Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition

A provocative nude photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields is to go
on display at the Tate Modern, to the fury of children's campaigners
who branded it a "magnet" for paedophiles.

By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor

Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 29 September 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6244330/Brooke-Shields-nude-photograph-causes-controversy-at-Tate-exhibition.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/y8dz8uz ]

The child actress is shown standing naked in a bathtub, staring
directly at the viewer, with a heavily-made up face and an oiled
torso.

The image is by Richard Prince, a New York artist, and is the
centrepiece of the _Pop Life: Art In A Material World_ exhibition at
the Tate. So controversial is the photograph that it has been
separated from the other exhibits and hangs in its own room behind a
closed door. A notice on the door warns visitors that they may find
the work "challenging".

It is the first time that the piece, entitled _Spiritual America_, has
been displayed in a British gallery, although it has been shown in the
US. The Tate consulted lawyers before including it in the exhibition,
which opens on October 1.

A Tate spokesman said: "As with any artwork that contains challenging
imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation.
Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work,
providing information outlining the intentions of the artist."

Prince's work is actually a photograph of a photograph. The original
was taken by Garry Gross, a US photographer, in 1975. It was
commissioned by Shields' mother, who was intent on turning her little
girl into a child star. Shields' first starring role, aged 12, saw her
play a child prostitute in Louise Malle's _Pretty Baby_.

In 1981, Shields made an unsuccessful attempt to buy back the
negatives. A judge ruled that she was a "hapless victim of a
contract... to which two grasping adults bound her". The legal battle
caught the eye of Prince, and he describes _Spiritual America_ as a
commentary on Shields as an "abstract entity".

Prince described Shields' appearance in the photograph as "a body with
two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it's got a
different birthday".

Children's campaigners reacted with dismay to the exhibition. Michele
Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: "Brooke Shields was 10 years old
when this picture was taken. She could not have given informed consent
to it being used. It must be bordering on child pornography. It is
certainly not art.

"If you are using a picture of a naked child to bring people to your
exhibition, then you are exploiting that child. It's as if they are
using a 10-year-old girl for bait. I find it disturbing and they
should be ashamed of themselves. And putting the picture in a room
with a warning outside really is a magnet for paedophiles."

The Metropolitan Police is aware of the exhibition's content and said
that "any complaint by a member of the public would be considered".

In September 2007, Northumbria Police seized a photograph of two naked
girls from Gateshead's Baltic gallery. The picture, shot by Nan Goldin
and owned by Sir Elton John, was later returned after the Crown
Prosecution Service deemed it was not an indecent image.

[Page showing the original photo:
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/brooke-shields-by-gary-gross/
- Cub Reporter]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 at 23:05:46, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
uk.legal :

>Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition
>
>A provocative nude photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields is to go
>on display at the Tate Modern, to the fury of children's campaigners
>who branded it a "magnet" for paedophiles.
>
>By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
>
>Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 29 September 2009
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6244330/Brooke-
>Shields-nude-photograph-causes-controversy-at-Tate-exhibition.html

I'd much rather see a recent nude photograph of her!
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:LWHLvwNkiwwKFwSN@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 at 23:05:46, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
> uk.legal :
>
>>Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition
>>
>>A provocative nude photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields is to go
>>on display at the Tate Modern, to the fury of children's campaigners
>>who branded it a "magnet" for paedophiles.
>>
>>By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
>>
>>Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 29 September 2009
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6244330/Brooke-
>>Shields-nude-photograph-causes-controversy-at-Tate-exhibition.html
>
> I'd much rather see a recent nude photograph of her!

Is this the offending photo?
http://www.utata.org/salon/20894.php

If so, it is not in any way indecent or prurient, and if the Daily Mail is 
fearful that it will attract child-molesters to the Tate, maybe the solution 
is to print the photo in the Mail and save everyone the journey.

The Todal  wrote in message
news:7igjk4F30thv9U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Paul Hyett" <pah@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:LWHLvwNkiwwKFwSN@blueyonder.co.uk...
> > On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 at 23:05:46, Cub Reporter  wrote in
> > uk.legal :
> >
> >>Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition
> >>
> >>A provocative nude photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields is to go
> >>on display at the Tate Modern, to the fury of children's campaigners
> >>who branded it a "magnet" for paedophiles.
> >>
> >>By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
> >>
> >>Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 29 September 2009
> >>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6244330/Brooke-
> >>Shields-nude-photograph-causes-controversy-at-Tate-exhibition.html
> >
> > I'd much rather see a recent nude photograph of her!
>
> Is this the offending photo?
> http://www.utata.org/salon/20894.php
>
> If so, it is not in any way indecent or prurient, and if the Daily Mail is
> fearful that it will attract child-molesters to the Tate, maybe the
solution
> is to print the photo in the Mail and save everyone the journey.
>
>


There is a paedophile's wet-dream on film4 again this Thursday.
Gallic rather than phallic, title Water Lillies, long after
the watershed appropriately enough.


ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.

Paul Nutteing (valid email address in post script ) wrote:
> 
> 
> There is a paedophile's wet-dream on film4 again this Thursday.
> Gallic rather than phallic, title Water Lillies, long after
> the watershed appropriately enough.

It was on last week as well. Not a bad film, quite a gentle coming of 
age story.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:34:06 GMT, Paul Hyett <pah@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 at 23:05:46, Cub Reporter  wrote in 
>uk.legal :
>
>>Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition
>>
>>A provocative nude photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields is to go
>>on display at the Tate Modern, to the fury of children's campaigners
>>who branded it a "magnet" for paedophiles.
>>
>>By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
>>
>>Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 29 September 2009
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6244330/Brooke-
>>Shields-nude-photograph-causes-controversy-at-Tate-exhibition.html
>
>I'd much rather see a recent nude photograph of her!

Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
'em live in the Fens...

MM

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:05:46 +0100, Cub Reporter 
wrote:

>Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition
>
>A provocative nude photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields is to go
>on display at the Tate Modern, to the fury of children's campaigners
>who branded it a "magnet" for paedophiles.
>
>By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
>
>Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 29 September 2009
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6244330/Brooke-Shields-nude-photograph-causes-controversy-at-Tate-exhibition.html
>[ http://tinyurl.com/y8dz8uz ]
>
>The child actress is shown standing naked in a bathtub, staring
>directly at the viewer, with a heavily-made up face and an oiled
>torso.

Brooke Shields picture withdrawn from Tate exhibition after police
visit

Tate Modern gallery has withdrawn a controversial photograph of Brooke
Shields following a visit by police, amid concerns it could be in
breach of child pornography laws.

By Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor

Telegraph.co.uk, UK: 30 September 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/6248384/Brooke-Shields-picture-withdrawn-from-Tate-exhibition-after-police-visit.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/ycdvkf4 ]

Officers from the Metropolitan Police attended the gallery yesterday.
They are consulting the Crown Prosecution Service over whether the
image breaches the Obscene Publications Act.
[...]

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Officers from the Obscene
Publications Unit met with staff at the Tate Modern regarding an
image. The officers have specialist experience in this field and are
keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not
inadvertently break the law or cause any offence to their visitors."
[...]

Wussies.

-- 
Cub Reporter

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:18:32 +0100, Cub Reporter  wrote:

<snip>

>A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Officers from the Obscene
>Publications Unit met with staff at the Tate Modern regarding an
>image. The officers have specialist experience in this field and are
>keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not
>inadvertently break the law or cause any offence to their visitors."

Excuse me, since when did we have the Offence Police? It's the right - nay, the
duty - of an art gallery to offend people from time to time.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

MM wrote:

> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
> Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
> Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
> say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
> too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
> 'em live in the Fens...

I wonder why.

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:gom7c5dg1b1eu5ghcnv9purago0lhmvba0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:18:32 +0100, Cub Reporter  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Officers from the Obscene
>>Publications Unit met with staff at the Tate Modern regarding an
>>image. The officers have specialist experience in this field and are
>>keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not
>>inadvertently break the law or cause any offence to their visitors."
>
> Excuse me, since when did we have the Offence Police? It's the right - 
> nay, the
> duty - of an art gallery to offend people from time to time.

This does seem a ridiculous waste of police time. I'd rather police officers 
were protecting people like the Pilkingtons or all the victims of knife and 
gun crime.

Surely what we need is to re-create the office of Lord Chamberlain.  He 
could busy himself visiting the galleries and theatres and issuing orders 
about what can or cannot be allowed, to protect the public from being 
offended. He could also issue orders to website owners to close themselves 
down. This one perhaps:
http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/brooke-shields-by-gary-gross/

And when he walks down the street, we could all spit at him.

When Labour are booted out at the next election, Harriet Harman would make 
an excellent Lady Chamberlain.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 08:54:47 +0100, "Norman Wells" 
wrote:

>MM wrote:
>
>> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
>> Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
>> Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
>> say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
>> too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
>> 'em live in the Fens...
>
>I wonder why.

Why do you think?

MM

MM wrote:
> 
> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
> Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
> Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
> say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
> too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
> 'em live in the Fens...
> 
You haven't explored much of the Fens then.

-- 
Mike

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:13:33 +0000, Mike
<spamdump@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>MM wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
>> Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
>> Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
>> say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
>> too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
>> 'em live in the Fens...
>> 
>You haven't explored much of the Fens then.

It's one big wide-open space. I'd spot a beautiful woman a mile away.

MM

MM wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:13:33 +0000, Mike
> <spamdump@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> MM wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime,
>>> although Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you,
>>> Bridget Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well,
>>> they would say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me
>>> started. There are too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime.
>>> Trouble is, none of 'em live in the Fens...
>>> 
>> You haven't explored much of the Fens then.
> 
> It's one big wide-open space. I'd spot a beautiful woman a mile away.

Sadly, she'd also spot you.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:18:43 +0100, "Norman Wells" 
wrote:

>MM wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:13:33 +0000, Mike
>> <spamdump@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> MM wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime,
>>>> although Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you,
>>>> Bridget Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well,
>>>> they would say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me
>>>> started. There are too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime.
>>>> Trouble is, none of 'em live in the Fens...
>>>> 
>>> You haven't explored much of the Fens then.
>> 
>> It's one big wide-open space. I'd spot a beautiful woman a mile away.
>
>Sadly, she'd also spot you.

Jealous, are ya?!! Anyway, I doubt it. Beautiful women are notoriously
short-sighted. And because I am such a kind person and could cook her
some chips, she'd be smitten immediately.

MM

MM wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:13:33 +0000, Mike
> <spamdump@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> MM wrote:
>>> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
>>> Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
>>> Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
>>> say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
>>> too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
>>> 'em live in the Fens...
>>>
>> You haven't explored much of the Fens then.
> 
> It's one big wide-open space. I'd spot a beautiful woman a mile away.
> 
You must be in a very densely populated area if there's another person within a
radius of only 1 mile.

-- 
Mike

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:23:17 +0000, Mike
<spamdump@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>MM wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:13:33 +0000, Mike
>> <spamdump@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> MM wrote:
>>>> Yes, I think she is the most beautiful woman of my lifetime, although
>>>> Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich is super sexy. Mind you, Bridget
>>>> Fonda in Profumo was delectable, the way she said: "Well, they would
>>>> say, that, wouldn't they!" Oh, dear! Don't get me started. There are
>>>> too many beautiful women to list in a lifetime. Trouble is, none of
>>>> 'em live in the Fens...
>>>>
>>> You haven't explored much of the Fens then.
>> 
>> It's one big wide-open space. I'd spot a beautiful woman a mile away.
>> 
>You must be in a very densely populated area if there's another person within a
>radius of only 1 mile.

Exactly! I'm not, ergo...

MM