Gallery to display nude picture of 10-year-old girl. - Page 2 - boards.ie
Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
29-09-2009, 18:16   #16
humberklog
Moderator
 
humberklog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 6,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirebear View Post
Sorry Humberklog, you are right,
Sexually provocative? Not in my book it isnt.

No worries, thought I'd got mixed up with definition myself.
I find it the idea of the exhibition very thought provoking and very challenging.


I don't think anybody on Boards.ie is going to say that they find the image sexually provocative.
humberklog is offline  
Advertisement
29-09-2009, 18:18   #17
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 14,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirebear View Post
Have you never seen a ten year old girl experiment with make up before? Is that creepy?
Ten year old girls who experiment with make up look like clowns.
It's not creepy.
That child in the photo did not apply her own make-up and yes, that makes it creepy.

**edit** Just looked at it again. The pose is problematic too, especially given the setting of a bath, though I agree that under the make-up she looks like she's in a strop.

Last edited by spurious; 29-09-2009 at 18:23. Reason: looked at photo again
spurious is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:18   #18
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by humberklog View Post


I don't think anybody is going to say that they find the image sexually provocative.
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?
Eirebear is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:21   #19
humberklog
Moderator
 
humberklog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 6,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirebear View Post
What does that say about the way the world will see this image?

I don't know. Doesn't say much I would've thought.
humberklog is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:23   #20
Amalgam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dublin
Posts: 4,775
Send a message via MSN to Amalgam
Here's some background from a site I'm not going to link to:

Quote:

Those notorious nude bathtub photos certainly helped Shields get her career-making child-prostitute role in Pretty Baby, but they also led to a lawsuit: In 1981, Brooke and her mother began a three-year court battle trying to wrest control of the pictures from advertising photographer Garry Gross. Though he won the case, Gross was blackballed by his industry, and for years, no one would touch the photos. Now, however, one of them hangs in the Whitney Museum's centennial show and has just been sold by Christie's for $151,000, a record for the artist.

But there's a twist. The artist is not Garry Gross, who took the picture, but Richard Prince, who took a picture of the picture. Prince is a well-known "appropriation" artist who, back in 1983, photographed the Gross photo and gave it the title Spiritual America. He then displayed it, anonymously and all alone, in a Lower East Side storefront rented solely for the occasion. "He enshrined the work," says his dealer, Barbara Gladstone. "There's something about isolating something and showing it in a different way which changes it totally." Creating meaning by changing the context is the raison d'кtre of appropriation art, but sometimes it can be awfully hard to see that added value -- as in the case of Prince's picture, which is an exact photo of the original. "There's no difference," says Prince, "except that I took it. But I recognized that it had a life that none of Gross's other photographs did. It's almost like a picture out of Dante's Inferno." (Is this why Spiritual America sold for a small fortune? It's worth noting that other Prince photographs sold at auction this year have gone, on average, for only about $14,000.)

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. But the Shields lawsuit devastated his career. And when Prince's lawyer called him up in 1992, almost a decade after the appropriation, to say that Prince planned to hang his photo in a Whitney Museum retrospective, Gross was too broke for another lawsuit. This was lucky for Prince, because "the courts would not have viewed such an exact copy favorably," says art lawyer John Koegel. Instead, they settled for $2,000, and Prince agreed to include Gross's name on the label whenever Spiritual America was displayed at the Whitney. To date, Prince has failed to comply. The museum, caught apparently unawares, scrambled to change the label last month when Gross called to complain. As payback, Gross went to the Whitney two weeks ago and took a photo of Prince's photo (click here to view), bringing the appropriation full circle.
Amalgam is offline  
Advertisement
29-09-2009, 18:26   #21
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurious View Post
Ten year old girls who experiment with make up look like clowns.
It's not creepy.
That child in the photo did not apply her own make-up and yes, that makes it creepy.
I watched absolutely shocked as my 5 year old neice applied her mothers make up to herself a week or so ago...she applied it heavily and smeared. But it wasnt all that far off.

Why wouldnt someone such as Brooke Sheilds, who was a child model after all, have a little more ability in that department?
Eirebear is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:30   #22
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by humberklog View Post
I don't know. Doesn't say much I would've thought.
Ok, lets put it this way.

Why would people call for the photographers arrest? Is this photograph itself breaking laws due to indecancy?
Or is it down to the mass paranoia about photographers and children that we have today?

I'm not entirely comfortable with the image, but to be honest there a lot worse out there. Take Jock Sturges for example.
Eirebear is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:35   #23
humberklog
Moderator
 
humberklog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 6,085
Well it's easy to rattle the keyboard in disgust, I do it when I see swans.

Mind you the photo has a history of controversy from the outset, still hanging and provoking. It's a provocative shot, it does exactly what it says on the tin, then as now. The photographer will still be walking the streets and the photo will always find a home, I don't see a few little ruffles over the keyboard here and now to spell any significance to it's overall future.
humberklog is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:36   #24
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 14,771
I am of Brooke Shields' vintage and there were very few ten year olds in our day knew anything about make-up. I know nowadays we have pre-pubescent kids dressing in 'Playboy' outfits and the rest, but back then we didn't.

Even if we leave the make-up out of it -
The pose is dodgy - slightly turned hips, exposed torso?
I can't see how it could be taken as not provocative, when the subject is a ten year old child, wearing heavy eye make up.

The photos in the series where she sits and plays in the bath are not as problematic, but the one of her standing, covered in oil/sweat/whatever it is, with the golden light from the windows reflected on the front of her torso is very creepy.

I wouldn't be calling for the photographer's arrest or anything, but he certainly knew what he was doing when setting the photo up.
spurious is offline  
Advertisement
29-09-2009, 18:37   #25
sineadw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,296
From what I've read, the intent of the original is wildly different from the re-take. I do think its a sexual image. The pose is not that of a little girl. I think Prince's working of the original (highly questionable!) image though is at least a hell of a lot more justified.

Tough going, but interesting...
sineadw is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:46   #26
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by humberklog View Post
Well it's easy to rattle the keyboard in disgust, I do it when I see swans.

Mind you the photo has a history of controversy from the outset, still hanging and provoking. It's a provocative shot, it does exactly what it says on the tin, then as now. The photographer will still be walking the streets and the photo will always find a home, I don't see a few little ruffles over the keyboard here and now to spell any significance to it's overall future.
So we shouldnt bother discussing it?
Let the general madness of internet hysteria turn into the usual media outcry and then of course protests outside the gallery etc etc.

Its sure as hell not my favourite image, and i doubt very much ill go looking for it in the future, so the future of the image isnt quite what i feel is up for discussion here.
More the attitude and paranoia that permeates through everything we do nowadays, especially as photographers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spurious View Post
I am of Brooke Shields' vintage and there were very few ten year olds in our day knew anything about make-up. I know nowadays we have pre-pubescent kids dressing in 'Playboy' outfits and the rest, but back then we didn't.
I know its only wikipedia but its a start.
Shields' career as a model began in 1966, at the age of 11 months. Her first job was for Ivory Soap, shot by Francesco Scavullo.[1] She continued as a successful child model with model agent Eileen Ford, who, in her Lifetime Network biography, stated that she started her children's division just for Shields. In early 1980 (at age 14), Shields was the youngest fashion model ever to appear on the cover of the top fashion publication Vogue magazine. Later that same year, Shields appeared in controversial print and TV ads for Calvin Klein jeans.[3] The TV ad included her saying the famous tagline, "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing."[1][4][5] By the age of 16, Shields had become one of the most recognizable faces in the world, because of her dual career as a provocative fashion model and controversial child actress.[1] TIME magazine reported, in its February 9, 1981 cover story, that her day rate as a model was $10,000. In 1983, Shields appeared on the cover of the September issue of Paris Vogue, the October and November issues of American Vogue and the December edition of Italian Vogue.[6]
I would suggest Brooke knew a little about make up by this point no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spurious View Post
Even if we leave the make-up out of it -
The pose is dodgy - slightly turned hips, exposed torso?
I can't see how it could be taken as not provocative, when the subject is a ten year old child, wearing heavy eye make up.

The photos in the series where she sits and plays in the bath are not as problematic, but the one of her standing, covered in oil/sweat/whatever it is, with the golden light from the windows reflected on the front of her torso is very creepy.

I wouldn't be calling for the photographer's arrest or anything, but he certainly knew what he was doing when setting the photo up.
I think we have established that the image is provocative, and i made the wrong choice of words earlier on.
However is this a bad thing? Does it get people thinking about how we view children, and how children are viewed?
Or does it frighten us as to what might be out there viewing the picture, while we feel uncomfortable that others might think that we are that "might"?
Eirebear is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:47   #27
Trojan911
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eirebear View Post
I'm not entirely comfortable with the image,
I'm not either, but I don't know why. One part of me says it's not right to portray a 10 year old girl, or boy, like this the other part of me says it's not distasteful.

Is it beacause of the public outcry that surrounds these type of images or is it exploitation of an innocence?
Trojan911 is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:53   #28
smelltheglove
Registered User
 
smelltheglove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lucan
Posts: 4,438
Send a message via MSN to smelltheglove
Ok I have looked at the image and I do find it disturbing. I think the initial article int he first post seems to downplay the actual content of the image which to be honest is quite disgusting to me, how this could be portrayed as art is completely and utterly beyon dme and if someone attempted to take a picture of my daughter in that pose, even in a swimsuit I have to say I would most likely be up on a murder charge.

And to be displayed in a gallery?.... shocks me.
smelltheglove is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:58   #29
Fighting Irish
Registered User
 
Fighting Irish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Carlow
Posts: 6,861
God would be ashamed lol
Fighting Irish is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:59   #30
sineadw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,296
Personally, I think the original is exploitative. It has a definite sexual overtone, which given we're talking about a ten yr old here is not a good thing. I have no real objection to the nakedness- there are naked children all through art, and I HATE the hysteria of photographs of children these days. I think there's a different point being made here though - the re-working *is* about objectifying her, but it's making exactly that point. Which is why I think it challenges. Art is supposed to be challenging sometimes.
sineadw is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search