“This is not pornography”

You’re citing urban dictionary knowing it’s a spoof/joke dictionary (hence the quotes around published) as a way to tell another poster that it’s unreasonable to use a proper dictionary to look up the various meanings of words and yet you believe the other poster is ´out of (their) depth*

no, I was using quotes as it’s online not written. But you’re right that was incorrect. It is a published dictionary. Why have you determined it’s a spoof? American Heritage Dictionary is widely discredited too

The artist says in the Guardian article "“It’s just expressing the female body and normalising the female body, because everyone sexualises it."

But their image is obviously informed by the sexualised images of the female body in pornography. This isn't an image of a woman, but just literally of a female body; no head, no arms, splayed and supine.

The painting isn't pornography, and it isn't offensive, but it is a very objectified image of a female body and that is nothing new, interesting or valuable.

It’s shit. And unpleasant in that sighting. Trying to shock like A level students do. Except it’s not even GCSE level.

25 years an art teacher. David and the Bachalian Revels are classical sculptures/relief. Carefully created with proportion and classical lines. It’s a crime to compare that Cowboy Boot shite to them. They are graceful and aesthetically appealing, Spread leg cowboy boots aren’t.

Yes this art is also pornographic.
Pornographic isn’t a criticism it is a description.

I think it was a great way of publishing the gallery.

The painting is shit.

Not my thing to be honest, can’t see the ‘art’ in there but what do it know.

It's when someone gets a role/their work profiled etc just due to who they know or are related to.

I really don’t think I am out of my depth.
I did get top marks in GCSE and A Level art.
I also did half a joint studio Art & Art History degree before switching to archaeology because I found Art History more interesting.

Perhaps you could try discussing instead of making contemptuous and authoritarian statements? Even a fresher art student would know better than to tell everyone they are “categorically wrong” that contemporary art usually has social commentary in it- when it does.

🧑‍🎨

I think the person thought the commenter was implying the art was showing what nepobabies get upto, and was appalled at the suggestion.

Peak mumsnet.

Nepobaby - shit work (normally 'art') where they are 'doing well'
See Beckham kids photo book, scary spices kid 'paintings'

You’re citing urban dictionary knowing it’s a spoof/joke dictionary (hence the quotes around published) as a way to tell another poster that it’s unreasonable to use a proper dictionary to look up the various meanings of words and yet you believe the other poster is ´out of (their) depth’?
Your logic’s failing a bit there.

Yes, sorry - I was replying to the person who seemed to be mortally offended by the first nepobaby comment prior to mine - probably the artist’s Mum👍😂

What don't you understand?

Sheela na gigs are way way more explicit than open legs and a black triangle. It’s a woman with her hands in her vulva spreading her lips.

History is rife with sexual art. But this is very very tame. It’s literally a black triangle

"All her paintings were of the female body, she said. “It’s just expressing the female body and normalising the female body, because everyone sexualises it."

It could be argued that showing a woman with open legs is a girl.of sexualising

Imo, it objectifies the sitter as a body (rather than a nude)with the head cut out of the painting and the full on pose with boots. If the artist and gallery didn't expect that to shock then they were naive - but it's certainly got them some good publicity.

I think that was the point of the nepo comment.

If that person wasn't a loved one or friend of someone involved, it wouldn'tve been considered good enough to be anything. Like with the Olympic 'breakdancer.' 😂

I’m not saying it.

Bacchanalian paintings is given as an example of pornography, under one of the definitions of licentious paintings or writing in the Dictionary definition that I screenshotted. I posted a photo of a relief, because they are more durable, to show you what they look like.

You seem to be conflating nakedness with pornography to posit some strange strawman standards that are not mine.

Oh hey, @ToBeDetermined this is valid too then as it’s ‘published’ in the Urban Dictionary

Again, you’re out of your depth here

As someone posted about this artist upthread www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-liverpool/life-motion-egon-schiele-francesca-woodman/five-things-know-egon Some facts about Egon Schiele who allegedly seduced and kidnapped a minor….@jen337 artists can and do use inappropriate sexual images and have sexually questionable motives ! Just because something is defined as art doesn’t mean it automatically has value or is making a valid statement.

That is classical-style sculpture or whatever, you won't find any of that with a woman with a 'split beaver or a bloke with his bum cheeks spread etc.

There are Sheela-na-gigs I suppose, but they don't look quite like this. It is moe like someone stylising something from porn in an ugly-ist (there's probably a proper term for this artistic -ism, if it exists) way.

The pose of Michelangelo’s David is not in any way sexual. The pose of this ‘piece’ is. I actually understand the ‘nepobaby’ comment - the picture in question is trying to demand attention for being explicit, rather than being actually good🤷🏼‍♀️.

@Bananapancakemaker i don’t think my 9 year old if she saw it would think about it being sexual. She’d probably find it funny and a bit silly. Which it is.

I didn’t make up the definition, it is a published definition and therefore perfectly valid to use it when discussing if a painting is pornographic or not.

You didn’t ask me defend the statement that ‘all art apart from portraits is social commentary’ because that isn’t what I wrote,

See screenshot.