Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

“This is not pornography”

255 replies

jen337 · 20/09/2024 21:27

Police called to Hay-on-Wye gallery over painting of naked woman in window.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/sep/20/police-called-to-hay-on-wye-gallery-after-it-puts-painting-of-naked-woman-in-window

“Officers went to the gallery after complaints that the painting, which features a naked woman wearing cowboy boots, her legs splayed to reveal a black triangle with pink wool on top, is not art but pornography.”

“Police had asked the painting be moved further inside the gallery, but Harris said she was “making a stand”. She said she was shocked to be told about the complaints, but that support online had been “massive” – “around 90% pro and 10% anti”, she said.”

Discuss.

My view is that the artist is correct, there’s nothing intrinsically offensive about a naked body, and there are are many depictions of the female form deemed acceptable, the famous and well loved little mermaid and countless other statues in public places, the many works of William Etty that hang in major galleries, Manet’s Olympia, etc. Although, I will admit this is not particularly “good” art, it’s still valid, and it might will have been deliberately placed to be provocative and court controversy, in which case it’s worked and highlights the hypocrisy.

Police called to Hay-on-Wye gallery over painting of naked woman in window

Curator Val Harris refuses to move work by Poppy Baynham after residents complain

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/sep/20/police-called-to-hay-on-wye-gallery-after-it-puts-painting-of-naked-woman-in-window

OP posts:
Thread gallery
18
RuleForFire · 20/09/2024 21:35

Well it looks like pornography to me. I went to see the little mermaid while in Copenhagen and don't recall her displaying her genitals, ditto Manet's Olympia. And it's a crap painting, so I suppose, minus talent, the artist only had shock value to fall back on.

DoraSpenlow · 20/09/2024 21:34

If it was a photograph would it be pornography?

Shinydoor · 20/09/2024 21:34

Can’t see the painting in full.

but pretty sure the gallery owner probably called the police for a bit of PR tbh

Cacodemon · 20/09/2024 21:32

Doesn't the definition of pornography involve the intention, i.e. the intention to arouse?

I don't feel that is the case with this image. It's designed to be provocative, but not to cause arousal.

constantlylactating · 20/09/2024 21:31

I'd buy it. Not porn imo.