title removed by admin

Status
Not open for further replies.
art. but irresponsible art, sexualising a child.

i'm going to be honest and tell you i'm asking laurel to delete it.
 
The 70's was fuckin' weird.

And yeah, delete that.
 
Calling it art the pornographers refrain, and I agree delete it.
 
Brooke's mother, Teri Shields, was paid $450 for the photo shoot, which was for a publication owned by Playboy.

In 1981, a US Court ruled the images as not pornographic.

Imagine the reaction today to such a shoot.
 
Brooke's mother, Teri Shields, was paid $450 for the photo shoot, which was for a publication owned by Playboy.

In 1981, a US Court ruled the images as not pornographic.

Imagine the reaction today to such a shoot.

that's sad. and disgusting.
 
Brooke's mother, Teri Shields, was paid $450 for the photo shoot, which was for a publication owned by Playboy.

In 1981, a US Court ruled the images as not pornographic.

Imagine the reaction today to such a shoot.

Uhuh. Things change in 35 years. Mostly for the better. Imagine that.

Which is probably why you should heed the advice given and repeated in this here thread.
 
These remind me of those pics in the seventies of Samantha Gates. She was the blond haired child on the cover of Houses of the Holy and starred in a couple of horror movies too. The photographer Hajime Sawatari did several shoots of her, one supposed to be of the Alice theme, most very sexualised and horrible, some innocent and lovely.

I wonder what she makes of them now.
 
I was wondering the same thing with Thora Birch in the movie, "American Beauty". There's a scene where she exposes her breasts to the neighbor boy through her bedroom window. At the time, I thought her breasts were spectacular. Later, I found out that she was 16 at the time. The filmmakers got permission from the parents. I always wondered at the time how that didn't violate any State or Federal child pornography laws.

On another note, I read that Thora Birch's parents were in the movie, "Deep Throat".

Her mom (Carol Connors):

http://25.media.tumblr.com/10dac7bdc859716ee7ce4c846f1d59f9/tumblr_mny946bMnx1r4bcn2o1_1280.jpg
 
Uhuh. Things change in 35 years. Mostly for the better. Imagine that.
It's really only been 15 years.
From the site where the photos are
The story, nevertheless, had an unexpected development. In 1992, a contemporary artist called Richard Prince approached Gross about buying the rights to use and reproduce the image of Brooke Shields. In his artistic work, Prince appropriates pictures by rephotographing them, recontextualizing them and giving them a title. The picture of Brooke Shields, for example, is entitled Spiritual America. Gross was willing to retrocede his rights to Prince for a series of ten prints. Prince became a star of the contemporary art scene and his picture was sold at Christies in 1999 for $151,000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top