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.
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.
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 don't know. Doesn't say much I would've thought.
Here's some background from a site I'm not going to link to:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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. 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. The TV ad included her saying the famous tagline, "You want to know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing." 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. 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.
I would suggest Brooke knew a little about make up by this point no?
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"?
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?
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.
God would be ashamed lol
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.