"Spiritual America" an over-reaction?

OffTheBackAdam

It's been splashed all over the press earlier this week.
A Tate Modern exhibition was to show a picture of US actress Brooke Shields in the nude, aged 10.
Big hoo-hah, lots of publicity for the exhibition & then the picture's removed.
So, must be a horribly pornographic, full frontal shot? No, naked, wet, face heavily made-up but that's really it.
The photo's visible all over the internet, so, over-reaction (It was shown in 2007 in the USA without major controversy) or a correct decision?

downfader

..trying to put into words how I feel on this is very hard.. just wiped my message and will start again.

Is this a storm in a teacup - yes
Is all this media attention possibly encouraging potential pervs? Yes imo.
Are children becoming sexualised by the media - yes to a degree.

People now fear pervs in the same way they used to fear the devil hundreds of years back. :?

STEFANOS4784

In my opinion(this is the 1st i've heard of it by the way) there is no need and not reasonable artistic explanation for such a thing..................

downfader

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

In my opinion(this is the 1st i've heard of it by the way) there is no need and not reasonable artistic explanation for such a thing..................

I kind of agree with that.

Who was the Victorian photographer who photographed the young lads truanting from school? They swam out in a lake and took their clothes off to wind up the Truant Officer iirc...

..art is sometimes about capturing a moment in time, this just appears to be a portrait from what the press have told us. (I havent seen the pic and tbh have no intention of finding it, LOL)

afx237vi

The Telegraph published a cropped version of the picture:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/mult ... 92750c.jpg

...don't worry, it's just her face (although still probably NSFW), and I think it's safe to say that it's a little bit different to an innocent family snap of your kid at the beach.

Is it art? Porn? I'm not a puritan, but I can kinda see what the fuss is about.

tebbit

Downfader I think the photographs were by Bert Hardy, he took a series of photographs in the East of London in the thirties for Picture Post and I think you a referring to those photos.

I haven't seen the photograph that is the centre of complaint, and I'm not that worried about it, a paedo isn't going to travel all the way to see an exhibition for a naked Brooke Shields.

nick hanson

afx237vi wrote:

The Telegraph published a cropped version of the picture:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/mult ... 92750c.jpg

...don't worry, it's just her face (although still probably NSFW), and I think it's safe to say that it's a little bit different to an innocent family snap of your kid at the beach.

Is it art? Porn? I'm not a puritan, but I can kinda see what the fuss is about.

Agreed.
Only seen this cropped pic,& don't think it would be normal to want to see the full one,not at aged 10.
I'm certainly no prude,but NO

downfader

tebbit wrote:

Downfader I think the photographs were by Bert Hardy, he took a series of photographs in the East of London in the thirties for Picture Post and I think you a referring to those photos.

I haven't seen the photograph that is the centre of complaint, and I'm not that worried about it, a paedo isn't going to travel all the way to see an exhibition for a naked Brooke Shields.

Hmm..? Not sure it was Hardy. I thought the guy was English and used a 5x4 camera - Hardy in contrast seemed to use a 35mm Leica. I've just looked through a number of online galleries and cant find the pic under Hardy's name either.