Brooke Shields Kiddie Porn Removed From London Museum
Posted by: Ami Angelowicz
Filed in:
celebs
10:10AM, Thursday October 1st 2009
A nude photograph of Brooke Shields taken when she was 10 (yes, 10!) was removed from a London exhibit this week after Kidscape, an anti-child-abuse activism group in the U.K., declared it a “magnet for pedophiles.” Whoa … back up. Brooke Shields? Kiddie porn? How? Artist Richard Prince’s piece of Shields was set to be part of the “Pop Life: Art in a Material World” exhibition at the Tate Modern opening this Thursday. Prince’s infamous piece is a photograph of a photograph (yes, twice removed ... how post-modern) of a heavily made-up 10-year-old Shields originally taken by Garry Gross—shot with the permission of Shields’ mother. Is it weird to anyone else that Shields’ mother would be down with it in the first place? The piece has shown in museums such as the Guggenheim in the past without hoopla, but the Tate Modern removed the pic and shut down the entire room. So what do you think? Kiddie porn or art? [People]
- Today’s Lady News: Jaycee Dugard’s Family Speaks Out Against Proposed Porn
- Girl Talk: Guys, Keep Your Porno Fantasies To Yourself
- Jenna Jameson Made It Possible For Female Porn Performers To Say “I’m Not Gonna Do It In The Back”
- A History: Sex Tapes We Weren't Suppossed to See (Maxim)
- Nicole Richie is Hospitalized! (Us Weekly)
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
MissChaotic
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]
I think it would be different if the picture was taken modern-day. But because it was 30 years ago, when society looked at the world differently, its not a big deal.
Besides, Brooke was in a movie nude under 18, so they might as well boycott that too. Not to mention, if it does attract pervs, send the police to investigate. It may help reduce the number of child predators.
xifeng882
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:21 am: [report]
Considering I haven’t seen the photo its hard to say. If it was done ‘tastefully’ then there shouldn’t be a problem.
vanya
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:31 am: [report]
Teri Shields was an alcoholic actress-hopeful looking to make $$ of her kid,so doesn’t strike me as weird that her mom was “down with it” at all.
Bee Mee
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:33 am: [report]
I’ve never seen the picture, but knowing the strained relationship Brooke had with her extreme stage mother, and that mom basically launched Brooke’s childhood career in a fairly sexually provocative manner for someone so young… I dunno if I’m the picture is art or abuse.
Has Brooke ever said anything about the exhibit?
Jenn27549
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:43 am: [report]
We get so worked up about nude pictures of children these days and assume they are all porn. Just like that case on the news recently where they took the kids away from their parents for a picture of them in the tub! Really? The major components of child porn, IMO are that (1) the child is being exploited, or forced to pose against their will, and (2) the images are sexually provocative or explicit. So, the person who should have the final say in this is Brooke Shields. If she says its OK to show the picture, and its not a sexual photo, then there should be no issue with it.
vanya
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:51 am: [report]
Jenn, your post touches on a good point, that nudity doesn’t equal porn. I remember years ago when Robert Mapplethorpe came under fire for exhibiting the photos he’d made of children at play, either nude or without their underwear (parents were present during photo session and approved the final results) I don’t recall if the exhibits were shut down. I do remember there were heated protests over them.
C.Munro
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:52 am: [report]
I haven’t seen the image myself, so it’s hard to say. I suspect it’s probably not pornographic, at least not by the technical definition as an image primarily intended to incite sexual arousal. At the same time, I question its value as art as well. I can’t speak of the composition, but the very idea of photographing a 10-year-old nude and exhibiting it is distasteful. I know if I had a 10-year-old daughter I sure as hell wouldn’t allow her to pose for such a photo.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:57 am: [report]
People are f*cking crazy these days. Several families have had kids taken away by CPS for posting pictures of them in the bathtub…..
writergirl
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 11:05 am: [report]
I just googled and found the photo.
It is definately kiddie porn.
Anyone want the link, just PM me.
dearface
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 12:00 pm: [report]
I too saw the photo. Definitely kiddie porn, even if Brooke Shields, her mom, their agents and the artists are okay with it. And in the very least, very very very distasteful. I semi-understand the ‘artistic’ aspect because it’s a 10 year old made up and posing like an adult, posing in an avertly sexual manner. And are 10 year olds (legally) capable of consenting to these sorts of photos?
daisy
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:06 pm: [report]
Per http://www.nj.com/entertainment/celebrities/index.ssf/2009/10/brooke_shields_nude_photo_rich.html
Teri Shields signed away the rights to the original photo, which was then featured in a Playboy publication. It was later the subject of an obscenity case in the U.S., but a judge ruled that the picture was not pornographic, according to the Daily Telegraph. Brooke Shields tried to buy back the negatives in 1981, and the legal battle is what led Prince to shoot the photo and dub it “Spiritual America,” turning the suggestive snap into “art.”
—-I think since Brook tried to buy the negatives, then she probably does not want them on display.
vanya
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:14 pm: [report]
writergirl & dearface, I’ll trust your word on it.
bumbler
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:29 pm: [report]
Oooh I just saw it too. The title of the piece is “Spiritual America” if anyone wants to see to make an informed decision. Its a long way from a picture in a bathtub. I do think we’re overly sensitive about innocent pictures of children without clothes on, I had naked pictures of me taken in the bath and I would have no problem doing so with my future children, but this picture is very far from innocent.
CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on October 1 2009 @ 09:39 pm: [report]
Just so you know, It’s more than 1 picture. I found a set of 3.