Press enter to see results or esc to cancel.

Images of 10-Year Old Brooke Shields Displayed in London Gallery

brooke_shields_de_garry_gross

Like crap masquerading as art? Like kiddie porn? Well, it’s your lucky day, fuckwad. An incredibly disturbing 1975 picture of a completely nude and oiled 10-year old Brooke Shields is being displayed at the “Spiritual America, in the Pop Life: Art In A Material World” at the Tate Modern Gallery in South London. The Daily Mail says

Richard Prince’s image of Shields shows her from the knees up, naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.

His exhibition also features huge sexually explicit images of penetration and works made from the pages of pornographic magazines.

The picture was [originally taken by photographer Gary Gross] after the artist hired Shields to pose as a model in 1975 and is said to have been done with her mother’s consent.

Thanks to the magic of the internet, I managed to find the pictures in question (there’s more than one), but they are so disturbing and sexually explicit that I WILL NOT put them up here. It’s fucking kiddie porn, pure and simple. It’s disgusting. It’s the kind of stuff that makes your stomach turn. The worst part is knowing that Brooke Shields’ mother signed off on them. She gave some pervert license to oil up her daughter, paint her like a Turkish prostitute, and photograph her naked in a bathtub holding a hand mirror. Throw in some quaaludes and a bottle of champagne and you’ve just walked into Roman Polanski’s wet dream. Fuck her, and fuck all of Hollywood (Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, for starters — full list of names here) for signing off on a petition to free Polanski and for claiming it’s not “rape-rape” (Whoopi Goldberg) when a 43-year old man takes naked pictures of a child, then gives them alcohol and sedatives and anally rapes them despite their pleas that he stop.

I went back and forth on whether to post a link to the pictures — by no means do I want to encourage people to look at pornographic images of underage girls — but on the other hand, I also feel that people need to know what’s being funded by their tax dollars under the guise of “avant-garde and socially challenging art.” In a way, you’re paying for it. So ultimately, I’m leaving that decision you. See them uncensored here. And may God have mercy on your souls.

UPDATE: Your outrage has been validated! Police removed the photograph from the Tate Gallery today on the grounds that it violated child pornography laws.