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.

245

Comments

  • #32
    Nforce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭Nforce


    Eirebear wrote: »
    Of course they arent, 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?

    I'd imagine that, like me, most parents of young children will not find the thought of a photographer composing an image of an oiled up, naked 10 year old child in make up as being particularly "arty". I'm sure that the original basis for the shot was most likely for shock value and was aimed squarely at causing controversy.
    Having viewed the image in question I've got to say that in my opinion theres a very fine line between what this photographer sees as art and paedophilia.


  • #33
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    For those that don't find the idea slightly disgusting or disturbing but fing it thought provoking, what thoughts does an image like this provoke?

    I haven't seen the image and I already find the thoughts of it quite disturbing as all I can think of is a child that's been taken advantage of by her mother for comissioning the shots. This could be different if the shots where tasteful but reports are suggesting otherwise. And I think displaying it at a gallery with porn is just wrong, no matter how tasteful the shot is or isn't.

    Just my opinion...


  • #34
    democrates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭democrates


    steve06 wrote: »
    And I think displaying it at a gallery with porn is just wrong, no matter how tasteful the shot is or isn't.

    Just my opinion...
    The context of its display is specifically intended to provoke that debate, probably half putting the foot down to defend art from censorship but also "there's no such thing as bad publicity". Or is there...


  • #35
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    But the point is, should an image like this be used as an argument against censorship? I don't think so and I personally believe this would damage any such protest!


  • #36
    democrates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭democrates


    Nforce wrote: »
    I'd imagine that, like me, most parents of young children will not find the thought of a photographer composing an image of an oiled up, naked 10 year old child in make up as being particularly "arty". I'm sure that the original basis for the shot was most likely for shock value and was aimed squarely at causing controversy.
    Having viewed the image in question I've got to say that in my opinion theres a very fine line between what this photographer sees as art and paedophilia.
    Well I think it can be labelled as art but whether it's permissable for creation/publication is the question.

    From Amalgams post on p2:
    Meanwhile, Gross was recently kicked off eBay for auctioning posters of the original photos for $75 to $200 apiece. "They were deemed potentially pornographic," he sighs, adding that his intentions for the Shields photos were always artistic. Originally, he had hoped to include them in a photographic book about the continuum between girls and women.
    That continuum is where we have our problem. A curvy 16 yo in a bikini might be a sexual turn on, no apologies, my male brain is wired to respond to the shape and I don't believe men should be held guilty for this like original sin, technically all males over 18 who find that 16yo in a bikini sexy could be labelled paedophiles since they're turned on by a 'child'.

    Intending to have a sexual relationship with a 16yo however would be crossing the line, particularly worse when you're significantly older and able to manipulate young emotions. The law may be a blunt instrument but we've got to draw lines somewhere. This issue like some others seems to suffer from much half-baked public positioning when people should just calm down and discuss it rationally.

    The price of over simplified discourse is that child abusers then get to claim they're misunderstood and to cloak themselves as similar to gay rights activists back when homosexuality was illegal. A problem ignored is not a problem solved and prevention is better than cure.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Rb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,277 ✭✭✭✭Rb


    Just saw the image and to be honest, that's not art, that's child pornography and the photographer, along with Shield's mother if she's still around, should be pulled up in front of a court over it.

    The only thoughts it provokes are ones of anger towards the "artist", very disturbing image and I have to say I'm surprised at myself, I have quite an open mind about art/sex/etc and am not speaking as a parent (thankfully) but jesus that image is just wrong.


  • #38
    democrates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,046 ✭✭✭democrates


    steve06 wrote: »
    But the point is, should an image like this be used as an argument against censorship? I don't think so and I personally believe this would damage any such protest!
    The very edge of censorship is always going to be controversial, if not this image then what? On further consideration though your point looks stronger, something like this could conceivably be used to increase censorship and affect many other works, as well as affecting other fields of activity such as the debate on net neutrality.


  • #39
    AnCatDubh
    Registered Users Posts: 6,392 ✭✭✭AnCatDubh


    children, nudity and photography - it is a very complex issue imo.

    The wonderful work of Sally Mann is enchanting (and not just her naked children - her husband's increasingly twisted naked body which she regularly features is endearing too).

    But Sally Mann's work is very different to the work which the OP has opened the discussion. I think Sally Mann's photography is good photography and artistic. Having said that - this maybe because I understand a little about the work. Perhaps I don't know enough to understand the work which brooke shields features in.

    I think mature thought would suggest that children, nudity, and photography is risky at best and has the potential to be exploitative. And yet I categorise Sally Mann's work most definitely as art and this work has children, nudity, and photography (and husband) in the mix.

    As I said, I think the issue is sooooo complex and rationalising it at a personal and individual level may be difficult never mind getting some semblance of forum based understanding.


  • #40
    RCNPhotos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 601 ✭✭✭RCNPhotos


    Just gone to his site and seen the picture, albeit a very small version. I'm not sure about this yet really, it's a tough one. I think it would really need to be seen in the exhibition, in context. But I am sure that it shouldn't be on his site, on the internet, I think that is certainly a poor judgement call.


  • #41
    sheesh
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭sheesh


    just googled it there
    I have to say that I was less shocked than I thought I was going to be. I can see what he was going for the face of a woman and the body of a man kind of thing.

    these days he'd just get a transvestite to do that shot and say it was a ten year old girl.

    It is odd in that I did not want to look at it for long so there is something slightly disturbing about it.

    It is a very odd picture its hard to know was it done just to shock or because the photographer was a perv or he was trying to make a point that I'm not getting.

    Is it just a latent paedophillia on the part of the photographer being expressed.

    I still cannot believe her own mother allowed her to do it !!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    ThOnda
    Registered Users Posts: 4,699 ✭✭✭ThOnda


    Gallery to display nude picture of 10-year-old girl. - just another reason to go to London ;)

    Three pages of discussion about that? Why? She was only ten, therefore her parents and/or agent were supposed to protect her from any misuse and abuse.

    And if you find it disturbing - ask yourself whether you should had become a priest.


  • #43
    trishw78
    Registered Users Posts: 2,657 ✭✭✭trishw78


    I have to agree with Thonda here. There is a Japanise photographer Nobuyoshi Araki that shoots very controversial images. He shoots them to get a reaction, to get people thinking about the image, what is he trying to say about himself, about society, about yourself.

    In a way yes we are taking about this image but I feel we're skirting around why was it taken. Remember this is a photo of a photo.


  • #44
    sineadw
    Registered Users Posts: 3,319 ✭✭✭sineadw


    Exactly Trish - I think some people are entirely missing the point. The piece is about objectifying her. Her mother and the original 'tog, and a lot of other people besides. It's no wonder she ended up the wreck she was a while back. And most likely about us objectifying her too. I think it makes for a very interesting piece. And I particularly think its important in the context of the other pieces too - I think if you put it in with a load of safe images in a gallery somewhere it would a) have just stood out for nothing, and b) lost most of its point.

    Art SHOULD push us. If its safe and comfy all the time we'd never have moved from cave paintings.


  • #45
    smelltheglove
    Registered Users Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭smelltheglove


    Ok so, as many people have said it is thought provoking etc etc and as sinead said art should push us, but should art push us at the espense of a child.....?


  • #46
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    Thread got me interested - here's a 6 page article I found:

    http://www.egodesign.ca/en/article.php?article_id=237&page=1

    In fact, the photo doesn't seem that bad (the article only has the Gross original and not the Prince re-take). The photo of the dying girl in the mudslide made me feel more "uncomfortable" than others.

    The article is worth a read - touches on morality, right/wrong, what can/should be photographed.


  • #47
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    My only thought is that the "kid" would now be 44 now, having lived all her life with that photo being in existance. Going by the DoB, I'd say the kid is "Brooke Christa Shields"


  • #48
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Thread got me interested - here's a 6 page article I found:

    http://www.egodesign.ca/en/article.php?article_id=237&page=1

    In fact, the photo doesn't seem that bad (the article only has the Gross original and not the Prince re-take). The photo of the dying girl in the mudslide made me feel more "uncomfortable" than others.

    The article is worth a read - touches on morality, right/wrong, what can/should be photographed.

    Photos are manipulated to show you what the photographer wants you to see. The link you posted has 1 image of a girl in a mudslide which I would assume was taken, and then the girl was rescued. The gallery also has 3 images of nude under age girls, 1 being the image image in question and two others, one of which has 3 girls together. All these images were set up and posed, nothing to do with a natural occurrence and that in itself says something. They were not spur of the moment, so I would consider it a form of child abuse to be honest.
    sineadw wrote: »
    Art SHOULD push us. If its safe and comfy all the time we'd never have moved from cave paintings.
    But what should it push is to? What should it make us feel? Does anyone think this image makes them feel good, feel happy? What emotion does it invoke?

    It seems to only be invoking anger, disgust etc. There are other ways to invoke such emotions than to take advantage of a child just for effect and controversy!


  • #49
    trooney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,268 ✭✭✭trooney


    steve06 wrote: »
    ...The link you posted has 1 image of a girl in a mudslide which I would assume was taken, and then the girl was rescued...

    As an aside -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_S%C3%A1nchez


  • #50
    Eirebear
    Registered Users Posts: 9,014 ✭✭✭Eirebear


    trooney wrote: »
    As an aside -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_S%C3%A1nchez

    Jesus that horrible.


  • #51
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    trooney wrote: »
    As an aside -

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omayra_S%C3%A1nchez
    Well even though she died...

    "According to Cristina Echandia, a journalist who kept records of the events, Omayra sang and had normal conversations with the people who were trying to help her."

    The photo doesn't show this, but it did happen.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    Yes there were people trying to dig her out the live tv probably shows this - but the photo provokes interest, "who is she?" "where is she there?" "what happened to her?" etc.

    It's has much more of an impact on me than the photo of Brooke Shields. And as for manipulation - if you want to go into semantics then all photos are manipulations, only things experienced first hand can be "true".


  • #53
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    It's has much more of an impact on me than the photo of Brooke Shields. And as for manipulation - if you want to go into semantics then all photos are manipulations, only things experienced first hand can be "true".

    That's my point though, all photos are manipulated to show you only what the photographer wants you to see. Where this child actually had aid at hand but it's not seen, will have an impact as there's an air of uncertainty about it. Yet the Brooke Shields photo shows a child, naked and oiled up with make up on in a provocative pose. It's obvious that she's been made to look like this and as a result, the only impact it has is the thoughts of weather or not this was done for porn or some other reason. Personally I find it hard to think of another reason for a shot like this because I can't see it as art at all.

    That's just me though, I can't see what might be in the image or the meaning behind it that the photographer wanted us to see apart from the girl. And that makes me think of it as seedy.

    Kind of looks like the sort of image you'd see in a documentary about human trafficking where some sicko is selecting kidnapped girls for his child prostitution ring.


  • #54
    Quackles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,484 ✭✭✭Quackles


    Sure, art should challenge. But should it have a victim? Those of you who see no harm in the photograph, would you allow someone to capture your child in that way? I can't understand what kind of a mother allowed that. I am fully aware that documentary photography has captured children in horrendous situations, like the little girl in the landslide, child labour, war etc. The difference is that the child would be in that position with or without the presence of the photographer. It's the difference between capturing the plight of the girl in the landslide, or dumping her into one just to take a photo.


  • #55
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,219 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Art or not, no parent should have allowed a photographer to take a picture of their child like that. And this picture should not be proudly displayed in an exhibition. It should not be displayed at all.

    I don't care what the artist is trying to say, or what they are challenging us about. This is a picture of a nude minor. No matter what, it is wrong and should not be allowed. If it wasn't a well-known actress or photographer, then anyone with a picture like that on their computer would be arrested. Why should it be lauded over in an art gallery?


  • #56
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    So the private family photos of me when I was a baby having a bath should be destroyed? Or my parents arrested for taking them all those years ago?

    A picture of a nude minor is not always pornographic. I don't see how people would think that it is.


  • #57
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,219 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    So the private family photos of me when I was a baby having a bath should be destroyed? Or my parents arrested for taking them all those years ago?

    A picture of a nude minor is not always pornographic. I don't see how people would think that it is.

    This isn't a family member quickly grabbing the camera to take a picture of a cute moment, this was a planned photoshoot of a minor. The photographer wanted to take a photograph of a minor, and that minor was, to my knowledge, no relation. Brooke Shields' mother agreed to allow this person to take nude pictures of her child. Whether they were pornographic or not, it is morally wrong.

    I'm no prude or anything. Sex is sex. Art is art. Sometimes the two meet. But whether or not the minor and her guardian accepted, it is wrong. If I was an artist or photographer, and the idea for this picture came into my head, I wouldn't do it.


  • #58
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    So the private family photos of me when I was a baby having a bath should be destroyed? Or my parents arrested for taking them all those years ago?

    A picture of a nude minor is not always pornographic. I don't see how people would think that it is.

    I'm sure if your parents covered you in babyoil, put make up on you, made you pose and then allowed a photographer you didn't know to take the photo it would be a different story. And it would probably mentally scar you to be honest.


  • #59
    Quackles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,484 ✭✭✭Quackles


    Paddyirishman, I do see where you're coming from, but pose has a lot to do with it, moreso than the relation of the photographer to the child, etc.. I've taken nudey baby shots (Safe for work, I promise) - To me, that sort of shot is fine. Yes, the baby is naked, but he's a baby... He's not dolled up to be something he's not, greased and made up to look like he's something he shouldn't be at that age. I'd have no issue with a photographer taking that sort of cutesy shot. The flip side is that they're only interesting to the parents, but hey, what can you do? Poses have to be age appropriate, and at no stage is it acceptable to grease up a minor!


  • #60
    Trojan911
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Trojan911


    I'm still undecided i.e. still sitting on the fence.

    A lot of the replies are interesting from both sides. I would consider myself broadminded as in, I try not to have a blinkered view or be to quick to judge. Part of me still says it is not right.

    After viewing the image I do not think it is as bad as I imagined but then again as one Mod points out "children, nudity and photography - it is a very complex issue imo". He/She is correct as these three words conjour up all sorts of imagery in the brain.

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

    For a child of approx 8-10years to go through the stress of it all only to lose out at the end (some of them were quite distraught). I looked at the parents of these children throughout the programme and they ranged from the rich types through to the council housed types. I had to say I felt sorry for the kids.

    The wealthy mothers were very hard on the kids more than the less wealthy ones. It was like watching a driven demon at work.

    Then again, these are my views, some will agree, others won't and vice versa.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    Just on a quick run through the thread it looks as though it's coming out about 50/50 in the for(ish)/deffo against stakes. I thought I'd have been far more in minority (I'm kinda pro it).
    Would've been interesting to have a fairly straight forward poll.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement