Brooke Shields naked pic yanked

A photo from The Brooke BookA nude photo of Brooke Shields taken when she was 10 years old has been yanked from the prestigious Tate Modern museum in London. Police visited the gallery, where the photo was set to be shown starting today as part of the “Pop Life: Art in a Material World” exhibition. Children’s advocates feared that the shot might attract and encourage pedophiles.

Photographer Gary Gross, who hired Brooke as a model with her mother’s consent, told the Daily Telegraph he did not consider the photo pornographic, saying the photographs he took of Brooke were “not sexually suggestive, provocative or pornographic. In order for it to be considered pornographic here, she would have to be doing something sensual or sexual. But she’s not. She’s just sitting in the bathtub.”

At age 11 Brooke played nude scenes as a child prostitute in the controversial film Pretty Baby. She and her mother sued unsuccessfully in 1981 to get control of the Gross’s negatives, but lost the court case, perhaps because a photo taken of Shields at the same shoot — in a bathtub, with the caption “What’s all the fuss about? I’m just having a good time”  — was published in The Brooke Book, a photo book released by the actress herself when she was 13 years old and then re-released in 1982. The photo above is not the photo in question, but another photo that appears in The Brooke Book.

Share this article:

Comments & Discussion

  1. Nancy • October 1, 2009 @ 6:06 PM

    She’s 10 in the photo. It should definately be pulled. It should not even be shown here on Tribute in my opinion.

  2. tributegirl • October 1, 2009 @ 6:28 PM

    This isn’t the photo they were talking about, Nancy, but agreed, even this one is not appropriate.
    I have a hard time understanding how her mother could allow nude photos of her taken at age 10, sensual or not, and how she could allow her to play the part of a child prostitute at age 11. I’m surprised she has turned out as well as she has.
    I’m happy that the museum has pulled the photo, because it would probably attract perverts.

  3. Kim • October 1, 2009 @ 10:13 PM

    I’ve seen two of the photos from the shoot. She’s heavily made up, and in one, is sitting on the side of a bathtub, seen from the side only, but from the knees up. In the other, she’s sitting in the bathtub, holding one of those things you use to blow soap bubbles with and she’s naked from the waist up, the rest of her is in water with soap bubbles. Not sure which one was in the exhibition, but the photo shown here is nothing compared to those. And none of this is anything compared to Pretty Baby. It was even more shocking that her mother let her do that movie, and shocking that she isn’t a mental case after doing it. They held her up, paraded her around the room (in a brothel, where her mother, played by Susan Sarandon, is a prostitute and is completely okay with what’s going on, has even coached the little girl on what to do) and offered her virginity to the highest bidder, which was of course, some creepy old guy and then let her go off with him alone in a room. Afterwards, she laughs and jokes about it and then offers herself to another guy (Keith Carradine), not quite as old, but in his late 30s, and goes to live with him, tempting him with sex so she can stay. At the end, when her mother comes back to get her from that guy, it’s subtly inferred that the mother’s new husband is going to be sleeping with the little girl.

  4. mandee • October 2, 2009 @ 2:20 AM

    “shocking that she isnt a mental case after doing it” ? i thought she was a mental case? maybe it was tom cruise saying she was? i forget.

    i agree, these pictures are disgusting and the fact that these days you cant even post pictures of your naked self on your computer (if you are underage) without it being child porn and you being charged as a pedophile, i think its disgusting that she was allowed to publish any pictures that look like this in any book, and im surprised that any museum was considering showing anything WORSE than this!!! talk about handing the kiddie porn over to the pedos. great job brooke, mrs shields and anyone else that had any part in this. definitely a classy bunch of people.

  5. DD • October 2, 2009 @ 8:38 AM

    SOME PEOPLE WILL DO ANYTHING FOR MONEY , INCLUDING SELLING YOUR KIDS. NOT LIKE THEY DIDNT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY ALREADY FROM HER MOVIES! NOW BILLY RAE IS DRESSING MILEY UP LIKE A HOOKER AND STRIPPER , THEY MUST BE REALLY POOR TOO AND NEED THE MONEY. HOOKERS AND STRIPPERS USED TO BE WOMEN THAT WERE FORCED INTO THE PROFESSION BY NOT HAVING ANY OTHER CHOICE, OR DRUG ADDICTED WOMEN. BUT NOW ALL THESE RICH GIRLS ARE MAKING IT LOOK GLAMOUROUS, HARD TO IMAGINE WHATS IN THEIR HEADS $ SIGNS I GUESS

  6. mandee • October 2, 2009 @ 9:58 AM

    billy RAY cant decide how his teenager dresses. miley is old enough (and rich enough) to make her own wardrobe decisions. as far as im concerned, theres nothing wrong with the way she dresses. she is only acting her age.

  7. judy • October 2, 2009 @ 10:14 AM

    I really like Brooke Shields…. but the picture should DEFINITELY BE PULLED! Her mother should never have let her do the pictures let alone the movie. Her mother is supposed to protect her… strange.

  8. Gewher • October 2, 2009 @ 11:37 AM

    She and her mother and whoever else worked on the photos and movie should probably be charged with Child Pornography. I don’t care about the sake of art or some such nonsense. It’s a child we’re talking about and these aren’t just innocent family photos of the kids in the bathtub that your mother pulls out around Christmas time. This is a public display of child nudity. What is wrong with people this day and age?

  9. Moviefan • October 2, 2009 @ 1:37 PM

    In this day and age? Well, this happened 30 years ago, I’m guessing things were different back then — hopefully we’ve come a long way, although maybe not in Hollywood where so many are saying Roman Polanski should just walk free, despite having sodomized a 13-year-old. Thank goodness there’s a handful in Hollywood who actually think that’s still wrong, even if the guy is a talented director. It doesn’t give him the right to be a pedophile.

  10. Nancy • October 2, 2009 @ 4:09 PM

    Moviefan: TOTALLY agree! When I did the poll and submitted ‘yes, he should serve a long jail term’, I couldn’t believe that so many people chose to free him!!! Like WTF?

    Gewher: I wouldn’t want to be a member of your family during the Christmas holidays! Hahahaha. Not if your mom pulls out the photos of the naked kids in the bathtub! OMG. I couldn’t imagine.

  11. tributegirl • October 2, 2009 @ 4:16 PM

    Kim, I’ve never seen the movie, but that sounds totally disgusting. How could anyone allow their child to perform in a movie like that, let alone have those pictures taken?
    Gewher, I don’t think Brooke should be charged, she was a child when it all happened (the “victim”?), but her mother and others definitely should be charged.
    Mandee, I think it was Tom who said she was wrong for taking medication for post-partum depression or something like that, Tom doesn’t believe in anything like that.

  12. Kim • October 2, 2009 @ 9:27 PM

    Yeah, tributegirl, it was pretty disturbing. I saw it on TV a couple of months ago. It was Brooke’s “big break”, that’s what made her famous, I guess some parents will do anything to make their kids stars.

  13. Minerva • October 2, 2009 @ 10:00 PM

    Straight out, her mother is a pimp. Selling a child’s body to make money for herself. Same thing….using your child’s body to sell child porn to make money……pimp.

  14. Bev • October 3, 2009 @ 8:48 AM

    Child porn is child porn….until the person is legal age, there should not be nude or suggestive photo’s taken( or this type of parts in movie’s given)as there r perverts out there that will be drawn to this and only feed their illnesses…..

  15. Dang • October 3, 2009 @ 6:08 PM

    I never understood how people never thought to question the mother’s intentions and motives AND mental state–she is the sick one here! That the photos could end up in the wrong hands is one thing but for them to have ever been taken is beyond me. If pictures of naked children was considered normal, you would see more of them, but you don’t because it’s just not acceptable! I don’t care how beautiful you think your 10-year-old daughter is–to have her photographed nude is pretty stupid, what were these people thinking? Why not just have her model in the Sears catalogue instead??

  16. Alice • October 3, 2009 @ 9:21 PM

    She did model for Sears. Also for Ivory soap, McCalls & Simplicity patterns, Band-Aid, Breck shampoo, Danskin (in a skating outfit), Gimbels, Seventeen, and countless others. She was one of the top kid models in the ’70s.

  17. Bill • January 1, 2012 @ 8:36 PM

    I am immensely surprised by how little any of you people know about the 70’s.
    there were romance novels about teens having sex with adults and other teens.
    And it was very much a different time back then. pedophiles and other sexual predators were not as publicly known or as prevalent as they are now. Part of the problem nowadays is that some people (like some who posted here) see pornography in anything involving a nude body. Some things are just porn veiled as art, but so many more were real works of art, and now artists are afraid to even consider creating such works. The pictures of Brooke Shields appear to be an attempt at artistic portrayal, though leaning a bit towards the pornographic, but not nearly as much as the media and others suggest.

Join The Conversation:

Similar Articles

Trending Articles

Current Poll

  • Which is your favorite horror film to watch for Halloween?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

You Might Also Like


Close Menu