modern, London. Police intervened and removed the photograph. Opinions are divided, some agreeing its wrong and many claiming that it is merely a photograph of a child in her natural state and whats pornagraphic about that? Personally, I do not believe that a childs natural state is heavily made up, staring provocatively at a camera. Also as I mentioned, it was part of a pornagraphic exhibition.
The photograph was also used in a playboy publication years ago subtitled 'surprising and sensual images of women' and Brook Shields has attempted to supress the image herself.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Tate Modern removes naked Brooke Shields picture.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16346
Just wanted to correct a few things...
1. The photograph was not hung in a "pornographic exhibition". It was part of the Pop Life: Art in a Material World exhibit which "brings together artists from the 1980s onwards who have embraced commerce and the mass media"
2. The original photograph was published in a number of magazines and was part of a series [nsfw] authorized by Shields' mother. The photograph in the Tate Modern is a reproduction of that photo and is part of an art piece that is intended as commentary on objectification, not pornography.
More details on the piece and the artist can be found here. [nsfw]
Sorry, the article I read described it as a pornographic exhibition.
As for your second point, it doesn't make it okay because her mother authorised it, she is now a grown woman trying to supress the image.
On moral grounds I agree that Shields has the right to try to back out of the contract her mother signed, or to buy the rights to her own image. This is the problem with parents who use their children for their own gain. People who think those photos are problematic should see the limited prints that were sold for $4,000 each in the early 1980s through ads in Penthouse.
Legally, we can see how Shields lost twice. The, she made her career selling sex argument is ludicrous, as ten year olds shouldn't be used to sell sex. I was surprised a couple of months ago to see "Pretty Baby" on TV (AMC?), with bath and bed scenes apparently uncut. I saw "Blue Lagoon" a little before that, also apparently uncut.
The problem here isn't that the image was to be displayed in an erotic art exhibit but that it was taken at all. No amount of fame or fortune should be enough to make a parent allow her child to be made a sexual object. Especially not when the amount of fame and fortune is $450 and a few thousand men jacking off to her picture.
I don't see why the photographer isn't charged with making child pornography. Far lesser crimes have been judged as such.