Skip to content


brooke_shields_by_gary_gross1According to The Guardian, the Tate Modern in London removed a photograph by Gary Gross of Brooke Shields at the age of 10, naked and with heavy make-up, which was used by Richard Prince for an artwork to be displayed as part of the Tate’s Pop Life exhibition due to open tomorrow. The image was deemed to break British obscenity laws, according to officers at the obscene publications unit at the Metropolitan Police. So much for modern art in a not so modern world.

Photography: Gary Gross


  1. meg ferguson wrote:

    I think this picture is absolutely disgraceful! its disgusting to even think about putting a naked 10 year old girl in an art gallery for everyone to see! there are people out there that may enjoy this picture but if they do they are sick in the head! this is not art! it is child pornography! it is without a doubt absolutely revolting!

    Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 16:28 | Permalink
  2. Wilma Wonka wrote:

    While a beautiful photo, I don’t see the point. The only reason one would take a photo of this nature i.e., makeup, nude, child, is for child pornography. It really doesn’t matter if you dress it up and call it art, it is what it is; child pornography.
    There’s a reason the art museum removed it.

    Wednesday, October 14, 2009 at 18:41 | Permalink
  3. Fabio wrote:

    I can’t agree. Nudity is not obscene ‘per se’, even if the subject is a children. The most obscene thing I see in this picture is the heavy makeup, which makes adults perceive the nudity as a sexual provocation. A nakedness is a natural status, the perversion about this is all in whatcher’s eyes.

    Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 11:02 | Permalink
  4. Lisa wrote:

    I agree wholeheartedly with Fabio. Art imitates life. If the viewer is offended, that’s totally about the viewer. To censor art is to censor life, and life happens, whether you sit in judgment of it or not.

    Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 19:49 | Permalink
  5. neil wrote:

    It’s a difficult image because it is shows a 10 year old girl in a naked adult pose, which proposes that the viewer see her sexually. That in itself is disturbing. But we know the child here is Brooke Shields, and in looking at the image we comprehend her as the fully sexualised adult we know her to be. Prince capitalises on this. Good in one way, disturbing in another.

    Monday, October 19, 2009 at 20:14 | Permalink
  6. jUSTSOMEGUY wrote:

    i THINK… She just needs a good spanking!!!

    Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 00:55 | Permalink
  7. Luis wrote:

    Controlar lo que los demás piensan es imposible y el arte si no es libre no es arte. Lo único deseable y honesto es explorar el arte que nos gusta y aquellas expresiones artísticas que no nos atraen dejemoselas a los demás. Prohibir una imagen es ridículo.

    Tuesday, November 17, 2009 at 18:46 | Permalink
  8. Megs wrote:

    If I want naked children, there are plenty of naked statues all over my city. No one complains, even though they are completely life-like.
    I agree with Fabio though, the makeup is in excess.

    Sunday, May 30, 2010 at 19:55 | Permalink
  9. bob wrote:

    wasn’t it her chioce and isn’t it metiforicle for what guys look for. Young make up-ed girls, teens not 10 yr olds, to ” do the birds and bees”

    Monday, August 8, 2011 at 08:10 | Permalink