Brooke Shields Nude Scene

Brooke Shields Nude Scene

Wednesday, Jun 29th 2022
9PM
15°C
12AM
12°C

5-Day Forecast

Embed icon

Embed Most Watched Videos

By embedding this you agree to our terms and conditions

Cancel
Copy code
Tick icon

Code copied

Site
Web

Enter search term:
Search

Emma Raducanu's Wimbledon dream is OVER
R. Kelly jailed for 30 years in prison for vile sex abuse crimes
Dame Deborah James' fund passes £7,000,000
Paris attacks: Surviving suspect Salah Abdeslam found guilty
Britain ready to commit 1,000 extra troops to Estonia to defend Nato
Prince Charles accepting bags of cash for his charity 'would not happen again'
Dame Deborah James reaches £7,000,000 with Bowelbabe Fund after death
Dominic Raab winks at Angela Rayner when accusing her of 'champagne socialism'
Archie Battersbee’s parents win appeal against ruling that declared 12-year-old brain dead
Heinz products off Tesco shelves after pricing dispute

Home

News

U.S.

Sport

TV&Showbiz

Australia

Femail

Health

Science

Money

Video

Travel

Best Buys

Discounts

By Paul Revoir for MailOnline Updated: 11:15 BST, 1 October 2009
Child abuse campaigners are furious at Tate Modern gallery's decision to show an 'obscene' picture of a naked 10-year-old Brooke Shields.
Yesterday critics called for the image of the star to be withdrawn from the new exhibition, which opens tomorrow, saying it was unacceptable.
They claimed the picture would attract paedophiles to the gallery and said organisers should have taken advice from parents before deciding to show it.
Gallery chiefs themselves admit they sought legal advice before including the picture, titled Spiritual America, in the Pop Life: Art In A Material World show.
The exhibition also features huge sexually explicit images of penetration and works made from the pages of pornographic magazines.
Then and now: A 12-year-old Brooke Shields in the 1978 film Pretty Baby (left), and at a party last month at 44 (right). MailOnline chose not to show the portrait of naked 10-year-old Shields before it was removed from the Tate Modern
Richard Prince's image of Shields shows her from the knees up, naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.
It is hung in a special room at the south London gallery with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image 'challenging'.
The artist himself described the 1983 work, which is in fact a photograph of a photograph taken by another artist, Gary Gross, as 'an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman'.
Prince's picture was originally shown anonymously in a disused shop in a run-down area of New York, and the Tate show is believed to be the work's first appearance in a UK gallery.
The original Gross picture was taken after the artist hired Shields to pose as a model in 1975 and is said to have been done with her mother's consent.
Full on: American artist Jeff Koons' Dirty-Jeff On Top' statue stands in front of Made In Heaven, at the Pop Life, Art In A Material World exhibition to be staged at the Tate Modern
When the photographer later tried to republish the pictures in the 1980s Shields and her mother launched a legal battle to stop him, but he won the case.
Michele Elliott founder of children's charity Kidscape criticised the gallery's decision to exhibit the picture as a work of art.
She said: 'This is the kind of excuse people make for showing soft kiddy porn and I can't think anyone would want their child portrayed this way and I think it is obscene to do so. She is not old enough at that age to give consent for this to be taken.
'This has been put in a pouty adult way, it sounds like, and to masquerade under the guise of edgy art is ridiculous. It is soft kiddy porn.
'Putting a sign on the door like that means every paedophile in the land will head straight to that room.'
She added: 'I don't care if they show naked adults, I have got no trouble with nudity, but I do have trouble with children being portrayed in sexually provocative ways. They should have stuck with their gut feeling and excluded this work.'
Religious groups have also hit out at the decision.
Simon Calvert, a spokesman for The Christian Institute added: 'I think that any parent of young girls would just be so shocked to hear that a tax-payer funded
gallery thinks it is alright to show photographs of a nude ten-year-old in the middle of a pornography exhibition.
In your face: A visitor photographs an installation by Japanese artist Takashi Murakami during a preview of the Pop Life exhibition
'How far do things have to go before we eventually say enough is enough.'
'They took legal advice to see what they could get away with. Why didn't they take advice from ordinary parents and the public as to what's appropriate.'
Jack Bankowsky, the exhibitions co-curator, said he hoped the artistic interest in Spiritual America would not be overshadowed by controversy over its content.
He said: 'I hope that people respond to what is provocative and understand what the artist was trying to achieve.
'If it turned into that kind of brouhaha it would overwhelm the work and become a monosyllabic conversation.'
Visual impact This installation by American Keith Haring is less pornographic but still hard to take in
Prince wanted the viewer to respond to the 'eeriness' of Gross' original image, Mr Bankowsky said.
A spokesman for the Tate said they had given careful consideration to the work and the reaction it could provoke before including it in the exhibition.
'As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation,' the spokesman said.
'Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist.
'This is an important work by Richard Prince which has been publicly exhibited on a number of occasions, most recently in Richard Prince's major retrospective, Spiritual America, at the Guggenheim in New York."
The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.
Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd
Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group

Wednesday, Jun 29th 2022
9PM
15°C
12AM
12°C

5-Day Forecast

Embed icon

Embed Most Watched Videos

By embedding this you agree to our terms and conditions

Cancel
Copy code
Tick icon

Code copied

Site
Web

Enter search term:
Search

Emma Raducanu's Wimbledon dream is OVER
R. Kelly jailed for 30 years in prison for vile sex abuse crimes
Dame Deborah James' fund passes £7,000,000
Paris attacks: Surviving suspect Salah Abdeslam found guilty
Britain ready to commit 1,000 extra troops to Estonia to defend Nato
Prince Charles accepting bags of cash for his charity 'would not happen again'
Dame Deborah James reaches £7,000,000 with Bowelbabe Fund after death
Dominic Raab winks at Angela Rayner when accusing her of 'champagne socialism'
Archie Battersbee’s parents win appeal against ruling that declared 12-year-old brain dead
Heinz products off Tesco shelves after pricing dispute

Home

News

U.S.

Sport

TV&Showbiz

Australia

Femail

Health

Science

Money

Video

Travel

Best Buys

Discounts

By Paul Revoir for MailOnline Updated: 11:15 BST, 1 October 2009
Child abuse campaigners are furious at Tate Modern gallery's decision to show an 'obscene' picture of a naked 10-year-old Brooke Shields.
Yesterday critics called for the image of the star to be withdrawn from the new exhibition, which opens tomorrow, saying it was unacceptable.
They claimed the picture would attract paedophiles to the gallery and said organisers should have taken advice from parents before deciding to show it.
Gallery chiefs themselves admit they sought legal advice before including the picture, titled Spiritual America, in the Pop Life: Art In A Material World show.
The exhibition also features huge sexually explicit images of penetration and works made from the pages of pornographic magazines.
Then and now: A 12-year-old Brooke Shields in the 1978 film Pretty Baby (left), and at a party last month at 44 (right). MailOnline chose not to show the portrait of naked 10-year-old Shields before it was removed from the Tate Modern
Richard Prince's image of Shields shows her from the knees up, naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.
It is hung in a special room at the south London gallery with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image 'challenging'.
The artist himself described the 1983 work, which is in fact a photograph of a photograph taken by another artist, Gary Gross, as 'an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman'.
Prince's picture was originally shown anonymously in a disused shop in a run-down area of New York, and the Tate show is believed to be the work's first appearance in a UK gallery.
The original Gross picture was taken after the artist hired Shields to pose as a model in 1975 and is said to have been done with her mother's consent.
Full on: American artist Jeff Koons' Dirty-Jeff On Top' statue stands in front of Made In Heaven, at the Pop Life, Art In A Material World exhibition to be staged at the Tate Modern
When the photographer later tried to republish the pictures in the 1980s Shields and her mother launched a legal battle to stop him, but he won the case.
Michele Elliott founder of children's charity Kidscape criticised the gallery's decision to exhibit the picture as a work of art.
She said: 'This is the kind of excuse people make for showing soft kiddy porn and I can't think anyone would want their child portrayed this way and I think it is obscene to do so. She is not old enough at that age to give consent for this to be taken.
'This has been put in a pouty adult way, it sounds like, and to masquerade under the guise of edgy art is ridiculous. It is soft kiddy porn.
'Putting a sign on the door like that means every paedophile in the land will head straight to that room.'
She added: 'I don't care if they show naked adults, I have got no trouble with nudity, but I do have trouble with children being portrayed in sexually provocative ways. They should have stuck with their gut feeling and excluded this work.'
Religious groups have also hit out at the decision.
Simon Calvert, a spokesman for The Christian Institute added: 'I think that any parent of young girls would just be so shocked to hear that a tax-payer funded
gallery thinks it is alright to show photographs of a nude ten-year-old in the middle of a pornography exhibition.
In your face: A visitor photographs an installation by Japanese artist Takashi Murakami during a preview of the Pop Life exhibition
'How far do things have to go before we eventually say enough is enough.'
'They took legal advice to see what they could get away with. Why didn't they take advice from ordinary parents and the public as to what's appropriate.'
Jack Bankowsky, the exhibitions co-curator, said he hoped the artistic interest in Spiritual America would not be overshadowed by controversy over its content.
He said: 'I hope that people respond to what is provocative and understand what the artist was trying to achieve.
'If it turned into that kind of brouhaha it would overwhelm the work and become a monosyllabic conversation.'
Visual impact This installation by American Keith Haring is less pornographic but still hard to take in
Prince wanted the viewer to respond to the 'eeriness' of Gross' original image, Mr Bankowsky said.
A spokesman for the Tate said they had given careful consideration to the work and the reaction it could provoke before including it in the exhibition.
'As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation,' the spokesman said.
'Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist.
'This is an important work by Richard Prince which has been publicly exhibited on a number of occasions, most recently in Richard Prince's major retrospective, Spiritual America, at the Guggenheim in New York."
The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.
Published by Associated Newspapers Ltd
Part of the Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday & Metro Media Group

HOME

WATCH NOW

WATCH LIVE

WATCH MOVIES

SCHEDULE

DAILY SCHEDULE

MONTH SCHEDULE

THIS MONTH

EMAIL SIGN UP

Sub Navigation

MESSAGE BOARDS

PODCAST

FILM FESTIVAL

CLASSIC CRUISE

CLASSICS IN THEATERS

WINE CLUB

TCM LIBRARY

FOLLOW THE THREAD

NOIR ALLEY

HOME

WATCH NOW

WATCH LIVE

WATCH MOVIES

SCHEDULE

DAILY SCHEDULE

MONTH SCHEDULE

THIS MONTH

EMAIL SIGN UP

Sub Navigation

MESSAGE BOARDS

PODCAST

FILM FESTIVAL

CLASSIC CRUISE

CLASSICS IN THEATERS

WINE CLUB

TCM LIBRARY

FOLLOW THE THREAD

NOIR ALLEY

The virgin Violet (Brooke Shields) is presented to the patrons (Keith Carradine and Antonio Fargas among them) for bidding at the brothel in Louis Malle's Pretty Baby , 1978.
©2022 Turner Classic Movies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

©2022 Turner Classic Movies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use

Sign Up now to stay up to date with all of the latest news from TCM.
To view this content, please use one of the following compatible browsers:

Add interesting content and earn coins
berniebechtel1, InnocentLover and 2 others like this
© 2006-2022 Fanpop, Inc., All Rights Reserved. A Member of Townsquare Entertainment News

Denise Crosby Boobs
Melanie Griffith Tits
Felicia Tang Nude

Brooke Shields Nude Scene

Report Page