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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

2

Comments

  • #52
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,217 ✭✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,217 ✭✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 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: 10,580 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.


  • #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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,217 ✭✭✭✭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: 10,580 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: 10,580 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: 10,580 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,217 ✭✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,217 ✭✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,393 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 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


  • #92
    smash
    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!


  • #93
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #94
    smash
    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!


  • #95
    RCNPhotos
    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 )


  • #96
    democrates
    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
  • #97
    Masada
    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.


  • #98
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,335 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?


  • #99
    TelePaul
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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 :(


  • #100
    RCNPhotos
    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.


  • #101
    superflyninja
    Registered Users Posts: 1,859 ✭✭✭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
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement