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

Ghost Train

steve06 wrote: »

In this case I don't think so. Because art can be anything, an art gallery curator can see an image of anything and find something artistic about it without thinking of the moral aspects of the photo or the implications of displaying it!

The fact they sought advise regarding the stance of the photo in question means they had their doubts to begin with and as such, should have turned it away.

I don't think the gallery sought their advice but given the media attention the police felt it was their duty maybe? I guess in the end it was still the gallerys decision even if it was influenced by the police. The gallery did say it considered the matter carefully before deciding to display it with the "challanging" warning. Given that it has been on display elsewhere (Guggenheim Museum) and has been bought and sold as a piece of art I'd say the gallery had good grounds for deciding to exhibit it.

humberklog

smelltheglove wrote: »

I mean if we say a gallery is more qualified to make a decision on art than the gards, then is a pub owner more qualified to make a decision on the sale of say cocaine than a gard?

I certainly don't want Art or indeed drugs decided by either a garda or a landlord for that matter.
Or to flip the idea; getting arrested by Simon Schama and Brian Sewell??!!

That's just nuts. Off the wall.

smash

Kold wrote: »

And you don't have to. There's a warning on the door. You are talking about blocking a piece of art from the public entirely. Fair enough if it was across the side of a building.

Look, you're an art student so you're going to have strong opinions about this but the debate remain weather it's actually art or not and a lot of people don't think it is. A warning does not condone the taking of the image in the first place, and there's no story to tell with the image so it can't be compared to images of naked children in a war zone!

Kold wrote: »

As for having fun, do you reckon all the kids forced to play sports at this age or anything else?

This has nothing to do with an adult orientated photo of a child.

Kold wrote: »

I really think some people are bringing too much to the photograph. Richard Prince is not a sex offender (as far as anyone can tell). A sexual nature can denote anything and can hardly be defined by slapping a bit of make up and oil on a kid.

It's not just the make up and oil, it's the scene itself and the nudity!

Kold wrote: »

The reason child pornography is illegal is because people are making money off the suffering of innocents.

I haven't been given reason to believe that there was much suffering at all, or that this is even pornography.

So do you think if it was free it wouldn't be illegal? That's a silly statement. It's illegal because it's wrong and immoral. As for the pornography aspect - it's not exactly a tasteful nude!

And I would consider the result of the image to be the suffering of innocents. Shields obviously suffered from it, as she has attempted to have it suppressed!

Kold wrote: »

Pornography is something that's primary intention is to cause sexual arousal. This was not either of the photographer's intention. Therefore this is not pornography.

Photographer's intention or not, I think that was the intention of the mother who requested the image be taken and the photographer set the scene!

Kold wrote: »

Even though the idea of exploited youth echoes throughout the image.

I thought you said you didn't see this anywhere in the image?

Kold

steve06 wrote: »

Look, you're an art student so you're going to have strong opinions about this but the debate remain weather it's actually art or not and a lot of people don't think it is. A warning does not condone the taking of the image in the first place, and there's no story to tell with the image so it can't be compared to images of naked children in a war zone!

A lot of people didn't think what Duchamp, Warhol, the impressionists, the fauvists, the pop artists and any number of modernists created was art. The fact is that art has always been defined by the artists and the buyers, so I think we can do away with public opinion as to what art is. I do believe there's a story to the picture. Look at all the discussion it's set off! Your opinion is one thing but to try to state it as fact is just asking to be shot down. I really don't like doing this but when so adamantly stated can I ask just how are you so qualified as to dismiss a photo that so many actual authorities on art have deemed shaky ground but ultimately fine?

This has nothing to do with an adult orientated photo of a child.

It was in response to someone saying that a child is being used for profit, it happens a lot. I do think the whole original setting was a bit weird and I sure as hell wouldn't let the hypothetical mother of my child do it. But it happened. The picture exists. The picture of the picture is a recording of something a bit off.

It's not just the make up and oil, it's the scene itself and the nudity!
So do you think if it was free it wouldn't be illegal? That's a silly statement. It's illegal because it's wrong and immoral. As for the pornography aspect - it's not exactly a tasteful nude!

And I would consider the result of the image to be the suffering of innocents. Shields obviously suffered from it, as she has attempted to have it suppressed!

Morality needs reason otherwise anyone can state anything is right and wrong. The reason is the child suffering. I believe the child pornography is immoral, this doesn't go to say that I think any picture of a nude child is immoral. It is illegal so to prevent suffering. I didn't read that Shields overtly expressed that she felt any kind of suffering here, I also don't believe that the primary issue of this picture is to tittilate the viewer.
It's not child pornography in my opinion. Although if Shields wanted to block the photo, I believe she should have the right to.

Photographer's intentionProxy-Connection: keep-alive Cache-Control: max-age=0 r not, I think that was the intention of the mother who requested the image be taken and the photographer set the scene!

Her reason was that she wanted the girl to get a movie part. I don't see this as being any more or less crazy than women entering their children into those pageants in Southern America. I also don't think she was trying to get this photo to get men off.

I thought you said you didn't see this anywhere in the image?

Concept and connotations =/= Content.

When put in the gallery format, something like a photograph takes on a role. This is put before people who will view and judge it. It asks questions of the viewer in a formal way. What is your problem with art lovers having their views challenged? The room comes with a warning. Nobody should be leaving feeling aroused (and if they do, well there's not much we can do to police their mind.) It isn't even really glorifying it. So many have said it filled them with disgust, others were apathetic and some people have said that the concept was really quite intriguing.

If Shields were happy to have it displayed which someone may well be, I think it would be a legitimate work.

smash

Kold wrote: »

A lot of people didn't think what Duchamp, Warhol, the impressionists, the fauvists, the pop artists and any number of modernists created was art.

But you're talking about a genre there and that's not what this is, it isn't widely accepted as being ok because of the content.

Kold wrote: »

The fact is that art has always been defined by the artists and the buyers, so I think we can do away with public opinion as to what art is. I do believe there's a story to the picture. Look at all the discussion it's set off!

Yes there is a story to the picture, the mother wanted her child to look like a hooker - objective achieved. But in my opinion, just because the objective has been achieved it doesn't mean it should be successfully categorised as art.

Kold wrote: »

Your opinion is one thing but to try to state it as fact is just asking to be shot down. I really don't like doing this but when so adamantly stated can I ask just how are you so qualified as to dismiss a photo that so many actual authorities on art have deemed shaky ground but ultimately fine?

I've consistency said I'm expressing my opinion and haven't laid my opinions as fact. But since you should ask how I can dismiss the opinions of actual authorities, it's because they are just that... opinions!

Kold wrote: »

What is your problem with art lovers having their views challenged? The room comes with a warning. Nobody should be leaving feeling aroused (and if they do, well there's not much we can do to police their mind.) It isn't even really glorifying it.

I have no problem with art lovers have their views challenged. I just don't think a photo like this, especially where the subject has a problem with it herself, should be glorified in a gallery environment.

Kold wrote: »

So many have said it filled them with disgust, others were apathetic and some people have said that the concept was really quite intriguing.

Here's the issue though, everyone makes up their own mind about 'art' they like and dislike. The concept for this photo however is black and white "child made to look like prostitute" so to say the concept is intriguing, are you intrigued by a child looking like this? or are you seeing a different concept yourself that's not really there?

Kold wrote: »

Although if Shields wanted to block the photo, I believe she should have the right to.
...
If Shields were happy to have it displayed which someone may well be, I think it would be a legitimate work.

Are you admitting this is not a legitimate work?

OutlawPete

steve06 wrote: »

.. just because the objective has been achieved it doesn't mean it should be successfully categorised as art ..

It does if the 'objective' was art.

Interesting reading everyone's reactions to the photos of Brooke. Guess it's a kind of 'ink blot' test of sorts.

The similarities between the photo and Shirley Temple in 'War Babies' come to mind. Then I guess there are those that feel it too is child pornography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orq4LqX7WEE

Chorcai

^^^ Pedo's dreams come true on so many levels !!!

OutlawPete

Chorcai wrote: »

^^^ Pedo's dreams come true on so many levels !!!

Now what was I saying about that 'inkblot' test?? .. hhmmm.

Herbal Deity

smelltheglove wrote: »

I dont think the war image can be compared to the Brooke Shields image at all , that particular image is a documentary image, based on fact, this is what happened, this is what these children had to endure during war. The Brooke Shields image is a child actually put into a situation, made to look like this, obviously a lot of thought has gone into the image, a lot of work with makeup and oil, location been decided upon so these two are worlds apart.

The Brooke Shields image is based on fact, that is what happened, she was made pose nude when she was 10 years old.

Why is it ok to display a picture of a child enduring a war and not a child enduring exploitation?

smelltheglove

Herbal Deity wrote: »

The Brooke Shields image is based on fact, that is what happened, she was made pose nude when she was 10 years old.

Why is it ok to display a picture of a child enduring a war and not a child enduring exploitation?

I'm surprrised this thread has come up again but herbal you do have a valid point and if this was a documentary shot of a child enduring exploitation it may have merit in my books but this shot is is considered a piece of art which I cannot myself comprehend. The thougght of the planning and work that went into making Brooke look this way and how she as a little girl may have felt being put in this situation overwhelms mme to be honest.

OutlawPete

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Why is it ok to display a picture of a child enduring a war and not a child enduring exploitation?

Exactly, and that's what Pretty Baby was ultimately about (although the film was far less explicit).

Also, it's not as if the movie glorified Violet's plight. Quite the contrary and it showed us that her mother was the real issue as she had no regard for own daughter's childhood.

SinisterDexter

Trojan911 wrote: »

.... seperate the porn from the art and that should knock the controversy on the head or maybe they are looking for controversy?

Yes I believe this was the objective all along and safe to say it has worked.

What was the name of the gallery again?

How many of you are screaming the name out now?

The Gallery succeeded!


As for the image of Brook - not indecent, maybe the situation/way it was taken is wrong but the image itself says nothing to me. I do like how Prince made it about an object of an object.

humberklog

SinisterDexter wrote: »

What was the name of the gallery again?

How many of you are screaming the name out now?

Eh...Tate modern would be pretty well known by the general public I'd imagine. (He said quietly).

SinisterDexter

Not saying it isn't well known, this discussion has brought to everyone's attention that this exibit is on in the Tate gallery was my point.

sineadw

The WHOLE POINT was that its an image of an image of exploitation...

humberklog

SinisterDexter wrote: »

Not saying it isn't well known, this discussion has brought to everyone's attention that this exibit is on in the Tate gallery was my point.

I'm still not really getting the point of your statement. Surely a photography forum is where one would expect such discussion?
I know the news of the attempt at this exhibition would have passed me by without seeing this thread and I'd also be less enlightened as to other peoples feelings on such an exhibition.

trishw78

I'm not sure why this thread was bumped after a month. We're not going over old ground on this and I haven't seen anythng new brought to the table. So therefore I'm going to lock it.