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, 16:56   #1
Trojan911
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,136
Gallery to display nude picture of 10-year-old girl.

Quote:
Gallery to display nude picture of 10-year-old girl
on 29/09/2009 14:34:11


A provocative nude picture of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields will appear in a new exhibition at the Tate Modern gallery in London, it was revealed today.

Gallery chiefs said they sought legal advice before including the work, titled 'Spiritual America', in the 'Pop Life: Art In A Material World' show, which opens on Thursday.

The exhibition also features huge sexually explicit images of penetration and works made from the pages of pornographic magazines.

Richard Prince's image of Shields shows her from the knees up, naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.

It is hung in a special room at the south London gallery with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image "challenging".

Prince himself described the 1983 work, which is in fact a photograph of a photograph taken by another artist, Gary Gross, as "an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman".

The picture was originally shown anonymously in a disused shop in a run-down area of New York, and the Tate show is believed to be the work's first appearance in a UK gallery.

Jack Bankowsky, the exhibition's co-curator, said he hoped the artistic interest in 'Spiritual America' would not be overshadowed by controversy over its content.

"I hope that people respond to what is provocative and understand what the artist was trying to achieve," he said.

"If it turned into that kind of brouhaha it would overwhelm the work and become a monosyllabic conversation."

Prince wanted the viewer to respond to the "eerieness" of Gross' original image, Mr Bankowsky said.

A spokesman for the Tate said they had given careful consideration to the work and the reaction it could provoke before including it in the exhibition.

"As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation," the spokesman said.

"Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist.

"This is an important work by Richard Prince which has been publicly exhibited on a number of occasions, most recently in Richard Prince's major retrospective, Spiritual America, at the Guggenheim in New York."

Elsewhere, the show has a room dedicated to US artist Jeff Koons' 'Made In Heaven' work, which includes giant sexually explicit images of him with the Italian porn star La Cicciolina.

It is the most significant exhibition of the project since it made its debut in 1991.

Works by British artist Cosey Fanni Tutti, made from her appearances in the pages of pornographic magazines, also feature in the Tate show.

Tutti's work caused huge controversy when it first appeared at the 'Prostitution' exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary Arts in 1976.

The Tate show takes Andy Warhol's statement that "good business is the best art" as a starting point and considers the legacy of the Pop Art movement.

It features works by Damien Hirst, including 'False Idol', a calf preserved in formaldehyde, and 'Ingo, Torsten', his 1992 piece involving identical twins sitting in front of two of his "spot paintings".

Some of Tracey Emin's early works are also included, along with a selection of pieces from the later part of Warhol's career.

'Pop Life: Art In A Material World' runs at the Tate Modern from October 1 until January 17.
What are peoples thoughts/opinions on this one? All in the name of Art?

I suppose one would have to view the picture to make a comment but I'm not sure on a 10year old girl posing provocatively, smeared in oil with make up on. Bear in mind this was taken back in 1983.

Source
Trojan911 is offline  
Advertisement
29-09-2009, 17:07   #2
smash
Registered User
 
smash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 24,214
I think it shouldn't really be show with the other images they're planning on displaying!

"A provocative nude picture of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields will appear in a new exhibition at the Tate Modern gallery in London, it was revealed today.

The exhibition also features huge sexually explicit images of penetration and works made from the pages of pornographic magazines."

If the image was artistic, then these other images will bring it down. At the same time, by the photo's description I can't picture it being artistic really, sounds seedy to be honest.
smash is offline  
29-09-2009, 17:24   #3
Trojan911
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve06 View Post
If the image was artistic, then these other images will bring it down. At the same time, by the photo's description I can't picture it being artistic really, sounds seedy to be honest.
Good point, seperate the porn from the art and that should knock the controversy on the head or maybe they are looking for controversy?

I have just viewed the said image on his website under the 'Spiritual America' link. I can't decide whether it is tasteful or not.
Trojan911 is offline  
29-09-2009, 17:25   #4
Nforce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,414
"A provocative nude picture of a 10-year-old"

Hell no it shouldn't be shown as part of ANY exhibition. In fact the photographer who originally posed the model should be prosecuted!
Nforce is offline  
(4) thanks from:
29-09-2009, 17:28   #5
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,503
Interesting...what about the idea that people who find the picture of a 10 year old girl "provocative" are maybe the ones with issues?
Eirebear is offline  
Advertisement
29-09-2009, 17:29   #6
smash
Registered User
 
smash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 24,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nforce View Post
"A provocative nude picture of a 10-year-old"

Hell no it shouldn't be shown as part of ANY exhibition. In fact the photographer who originally posed the model should be prosecuted!
I was wondering how he even got permission for the shoot!
smash is offline  
29-09-2009, 17:37   #7
Nforce
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve06 View Post
I was wondering how he even got permission for the shoot!

Exactly...what parent in their right mind would allow their 10 year old to pose naked, lathered up in oil and smeared with make-up????
Nforce is offline  
29-09-2009, 17:50   #8
Ghost Train
Custom User Title
 
Ghost Train's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 26,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve06 View Post
I was wondering how he even got permission for the shoot!
Heres a bit of the background details
Quote:
In 1975 Terrie Shields, in exchange for $450, gave the unfortunately-named photographer Garry Gross permission to photograph her ten year old daughter in the nude. Gross had young Brooke’s face made up like an adult and her body oiled, then posed her in a faux Grecian setting. The resulting photographs were disturbing and created something of a scandal…although they apparently served the purpose of Terrie Shields. A year later Brooke was cast in a Louis Malle film, Pretty Baby, in which she played a child raised in a brothel. The film contained several nude scenes.

In 1981, Terrie Shields sued Gross to gain control over the photographs. The case would take three years to resolve in favor of Gross. In 1983, while the case was still being tried, Prince re-photographed one of the images taken by Gross.

Prince entitled the photo By Richard Prince, A Photograph of Brooke Shields by Garry Gross, but the photo is better known by the title given to the entire project: Spiritual America. The project involved renting a storefront in New York and turning into a gallery (also called Spiritual America) which only showed a single photograph…the one of Brooke Shields. The gallery was not free and wasn’t open to the public. The gallery, according to Prince, “was in fact a sideshow, another frame around the picture, another attraction around the portrait of Brooke Shields.”

The entire elaborate production surrounding Spiritual America was, for Prince, part of the art. The work wasn’t about the original photograph, the photograph was merely the object that initiated the art. Not only was the original photo itself an object, it had turned the ten year old Brooke Shields into an object..an object with a sensuous woman’s face attached to a sexless child’s body. “Brooke as the subject becomes an indirect object, an abstract entity,” Prince said. When he took the picture of the picture he was photographing one object depicting another object, all of which had been sparked by a mother treating her living child as an object. Prince then displayed his recreated object in a way that emphasized its objectness. He not only appropriated the photograph at the center of the project, he even appropriated the title of the project: the original Spiritual America is a photograph by Alfred Stieglitz showing a gelded horse.

Prince’s photo eventually sold for a mere $150,000 and was put on display in the Whitney. Gross, on the other hand, tried to sell prints of his original photographs on eBay for $75 to $200. However, eBay found the images objectionable and removed them from their site. Why is Prince's copy considered valuable art whereas Gross's original photo considered objectionable? Motive and intent, on the part of the photographer and on the part of the viewer.
Ghost Train is offline  
(3) thanks from:
29-09-2009, 17:52   #9
humberklog
Moderator
 
humberklog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 6,031
It think it's a really good idea for an exhibition. Provocative alright and a very daring notion to hang it in such a collection.
I like that photo too, especially for it's sense of place in time; very '70's/'80's feel to it.
A thumbs up in the for camp here...I'd like to see a voting thing on it.
humberklog is offline  
Advertisement
29-09-2009, 17:57   #10
smelltheglove
Registered User
 
smelltheglove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lucan
Posts: 4,438
Send a message via MSN to smelltheglove
I'm quite shocked that anyone would allow their child to be photographed provactively. I want to shoot it right down here and now but I have a funny feeling that it is one that has to be seen to be commented on.
smelltheglove is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:00   #11
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,503
Hmm, just had a look at the image itself.

I certainly dont find it provocative in any way, in fact it looks like a little girl in a bit of a huff really.

It might not be to everyone's taste, but then at least its challenging the idea that everyone who takes an image of a person under 18 is some sort of sick disgusting peadophile.

I repeat my original point, maybe the people who find the image sexually provocative are the people who need to be careful?
Eirebear is offline  
(4) thanks from:
29-09-2009, 18:07   #12
humberklog
Moderator
 
humberklog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: dublin
Posts: 6,031
[quote=Eirebear;62314800]Hmm, just had a look at the image itself.

I certainly dont find it provocative in any way,

It might not be to everyone's taste, but then at least its challenging quote]

Sorry Eirebear but I'm having trouble squaring those two line?
Surely if you find it challenging then it is provocative? Or am I misunderstanding the word Provocative?
humberklog is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:12   #13
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by humberklog View Post

Sorry Eirebear but I'm having trouble squaring those two line?
Surely if you find it challenging then it is provocative? Or am I misunderstanding the word Provocative?
Sorry Humberklog, you are right, I was taking my lead from the way that the word provocative is used in the article, sexually provocative would probably be more apt given the tone of the article.

Provocative, of course it is for the reasons i posted.
Sexually provocative? Not in my book it isnt.
Eirebear is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:12   #14
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 14,114
Without the make-up, I think it would have been a very different photo. The make-up takes it onto the creepy scale.
spurious is offline  
29-09-2009, 18:13   #15
Eirebear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Glasgow currently, My Home is in Co.Donegal
Posts: 9,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurious View Post
Without the make-up, I think it would have been a very different photo. The make-up takes it onto the creepy scale.
Have you never seen a ten year old girl experiment with make up before? Is that creepy?
Eirebear is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search