Controversial Nude Shields Image Yanked From London Museum

I saw this work at the Sotheby's 'Women' exhibit in NYC where it apparently was shown for sometime without any such outcry as it's getting in England. I didn't know it was Brooke Shields; I didn't even think it was a photograph of an actual person, but rather some sort of clever photomontage or something similar (the head really doesn't look like it belongs on the body). I liked it when I saw it, but knowing this now, I'm not so sure. Not only because of this controversy, but because it's apparently just a photo of a photo by someone else? I think I have to know more before I really know how I feel about it.

Reply

For god's sake--who cares?!

Reply

THAT IS JUST SICK, AND HORRIBLE HER MOM LET THAT HAPPEN, OR SOMEONE WOULD EVEN ADVICE THAT.THAT VOTES SAY ONE THING AND THE COMMENTS ANOTHER, AMERICA SPOKE AND ITS SICK SICK SICK!!!

Reply

How does Brooke Shields feel about it? Did she feel exploited? Does she feel that her mother made a bad decision? Is she humiliated now or possibly even still benefiting from others' use of her image?

Reply

Here's the link to the pic. Look at it and decide for yourself. In my opinion it is child pornography.

Reply

Brookes mom is currently in a home and I believe suffers from demenia. It was known at the time that her mom , Terri, put Brooke out there. Calvin Klein ads, the films she made that contained nudity. It seemed Terri had no moral thought in putting a young Brooke nude in front of a camera for the world to see.

Reply

I don't think this is art. It's a pathetic attempt at art, just like most contemporary art today. With everything else out there (I saw a holograph of a war victims head blown off at PS1 in NYC and a gigantic image of Britney Spears crotch, and another piece of "art" with a title that said "make art about nothing to appeal to the status quo so dumb yuppies will buy it", gee, that says a lot about how much the artist values what they are creating) It isn't shocking, so why should it be controversial? I’m not afraid of pedophiles getting off on it, a pedophiles poison lays within his brain, he will seek out the necessary material to satisfy his sick desires. I guess, if she was dressed up like an angel and shown to be the innocent child that she was it would be better, child nudity can be tasteful, (I also believe a childs sexuality is something that is very misunderstood and taboo in our culture as well) look at Anne Geddies, LOL! Like it or not, she is far more successful with her art and connects with viewers better than these dip-wads. Most people in the general public are disgusted by this type of stuff posing as “art”, that’s why the polls over 80% didn’t think it is art. So the 80% are ignorant of what “real art” is? well, there’s some huge discrepancy here in the art world Mr. Curator.

If anything it has an appeal because it is Brooke Shields. During the time when the photo was taken, there where (and still are) a lot more misogynistic creeps out there with cameras posing as photographers... If the photo is erotic, shocking, it's conceptually a "one-liner", superficial and pathetic, like most of contemporary art tries to be profound but fails miserably, what comes out is nothing more than aggression toward contemporary culture, just like PS1, and this is what I view this photo to be, especially because it is of someone of notoriety in contemporary culture, Brooke Shields. If you’re an artist, and you’re fed up with the world, work to change it with your ART, don’t just spew out more condescending negative BS about other people, especially famous people and politicians, etc. Make something that gets people interested and inspires something good in them. Don’t be a complainer with no skills and use a bunch of nonsense illogical aggression based art theories (wanna-be philosophies) that 80% of the public doesn’t care about to back up your work. No wonder the artists in PS1 seem to have so much contempt for their own work, it’s pointless, powerless and they’re hopeless.

Brooke Shields attempted to get the photo back, so what jerk is going to hang on to this? What a sorry disrespectful loser that guy is for not giving her the negatives back. It shows that, in hindsight, Shields wouldn’t have done this again. I see it as a power thing with the photographer and who has the rights over the photo. It’s not art, it’s misogynistic and has a weak, if any conceptual basis. I’m sick of seeing this junk in museums, the photo may have a place somewhere… I don’t’ think it would be in the museum if it wasn’t for it being Brooke shields, so I’ll credit it to her, who she is and her beauty, not the photographer, he was pathetic to try and find his own value by exploiting her, and projecting HIS sexuality onto her. Another thing misogynistic men often do when they realize they need women to get them anywhere in life because they have no self worth of their own, hahahaha!

Reply

Just because someone that's sick in the head might look at a photograph with a skewed perspective does not make that photograph bad. They said it'd be a magnet for pedophiles? So what? What are they gonna do, molest the picture? If someones that sick they could look at the childrens underwear catalog or something with the same effect.

Without seeing the picture who knows if i'd think it was art or not. As a photographer myself, i would never shoot anything like this because it's not the type of imagery that would interest me in any way and it's not something that i would want to portray. I'm sure regardless it's a powerful image just due to it's content, but it could also be innocent.

Nudity isn't evil, the mind that makes it evil, is evil.

Reply

Doesnt Brooke have a say in this. And why after all these years does this musuem have the picture and where has it been. I dont think that the museum should display something like that.

Reply