• In the Spotlight:
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Does this go too far?

Posted by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM
  • 10 Replies


http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-09-30/entertainment/29436643_1_spiritual-america-tate-modern-legal-advice



Photo of nude 10-year-old Brooke Shields, 'Spiritual Americana,' part of Tate Modern pop art exhibit


BY NEIL NAGRAJ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

An exhibition at the Tate Modern will feature a photograph of a nude ten-year-old Brooke Shields alongside sexually explicit pop art - a decision akin to rolling out a welcome mat for perverts, outraged critics charge.

The inclusion of Richard Price's 1983 work 'Spiritual America' in the internationally-renowned London museum's exhibit "Pop Life, Art In A Material World," opening Thursday, has sparked the ire of both children's advocates and religious groups, London's Daily Mail reports.

"Putting a sign on the door like that means every pedophile in the land will head straight to that room," said Michele Elliott, founder of a children's charity called Kidscape, who has joined a chorus of voices calling for the exhibit's removal.


Thoughts? Is it opening the door for pedophiles or is it art?
by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
punky3175
by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM
This is 2 1/2 years old so I'd be curious to see if pedophiles did show up. In this case I'd need to see the pics and also think Brooke Shields should have the final say since it's a picture of her.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kleea1969
by Kristine on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM
Quoting punky3175:This is 2 1/2 years old so I'd be curious to see if pedophiles did show up. In this case I'd need to see the pics and also think Brooke Shields should have the final say since it's a picture of her.
Lol I must have hit the archive articles. I would be curious as well. I wonder if she gave permission. My guess is The picture is from her part in Blue Lagoon but I could be wrong.
punky3175
by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:50 PM
I wouldn't want a picture of my child scantily clad posted across the interwebs (I won't even let her use her own pic as an FB avatar) so can't understand why parents would allow their children to be photographed that way (Miley Cyrus is coming to mind) knowing the sickos that are out there. When Blue Lagoon was filmed, pics of Brooke weren't easily accessible so it might bring some sickos out but they can find anything they need online.

Ugh - pedophiles just make me sick to my stomach.


Quoting kleea1969:

Quoting punky3175:This is 2 1/2 years old so I'd be curious to see if pedophiles did show up. In this case I'd need to see the pics and also think Brooke Shields should have the final say since it's a picture of her.
Lol I must have hit the archive articles. I would be curious as well. I wonder if she gave permission. My guess is The picture is from her part in Blue Lagoon but I could be wrong.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
kleea1969
by Kristine on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:53 PM
Very true our world is much different now. It turns my stomach. I can't imagine my child posing nude, let alone at 10 what were they thinking?

Quoting punky3175:

I wouldn't want a picture of my child scantily clad posted across the interwebs (I won't even let her use her own pic as an FB avatar) so can't understand why parents would allow their children to be photographed that way (Miley Cyrus is coming to mind) knowing the sickos that are out there. When Blue Lagoon was filmed, pics of Brooke weren't easily accessible so it might bring some sickos out but they can find anything they need online.



Ugh - pedophiles just make me sick to my stomach.




Quoting kleea1969:

Quoting punky3175:This is 2 1/2 years old so I'd be curious to see if pedophiles did show up. In this case I'd need to see the pics and also think Brooke Shields should have the final say since it's a picture of her.
Lol I must have hit the archive articles. I would be curious as well. I wonder if she gave permission. My guess is The picture is from her part in Blue Lagoon but I could be wrong.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
punky3175
by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM
Makes me wonder if the parents were just out for money like Drew Barrymore's mom, Linday Lohan and the Kardashians. Pimp out the kids to make money and get some fame for yourself. They'd hate me as a "hollywood mom" because I'd always be there.

Quoting kleea1969:

Very true our world is much different now. It turns my stomach. I can't imagine my child posing nude, let alone at 10 what were they thinking?



Quoting punky3175:

I wouldn't want a picture of my child scantily clad posted across the interwebs (I won't even let her use her own pic as an FB avatar) so can't understand why parents would allow their children to be photographed that way (Miley Cyrus is coming to mind) knowing the sickos that are out there. When Blue Lagoon was filmed, pics of Brooke weren't easily accessible so it might bring some sickos out but they can find anything they need online.





Ugh - pedophiles just make me sick to my stomach.






Quoting kleea1969:

Quoting punky3175:This is 2 1/2 years old so I'd be curious to see if pedophiles did show up. In this case I'd need to see the pics and also think Brooke Shields should have the final say since it's a picture of her.
Lol I must have hit the archive articles. I would be curious as well. I wonder if she gave permission. My guess is The picture is from her part in Blue Lagoon but I could be wrong.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
PurdueMom
by Sherri on Jan. 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM

The photo is on the internet.  Her genitalia are not exposed, but her breasts are.  What is also disturbing is she has heavy make-up on her face and the expression on her face is pouty and sexy.   This was before her Blue Lagoon days when she was only 10.  I think she was 14 or 15 when she made Blue Lagoon.

Her mother should be ashamed for allowing photos like these to be taken of her young daughter. 

punky3175
by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Thanks for explaining the photo. I have a problem with mothers pimping out their kids like this but in the end (regarding this article) it should boil down to what Brooke wants.?

Why can't girls just be girls?


Quoting PurdueMom:

The photo is on the internet.  Her genitalia are not exposed, but her breasts are.  What is also disturbing is she has heavy make-up on her face and the expression on her face is pouty and sexy.   This was before her Blue Lagoon days when she was only 10.  I think she was 14 or 15 when she made Blue Lagoon.

Her mother should be ashamed for allowing photos like these to be taken of her young daughter. 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
PurdueMom
by Sherri on Jan. 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I'm not sure even Brooke should have any say.  I am all for artistic freedom, but not when it comes to the exposure of children.  I may sound hypocritical, because this is a very volatile subject. . . but if she was not portrayed as a sexual object in the photo but rather in an age appropriate look and position, I would be more likely to deem it "art" and would be okay with allowing it to be displayed in the form of artistic freedom ... but not the photo in question.   

Quoting punky3175:

Thanks for explaining the photo. I have a problem with mothers pimping out their kids like this but in the end (regarding this article) it should boil down to what Brooke wants.?

Why can't girls just be girls?


Quoting PurdueMom:

The photo is on the internet.  Her genitalia are not exposed, but her breasts are.  What is also disturbing is she has heavy make-up on her face and the expression on her face is pouty and sexy.   This was before her Blue Lagoon days when she was only 10.  I think she was 14 or 15 when she made Blue Lagoon.

Her mother should be ashamed for allowing photos like these to be taken of her young daughter. 


Sherri

Imagine.

punky3175
by on Jan. 15, 2012 at 6:50 PM
That makes perfect sense.

Quoting PurdueMom:

I'm not sure even Brooke should have any say.  I am all for artistic freedom, but not when it comes to the exposure of children.  I may sound hypocritical, because this is a very volatile subject. . . but if she was not portrayed as a sexual object in the photo but rather in an age appropriate look and position, I would be more likely to deem it "art" and would be okay with allowing it to be displayed in the form of artistic freedom ... but not the photo in question.   

Quoting punky3175:

Thanks for explaining the photo. I have a problem with mothers pimping out their kids like this but in the end (regarding this article) it should boil down to what Brooke wants.?



Why can't girls just be girls?




Quoting PurdueMom:

The photo is on the internet.  Her genitalia are not exposed, but her breasts are.  What is also disturbing is she has heavy make-up on her face and the expression on her face is pouty and sexy.   This was before her Blue Lagoon days when she was only 10.  I think she was 14 or 15 when she made Blue Lagoon.

Her mother should be ashamed for allowing photos like these to be taken of her young daughter. 


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
PamR
by Ruby Member on Jan. 15, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I remember when Brook Shields was a kid and did suggestive advertising and posed for nude photos.  It was very controversial then, too.  I don't agree with censorship, and I think the photos are art.  Could pedophiles come in and view it and get turned on?  Yes, but I don't think that justifies censoring it.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)