Tate Modern to display nude picture of 10-year-old Brooke Shields alongside giant pornographic images

A nude photograph of Brooke ShieldsBrooke Shields at the age of ten is to be displayed at the Tate Modern.

The decision to display the photograph of the actress has shocked critics, who yesterday called for it to be withdrawn.

They claimed the work, entitled Spiritual America, could attract paedophiles to the gallery.

The image will go on display from tomorrow in an exhibition also featuring explicit sex acts and works made from the covers of pornography magazines.

Richard Prince's 1983 image of Miss Shields shows her naked, oiled and wearing make-up, looking directly at the viewer.

It is hung in a room at the gallery in London with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image 'challenging'.

The artist described it as 'an extremely complicated photo of a naked girl who looks like a boy made up to look like a woman'.

But Michele Elliott, founder of the children's charity Kidscape, called the image 'obscene' and 'soft kiddy porn'.

She added: 'Putting a sign on the door like that means every paedophile in the land will head straight to that room.'

Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said parents of young girls would be shocked by the decision to show the image.

A spokesman for the Tate said the photograph was 'an important work' and had taken legal advice before displaying it.

The work is in fact a photo of another photo of Miss Shields, taken by Gary Gross in 1975.

In the 1980s, Miss Shields and her mother made an unsuccessful legal attempt to stop him republishing the picture.

Child abuse campaigners are furious at Tate Modern gallery's decision to show an 'obscene' picture of a naked 10-year-old Brooke Shields.

Critics have called for the image of the star to be withdrawn from the new exhibition, saying it was unacceptable.

Gallery chiefs themselves admit they sought legal advice before including the picture, titled Spiritual America, in the Pop Life: Art In A Material World show.

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

Richard Prince's image of Shields is hung in a special room at the south London gallery with a notice on the door warning visitors they may find the image 'challenging'.

Prince's picture was originally shown anonymously in a disused shop in a run-down area of New York, and the Tate show is believed to be the work's first appearance in a UK gallery.

The original Gross picture was taken after the artist hired Shields to pose as a model in 1975 and is said to have been done with her mother's consent.

When the photographer later tried to republish the pictures in the 1980s Shields and her mother launched a legal battle to stop him, but he won the case.

Michele Elliott founder of children's charity Kidscape criticised the gallery's decision to exhibit the picture as a work of art.

She said: 'This is the kind of excuse people make for showing soft kiddy porn and I can't think anyone would want their child portrayed this way and I think it is obscene to do so. She is not old enough at that age to give consent for this to be taken.

'This has been put in a pouty adult way, it sounds like, and to masquerade under the guise of edgy art is ridiculous. It is soft kiddy porn.

'Putting a sign on the door like that means every paedophile in the land will head straight to that room.'

She added: 'I don't care if they show naked adults, I have got no trouble with nudity, but I do have trouble with children being portrayed in sexually provocative ways. They should have stuck with their gut feeling and excluded this work.'

Religious groups have also hit out at the decision.

Simon Calvert, a spokesman for The Christian Institute added: 'I think that any parent of young girls would just be so shocked to hear that a tax-payer funded gallery thinks it is alright to show photographs of a nude ten-year-old in the middle of a pornography exhibition.

'How far do things have to go before we eventually say enough is enough.'

'They took legal advice to see what they could get away with. Why didn't they take advice from ordinary parents and the public as to what's appropriate.'

Jack Bankowsky, the exhibitions co-curator, said he hoped the artistic interest in Spiritual America would not be overshadowed by controversy over its content.

He said: 'I hope that people respond to what is provocative and understand what the artist was trying to achieve.

'If it turned into that kind of brouhaha it would overwhelm the work and become a monosyllabic conversation.'

Prince wanted the viewer to respond to the 'eeriness' of Gross' original image, Mr Bankowsky said.

A spokesman for the Tate said they had given careful consideration to the work and the reaction it could provoke before including it in the exhibition.

'As with any artwork that contains challenging imagery, Tate has sought legal advice and evaluated the situation,' the spokesman said.

'Tate has taken measures to inform visitors of the nature of the work, providing information outlining the intentions of the artist.

'This is an important work by Richard Prince which has been publicly exhibited on a number of occasions, most recently in Richard Prince's major retrospective, Spiritual America, at the Guggenheim in New York.'