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

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' 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.

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.

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.

smelltheglove wrote: »

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.

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.

Ghost Train wrote: »

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.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

smelltheglove wrote: »

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

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

steve06 wrote: »

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.

I don't think the gallery sought their advice but given the media attention the police felt it was their duty maybe? I guess in the end it was still the gallerys decision even if it was influenced by the police. The gallery did say it considered the matter carefully before deciding to display it with the "challanging" warning. Given that it has been on display elsewhere (Guggenheim Museum) and has been bought and sold as a piece of art I'd say the gallery had good grounds for deciding to exhibit it.

^^^ Pedo's dreams come true on so many levels !!!

The WHOLE POINT was that its an image of an image of exploitation...

I'm not sure why this thread was bumped after a month. We're not going over old ground on this and I haven't seen anythng new brought to the table. So therefore I'm going to lock it.