How Brooke Shields differs from Bill Henson
Bill Henson and Richard Prince Comparison
Comparisons are already being made and lines are already being drawn between the Brooke Shields photograph at the Tate and the Bill Henson debacle last year. conservatives and media alike will be debating the differences are between the different cases and trying to make them both fit the same mould. Many readers here will remember my extensive and vehement coverage of the Henson controversy last year. Some may even be wondering at my stance on this one when I defended Henson so ardently last year.
There are many reasons why these two cases are so very different. nevertheless the gauntlet will be thrown and the aspersions will be cast so I would like to present my reasons why these two cases are so very very different.
Informed Consent
Bill Henson works closely with the model and their families. everything is legal, carefully planned and structured around the needs of the model. The model and families are educated in his processes and are fully aware of the situaton. The model in the photograph at the center of the controversy last year was interviewed and mentioned how she discussed it carefully with her family and friends, she considered all sides and weighed up how she would feel about it later down the track. her consent was critical to the creation of the artwork.
Gary Gross obtained the rights to photograph Brooke Shields and distribute the photograph from her mother. Judging by the legal battles and Brooke’s attempts to win back the rights and retrieve the negatives she was not involved in the consent process at all. she was probably not informed of her options or about the distribution rights. The photograph that was going to be displayed at the Tate is a different situation. the rights were purchased from Gross by Prince. there is no record (that I can find) of Shields consenting to the exchange of rights or the revisioning of the original. I would be very interested to hear about her level of involvement and her feelings about the Prince version and of the rights exchange.
Sexualization
The artworks in the controversial series by Bill Henson were seized because it was believed they were pornographic. the Classifications bureau ruled that only one warranted as much as a PG rating. These artworks are not sexualized images of minors. The original Gross photograph is very sexualized. Brooke has been made up and oiled to look like a tiny porn star. her pose is suggestive and I believe the intent of the work was to titillate and arouse. this is a sexualized image of a minor. if you are in doubt imagine an adult in the same situations, poses and lighting. The Prince photograph Spiritual America is in-between. it is sexualized but appears to condemn, rather than laud, the fact.
Context
In this situation context is key. The Bill Henson artworks were displayed as a series in a solo exhibition. There were no other works to detract from the central display and message of the artworks. The original Gross photograph was paid for by playboy and published in playboy subsidiaries. Spiritual America was to be presented in a private room in an exhibition that had several suggestive and explicit images. Penetration, porn and more were presented in the same exhibition. this establishes a mindset and a context to the work. If the piece had been displayed in a series of photographs of celebrities or in an exhibiton condemning child prostitution and pornography then the context would have shifted. it would have been seen in a different light (although still contentious – it’s a very difficult piece)
Artistry
This may be pure bias, but I believe it needs to be pointed out. one is a photograph of somebody elses work. it is a revision, not a complete original. it has elevated the original and added an emotional quality however the artisty in Bill Henson’s artworks is undeniable. from composition to lighting Bill Henson’s work is original, well crafted and achingly beautiful. the two are not comparable images.
Brooke Shields nude removed from tate
The image forms part of a new exhibition called Pop Life: Art in a Material World which was due to open today [Thursday] and which aims to explore the relationship between commercial and artistic images.
The Tate consulted lawyers before hanging the picture which has not been seen in Britain although it has been shown in New York where it attracted little attention. There it formed part of a retrospective of Prince’s work at the Guggenheim Museum.
The Tate confirmed it has temporarily withdrawn the picture. Like the Henson case which was sparked by media complaints about the show, it is understood that London police visited the gallery after reading media coverage and previews of the upcoming exhibition in London’s newspapers.
[From British gallery removes nude Brooke Shields work - Arts - Entertainment]
When this started yesterday I knew that the comparisons would be drawn, that aspersions would be cast. I believe that the Tate has done everything correctly in this matter, with the initial legal consultation and the full police cooperation. I don’t know if withdrawing it was the right thing to do necessarily, however I do believe that the context in which it was presented was one that would necessarily cast the work in an even more contentious light. The concept of the exhibition is interesting, but the prevalence of explicit imagery and this piece presented in it’s own private room was, perhaps, inviting trouble.
However I know that many will be asking me here and asking the organizers over there – How does this case differ from the Henson case?
I was going to wait on this post until tomorrow but it appears now is the time- stay tuned.
Is the Brooke Shields Nude Art?
Spiritual America – Richard Prince (detail)
Prince described Shields’ appearance in the photograph as “a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it’s got a different birthday”.
Children’s campaigners reacted with dismay to the exhibition. Michele Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: “Brooke Shields was 10 years old when this picture was taken. She could not have given informed consent to it being used. It must be bordering on child pornography. It is certainly not art.
“If you are using a picture of a naked child to bring people to your exhibition, then you are exploiting that child. It’s as if they are using a 10-year-old girl for bait. I find it disturbing and they should be ashamed of themselves. And putting the picture in a room with a warning outside really is a magnet for paedophiles.”[From Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition - Telegraph]
I wanted to separate the post about the story itself from my opinion of the works and the situation because I don’t want the two getting clouded. plus it was already a very long post.
I think that to appreciate the Prince artwork it helps to know the story of the Gross artwork. My first reaction upon seeing the Prince artwork was sadness and creepiness. Then I saw the original. I am not publishing the original on this page in it’s entirety. I believe that this work is very sexualized and very inappropriate. as I dug further into the history of the piece I was further horrified by Shields’ mother selling her daughter and the rights to the works like that. the implication is that Brooke Shields had no say in the creation of the works- something that is backed up by the law suit a few years later. It is worse that the photographer and the magazines were affiliated with playboy.
Learning all this, I then took another look at the Prince re-interpretation. I was struck again by the sadness. this time, the work appeared to be a truthful look at a horrible reality. it seemed to condemn the original and emphasize the seedy setting. while the Gross photograph seemed to celebrate the sexualization of minors and child pornography this piece now seemed to condemn it.
do I find it uncomfortable? yes. it’s a difficult piece. it’s made more difficult by a further moral qualm I have – something that has little to do with the subject matter.
Prince made his career doing just what he did here, purchasing the rights to a work, photographing it and re-interpreting it somehow. the original photoshopping. I understand that legally everything Prince has done is correct. but the concept, to me, seems wrong. especially in the light of the legal battles which denied Brooke Shields the rights to the pieces. this artist was able to buy the works and bring them back out for the world to see.
So, the question on everyone’s lips is ‘is it art?’ the answer is a definite I don’t know. I have problems with the original, with the way the original was obtained and the way the re-interpretation was created. I have moral objections to the content matter and to the method of production. This piece however does create an emotional response. that is one of my criteria for art. It took the original and raised it to another level, but to be honest, the only direction the origional could go was up. the Gross photograph is definitely not art – I believe it was created with titillation and arousal as it’s objective and that makes it pornography in my books. the Prince version… I don’t know. what do you think? is it art?
(for the original story about this piece, the exhibition and to see the artworks in question please see my previous post – nude brooke shields at the tate causing furor)
Recent Comments