netmodel wrote:
Brooke Shields appeared nude in front of a photographer at the age of 10.

The London exhibition decided to exhibit that photo and the police raided and closed that room showing a picture of her.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, … 46,00.html

The nude picture - her face had a lot of makeup but her body looked masculine - truly androgynous.

Anyway, the point is should it be displayed? People who object seem to have a "dirty interpretation" more than embracing her body. Exactly what is wrong with showing it all natural?

if Brooke Shields has no problem with it being displayed, then I'm not sure why anyone else should care. It's not like it was an erotic photo of a ten year old.

Seems like the world is becoming more and more alarmist.

Mclain D Swift wrote:
People are out of control with their child abuse, religious hogwash, primitive mindset.   A nude body does not necessarily equate to sex.  Those people that think that way have the problem and not the rest of us.  I am so tired of censorship because of a few Neanderthals or worrying about offending some one.  Last I checked there was no guarantee of a right to NOT be offended in any constitution.

AMEN!!!!

PBK Photography wrote:
AMEN!!!!

DITTO

Spongebob showed his butt the other day he will be next!

Roy Lett wrote:
Her first gig-I think the bathroom accessory shots by the Grossman fellow-photographer were for high end ads that appeared in some NYC publication possibly NY Times Sunday Supplement. I purchased a Playboy Lingerie special and they were in that publication. Her mother claimed she wore a body stocking- which the mother similarly claimed when she appeared in the Louis Malle classic "Pretty Baby".
Her "styling" and make-up for the Grossman images was very adult.
I used to wonder as a young photographer that did nudes in a repressive area how the BS nudes could be legal...
added--> if it was a body stocking the same person that made the new robe for the emperor must have sewn it.

I'm sure she said that to deflect the, uh, same kind of minds that are now closing art exhibits.

dod kalm wrote:
if Brooke Shields has no problem with it being displayed, then I'm not sure why anyone else should care. It's not like it was an erotic photo of a ten year old.

Seems like the world is becoming more and more alarmist.

Brooke Shields does have  aproblem. She has tried to sue to gain control of the photos at leats twice. And she tried to buy them at least twice
Her argument, if I read it correctly, was that her mother signed away her rights to the photos and she wanted them (her rights) back. The first time she sued was when she turned 16 I think. The judge found in the photographer's favor. She tried again a few years later and lost again, but this time pretty much bankrupted the photographer. She tried to buy the images back but rather than sell to her, the photographer sold them to someone else, who then tweaked them some and  then started showing them again.

Brooke Shields most certainly does have  aproblem with the photos. But the judges found them not to be of a sexual nature and sided with the photographer both times. I think the photographer probably had a legal right to them, but he was a bit of a dick not to sell them to her before it ever went to court the first time. Second time too. Then to sell them to someone else out of spite was atad rude too as far as I'm concerned.

Makeup by Amy Elizabeth wrote:
Wait, why is that being blocked? Wasn't she naked in the movie Pretty Baby in which she played a child prostitute?

Meh, what's next? Diaper commercials?

She was nude in Blue lagoon too, wasn't she? She was about 12 in that as I recall.

netmodel wrote:
Brooke Shields appeared nude in front of a photographer at the age of 10.

The London exhibition decided to exhibit that photo and the police raided and closed that room showing a picture of her.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0, … 46,00.html

The nude picture - her face had a lot of makeup but her body looked masculine - truly androgynous.

Anyway, the point is should it be displayed? People who object seem to have a "dirty interpretation" more than embracing her body. Exactly what is wrong with showing it all natural?

Those of us who were 12 in 1977 are fully aware of the controversy surrounding this image-both in 1977 and today.

CGI Images wrote:
I'm starting to think England is worse about this stuff than we are,...and thats saying alot!

Its pretty much a well known fact Brooke's mom basically whored her out as a child in exchange for fame isnt it?

And why isnt that evil, disgusting bastard of a pervert photographer rotting in a cell somewhere?

In public and in life we are NOT
No way!

But the VICE squad on publications is very tough. Always has been

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
""the photo has been infamous from the day I took it, and I intended it to be." "


this attitude could have something to do with it getting attention from law enforcement.
not agreeing or disagreeing with them.

and that quote is from the photographer who took a picture of the picture.

Sounds like much ado about nuthin'. Otherwise known as People magazine.

Mclain D Swift wrote:
People are out of control with their child abuse, religious hogwash, primitive mindset.   A nude body does not necessarily equate to sex.  Those people that think that way have the problem and not the rest of us.  I am so tired of censorship because of a few Neanderthals or worrying about offending some one.  Last I checked there was no guarantee of a right to NOT be offended in any constitution.

Now, as much as I agree with SOME of this.. A 10 year old with heavy makeup nude? I mean.. it may not be "bad" per-say, but I would deem it lewd and would never be something I'd ever consider doing. The religious part isn't "hogwash", but it is taken too far to "condemn" people from being socially acceptable. The child abuse is interesting, I would refer to it as negligence.. I guess I'm a firm believer is when a person can fully understand and form decisions for certain things.

Scott Doctor wrote:
Next step in this ridiculous mind set will be to ban sonograms that identify the sex of a fetus.

In no way does this relate.

netmodel wrote:
if Brooke Shields has no problem with it being displayed, then I'm not sure why anyone else should care. It's not like it was an erotic photo of a ten year old.

It's not that they don't have a problem with it.  They sued the photographer and lost.

MYS Britt  wrote:
Of course I think they shouldnt censore it.
They say they didn't want it to  become ''a magnet for  pedophiles''
Why not?

That's the police talking!
If that's what they think - hang around and follow up on the guys who visit it!
I thought they wanted to find and stop such people...

I highly doubt the police are telling the exhibition to take it down.  Its the organizers that probably don't want any bad press with polanski in the news and such.,

MYS Britt  wrote:
Its the organizers that probably don't want any bad press with polanski in the news and such.,

My uncle is in the news again?

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
[quote}She was nude in Blue lagoon too, wasn't she? She was about 12 in that as I recall.

She was 15 and an older body double was used

Mclain D Swift wrote:
People are out of control with their child abuse, religious hogwash, primitive mindset.

Meanwhile, parents who take bath photos are persecuted while the real abusers go on as before.

rp_photo wrote:

Meanwhile, parents who take bath photos are persecuted while the real abusers go on as before.

or the real abusers gain sympathy because they make some films.

James O Wright wrote:
Like the post above, I am guessing that this picture was shot at the time she was in the movie "Pretty Baby" so what is the big deal?  Her mother was wanting something outrageous to attract attention to her little child actress so she could become the stage mom that she always wanted to be.

No, the images were shot several years before.  They did, in fact, appear in a publication for Playboy, although it was really not a sexual appearance, more than a novelty.   It was, to my knowledge, the first time she posed nude.

Scott Doctor wrote:
What about "Blue Lagoon"

Rick Dupuis Photography wrote:
[quote}She was nude in Blue lagoon too, wasn't she? She was about 12 in that as I recall.

She was nude in "Pretty Baby" but not "Blue Lagoon."  In "Pretty Baby," at least for a couple of scenes, she was wearing a very tiny g-string, although not in all of them.  She was topless and bare butt a number of times.

In "Blure Lagoon," she was 15 and always wore bottoms and she had her hair taped to pads which were then taped to her breasts.  She called them "Buppy Pads."   The few topless scenes that were in the movie had a body double.  If you look closely, her face is never shown when she appears topless.

To my knowledge, "Pretty Baby" was the last time she has done nudes.

FYI, you can find the pics of Brooke when she was ten on the net, they are really strange.  It is totally wierd to see a 10 year old with make-up in that situation.  The pics are nude but they are not explicit.

netmodel wrote:
Here's the picture of her nude pose (10 years old girl):

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/blogon … e_lely.php

Think carefully... suppose it's a boy posing the same minus the makeup, would you cry child porn?

Or is it just because it's a girl? Suppose I put makeup on a boy with that body, would that be considered child pornographic too?

Her breasts were NOT at all developed.

the pose is very sexual and so is the environment. So boy or girl, yes.

Star wrote:

the pose is very sexual and so is the environment. So boy or girl, yes.

agreed

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
agreed

agreed as well.
if they shot the same pose, without make up next to the kitchen counter without the steam, probably not. Doing it the way they did, there was sexual intent right from the start. Shields and her mom may not have known thats what theyw ere going to do when she signed the release, but there you go.