“This is not pornography”

The pose! I dont understand why you can’t see that it’s a depiction of sex or at least could be interpreted as a depiction of sex. I guess a women might be naked in that position while giving birth too but she isn’t 9months pregnant in the drawing so I think we can rule that one out. 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.

@Switcher

well, at least everyone else has given their opinion, how does your post add to the thread??

Exactly this. A painting of a naked woman wouldn't bother me, it's the legs splayed open that's the problem, and in the shop window.

The meaning of art is something that unless the artist says what they intended, anyone looking at it can make their own links. It is true that most modern art is a social commentary of sorts.

https://www.mattgablerart.com/post/the-silent-conversation-exploring-art-as-a-medium-of-social-commentary

https://www.creativityandmadness.com/blog/art-as-social-commentary-how-artists-critique-social-norms-and-advocate-for-change

https://www.artgallery.co.uk/blog/17883-how-does-contemporary-art-reflect-current-social-and-political-issues

https://www.khederpaintings.com/post/art-as-activism-addressing-social-issues-in-contemporary-art

https://www.vice.com/en/article/10-artists-who-tackle-the-social-issues-of-today/

Many more if you feel like googling.

@Bex5490 Naked woman in a strong assertive pose maybe. But naked woman in a submissive sexualised position… no thanks.

What on earth do you mean by this?
What exactly is a "strong assertive pose"?
What exactly is a "submissive sexualised position," and what aspect of the painting would be classified as "submissive" or "sexualised"?

I wouldn't want my children to see it and I think people should have a choice, not have it forced on them. In the same way I'm not against pornography, nudists, sex toys etc etc but it should be my choice to see them, and not walk my children past them unintentionally.

🤪🤪😂

I think it’s pointless…

Why use a woman’s naked body for shock value unless there is a message behind it?

Naked woman in a strong assertive pose maybe. But naked woman in a submissive sexualised position… no thanks.

And if the point was supposed to be here’s my vagina in all its glory, then what was the point in not drawing a vagina?

If it was a photograph would it be pornography?

no. It would be a photo of a woman with a black triangle over her genitalia

What an eyesore.

That's a definition that you made up.
Not all pornography is licentious, and not all imagery of naked people is pornographic.
As I have said before, you are categorically wrong in what you are saying. This is not a matter of opinion or perspective.

L'Origine du monde

Guess you've never been in the Musée d'Orsay then.

Sure, it might not actually be porn because no genitalia is visible and no sex is actually taking place - but it’s still an artistic depiction of sex and so I don’t think it’s appropriate or fair to show it to a child

whst do you mean it’s a depiction of sex? How?!

I would ‘take’ my 10 year old to see it (because it’s shit not least) but I wouldn’t be horrified if she did. We’d probably laugh about it

It's not a photograph though.

@ToBeDetermined I meant your assertion that a woman wearing cowboy boots was ‘clearly’ a reference to young TAylor Swift fans because all art, except for portraits, are a comment on society. Which you said

I'd say it's a bit odd and not really child friendly. Not because it's female genitalia but just because the legs are spread right open. Similarly I would want my kids to see I giant penis in a shop window

I checked out the artist's other work on her website, and tbh it looked to me like doodles on a twelve year old's pencil case. But maybe I'm missing the point. 🤷‍♀️

I wouldn't be surprised as it reads like no one else has complained.

i think 'pornography is subjective, wouldn't be pirnigraphy in my opinion, but I think it's vulgar and there was no need to put it in the window, especially at a child's height.

Terrible, ugly painting. Wouldn't call it pornography but do think it would be displayed inside ideally.

Can you not work this one out for yourself? Genuine question?
But I’ll bite
Define ´kids’ - I wouldn’t be worried about teenagers seeing this artwork. But I wouldn’t show it to my preschool or primary school aged kids for the same reasons I wouldn’t let them watch adult tv with sex scenes. Sure, it might not actually be porn because no genitalia is visible and no sex is actually taking place - but it’s still an artistic depiction of sex and so I don’t think it’s appropriate or fair to show it to a child.

Literally the first hit when googling the definition.

Horrible picture! I wouldn't have it on my wall.

I find it crass and I would never buy a piece by that artist or from a gallery that would stick in the window.

I see it as a form of abuse to force the general public to have to see it if they want to walk along the street.

Nasty, no talent crap that makes the world that little bit more sleazy just by existing.

Pornography doesn’t even need an image, it can be a written story.