The Energon Pub

Click here for the story.

An image, named Spiritual America, has been removed from public viewing at the tate modern in London.
The image features a nude, heavily made-up, 10 year old Brooke Shields, and was originally photographed in 1975 as a publicity shot.
Her mother gave permission for the photograph to be taken, and sold the rights to the image and the negatives, which she has since attempted to obtain.

It was then framed by Richard Prince and placed on display in 1983 by Richard Prince, who juxtaposed the name Spiritual America, from a much older picture of a horse's haunches, taken by Alfred Stieglitz in 1923 meant to illustrate a wholesome work-ethic, with an image that he felt typified the exploitation and excesses of the Raegan era for purposes of irony.

It should be noted the picture was taken while Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr was president, and then apparently used for publicity for the 1978 movie Pretty Baby featuring a 12 year old Brooke Shields while James Earl Carter Jr was president. Personally, I don't think this should necessarily have any bearing on the meaning of the work, since that particular context is not evident in the piece itself.

The reason for this censorship is that several groups who campaign against the exploitation of children have raised concerns that the image may attract paedophiles and violate anti-obscenity laws in Britain. The museum has been visited by police and an investigation is under way to determine if any laws have been broken.
The picture was displayed in a darkened room, clearly marked with a warning that visitors may find the imagery "challenging".

I won't link directly to the image, and as per the site rules I will ask that nobody else does so. Needless to say any of the most popular search engines will turn up a number of results, so for those with the determination to make up their own minds there is always google image search.

Do you think Brooke Shields was unfairly exploited to create the image?

Do you think it's reasonable to attempt to retroactively protect a 44 year old woman from exploitation that may have happened during her childhood?

Do you think it's right to censor art on the basis that some people are offended, or that it may be enjoyed in ways not condoned by society?

Do you think it's reasonable to take steps like this to prevent people who cannot control their sexual orientation from popping a boner in a prestigious museum?

I'd like to hear some opinions please.

I'd like to hear some opinions please.

That dress makes you look fat.

now that that's out of the way...

Do you think Brooke Shields was unfairly exploited to create the image?

Yes.
Her mother foots the bulk of the blame there, with some shared by the photographer.

Do you think it's reasonable to attempt to retroactively protect a 44 year old woman from exploitation that may have happened during her childhood?

Not sure which way you meant that.
Should the groups have petitioned for the removal of the picture? (I'll go into that after the next question)
Should Shields have the ability to get the picture removed... Ideally yes.
Realistically, I'm sure the statute of limitations (if any) for her to react to any crime (if it was considered one) has probably passed.
She certainly has a right to try and get control of the rights and destroy it or whatever.

Do you think it's right to censor art on the basis that some people are offended, or that it may be enjoyed in ways not condoned by society?

As I said in another thread, everything is offensive to someone.
I believe the gallery/museum/whatever has a right to display whatever it wants especially if steps are taken to make sure that people will only see it if they choose to (which they did)
I believe everyone has a right to choose for themselves whether or not they see it, the exception being children who (for good or bad) should have the choice made by their parents.
*pause
That may seem hypocritical given that I think Shields' mother exploited her but... I believe that Parents have a responsibility to make choices for their children that will be the best for the child. Right or wrong, parents have to have that ability or we might as well just give kids away at birth to be raised by the government. If those choices violate the sensibilities (or laws) of the community that parent has the right to defend their choice and be judged accordingly.
*resume
I believe that people in the surrounding community have the right to petition for the removal of the piece if they have reason to believe that the community is harmed in some way by it.
I do not believe that people from outside the community have any say in what this community does (in this case; if the objection to the picture is from the surrounding community ok, if people are being bussed in to object to things that do not affect them.. not ok)
I do not believe the gallery/etc/etc should have given in without a strong argument being given by the opposition. (or in this case laws being broken) but that they do have the right to take down the offending object if they think it best for themselves.

Do you think it's reasonable to take steps like this to prevent people who cannot control their sexual orientation from popping a boner in a prestigious museum?

Steps like this being?
The steps of the museum to prevent those that didn't choose to see it from seeing it? As stated before I think that was a proper, responsible thing to do.
The steps of the groups opposing the picture? If they had a strong argument that harm was being done, sure.
I'm not saying they did.


Honestly, to borrow a quote I've been hearing a lot lately,'it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg' whether they show the picture or not.
If the picture hadn't been taken thru questionable means (though I'm not sure pictures of naked children who really can't make a proper decision for themselves can be taken in a way that isn't questionable) and the museum had taken the proper steps to limit exposure, and nobody could prove harm from it I'd be quite fine with it being in that museum or even in my local museum.
Doesn't mean I'd go see it, but i'd be ok with it being there.

Its a strange world.

If its a photo of a naked ten year old girl made up like a street walker and its hung in a museum then its art, yet put that same photo in the hands of a grown man or on the internet, it becomes porn.

Frankly, its porn.

Just because some one argues that "if it makes you think then its art".

No, its still porn, at the very least child exploitation.

cant it be both? there is plenty of "art" that people dub "obscene"

if it evokes emotion its art. if it makes you wanna pull your pud, its obscene. if it does both, get mental help