Strike the pose

In the news last week: Tate Modern’s new exhibition, Pop Life: Art in a Material World, has run into trouble over one of the items on display: a nude photograph of Brooke Shields. Veteran Gary Gross took the picture when Shields was ten years old, and the work is presented as the basis of a room by Richard Prince. It is the first time Prince’s room has been displayed in the UK. And although the Tate insists they consulted with lawyers before deciding on the piece, the gallery has now decided to close the room, prompted by a visit from the Metropolitan police.

Naturally, this raises all kinds of questions involving censorship, decency and legality, but a more specific question is the treatment of the image in the confines of the exhibition. How we see something is at least partly decided by its context.

On the surface, and judging by its title, Pop Life: Art in a Material World is an exhibition concerned with the relationship between art and commerce in a society post-mechanical reproduction. We have Warhol wallpaper, a Keith Harring shop, Takashi Murakami as polymath pop-art producer.

However, really, the show is about both extremity and exploitation. There is exploitation of the artist as a self-made brand (Jeff Koons, Andy Warhol, Damien Hirst, Keith Harring), the artist exploiting the boundary between personal and private (Tracey Emin, Andrea Arnold) or the artist crawling along the borderline of taste (the Prince piece, or the photos of actors portraying Nazis). It’s about audacity and pushing boundaries, as well as being about the triumph of money over taste, and about the recycling of images for different means. The product is not as important as the image it projects. It’s the idea that matters, that sells.

In another exhibition, Prince’s work might be placed asuch so it would be judged on aesthetic value. Would this make much of a difference? In this exhibition it appears as an example of the treatment of celebrity, of how an artist treats, how he recycles, a pre-existing image. Is this its only merit as an artwork? Does this count it as cheap, shocking? Possibly not, if the image is strong and effective enough.

Ultimately, it’s one of those lines of questioning that is more important than any answers that will be delivered (which will almost probably be less than definitive). It asks how far it is acceptable to go. You can say all you want about censorship, taste and the law, but what is most interesting is that we are still discussing this issue in what is, according to the exhibition, a world where anything (be it Koon's erection, Emin's troubling childhood or images of actors as Nazis) can be bought, sold, changed, used and exploited.