I am kind shocked about the Richard Prince / Tate Modern drama involving an image of Brooke Shields that was taken when she was ten years old, not because I think it was wrong of the British police to censor it - but because I think it was right. Prince did not take the original picture in question, rather photographer Gary Gross did in 1975 commissioned by Brooke’s mother Teri; a sad attempt to catapult her daughter’s fame. After the shoot Teri Shields immediately signed away the rights to the photograph and it was soon featured in Playboy magazine- which obviously sparked a lot of controversy- and soon became the subject of an obscenity case, where the judge ruled it was not, in fact, an illegal image. This motivated Prince to then “re photograph” the image in 1978 titling it “Spiritual America”, and is in the style of most of his work (appropriating iconic American and sometimes shocking images to challenge the context of art in the museum and culture). This piece was set to be displayed in the Tate’s new show; Pop Life: Art in the Material World, but the image was taken down before the show opened. This fiasco (and it is most definitely) has brought up a lot of issues involving what is acceptable as art, and what is acceptable in a society. In America child pornography is defined by media of a minor in a sexual situation - in the photograph Brooke is merely standing in a bathtub and even though her pose, set, and makeup speak of a sexual nature - technically it is legal. In England however the definition is a little more vague- hence the controversy of displaying Prince’s image in a public space.
I believe in freedom of speech. Brooke wasn’t physically hurt in the making of the photograph and while I do believe she was put in a situation she had no control of and that could be deemed incredibly embarrassing - her mother had the right to make this (bad) choice and it was and is legal. What I do have a problem with is Richard Prince’s role in this situation. I understand that there have been many images produced of idyllic naked children photographed in bathtubs and in meadows, pictorialsm that was quite popular at the turn of the century, and while this picture is in obvious reference to that movement it is shattered by the vulgarity of modern cinema and the shock of seeing a young actress displayed as a sexual object. The title choice for the work is “Spiritual America” - an obvious dig at the fact that this picture is legal and therefor permissible in American society (the fact that this photograph was immediately sold, displayed, and exploited by a popular men’s magazine speaks volumes about our culture) - but what is Prince really accomplishing by showing it again; retitled and blown up? I get that Prince is using this to hold a mirror up, forcing us to look at ourselves as individuals and members of a society but seriously? Damn the transformative qualities of the art context a museum can lend to a subversive image -anyone who looks at this photograph knows that a young girl was taken advantage of (Brooke unsuccessfully tried to buy the negatives back in 1981), and the fact that Prince is perpetuating this under the guise of art is tragic. Obviously her mother is responsible for the creation of this image, but in the act of rephotographing and appropriating it Prince shares in that responsibility and is just as guilty of exploiting a ten year old’s sexuality (and I suppose the curators have a piece of this pie as well)- no matter how old or famous she is today. When it works; controversial imagery in a museum can be a vehicle for dialogue and change in a society, but I think that this is not the case. There is no success in this controversy, it is way too after the fact and sadly, still at the expense of a woman who has never had a say. Being labeled as art and displayed in a famous museum does not validate or provide a cover for inappropriate and offensive work- and putting a child’s body in a sexual context is a big deal, one that transcends the purpose of pushing the boundaries of modern art. I actually really like Richard Prince’s work and how it can challenge the paradigms of American culture but this? This is too much. I am interested in what the curators have to say about their display choices but honestly, I hope it stays down.
