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

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

124

Comments

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


    Kold wrote: »
    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).
    You can't comment on something you haven't seen! And I don't care what Currators of galleries think because there's a lot of crap that ends up now being labelled as art when it's not. There is no valid arguments for this photograph and of course censorship has won here, it's borderline pedophile pornography!
    Kold wrote: »
    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.
    I think he has helped to exploit Shields by displaying a borderline illegal photograph in this case.
    Kold wrote: »
    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.
    That's different, this isn't a situation that has resulted in great photo. It's not a great photo!
    Kold wrote: »
    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.
    This is not the kind of image that should be looked upon as art in my opinion!
    Kold wrote: »
    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?
    She was underage and used!


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


    Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to a pre-pubescant person. Not the action of taking a photograph or even seeing a photograph whether they're in dress up or not.

    It's your opinion that the picture is not art. Well this is where things get blurry because art is not something easily defined.

    I come from the school of thought that the decision whether something is art or not comes solely from the artist. It is then the viewers decision to judge whether it is good or not.

    I've seen the picture now and I don't feel I need to be cleansed under holy flame.

    How about this photo? This photo was used as an anti war message. Should this one be censored?

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_FB0lDQJ2zgs/SqkddZbqodI/AAAAAAAAAaM/TWNIePtao4M/s400/nick_ut_napalm.jpg

    If anything, I believe this one is harder to look at because for me, the context is even harder to deal with. There's nothing to suggest to me that Shields was the subject of abuse so really, I feel that no harm, no foul.


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


    Kold wrote: »
    Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to a pre-pubescant person. Not the action of taking a photograph or even seeing a photograph whether they're in dress up or not.
    Possessing images of naked children which are of a sexual nature will get you landed in Jail. The photo of Shields does have a sexual nature to it!
    Kold wrote: »
    How about this photo? This photo was used as an anti war message. Should this one be censored?
    This was not staged, nor does it have sexual undertones!
    Kold wrote: »
    There's nothing to suggest to me that Shields was the subject of abuse so really, I feel that no harm, no foul.
    What about the fact that as a minor, she had no say in the matter and has subsequently tried to get the image suppressed. I think that says a lot!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RCNPhotos


    steve06 wrote: »
    That's different, this isn't a situation that has resulted in great photo. It's not a great photo!

    In fairness that's only your opinion. It would be mine too but that's all, an opinion.
    steve06 wrote: »
    She was underage and used!

    You don't know that for sure. it's very, very possible but no one except the people who were there know the facts for sure.

    And that's a good example given by Kold there with regards to the vietnam photo (the girls and photographers name escapes me unfortunetly, very tired :D )


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭democrates


    Some great points there folks.

    It's a slam dunk for me thanks to the linked article about her efforts to stop it circulating. Given the nature of the photo and that she was a child in it then I'd support her side in overriding normal photographers rights and having it withdrawn. Maybe the law should be changed so that a parents signature relating to a child only be binding while the kid is under 18, while it wouldn't prevent reckless parenting in the first case at least when a child grows up they gain control of their life.

    The photo reminds me of a common movie technique, where for example you're shown a woman and then it switches to a naked backside, except it's the guys ass not hers. The bait and switch trick means for a fraction of a second you were turned on but looking at a guys ass :eek:. Maybe the motive is to help gays out of the closet, maybe some directors believe that heterosexuality is pure conditioning and want everyone to turn gay or bi, or maybe they just like annoying straights, I don't know, but if you're straight it's just disappointing not to see the ladies ass.

    The similarity with the Brook photo is the mixing of opposing elements. The cute face painted like a grown-up woman gives you two contradictory pattern matches for starters, she's female and naked but a child with a flat chest, the lower half could be from a slim adult female if you cropped it, but you already know she's just a child, the pose could be seductive if she were an adult but again you see she's a child (who isn't sexually aware).

    Brook lost her case on appeal because the court held it was an innocent picture. I think that's because they avoided a fair analysis like the plague for fear of being labelled as paedophiles. If they had run a scientific test by creating a series of adult women in that pose all cropped to the lower half, and had participants guess the age, I bet you'd find some mistake Brook for an adult and probably in some cases older than some of the adult crops.

    While polls say the majority of us prefer reasonably curvy women some guys like lats. To them, that section of that photo could give them a pattern match for a turn on, I don't see that as a big problem. If looking at the whole photo knowing she's a child, a viewer has sexual fantasies about her as a child, now the alarm bells ring, the viewer may be a potential threat to children.

    For me it always comes down to this - whatever floats your boat (liberal), so long as it doesn't sink anyone elses (authoritarian).


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


    I dont think this compares to the shot of the child in Vietnam.

    This photographer set about making this shot, finding the girl and producing it as he had it in his head. Theres something very disturbing about that.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,212 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Eirebear wrote: »
    ... however we already have people in this thread suggesting that the photographer should be arrested.
    What does that say about the way the world will see this image?
    In some parts of the world they would stone Brooke Shields to death at age 10 and the photo would be destroyed? The male photographer might be disciplined in some way, but would not suffer as severe a fate as the object in his photo? An interesting reflection on cultural differences perhaps?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    RCNPhotos wrote: »

    And that's a good example given by Kold there with regards to the vietnam photo (the girls and photographers name escapes me unfortunetly, very tired :D )

    Kim Phúc by Nick Ut methinks. Ut actually took her to hospital and visited her there for years after the napalm bombing. And he was wounded a few times in the war himself. Think that probably adds credibility, whereas Prince's involvement in the Shields photo takes from whatever little authenticity existed there in the first place. Stupid Prince :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RCNPhotos


    No one was questioning his credibility. The issue with the two pictures is where and when is it acceptable to show nude children in photography/art.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,855 ✭✭✭superflyninja


    I dont think the photo should be used. Whether it is art or not is immaterial. The fact that the girl was 10 in my view means she wouldnt have a clear concept of what it means to have a nude photograph on display.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭Buzz Lightyear


    Having read the above thread, viewed the image and associated press articles I am of the opinion that the met were right for requesting the image to be removed. While the image itself has been taken on behalf of the the mother by the photographer, the mothers intent imo was to portray her daughter as a sexual being, given the content of the movie she was putting her daughter forward for. The pose was intended to be provocative. This in an adult would be acceptable, however in the case of a 10 year old minor, who relies on their parents judgement and sense of right and wrong, this borders on the line of abuse of the minor.

    The debate could be widened to include modern day opinions on the photography of children, which has been discussed numerous times on this forum. I was on holiday recently in France, where I was delighted to be able to photograph my children in the swimming pool of the resort. They were of course in their swimming suits, however it took a while for me to gain comfort in carrying a decent camera with me around the pool to shoot my kids. Europe has a more liberal attitude. Back here at home and in the UK there are big notices up saying - NO CAMERAS ALLOWED. Ffs, they are my kids I should be able to take appropriate shots of them. You don't see children in swimming pools naked so why can't I shoot my kid. If it happens to include your kid as well, they are not the object of my intention. If as a tog I shoot your kids on the street enjoying themselves or otherwise that is my right. There is no difference imo between this and the children in pool, only they have fewer clothes on. However they are not naked or provocatively poised. This is where the line should be drawn.

    There is a huge difference between parents taking cute or embarrassing/'blackmail' :D shots of their baby, to being aware that above a certain age that you 'encourage' your child that their bodies are private, and as such it's not acceptable to have your body shot naked, exposing your genitalia. Obviously those naturists amongst us will argue to a certain extent on the above point, however I think we all draw the line when a child/minor is brought above the threshold into the adult domain, and made express themselves as a sexual person. This is the loss of innocence and the exploitation/abuse of a minor.

    Going back to the OP. While image, be it the original or copy, could be interpreted as being provocative photo of a minor, raises a lot of questions inside and outside the world of art, it must be taken in context. Shown amongst other images of children from various backgrounds in various conditions, including possibly the child in the war, you could argue for its inclusion within a gallery. However to include this image, be it within it's own private viewing room or not, amongst pornographic images, showing shots of adults having penetrative sex, is not right. It is crossing the line an portraying the child as a sexual object in a adult world. In modern western society this should not have been allowed as an exhibition in any gallery, and those who allowed it should be questioned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,855 ✭✭✭superflyninja


    Back here at home and in the UK there are big notices up saying - NO CAMERAS ALLOWED. Ffs, they are my kids I should be able to take appropriate shots of them.
    i find this too.my little daughter has great fun in the playground (only 11months old ) but i do feel very self conscious taking out my slr to get shots of her.bit of a shame really


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


    The time and circumstance of the photograph aside, it was taken and it exists. What is people's attitude to the fact that the police have taken it down and basically told the public and the gallery what is acceptable to look at?

    Ok, Shields has tried to block the photo herself, but say she hadn't? Say she approved the picture. Do we accept that the law have an authority over use of our visual senses and what they are free to percieve? Look, paedophilia is abhorable but imo, there are crimes just as disgusting and deplorable. Such as murder for example. What this picture really signified was a simulation yet we see simulated murder all the time. We've seen Schiele's paintings of underage girls put forward in a sexual manner. I'm just wondering about this 'line' that people talk about. I think crossing the line should be reserved for when people get hurt. In this case, it was right probably to take it down to protect the subject.


  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭Buzz Lightyear


    Ok say Shiels did give her approval, it still does not make it right to show a minor naked, in a provocative pose amongst other images of pornography showing adults having penetrative sex. This brings the minor into the adult domain, making the child fair game in sexual environment. This surely cannot be right.

    I'm all for free speech and civil liberties, but there has to be a ceiling and everything has a context. The above context is morally wrong. Not wrong in the 'catholic' sense of having sex before marriage, but wrong for bring children into the sexual world of adults. Art and porn can have a fine line, but do not bring children into it. Doing so is justifying pedophilia. Children have no place in the sexual world of adults.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    RCNPhotos wrote: »
    No one was questioning his credibility. The issue with the two pictures is where and when is it acceptable to show nude children in photography/art.

    That's not the case. Prince's involvement in what is essentially a reproduction has already been seen to impact upon the interpretation of the image - a proclaimed 'Jacksonesque' fascination with the life of the child star as opposed to 'mere titillation'. If he wasn't Prince, he'd just be another sicko. Alot has already been said about the intent of the photo in question, and the proclamation that the image indeed constitutes 'art' very much hinges on credibility/authenticity. For instance, someone who spends Saturday morning lurking in the sand-dunes with a zoom lens with the intention of taking indecent pictures is quite clearly troubled: on the other hand, while I don't agree with what Prince did, I don't think the same parallels could be drawn.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,951 ✭✭✭✭Ghost Train


    Bit surprised the gallery was asked to take it down. Gallery made a judgement about it being acceptable piece of art. Think then its up to the public to make their own mind up about it if they decide to see it. By the police coming in and saying its obscene or making a ruling on it I think it makes more out of it than it should. Having it hanging in a gallery doesn't make what it represents any more right or wrong. Do think the mother was wrong for having the photos taken (maybe attitudes were slightly different 35 years ago) and don't think a child should be put in that position, but don't have an issue with the gallery deciding to show it in an exhibit.


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


    Kold wrote: »
    Look, paedophilia is abhorable but imo, there are crimes just as disgusting and deplorable. Such as murder for example. What this picture really signified was a simulation yet we see simulated murder all the time.

    You're not making a good point there in my eyes... simulated murder is someone pretending to kill someone but we all know it's simulated. Simulating a woman to look like a child (schoolgirl or something) is ok because it's an adult and everyone knows that. Simulating a naked child to look like prostitute is just plain wrong!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭smelltheglove


    I dont think the war image can be compared to the Brooke Shields image at all , that particular image is a documentary image, based on fact, this is what happened, this is what these children had to endure during war. The Brooke Shields image is a child actually put into a situation, made to look like this, obviously a lot of thought has gone into the image, a lot of work with makeup and oil, location been decided upon so these two are worlds apart.

    The war image gives me a completely different feeling, I look at the Brooke Shields image and I am disgusted that any parent would allow this to be done to their child, any photographer would put so much thought into such an image and the fact that it is or was to be displayed amongst pornographic images completely shocks me even more, whereas with the war image I look at it and I feel saddened about the fact that this child had to endure the fear which is completely apparent in this shot, her innocence stripped from her by blood shed and war, it actually makes me think, why do we as humans need to fight, why cant we just let others be and stop the pain of innocent children as opposed to looking at the Brooke Shields image and feeling sickened.

    The processes these photographers went through would have been completely different, one wanting to open the eyes of the public to the reality of war and the other wanting to portray a child as a prostitute, which to me would have been the ultimate brief since the mother wanted to use the image to help her daughter secure a part in such a movie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    I dont think the war image can be compared to the Brooke Shields image at all , that particular image is a documentary image, based on fact, this is what happened, this is what these children had to endure during war. The Brooke Shields image is a child actually put into a situation, made to look like this, obviously a lot of thought has gone into the image, a lot of work with makeup and oil, location been decided upon so these two are worlds apart.

    The war image gives me a completely different feeling, I look at the Brooke Shields image and I am disgusted that any parent would allow this to be done to their child, any photographer would put so much thought into such an image and the fact that it is or was to be displayed amongst pornographic images completely shocks me even more, whereas with the war image I look at it and I feel saddened about the fact that this child had to endure the fear which is completely apparent in this shot, her innocence stripped from her by blood shed and war, it actually makes me think, why do we as humans need to fight, why cant we just let others be and stop the pain of innocent children as opposed to looking at the Brooke Shields image and feeling sickened.

    The processes these photographers went through would have been completely different, one wanting to open the eyes of the public to the reality of war and the other wanting to portray a child as a prostitute, which to me would have been the ultimate brief since the mother wanted to use the image to help her daughter secure a part in such a movie.


    I'd agree that it's entirely down to context.


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


    steve06 wrote: »
    You're not making a good point there in my eyes... simulated murder is someone pretending to kill someone but we all know it's simulated. Simulating a woman to look like a child (schoolgirl or something) is ok because it's an adult and everyone knows that. Simulating a naked child to look like prostitute is just plain wrong!
    But what about the children that dress like prostitutes that I see on the bus?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Kold wrote: »
    But what about the children that dress like prostitutes that I see on the bus?

    You answered your own question... they're dressed! :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 236 ✭✭Dr.Louis


    Just saw the image there, I dont find it disturbing at all- I see a child mimicking what they see around them. We live in a sexualised world, sex (and I use this word loosely) is used to sell everything from fresh fruit, to clothes, to cameras.

    I think the photo says more about society than it does about the photographer or parents. We've all seen nude children running about on the beach, covered in water- smearing themselves with sun cream and sand. Or our own children playing in the bath, pretending to be something they're not etc... Why should a photo cause a bigger stir than a naked child on a beach?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Dr.Louis wrote: »
    I think the photo says more about society than it does about the photographer or parents. We've all seen nude children running about on the beach, covered in water- smearing themselves with sun cream and sand. Or our own children playing in the bath, pretending to be something they're not etc... Why should a photo cause a bigger stir than a naked child on a beach?

    Because they are kids being kids. Children running around on the beach are doing that because they are having fun. Its natural. Children playing in the bath are doing that because they have to have a bath so they're trying to make it fun. Its natural. But in both of these cases, it is usually a family member who would take a picture of them. And those pictures would be stored in a box somewhere, only ever being seen again in order to playfully embarrass the subject.

    Tell me, do you think Brooke Shields had fun posing for those pictures in front of a complete stranger? She wasn't doing something that children naturally do, she was put into that situation. Pictures weren't taken of her in a natural environment, doing natural things, they were taken for a specific purpose, and that purpose... was art. And these pictures were taken to be displayed in public art galleries, in order to convey some sort of message.

    Thats not a message I want to hear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,951 ✭✭✭✭Ghost Train


    Pictures weren't taken of her in a natural environment, doing natural things, they were taken for a specific purpose, and that purpose... was art. And these pictures were taken to be displayed in public art galleries, in order to convey some sort of message.

    Thats not a message I want to hear.

    They original photos were modelling test shots her mother got done for a movie, which helped her get the role, not for public display or art. The photo of the photo happened latter when the photos became the centre of the legal case over who had the rights to them. So while not a natural photos, they weren't abusive like the other extreme, at least in their purpose (getting movie role).

    There will always be art or whatever you want to call that sits on the edge of whats acceptable/not acceptable, do think an art gallery is a good place for this type of thing if the gallery decides it merits it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    They original photos were modelling test shots her mother got done for a movie, which helped her get the role, not for public display or art. The photo of the photo happened latter when the photos became the centre of the legal case over who had the rights to them. So while not a natural photos, they weren't abusive like the other extreme, at least in their purpose (getting movie role).

    There will always be art or whatever you want to call that sits on the edge of whats acceptable/not acceptable, do think an art gallery is a good place for this type of thing if the gallery decides it merits it.

    Sorry, you're right, the initial pictures weren't meant for public display. My apologies. Although my point still stands,children should not be used in this manner for art. Whether Price took the actual pictures or not, these pictures should not be on public display.

    I agree that art will always be on the edge. Art can be found in the plainest of objects, in the most mundane of tasks. Art is limitless, it has no boundaries. But children do. And any contravention of these boundaries for the sake of art is wrong and immoral.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭smelltheglove



    There will always be art or whatever you want to call that sits on the edge of whats acceptable/not acceptable, do think an art gallery is a good place for this type of thing if the gallery decides it merits it.

    What gives a gallery the right to make the decision, the law has made the decision in this case which should be where the decision lies. I mean if we say a gallery is more qualified to make a decision on art than the gards, then is a pub owner more qualified to make a decision on the sale of say cocaine than a gard?


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,951 ✭✭✭✭Ghost Train


    any contravention of these boundaries for the sake of art is wrong and immoral.

    Thats where it become a judgement call, where the boundries lie.
    What gives a gallery the right to make the decision, the law has made the decision in this case which should be where the decision lies. I mean if we say a gallery is more qualified to make a decision on art than the gards, then is a pub owner more qualified to make a decision on the sale of say cocaine than a gard?

    The gallery made their decision to display it, they were advised it could break obscenity laws, they changed their decision. I would say a gallery is more qualified


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


    The gallery made their decision to display it, they were advised it could break obscenity laws, they changed their decision. I would say a gallery is more qualified

    In this case I don't think so. Because art can be anything, an art gallery curator can see an image of anything and find something artistic about it without thinking of the moral aspects of the photo or the implications of displaying it!

    The fact they sought advise regarding the stance of the photo in question means they had their doubts to begin with and as such, should have turned it away.


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


    Because they are kids being kids. Children running around on the beach are doing that because they are having fun. Its natural. Children playing in the bath are doing that because they have to have a bath so they're trying to make it fun. Its natural. But in both of these cases, it is usually a family member who would take a picture of them. And those pictures would be stored in a box somewhere, only ever being seen again in order to playfully embarrass the subject.

    Tell me, do you think Brooke Shields had fun posing for those pictures in front of a complete stranger? She wasn't doing something that children naturally do, she was put into that situation. Pictures weren't taken of her in a natural environment, doing natural things, they were taken for a specific purpose, and that purpose... was art. And these pictures were taken to be displayed in public art galleries, in order to convey some sort of message.

    Thats not a message I want to hear.
    And you don't have to. There's a warning on the door. You are talking about blocking a piece of art from the public entirely. Fair enough if it was across the side of a building.

    As for having fun, do you reckon all the kids forced to play sports at this age or anything else? I really think some people are bringing too much to the photograph. Richard Prince is not a sex offender (as far as anyone can tell). A sexual nature can denote anything and can hardly be defined by slapping a bit of make up and oil on a kid.

    The reason child pornography is illegal is because people are making money off the suffering of innocents. I haven't been given reason to believe that there was much suffering at all, or that this is even pornography. Pornography is something that's primary intention is to cause sexual arousal. This was not either of the photographer's intention. Therefore this is not pornography. Even though the idea of exploited youth echoes throughout the image.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,136 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Kold wrote: »
    And you don't have to. There's a warning on the door. You are talking about blocking a piece of art from the public entirely. Fair enough if it was across the side of a building.

    As for having fun, do you reckon all the kids forced to play sports at this age or anything else? I really think some people are bringing too much to the photograph. Richard Prince is not a sex offender (as far as anyone can tell). A sexual nature can denote anything and can hardly be defined by slapping a bit of make up and oil on a kid.

    The reason child pornography is illegal is because people are making money off the suffering of innocents. I haven't been given reason to believe that there was much suffering at all, or that this is even pornography. Pornography is something that's primary intention is to cause sexual arousal. This was not either of the photographer's intention. Therefore this is not pornography. Even though the idea of exploited youth echoes throughout the image.

    I'm not really taking about child pornography, or the sexual nature of the photographer, I'm talking about the child. The child should not have been put in that posistion, which is a failing of both the photographer and the childs mother. And whether or not there is a warning before you enter the gallery, should we be glorifying this type of picture? Because that is what it is. Due to the age of the subject, it creates publicity. And I don't think any publicity should ever be given to something like this, because publicity breeds publicity. How long would it be before someone else decides to create a similar piece?

    If I was an artist with a 10 year old daughter, and I took a photograph like that, I'd be arrested. If I was a photographer and a woman came to me and asked me to take these kind of pictures, I'd have her arrested.
    A sexual nature can denote anything and can hardly be defined by slapping a bit of make up and oil on a kid.

    I agree, and I don't think there was anything sexual about the pictures. But this is child nudity, and not just that, make up and oil on the kid. Under what circumstances is this acceptable?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement