“This is not pornography”

I dunno- is that hot? I can find women attractive but IDK if that's hot as such. It's too stylized to be porn.

I think the thing with Michaelangelo's David is that that is Classical style art and in Ancient Greece etc, less well-endowed guys were the aesthetic ideal in public art maybe. It would tend to be symbolic of younger 'guys.' They were the target of older guy's admiration. Well-hung guys were more in comedy or rumbunctuousness such as satyrs etc.

'Gallery owner's niece.'

Ah ok, so it actually is effectively a nepobaby issue - the person who was shocked at the suggestion shouldn't have been shocked.

Yes. All those nudes and scenes taken from Biblical and Greek myth etc. Here's a 15th century example. One of Cranach's many Venus and Cupid paintings. Sex has always sold.

www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/lucas-cranach-the-elder-cupid-complaining-to-venus

It looks like I'm the only one who finds it really funny & more so with the notice in front it and what it says. I was laughing out loud at the painting and the comments. I just find the whole thread hilarious

@1dayatathyme maybe you should get out more perhaps?

Stop everyone!!! @The13thFairy has spoken

The painting is irredeemably vulgar and should not be in a public-facing window.

I"m puzzled by the suggestion that a painting cannot be considered both pornographic and art

Me too. Art can be pornographic and still be good or bad art.

It looks like I'm the only one who finds it really funny & more so with the notice in front it and what it says. I was laughing out loud at the painting and the comments. I just find the whole thread hilarious 😂

not porn - may not be great art but def not porn

It's neither porn or art.

I specifically said it wasn't to be compared. It's shite but not porny, hence " just".
I was merely pointing out that being in a gallery does not make something not porn.
And no, art doesn't have to be pretty.

Seems she's fine unless she does gollies. Then it's different. Especially frisky gollies.

The painting is overtly sexual. If David had an erection, then that would be a fairer comparison.

We don't agree on what porn is. The picture from the article doesn't expose genitals, it has a triangle in front of them. It doesn't come across to me as painted in order to titillate but rather to provoke a reaction. Job done, obviously.

Looks as if the artist was tryng to make up for a lack of talent with a provocative picture. It’s a poor example of art and my answer to the lady who asked whether a photograph of that pose would be pornographic, I’d say yes. I doubt if any TV station would broadcast it before the watershed and therefore thempolice requesr for the painting to be placed further into the gallery is entirely reasonable it’s not appropriate for children to be exposed to an image like that.

I wish people would stop patronising us by telling us that if we object it’s just because we are frigid / prude hags who have just never seen genitalia. Nobody is ‘scared’ of the vulva in the painting, despite the artist’s claims. It’s just that a legs-open close up of someone’s (anyone’s, even in a painting) genitalia is a pose that we don’t all go about doing and showing one another every day. Where we do see those postures is in porn. And where we don’t put them is on display in the eyeline of passers by and kids.

Art is in the eye of the beholder!

I don't see it as pornography. Provocative, yes, especially placed in the window where it was surely meant to provoke a response, but pornographic?
No.
To cross that line, I think there'd need to be some more explicit... activity.
Liking the painting or not is not relevant, imo.
I"m puzzled by the suggestion that a painting cannot be considered both pornographic and art

How much was it selling for..? I reckon I could knock a few of these up and I’d be minted if that’s what people are calling art.

Christ on a bike, what’s happened to her shin..? Must have been one hell of a bang (nothing worse that a shin bang imo) and her looks badly out of shape and mighty bruised oouch!

It's really not that deep.

Sheela na gig's have been made with better reason and more skill since the 12th Century.

"In my opinion, all the women that have something bad to say about the painting aren’t grossed out so much as insecure."

I think the young artist is insecure. The painting is pornographic and shitty. There are tons of beautifully done pornographic art. Pornographic doesn’t mean bad or wrong or shitty, but a type of sexual theme expressed artistically. The art itself can be astoundingly beautiful and meaningful or look like the painting in the OP- crude, amateurish and jarring.

That’s a lot of baggage you have listed.

Why intimate moments be used in art though - what about God Giving Birth by Monica Sjöö?

There is a lot of porn in art galleries.

OP example is just a shite painting.