The Art Upstart

See no evil: censorship plagues the Tate

A few months ago, a display of a naked Brooke Shields, aged 10, that was due to go on show at the new Pop Life exhibition of the Tate was removed after a severe warning from Scotland Yard that the naked image of the actress could break obscenity laws. The image showed a heavily made up young Brooke making a seductress, adult pose at the camera.  The display was consequently removed following a visit to Tate Modern by officers from the obscene publications unit of the Metropolitan police.

The work, entitled Spiritual America, is by American artist Richard Prince. The original photograph of Brooke Shields is by Gary Gross, a commercial photographer who took the photo for Playboy’s Sugar ‘n’ Spice publication in 1976. Shields’ mother authorised the photo of the child star for $450.

Rather than acting as a result of complaints, officers decided to visit the Tate Modern after seeing coverage of the exhibition in the newspapers. Officers met gallery owners and consulted with the Crown Prosecution Service to see whether the image broke obscenity laws. The display was ultimately closed down and the catalogue for the exhibition was withdrawn from sale.

Throughout his career, Prince has been known to borrow images, from the Marlboro Man ads to New Yorker cartoons, to comment on the American psyche. Yet he leaves much of the commentary to the viewer, and successfully does so.

The Tate’s actions sparked a debate about censorship and art. While some may find a sexually provocative image of Shields obscene, others see it as a profound artistic critique of the sexualisation of child stars and the dominant ’sex sells’ mentality of the American media market. Art commentator Adrian Searle argues that Prince knew exactly what he was doing when he chose to include the photo in his first gallery more than ten years ago in 1983. The photo, Searle notes, creates immediate unease to the viewer. At the same time, the image speaks about the commodification and premature sexualisation of stars like Brooke Shields. Pointing to a symptom of American social malaise, Prince is successful in compounding unease with a hand-wringing title of ‘Spiritual America’–a country that prides itself on its democratic principles and Roman Catholic values, yet is home to a consumer market that revolves around the over-sexualisation of individuals, even if they are preteens. Prince thus was not condoning the original act of photographing a naked 10-year-old child, but critiquing the act and holding it up for the viewer to question–this is where the real unease to the spectator arises.

Coincidentally, the work was also previously displayed in New York’s Guggenheim Museum without attracting major controversy, causing some British citizens to comment that maybe institutions in the US are braver about their curatorial choices. Some commentators characterized those offended by the photo as ‘hysterical prudes’, arguing that the image in question provided an astute comment about the commodification of humans in the post-modern world.

No furor arose, meanwhile, over other pornographic images also featured in the Pop Life exhibition at the Tate, including provocative works from Jeff Koons’ series Made in Heaven.  The series displayed large-scale photographic images depicting the porn model La Cicciolina having sexual intercourse. Works by Cosey Fanni Tutti, a porn model-turned-artist, were also featured.

Tags: brooke shields pic, garry gross brooke shields, gary gross brooke shields, Pop Life exhibition, Richard Prince, tate modern, tate modern brooke shields, young brooke shields

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 3:40 pm and is filed under Our Considered Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.