Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Gallery to display nude picture of 10-year-old girl.

135

Comments

  • #62
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    humberklog wrote: »
    Would've been interesting to have a fairly straight forward poll.

    I thought of that but I don't know how to put one up..... :o

    Feel free to do it if you know how.....


  • #63
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,199 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I agree that the pose is important, and agree that a photographer taking a picture of a young child, which would be completely for the parents use, would be acceptable. But this is to be displayed in an art gallery. This picture wasn't taken for a parent, it was taken for art. To convey some message. And that is wrong. Using a minor in this regard, is just wrong in my opinion

    Reading back over my posts, I agree that I came on a little strong in my view, there are always varying circumstances to be taken into consideration (the age, the pose, the intended use of the picture etc). But to me, this is just plain wrong


  • #64
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    I watched a documentary recently on child pagents in the USA & UK and again thought "Is this right".

    I saw that show, couldn't believe how the parents acted towards the kids.

    The difference is, these kids will grow up and think "Mammy wanted me to be a beauty model, dressed me like a barbie doll and put me through a lot of stress to win." Where as a child put in the position of getting this photo taken will probably grow up and think "I don't know what my mother wanted me to be but she took way a part of my innocence when she stripped me off, greased me up and painted me like a hooker for photos."
    humberklog wrote: »
    I thought I'd have been far more in minority (I'm kinda pro it).
    Can I ask what your "pro" to...
    Is it the freedom of photographic expression? (disregarding the subject)
    Is it the freedom of photographic expression using the subject?
    Is it pro the idea of something controversial?
    Is it pro the idea of standing against censorship?
    Is it pro the shooting of the photo itself?

    I'm just interested to know the opinion from the other side.


  • #65
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,394 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    I thought of that but I don't know how to put one up..... :o

    Feel free to do it if you know how.....

    I'll have a look see but like you I haven't a scooby.
    What do you personally think of the picture and the overall exhibition?


  • #66
    Masada
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭Masada


    I would be against it completely. In my own mind, you can have 101 reasons behind its "artistic"ness but its still a child amd regardless of the photographers intent, he was wrong to do it in my opinion. We shouldn't muddy the waters on whats acceptable regards children and what is stepping the line.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    humberklog wrote: »
    What do you personally think of the picture and the overall exhibition?

    Well,

    I'm still sitting on the fence. I see both sides of the argument. Part of me says it is wrong another part says, after viewing the picture, it is not as bad as I imagined. As per my last post.

    A lot of people jump on the defensive before investigating the facts, which lets them down afterwards. (Not referring to this Thread in particular, but in general)

    As for the exhibition, I would go to see it if I was still living in London. Only then would I be able to give an accurate view.


  • #68
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    As for the exhibition, I would go to see it if I was still living in London. Only then would I be able to give an accurate view.

    Would you be able to look at the photo on it's own though or would you be constantly thinking of it as being part of an exhibition which includes porn?

    Disregarding the porn aspect of the exhibition, even if this photo was part of a gallery containing regular photos of other children I think it would still be bad because of the composition of the the subject!


  • #69
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,394 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    As for the exhibition, I would go to see it if I was still living in London. Only then would I be able to give an accurate view.

    Yeah, I'd like to see it in the collection. Mind you I don't think that it necessarily has to work with its surrounds. I mostly take in exhibitions by treating each individual piece on its own merits. I'm not great at joining the dots of others work. But in this case I think the artist wants to use it in a wider vision.
    If I'm that way and have time I'd pop in.


  • #70
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    steve06 wrote: »
    Would you be able to look at the photo on it's own though or would you be constantly thinking of it as being part of an exhibition which includes porn?

    I would seperate both and look at the picture on it's own, however, at the end of the day it is still part of the same exhibition which, to me, still has a link which could be construed as paedophilia material.


  • #71
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Trojan911 wrote: »
    I would seperate both and look at the picture on it's own, however, at the end of the day it is still part of the same exhibition which, to me, still has a link which could be construed as paedophilia material.
    I think you just fell of the fence! :D


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    CabanSail
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 9,047 CMod ✭✭✭✭CabanSail


    A poll can be added if those here think that it would be of value.

    What is the question that you want asked?

    What options for the answers?


  • #73
    Roaster
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭Roaster


    Have to say I'm a pretty liberal person (I think) and not much shocks me but at no point in viewing the image did I think "...didn't he set up the picture well....and I can see what he was trying to do..." I was horrified!

    All I can think of is this poor little girl being exploited by her mother and the photographer/paedo (which probably explains why she's a bit nuts now...)


  • #74
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,394 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    CabanSail wrote: »
    A poll can be added if those here think that it would be of value.

    What is the question that you want asked?

    What options for the answers?
    Yes it should be displayed.
    No it shouldn't.
    Simple would be best, no middle bit.


  • #75
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    CabanSail wrote: »
    A poll can be added if those here think that it would be of value.

    What is the question that you want asked?

    What options for the answers?

    Cheers for that.

    I suppose:

    Is this art? Yes/No

    Is this exploitation of a minor? Yes/No

    Unsure Tick

    And anything else you think might be applicable. I suppose, as it is controversial, posters answers to be kept unidentifiable.

    EDIT: Humberklog has good ones....


  • #76
    trishw78
    Registered Users Posts: 2,657 ✭✭✭trishw78


    ok here it goes I've had to active a few of the Art Brain Cells that haven't been made to exercise in a while so bear with me on this.

    Without seeing the image in the context that the artiset intended (among other pornographic images). I can only assume that he(Prince) intended to push peoples boundries in what they find sexually acceptable.

    The exhibition and shot is not supposed to leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside. My opinion on the shot is that Goss original took to illustrate the lose of innocense or youth. Prince Appropriated the shot to show that we are all to a certain extent voyeur's.

    I hope that makes sense on my opinion of the shot, and to answer the question would I go and see it yes.


  • #77
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    trishw78 wrote: »
    Without seeing the image in the context that the artiset intended (among other pornographic images). I can only assume that he(Prince) intended to push peoples boundries in what they find sexually acceptable.

    The exhibition and shot is not supposed to leave you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside. My opinion on the shot is that Goss original took to illustrate the lose of innocense or youth. Prince Appropriated the shot to show that we are all to a certain extent voyeur's.
    My understating is that the image was commissioned by the mother, so she could produce it to a film company as part of a portfolio so her daughter would get the role of a child raised in a brothel.

    Why Prince decided to take a photo of the original photo.... I don't know why he'd want to except:

    1: To maybe further his career by showing something controversial!
    2: Because he likes erotic photography and as other photos in his exhibition are pornographic then he must have seen this in a sexual light, in a good way, which raises some concerns.


  • #78
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    steve06 wrote: »
    I think you just fell of the fence! :D

    Not yet :D, but this is the part of me that's not comfortable with it...... On it's own away/seperate from a porn exhibition, I don't think I would have an issue..... This is where I'm stuck....


  • #79
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Well consider it this way, if a boardsie saw a provocitive photo of a nude 10 year old and they took a pic of it to display in the exhibition alongside porn, how would you feel about it?

    Even taking their porn photos out of the equation how would you react to someone taking a photo of a provocative image where the subject was a naked 10 year old?


  • #80
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Its been taken down.


    Tate Modern removes naked Brooke Shields picture after police visit

    Gallery takes down photo of actor when she was 10, made-up and nude, after advice from Met's obscene publications squad

    A display due to go on show to the public at Tate Modern tomorrow has been withdrawn after a warning from Scotland Yard that the naked image of actor Brooke Shields aged 10 and heavily made up could break obscenity laws.

    The work, by American artist Richard Prince and entitled Spiritual America, was due to be part of the London gallery's new Pop Life exhibition . It has been removed from display after a visit to Tate Modern by officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police.

    The exhibition had been open to members of the Tate today before opening to the public tomorrow. A Tate spokeswoman confirmed that the display had been "temporarily closed down" and the catalogue for the exhibition withdrawn from sale. The work had been accompanied by a warning, and the Tate had sought legal advice before displaying it.

    The decision by officers to visit Tate Modern is understood to have been made after police chiefs saw coverage of the exhibition in today's newspapers, rather than as a result of complaints.

    Officers met gallery bosses and are also understood to have consulted the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether the image broke obscenity laws.

    A Scotland Yard source said the actions of its officers were "common sense" and were taken to pre-empt any breach of the law. The source said the image of Shields was of potential concern because it was of a 10-year-old, and could be viewed as sexually provocative.

    The work has been shown recently in New York, without attracting major controversy, where it gave the title to the 2007 retrospective of Prince's work at the Guggenheim Museum.

    The Pop Life exhibition also includes works from Jeff Koons's series Made in Heaven, large-scale photographic images that depict the artist and the porn model La Cicciolina having sexual intercourse.

    There are also works by Cosey Fanni Tutti, who, as part of her artistic practice, worked as a porn and glamour model in the 1970s and then displayed some of the resulting images in an exhibition at the ICA in 1976.

    Spiritual America is a photograph of a photograph. The original – authorised by Shields's mother for $450 – had been taken by a commercial photographer, Gary Gross, for the Playboy publication Sugar 'n' Spice in 1976. Shields later attempted, unsuccessfully, to suppress the picture.

    Prince used the image as the source material for his own 1983 piece; he placed it in a gilt frame and displayed it, without labelling or explanation, in a shopfront in a then rundown street in Lower East Side, New York. The title comes from a photograph by Alfred Stieglitz from 1923 of a gelded horse.

    Prince has described the image as resembling "a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it's got a different birthday."

    In an essay in the exhibition catalogue Jack Bankowsky, co-curator of the exhibition, describes the image as of "a bath-damp and decidedly underage Brooke Shields … When Prince invites us to ogle Brooke Shields in her prepubescent nakedness, his impulse has less to do with his desire to savour the lubricious titillations that it was shot to spark in its original context … than with a profound fascination for the child star's story."

    The Metropolitan police said: "Officers from the obscene publications unit met with staff at Tate Modern … 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."

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/sep/30/brooke-shields-naked-tate-modern


  • #81
    Kold
    Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    There is no child suffering here. I don't see what the problem is.

    I think the concept sounds extremely interesting. Considering that modern photography is basically a way of asking the viewer questions, thousands might abound from this.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    Well, that's put a stop to that then... I did have a feeling the Met might show its presence, just to look at the public who were attending to view this exhibition.....


  • #83
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,199 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Kold wrote: »
    There is no child suffering here. I don't see what the problem is.

    I think the concept sounds extremely interesting. Considering that modern photography is basically a way of asking the viewer questions, thousands might abound from this.

    Asking the viewer questions, sure. But within reason. You say there was no child suffering, but how do we know? After all, Shields herself later tried to stop the picture from being used. We don't know how much say Shields had in all this, from these pictures, to the films she starred in when she was younger.


  • #84
    Kold
    Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    Asking the viewer questions, sure. But within reason. You say there was no child suffering, but how do we know? After all, Shields herself later tried to stop the picture from being used. We don't know how much say Shields had in all this, from these pictures, to the films she starred in when she was younger.
    Yes, I read that she tried to block the picture. I think that's probably fair enough so. But that's the only solid reason I can see for blocking this picture.


  • #85
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Kold wrote: »
    Yes, I read that she tried to block the picture. I think that's probably fair enough so. But that's the only solid reason I can see for blocking this picture.

    Maybe there's the fact that it's a nude 10 year old oiled up, wearing make up and posing in a provocative way. I'm all for freedom of artistic expression, but there's no art there.


  • #86
    Kold
    Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    steve06 wrote: »
    Maybe there's the fact that it's a nude 10 year old oiled up, wearing make up and posing in a provocative way. I'm all for freedom of artistic expression, but there's no art there.
    Really? Well Richard Prince seems to think there is. The currator of the Tate Modern seems to think there is. The Currator of the Guggenheim thinks there is, and I, a mere Art student that hasn't even seen the picture seems to think that this is a photograph that raises many valid arguments (though censorship seems to have taken the forefront here).


  • #87
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,199 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    There is art in everything. As someone else said, the purpose of the pictures were to get us to think about something, challenge our thoughts.

    But making a child, whether her and her parents said it was fine or not, pose nude like that should never be used for this purpose.


  • #88
    ThOnda
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭ThOnda


    <snip>

    The only disturbing thing is the knowing that her parents knew about that. Call me old fashioned, but I would not agree with pictures of my own kid in such way.

    On the other hand, we all have enjoyed Blue Lagoon ;)


  • #89
    Kold
    Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    This is a photograph of a photograph here. Prince has made noone pose. The original picture was baffling but obviously Prince saw this and instantly saw the power of the image.
    Egon Schiele shouldn't have done the things that he did. But f*ck did he make some great paintings. Similar things could be said about Gaugain.
    The real issue here is one's reaction to the pictures. The fact that you can't even suffer something for others to look upon in a gallery environment speaks volumes. I haven't really even been given any reason to think that Shields' innocence was stolen by these pictures. How is it that different from anyone being exploited?


  • #90
    AnCatDubh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    Do NOT post links to the images please.

    Should people want to find any of the cases referred to - then they can google it like everyone else. The differentiation between art or porn here is far from clear and given the age of the subject matter could be construed as rather serious by the legal authorities.

    Users should be concious that should you go googling any of the referred to images that they are most definately NSFW. Given the subject matter and depending on your employers approach - they are possibly something that could get you sacked and interviewed by the local Gardaí.

    It's fine for general discussion to continue here.

    Thank you.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Eirebear
    Registered Users Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    AnCatDubh wrote: »
    Do NOT post links to the images please.

    Should people want to find any of the cases referred to - then they can google it like everyone else. The differentiation between art or porn here is far from clear and given the age of the subject matter could be construed as rather serious by the legal authorities.

    Users should be concious that should you go googling any of the referred to images that they are most definately NSFW. Given the subject matter and depending on your employers approach - they are possibly something that could get you sacked and interviewed by the local Gardaí.

    It's fine for general discussion to continue here.

    Thank you.

    God damn censorship! :p


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement