Tate Modern removed Richard Prince's photograph of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields from its exhibition, Pop Life. Here a Tate worker gives the inside story of events, and explains how a handful of journalists prompted a visit from the Metropolitan Police, who advised the removal of the photograph – to the anger of the visiting public.

The empty room in the Tate Modern's Pop Life show was flagged up by the barrier and usual polite apologies: 'This room is temporarily closed.' The work in question was Richard Prince's image of a naked 10-year-old Brooke Shields, titled 'Spiritual America', a 1983 photograph of the original 1976 photo by Gary Gross. The photo had been removed from the exhibition only hours before it opened to the public, on the advice of the Metropolitan Police.

According to discussion inside Tate, the main driver is believed to have been a handful of journalists attending the press private view – who were so appalled by the image that they used various media contacts to express their outrage. Notably, Vanessa Feltz used her BBC London radio show the following morning (Wednesday 30 September, the day before public opening) to express outrage about the work.

It is believed that the police only acted after getting to know about the image via media coverage. They visited the Tate and advised the gallery to remove the picture. A police statement said: 'Officers from the obscene publications unit met with staff at Tate Modern. The officers have specialist experience in this field and are keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not inadvertently break the law or cause offence to visitors.'

As well as the removal of the image, and all other images in that room, 12,000 copies of the exhibition catalogue have been withdrawn, and may be pulped. (The catalogue had been on sale prior to the exhibition opening, without complaint.) Other publications, including Prince’s Spiritual America, have also been removed from the shop.

I have discussed this with dozens of members of the public, and the overwhelming public opinion - on discovering that the entire run of exhibition catalogues has been withdrawn - is one of disbelief. Most described the situation as ‘ridiculous’. My colleagues are in agreement.

It is no small matter if the Tate has to pulp 10,000 paperback and 2,000 hardback exhibition catalogues, and then reprint the whole lot minus one page, especially at a time when the Tate is in full fund-raising mode for its planned extensions. This would mean a loss to the art gallery of over £300,000.

Prince's image Spiritual America had previously been exhibited in the USA, to no complaint, in Prince's 2007 retrospective at the Guggenheim in New York.

The image is disturbing, complicated and challenging - but this image can only be perceived as erotic to a perverse mind - the sane majority, I would argue, view it with criticism and ambivalence, ideas that the artist was surely trying to explore. The artist Collier Schorr has said: 'I found it really disturbing, but my impression always was that Richard made the piece because it was disturbing ... It tells you everything about what we fear and desire.' (Collier Schorr knew Prince and the image better than most, having rented his studio in the 1980s, where the image was hanging at the time.)

It is an important point that Prince did not 'make' this image from scratch; he found and re-appropriated it from the original, a commercial image taken by fashion photographer Garry Gross. He is dealing with 'what is out there.' So you could argue (as I think the above quote suggests) that society is equally the maker of this image, through its beauty pageants, advertising and fashion, as much as any individual author.

Prince is an American artist, where this image has its roots. It reminds me of the recent Hollywood film Little Miss Sunshine, a black comedy dealing with similar subject matter, where the bizarre and disturbing world of the American beauty pageant for kids is given a good dose of comedy criticism. This criticism is important, and similar to the reading you could take of Prince's intentions with this image.

Such images and realities exist, and it is the role of art to examine and hold them up to view. This Tate Modern photograph is an important test case for freedom of expression. It is important to allow the arts to best serve their audience and perform their important role in culture.

We would like to let the Tate hear the feedback from the visiting public, many of whom are angry about the removal of picture and catalogue. It is important that the debate is not only between the media, gallery and the Met.

It is likely that no final call has been made, on the photograph or the catalogues. We would encourage the Tate to reinstate the work and the catalogues.

You can let the Tate know what you think, either by completing gallery feedback forms; or by emailing visiting.modern@tate.org.uk