“This is not pornography”

I don’t think that children, or indeed anyone, should be exposed to such dreadful ‘art’. It’s rubbish!

Pretty sure that’s exactly the issue at hand. Why are you assuming that those of us who would rather not have to walk past this particular piece of crappy art with a primary school or preschool aged child would not educate our kids about sex in a more appropriate place with better drawings?

it’s very nepobaby

What the actual fuck @TheRavenSaid

It is fucking terrible.

I don't like the style, it's very nepobaby - and displaying her genitals and therefore not appropriate. People are not allowed to walk around naked, while it's legal to, it's not acceptable

being naked is not pornographic ,being naked in certain postures can be. I find this image offensive as it’s reminiscent of a porn pose, many women would not choose to be photographed in this pose whilst wearing clothes. (I don’t find the human body in itself offensive.)

The pose is without doubt provocative & sexual to my mind - would I want my younger kids to walk past and think this was a normal pose to adopt? Absolutely not. But I think the artist/ gallery owner is being provocative for a reason….. like many ‘artists’ / ‘promoters’ these days - more interested in creating a shocked reaction than creating something of interest & true worth.

Exactly, if a real life woman went in public naked, wearing only red cowboy boots and spread her legs like that in the park…she’d be arrested for public indecency

what if a real man took all his clothes off and stood in Florence would that be ok? (Michelangelo’s David)

I suppose 'obscene' is a better word for it.

pornographyin British English
(pɔːˈnɒɡrəfɪ )
noun
1.
writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement
2.
the production of such material
Sometimes (informal) shortened to: porn, porno
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

Collins dictionary is one of the standard dictionaries widely used in publishing in the UK.

Nooooo, but if you want to paint someone for posterity, I think she should at least be presented attractively. In this case, attractiveness doesn’t come into it. Whether or not the general opinion is that it is pornographic, I don’t consider it appropriate for a window where children walk past. It’s not even very good!

@ToBeDetermined I didn’t make it up. See screenshot. It’s from a reputable published dictionary.

It would be a far less common definition, hence why it's last.

I think a naked woman with legs spread in a sexual manner is licentious.

No it isn't.

It's too ugly to be porn but it is inappropriate, and attention seeking by the art gallery proprietor. She would know people would have a reaction to that.

But I think it'd actually put people off going in, rather than encourage them to go in, like a window display it supposed to.

I suppose they say any publicity is good publicity and more people will know about her gallery now.

Oh @ToBeDetermined you are out of your depth and really need to brush up on gaining evidence from reputable sources. The American Heritage dictionary is known as being not only a conservative compilation, but also one whose writer ignored the very panel set up to contribute and randomly wrote his own definitions.

Also I wasn’t asking ‘is any art a social commentary.’ I was asking you to defend your statement that ‘all art apart from portraits is social commentary.’

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Heritage_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language#:~:text=The%20AHD%20was%20edited%20by,in%20the%20use%20of%20language.

Well, if art is meant to provoke discussion, it's certainly succeeded in that!

Exactly, if a real life woman went in public naked, wearing only red cowboy boots and spread her legs like that in the park…she’d be arrested for public indecency. Pretending the painting is not at all overtly sexual in nature is just being contrary.

It shouldn't be in the window. People who want to go into the gallery should be allowed to see it. But people who just want to walk or drive past shouldn't have to see it.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross

'amazing art' ???

wouldn't give it wall space, in the garage, let alone the house

Here you go!

Not my favourite artist nor piece of art but if you can’t possibly bring yourselves to have a conversation with your children (regardless of their ages) about what they have seen and what it shows or doesn’t then that seems like a slightly more worrying problem to have than whether this is considered pornography or not. Primary school aged children are perfectly capable of having age appropriate conversations about pretty much anything you can think of if given the chance. Perhaps removing the element of choice over where and when the conversation has to happen is not ideal, but that’s not the issue that seems to be at hand is it? If they ask what it is then tell them. If they ask questions then answer them. It really is not hard.

If you’re being nit-picky about what counts as sex exactly then perhaps this is what one partner sees about a half a second before the sex actually starts

some legs with a black triangle?

I didn’t make it up. See screenshot. It’s from a reputable published dictionary.
I think a naked woman with legs spread in a sexual manner is licentious.
It shows more than the example of Bacchanalian paintings. See example of an ancient Roman Bacchanalian relief. (Many paintings are faded and incomplete due to ravages of time)

I agree. I'm surprised. The woman who owns/ runs The Table and The Chair galleries usually has far better taste than this. I live not far from Hay and have bought several paintings in the past. Good art. I'm surprised she'd actually put either of these in the window. It's not exactly Tracey Emin, is it?

The offence for me is how ghastly the thing is.