iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Gary Gross Dead: Photographer Of Young, Nude Brooke Shields Dies

CRISTIAN SALAZAR   12/07/10 09:40 PM ET  AP

NEW YORK — Garry Gross, a fashion photographer known for his 1970s nude images of Brooke Shields, taken when she was 10 years old, has died in Manhattan, his sister said Tuesday. He was 73.

His sister, Linda Gross, said he died Nov. 30 from a heart attack at his home in the Greenwich Village neighborhood. "He'll be sorely missed by family and friends alike," his sister said when reached by The Associated Press by telephone at his studio.

Though Garry Gross earned his reputation as a celebrity image-maker – his pictures graced the covers of albums by Whitney Houston and Lou Reed – in 2002 he switched careers and became certified as a dog trainer.

Most recently, he had turned to photographing portraits of canines, including such notable dogs as talk show host Rachael Ray's pit bull Isaboo.

But it was the 1970s images of Shields that marked his career most significantly.

In 1975, the actress' mother, Teri Shields, consented to allow her daughter, then a child model, to be photographed nude for a Playboy Press publication. She and her mother earned $450 for the shoot, which included a full-frontal nude image of the girl standing in a bathtub.

When Shields' acting career took off years later, she said she was embarrassed by the continued circulation of the images. At 17, Shields sued Gross in New York to stop him from selling the images, arguing they were an invasion of her privacy and caused her embarrassment.

But after a lower court granted her an injunction, the state's Court of Appeals decided 4 to 3 that the teenager could not break the contract signed by her mother that allowed Gross to take the pictures.

The court said Gross could continue to market the photos except to pornographic publications.

The photo shoot continued to make headlines decades later. In 2009, one of the images, appropriated by American artist Richard Prince for a work, had to be withdrawn by the Tate Modern museum in London after Scotland Yard warned that the image could break obscenity laws.

Jane Feldman, who managed the studio on Broadway and East 20th Street where the photographs of Shields were taken, said they were part of a series intended to explore young women coming of age.

"Garry saw it as art," she said. "It's an exploration, but it was done with great respect," she added. "Yes, it's intriguing, it's provocative."

But she said the protracted court battle cost him his career, saddling him with legal fees and marring his reputation among art directors.

"He went through periods of times where he was really angry about it," she said.

Gross was born in New York City on Nov. 6, 1937. After college, he studied under photographers Francesco Scavullo, Lisette Model and Richard Avedon.

After winning the court case against Shields in 1981, Gross went to Italy, where he worked for an agency. Upon returning to the U.S., he left the fashion industry and became a dog trainer in 2002.

It was while training dogs that he became interested in photographing them and soon grew interested in the plight of senior dogs, his sister said.

"He was very concerned about the destiny of old dogs," Linda Gross said. "When their owners die, they end up in shelters. But people don't typically want to take them home."

She said he had hoped to produce a book about aging dogs and had taken many photographs for the yet-unpublished work.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST STYLE

Filed by Hilary Moss  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 55
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
06:30 PM on 12/12/2010
I won't call him a creep (although he might be) but I don't think what he did was right. It could be a work of art in many ways only if shown to people who value art.
photo
Counterglow
Werner Heisenberg may have been right.
01:17 AM on 12/10/2010
It's a shame we've reached a stage where well-executed, non-sexual images of a pre-pubescent girl are considered pornographic; depending on one's culture, it's reasonable to decide that they might not be suitable for casual display. Only a deviate could become aroused by looking at these photographs, and we're all in trouble if we start letting the possible reaction of perverts determine what we allow as a society. I question the motives of Shields' mother, who did far more to sexualize the photographs than the photographer ever did.
photo
sdgrrl
Stay independent and always question your leaders.
03:51 AM on 12/10/2010
Counterglow- by all means- find a great artistic photographer, build a trusting relationship with them, let them take artistic nude photos of your children and have them displayed all over the internet and the world.

Then when your children are grown- ask them how they felt about it.
photo
Counterglow
Werner Heisenberg may have been right.
08:04 AM on 12/10/2010
You miss the point. Honi soit qui mal y pense.
photo
sdgrrl
Stay independent and always question your leaders.
04:01 AM on 12/10/2010
Our logic and beliefs are obviously different and I am actually annoyed at myself that I have allowed you to momentarily annoy me. Defend these pics all you like- it's your life. I'm not going to waste my energy on a cowboy keyboard duel with you. There is absolutely no point. You will never change the way i see this and I will never change the way you see this. Pointless expended energy.
photo
Counterglow
Werner Heisenberg may have been right.
08:05 AM on 12/10/2010
Agreed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:57 PM on 12/09/2010
Some of you guys are amazing, defending this creep. It's not the fact that he took the pictures; if he wants to call it art, fine. But if a 16-yr old girl didn't want her naked body to be seen by any old man who picks up a Playboy magazine, you'd have to be pretty heartless not to honor their wishes.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:39 PM on 12/09/2010
btw, that link was the least racy. no full frontal nudity. the others are floating around. her mother should have been smacked.
12:13 AM on 12/10/2010
This is wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:32 PM on 12/09/2010
ten year olds don't belong in playboy publications.
ten year old little girls shouldn't be posed nude and photographed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
10:20 PM on 12/09/2010
Pretty Baby 1978 Brooke Shields
http://bit.ly/f1Qc1N
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
09:51 PM on 12/09/2010
The photos helped Brooke Shields launch her very successful career. She should be glad they were taken and proud of how she looked in them.

There are a few years in a girl's life when she is not yet a woman, she old enough to be very pretty, already self-aware, and yet she is just a girl.

At no point in her life was she unpleasant to they eye. Make what you will of the photos. There is nothing inherently vulgar about her being nude.

There was no shame about the photos until the screaming puritans began to get their way. I would say it depends on the girl, the photographer, and the nature of the photos. These were tasteful like renaissance art.

If they were crude and looked like porn, they would be embarrassing, but they are not like porn and they are not crude.

The reason I'm not troubled by the photos is because the subject is a girl. If pictures were taken of a boy, that would be going against the dignity of a man. That would certainly offend me. Feminists and gays will be angry at my blatant double standard. So be it.

These pictures of Brooke Shields - I cannot imagine how they would be an embarrassment to her. Only if people try to stress her, and criticize her mother, which isn't very nice. Condolences to his family. He was a good photographer.
photo
Citydancer
The New America...center-left and proudly liberal
04:41 PM on 12/09/2010
Her mom must have really been going through some stuff to allow those photos to be taken. That abuse would be hard to forgive as an adult. And I don't care how the photographers dress up their intentions, it borders on child porn to me. Those photos shouldn't be seen anymore.

Wonder why Brooke doesn't buy the rights and negatives? Obviously money is most important to those slimballs.
photo
Counterglow
Werner Heisenberg may have been right.
01:21 AM on 12/10/2010
I'm awfully glad you aren't in a position to make choices for me about the difference between art and pornography. I see nothing whatsoever sexual in those pictures.
photo
sdgrrl
Stay independent and always question your leaders.
03:33 AM on 12/10/2010
I'm awfully sad a 10 year old wasn't in control of her life to decide if she was really ready to have beautiful, but naked pictures taken of her and put all over for the world to see. Are you a parent? Just curious?
03:43 AM on 12/10/2010
The problem is that there are those who would. How could a mother subject her child to have photos taken for someone to leer at.
10:58 PM on 12/08/2010
I can't imagine why someone would let nude photos of their ten year old be published by Playboy for $450. Nude photos in and of themselves isn't that bad, but Playboy? I would be unhappy with my mom if she had contracted to have nude pictures of my in Playboy when I was ten. Gross.
09:50 PM on 12/08/2010
Those pictures were taken for a project called "The Woman in the Child," in which Gross sought to explore sexuality in prepubescent girls. It was partially financed by Playboy Press.
06:59 PM on 12/08/2010
The photos are art photos, a prepubescent child standing in water, nothing noteworthy to write home about or Scotland Yard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kellybelle22
Medicine. Marriage. Motherhood.
06:28 PM on 12/08/2010
I look at my baby girl and my 20-year-old, and I wonder the same thing several of you have, too. How did Brooke's mother allow her child to have those pictures taken? It's not something I could even dream of allowing. I gather Brooke must have been just as horrified, and I'm sure that now, as the mother of two girls herself, she must be mystified at her mother's decision.
06:55 PM on 12/08/2010
There is nothing horrifying about the photo. Obviously, you haven't seen it or the movie.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
karela
12:28 AM on 12/09/2010
There's something pretty nasty about continuing to hawk them long after it has become obvious that they are very painful to the person they were taken of and who had no choice in it. Are you honestly so innocent that you think that there weren't people who viewed full frontal nudes of a famous little girl as pornography and used them sexually? Pretty nasty of the mother and the photographer. I don't care how innocent they seem. Would you really do that to your child? Would you be sorry when she was a humiliated teenager?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
usamade
05:55 PM on 12/08/2010
Brooke should have been taken away from her mother after those photos were taken. What kind of mother does such a thing?
07:01 PM on 12/08/2010
9 year old girls routinely bathe topless on beaches throughout the world.

It is you who may have issues.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:51 PM on 12/09/2010
But images of their bodies aren't sold to men's magazines for profit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ruffmama
your ad here.....inquire within.
04:38 PM on 12/08/2010
omg...those pictures are horrifying.

How is this guy not in jail....and her mother in jail for allowing them?

How was this even considered acceptable?

I am just. stunned.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Max Shaw
My micro-bio is no longer empty.
03:55 PM on 12/08/2010
His name is Gross and what he did was gross...no coincidence there.