The Art Gallery of NSW is ducking claims that photos of a very young Kate Moss are pornography rather than art. Of course adult art lovers are not offended and there is no doubt about the beauty of the girl.
However the real point of the story is the pressure that was applied to young Kate Moss by photographers and the advertising agency when shots like that were taken, among other things for Calvin Klein.
One British couple visiting the gallery, both aged 65 and who previously lived in the London borough of Croydon when Moss attended the local Riddlesdown High School in 1989 when the picture was taken, considered the image a problem. “[Moss] did talk about how she felt exploited when she was young and she had a nervous breakdown about it,” said the woman. “You don’t know how much pressure she was under to do a topless photo. I certainly wouldn’t feel comfortable if it was my child.”
This story was covered on 2GB (The Power Station) this morning, probably by Ray Hadley. He reported statements by Kate Moss that she was stood over to get the pictures, because otherwise she would be dropped from the roster at the agency, one day she locked herself in a toilet and cried before the take, and another time she broke down and spent two weeks in bed because she was so unhappy about it. So what do the trustees of the Art Gallery of NSW think about that?
Did she ever prosecute the people who pressured her into doing those photos? What does Kate Moss now think of them, and does she want them removed?
She was probably sensible enough to get on with her life and keep away from ambulance-chasing lawyers.
Even if she would like them removed she is probably smart enough to know that any complaint on her part would achieve nothing but stir up old memories and arouse more voyeuristic interest.
Nuke, what do you thing about the way the pictures were obtained?
Since Kate Moss had anorexia and abused heroin it may be she’d been exploited from an early age and developed psychological disorders.
Knickers in a twist time, and time to get all “pedophobic” again !
Really, I thought that the Cat was beyond this sort of parody “ZOMG ! Nekkid 15 year old in photo ! What do you think is appropriate, burn the photos, burn any books that it ever appeared in, burn the photographer?
Oh, and BTW, don’t go to the beach, kiddies of 10-12 wear ALMOST NOTHING !!!
If they did use verbal pressure, then that is totally immoral- but what laws would have been broken? How would you have proved it in a court of law? Was it extreme pressure, or just the normal give and take of a negotiation over her work?
I think her parents should have been there at all times, if she was still a minor, to protect her from such influence.
Was she under age when the photos were taken? If so, wouldn’t that be a legal problem?
To me it’s all about consent. If she was forced into these photos then I think it’s a huge problem. If she did it willingly, then basically move along, nothing to see.
Consent to the photos could only have been given by a parent or guardian. At 15 Moss would lack capacity to sign a contract of release.
If there’s no consent, the Art Gallery has a problem.
Ed Snack
Projecting much?
I know you expect a “pedo inspector general” approach because thia is supposedly a “right” site, but stick around you might be surprised.
The pictures are just that, inanimate objects, and I think it may be well past time the whole “18″ bit was re-examined.
To a large extent the amount of naked/1/2 naked self shots by underage girls makes a mockery of the law.
BUT that said, if her recollection is right of extreme pressure then that picture is recording abuse of a sort.
Tricky stuff.
Yep, absolutely.
Yes, because Kate Moss is so poor and downtrodden that she can’t possibly afford to go to court to get an injunction to have them taken out of public view if she wanted.
Look I think she should have the right to do that if she wants, but seriously, people who think photographs of a young girl’s breasts (or any breasts) are pornographic are the ones who have a perverted sexuality.
(I’m not claiming that the latter are readers of this site)
The word blackmail comes to mind. Who was the blackmailer? Surely Jason will know?
Wow, so it is ok to exploit women if they have money.
What?
If it was a 15 year old boy with pictures of his genitalia would it be different? Just because it’s a 15 year old girl doesn’t make it right or healthy …
breasts are not genitalia.
‘breasts are not genitalia’
Private parts, then.
Thefrollickingmole, no projection here, but you ? And I don’t get why you think I should expect any sort of “pedo inspector general approach” because the Cat is “right”, why on earth should you suggest that ?
I’ve been around the Cat for many years, commenting relatively infrequently so I know perfectly well what to expect. That’s why I make fun of the “tabloid” style post heading. Commentor “Rob” above has it nailed IMHO, leave this sort of “ooh ooh underage naughty bits on show at a (wait for it) Art Gallery!” to the cheap-shot brigade.
I have to say Moss looks rather hard now.
She was certainly never a classical beauty.
The nub of the issue is consent.
Any 15 yo – but particularly those aspiring to be models – cannot give legitimate consent for nude or suggestive photography
“Wow, so it is ok to exploit women if they have money.”
FFS Token he said NOTHING of the sort.
Rob was simply pointing out that if Kate Moss had a problem with them then she has the resources and influence to strop them being displayed.
The fact she hasn’t said a word implies that she doesn’t have a problem with them.
I don’t know what happened back then. Maybe it was bad. But if someone feels ashamed of their teenage breasts and doesn’t want them seen in public, and if they have pretty much unlimited ability to deal with it via the law, and they don’t deal with it that way, I personally would presume that it is not a major priority for them. It is not uncommon for celebrities to suppress earlier photographs of themselves.
Breasts absolutely are not genitalia. Re your putative boy, I presume he would be too young to consent, and it is a separate issue to a model displaying her breasts, the display of which is commonly an aspect of their profession; a profession that routinely begins in adolescence and offers great rewards to a select few.
In law the decision as to whether a 15yo is competent to consent to medical procedures including for example abortion and even huge procedures like sex change is not treated as a blanket issue, and is judged based on the intellectual and social aspects of the individual concerned. I think it reasonable that something as trivial as having one’s breasts exposed be treated the same way.
What makes this sort of thing “suggestive”? What is suggestive about a 15yo’s breasts? Please enlighten me as nothing is suggested to me.
Here’s an inconvenient fact for the ‘art’ purists. When adult models are involved art is basically a free for all where anything can be shown. Like if Catherine Deveney wanted a close-up of her corn hole shown at an art gallery that would pass. (and likely get first prize)
But when it comes to the underage models restraint is being exercised. See above a commenter says “breasts aren’t genitals” as if it makes a difference how rude the part is. Bill Henson’s teenage nudes are subtle black and whites from a distance.
If artists do exercise restraint with teenage models why so?
Small breasts suggest youthfulness, and thus innocence, and/or virginity. Thus, as-yet unexploited womanhood.
Time to change hands Rob,you could finish up with RSI otherwise.
Moron alert!!
“Knickers in a twist time, and time to get all “pedophobic” again !
Really, I thought that the Cat was beyond this sort of parody “ZOMG ! Nekkid 15 year old in photo ! What do you think is appropriate, burn the photos, burn any books that it ever appeared in, burn the photographer?
Oh, and BTW, don’t go to the beach, kiddies of 10-12 wear ALMOST NOTHING !!!”
Pedophobic is banning parents from filming their kids swimming in a pool. Pedophobic is having touching bans in school between children.
Having an issue with an underage girl being pressured into being photographed nude is not pedophobic. It is a milder version of an underage girl being pressured into having sex.
The Beer Whisperer ain’t no prude, but pressuring anyone of any age into being photographed naked is morally repugnant, never mind the issues of liberty.
That would be an impossibility rob
No, I was making the point that Candy was comparing showing a woman’s breasts to showing a man’s genitals.
Surely the comparison would be showing a man’s breasts, in which case we would never heard about this.
I said breasts aren’t genitals because they are not in fact genitals. They have nothing to do with sex whatsoever. They are for feeding babies.
Yobbo the opinion that breasts are in a lower category of rudeness is very common, so it’s not about you. My point is that when it comes to underage models the artists are obviously pushing a boundary which doesn’t exist when adults are used.
Ugh, I see that FauxFacts left it some important details. No surprises.
Bolta read out some background to the Moss photos on the Bolt/Price show last night:
When I heard this I came to agree that those photos should not be on display.
The funny part of this whiny story is that anxiety is exactly what Valium is prescribed for.
Good to know though that stupid bint trusted the medical opinion of her photographer over her doctor.
Kate Moss should have signed up with a better agency, one that didn’t pressure young models. After all, if they just want a young look, there are plenty of adults who have the size and looks to portray teens (Pia Miranda, for instance, could still get teenage rolls if she wanted, despite being over 29.)
Pia Miranda can’t get any work at all. She’s been in 1 film in the past 5 years.
Oh for Christ’s sake not a moral panic in a Catallaxy teacup! Who gives a shit? Did they force her to become a model at gunpoint?
I expect all my employees to cry in the toilet before presenting for work. And that’s just for office admin!!
This whole beatup, and the similar ones about Hensen’s work, are more a sad reflection on the twisted values of our society than anything else. I don’t know if anyone else here watched Michael Palin’s recent doco about Brazil, but there were any number of topless 15 year old girls in one of the villages he visited. In fact, all females of all ages were topless. I don’t see any newspaper articles berating Mr Palin for producing this documentary.
The issue of consent is another one entirely. I presume in Moss’s case the agency had parental consent.
It brings into question “whats the damage”?
Is a picture of a 145 year old in Rio going to cause the same “damage” a similar picture will cause in the “West”?
If it doesnt then surely that point to most of the “damage” being imaginary in the first place?
Oh FFS, 15 year old, not 145…
http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/image/0011/416954/IMG_2638.jpg
C.L.
Not topless, Cthulhu still sleeps, the ultimate horror avoided…for now.
Mrs Magoo at the opening of Pariament. Third from the left, shorthand book at the ready.
Quick,get out the sledgehammers and start pulverising the stone cherubs on the old buildings.After all,they are nude.
Beer Whisperer, you are quite right to post that warning, you do appear to be a moron.
Kate Moss makes a good story, but it’s a “moral panic” dog-whistle post, as, may I remark, most of the above comments seem to realize.
Sorry I am a bit late to this one, but how legitimate if at all is the hanging of so-called “art” in the gallery, when it was originally a shoot for a specific purpose ie. advertising.
Did her contract release include permission for the shots to be used elsewhere?