“This is not pornography”

My mind keeps putting the title of this thread to the tune of Bowie's This is Not America.

It got a newly opened gallery in a rather sleepy but beautiful town of books a huge amount of free publicity.

It’s not a rubbish piece of art. But then again beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

But thar aside, it is an inappropriate piece of ‘art’ for family viewing.

This country’s morals seem to be onto a race to the bottom in the name of being liberal and modern.

I'm off, I'm about to get hiccups with laughing at all of this. It's made my night
😂😂 🤣

Guernica is a moving piece depicting the bombing of innocent civilians.

Also porn.

Manga cartoons of porn are far worse depictions and I doubt anybody would question whether they are porn or think it appropriate to put them on the bottom shelf.

We're not in Japan (where that kind of thing doesn't go on the top shelf)

Sorry but I laughed out loud at this. It's hilarious,especially with the sign in front of it which actually makes it worse. Plus the replies here, better go 😂😂😂

Highly sexualised depiction of female genitalia.

As someone else pointed out, what if it was a photograph?

I think nobody would disagree that that was pornographic. So this is just a question of how lifelike you think the depiction is.

Not appropriate for the side of a road.

They are synonyms, so they all apply to this albeit each with a different nuance.
It would not take long to click on each one- I have helpfully linked to their definitions in case of unfamiliarity. Go on, have a read, you’ll see pretty quickly how they apply to a crude painting of a naked woman wearing only cowboy boots, with her legs spread in sexual fashion, and her genitals portrayed as a crude triangular (man)hole with a pink merkin on top.

There is something intrinsically offensive about it. It’s shite.

Looks like a smutty school kid was taking the piss for a dare.

Jen337.
Possibly listing synonyms for licentious might assist you in understanding what a “licentious image” is: indecent, lascivious ,lubricious, obscene, prurient , rude, salacious, vulgar

Nothing to do with merely nakedness.

Possibly you ''ARE'' the 'Artist'...as others suspected!

It is a repulsive painting, and is objectifying the naked female form. There's a place for that sort of grotesque art, but the front window of a gallery ain't it.

Personally, I'd throw it in a skip, but there you go, it takes all sorts. I don't know much about art, but I know what I like, and I certainly don't like that.

18th and 19th 'pornographic' engravings are very different to this crude effort.
Edouard Henri Avril did a similar 'view' of female anatomy.

Yes, because at 9 she is probably still naive to the wider connotations (of the cowboy boots and playboy centerfold pose). So she would likely view it more innocently and also laugh at how badly it is painted. I also have a 9 year old daughter and she would probably find it amusing.
A boy or child of a different age might view it differently or it could introduce him to the notion that women are to be viewed through a certain lens. I would be more concerned about my son seeing a woman depicted in that denigrating pose.
What the artist, may have succeeded in, is reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than normalising female genitalia.

“I’ll try one last time with you. I can’t work out what you’re saying, you’re hiding behind semantics. You started by saying this painting is porn by definition, which is a licentious image or something I can’t be bothered going back to check.”

Yes. It is a pornographic image per the definition of pornography.

“Then you gave a definition for licentious from a dictionary.”
I was asked what is the definition of licentious apparently by someone who did not know, so I posted that to be helpful. It wasn’t part of any ‘argument.’

“Tell me how you think that definition you gave applies to this painting.”
I did.

“And, if many, many artworks are considered porn, by your definition, which if any depictions of the nude female body you consider not to be porn. E.g. is Olympia or Manet’s bathers porn, is page 3 or the wonderbra advert porn? Where do you draw the line?”

It’s not my personal made up definition, as I said, it is the dictionary definition.
I see no reason to go into a litany of what is not porn. If you don’t know what a licentious image of nude female body is compared to just a nude female body that isn’t really my problem.

My only ‘arguments’ were
-this painting is pornographic, as it falls within the definition of licentious painting, and it likely has some social commentary as this is common in contemporary art. What that is only the artist knows and the rest of us are allowed to make our own interpretations.

‘David ‘ is the opposite of well endowed and is certainly not aroused.

So it/ he is certainly not ‘pornographic’.

It is commonly supposed to be an allegory of the small state (Florence) defending itself against and annihilating its more powerful enemies.

Edited because predictive text is in love with incorrect apostrophe.

Spot on! 🎯

My personal definition of pornography is that it is designed to arouse and the only thing that picture arouses is my suspicion that the gallery is not full of talented artists