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

Trojan911

wrote:

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

smash

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.

Trojan911

steve06 wrote: »

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.

Nforce

"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! :mad:

Eirebear

Interesting...what about the idea that people who find the picture of a 10 year old girl "provocative" are maybe the ones with issues?

smash

Nforce wrote: »

"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! :mad:

I was wondering how he even got permission for the shoot!

Nforce

steve06 wrote: »

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????:(

Ghost Train

steve06 wrote: »

I was wondering how he even got permission for the shoot!

Heres a bit of the background details

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.

humberklog

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.

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.

Eirebear

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?

humberklog

Eirebear wrote: »

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?

Eirebear

humberklog wrote: »

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.

spurious

Without the make-up, I think it would have been a very different photo. The make-up takes it onto the creepy scale.

Eirebear

spurious wrote: »

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?

humberklog

Eirebear wrote: »

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.

spurious

Eirebear wrote: »

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.

Eirebear

humberklog wrote: »

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?

humberklog

Eirebear wrote: »

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.

Amalgam

Here's some background from a site I'm not going to link to:

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.

Eirebear

spurious wrote: »

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

humberklog wrote: »

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.

humberklog

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.

spurious

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.

sineadw

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...

Eirebear

humberklog wrote: »

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.

spurious wrote: »

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?

spurious wrote: »

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"?

Trojan911

Eirebear wrote: »

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?

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.

Fighting Irish

God would be ashamed lol

sineadw

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.

democrates

One issue is whether Brook herself approves. I suspect she'd have a legal case since she was a child when it was created, and since children a) are easily coerced, and b) don't understand consequences, they are in no position to give informed consent. If she's ok with it now then I am.

At the same time, I think we've gone too far with the whole freaking out at kids in birthday suits thing. I'd two older sisters and well remember bathtime as a chiseller "haha you've a midgets bum on the front" SLAP! "maaaaa!". Not to mention standard beach and pool innocent naked cavorting back in the day, happy times. If all these years later I ever see a naked kid, how am I supposed to react, really, fall around in shock and run to confession? Sorry, I'm not a bad person and seeing my own species won't make me feel like one.

While I think the naturists have it right about body image it's hard to imagine that going mainstream, not least because the conservative right would sooner kill Gods children than see them as God made them. I can't help thinking "I fear the lady doth protest too much" when people come out so strongly on 'moral' issues, of course they are pure as the driven snow and their only concern is other peoples inner demons.

This is a question of where each individual would draw the line between say a little girl putting on mums clothes for a cute photo and the extreme of child abuse, for example few Irish parents would put their 6 yo in one of those American style beauty pageants, with or without fake boobs. The best interests of the child are paramount, but even if you're very liberal it would be neglectful to ignore the real danger from those who harbour tortious intent - what they see, they may want, and you can't un-publish on the internet.

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.

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...

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !!

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.

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.

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.

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.....?

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.

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"

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!

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

Eirebear

trooney wrote: »

As an aside -

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

Jesus that horrible.

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.