Inappropriate Art lesson

Wow, how uptight are you? Plenty of kids see their parents in various states of undress, it’s honestly creepy that people make such a fuss about bodies and nudity. Children at that age are not sexually aware (unless they have been taught to be ) and wouldn’t be freaked out by seeing their parents & siblings naked unless they have been conditioned to.

That’s weird and not something most year 9 kids want to see

That sounds very hard - I hope he is getting good counselling, it sounds like he would really benefit. Unfortunately in life we come across potential mental health triggers all the time, and learning to manage our response to them is the best way of coping with that. For personal reasons I also find depictions of certain forms of suicide triggering. You often can’t control what you’re exposed to, but you can learn to control the response. I hope he finds good support

The Romans loved a bit of crucifixion. I'm sure plenty of people called Jesus were crucified. But is that as bad a forcing slaves to fight to the death for entertainment? They were different times.

I have already commented but wanted to agree with the post about religious iconography. You will see a tortured man nailed to a cross as a toddler if you are raised in the Catholic faith, like I was, and hear about saints being burned alive and so on. With your logic that should be inappropriate too....

None of the above is about pornography.

Same with Khalo. The woman on the paintjng is herself and she is not using the imagery of having something around her neck as a sexual fantasy...she is representing her own pain.

No one's calling you one now.

Has your 9 year old never seen a naked woman? Do you cover yourself and get embarrassed if he sees you without clothes? My children see me naked regularly, they’ll chat to me when I’m in the bath.

I think this is a you problem.

No, it's not a problem per se. And he would dry his tears and be a bit embarrassed. He knows too well that horrible things de happen having lost a friend to cancer when he was 7 and a friend's mum die of suicide when he was 11. So he would deal with it and he is better equipped to do it at 12 then he would be at 9. At 9 I do think they are way to young to be subjected to this.

A trip to these places involves an age appropriate guide and task as part of the deal

Even teens aren’t allowed to wander at will. They have to stay in organised groups led by an educational adviser.

They don’t look round everything, they focus on specific items.

Also a teacher will have done a risk assessment first and visited to make sure what they will be looking at is suitable.

My dc went to the local church and mosque on school trips. There were no pictures on either, or images. Except crosses. They don’t go in religious establishments apart from those.

Nope - I do believe that there was probably a man called Jesus who was crucified 2000 odd years ago. I just don't believe he was the son of god, born to a virgin and that he came back to life. Regardless, I certainly believe that people were crucified, so my point about images of Jesus on the cross being quite horrific for little children still apply.

He's never been upset by something the teachers presented in school. In two years he will be presented with the holocaust and a school trip.. he sees a psychologist to work on managing his emotions. He's always been a sensitive child and I try to relate because at his age I watched horror movies and read Agatha Christie and Edgar Allan Poe. To be fair he could probably read about horrible stuff, it's images that gets to him and seeing people suffering. It's hard for him but he's got nice friends and he's the first one someone goes to when they are sad. The teacher referred to him the class "Mama" because he always helps his peers when they need it. So he's great for dealing with other people's emotions but struggle with his own because he's too sensitive.

Yes he would. A friend's mum comitted suicide and the dead woman in the bathtub would definitely make him think of it. Luckily his friends are understanding of his hypersensitivity unlike some grown up women like yourself.

I’ve got that hanging in my bathroom.

Your son will survive.

Surely if you"re an atheist you don't believe it happened at all?

Someone with a BA and MA in art history and 15 years working in the art word, I don’t think it’s a great choice of artwork for 9 year olds. It’s not about the nudity. There’s are too many difficult themes in this piece and they are understandably upsetting. There are many other Frida Kahlos that could be chosen that have 1 or 2 interesting and difficult biographical elements and some unusual imagery without completely doubling down on the torture she felt of being a woman.

The brains were quite runny at that point...they're not the most solid of organs in the first place and once a stick has been stuffed up the nose and the contents of the head... stirred... less so.

I learned this at probably 6 or 7, when we 'did' Tutankhamun' and ancient egypt at primary school. Fascinating stuff.

I don't agree that nudity and the naked female form is automatically inappropriate for this age group. The strangulation also isn't an issue for me - again, kids will be familiar to the point of totally ignoring, an image of a half naked man, wounded and crucified, bleeding and suffocating on a cross by that age. And many will have seen all manner of nasty shit online - in the last four weeks I have seen three people die in video clips I was not looking for, and I don't have Tiktok!

I do think this particular piece is too complex for a teacher at that level to give it the time it actually needs or for the whole class to grasp even some of Kahlos themes... There are better Kahlo pieces to choose, but I'd not kick up a fuss about it either. If the teacher struggles to explain, and your kid comes home with questions, direct them back to her (she started it!) or just say 'well artists are often quite odd, don't worry about it' and then change the subject.

No one has ever called me a cool mum before so that’s a win. Certainly not my kids who think I’m far too strict on what they can watch and play.

My DS has had classes on Kahlos in his last year of primary school. Did a recreation of her portrait, learnt about her etc. But he is 2 years older than OP son and he actually educated me in some of her struggles (I am not an art fanatic). He really enjoyed it and got her "age appropriate" story.

The picture in the OP, or me, would be unacceptable, but the topic and the age appropriate artwork worked out well for my 11 year old.

My more sensible reply, OP, is similar to most others. It's probably not what I'd choose for a nine-year-old, but it's a significant artwork and a powerful example of the artist telling a personal story. It's more intriguing than looking into why 16th century portraits feature globes, skulls, swords and exotic fruit (which some disappointed teacher explained to my vaguely uninterested class. It's stuck, though, so who knows what insights your DS will gain from Kahlo?!)

My distant childhood was totally porn-free and pre-internet. I saw endless incredibly gory depictions of torture in churches and Bibles, sexually graphic sculptures in museums and galleries, and the Joy Of Sex - a brilliant book with explicit details and illustrations - was de rigueur on every coffee table.

In short, you're worrying too much 🙂

Good grief of course it's not appropriate. So many wannabe cool moms on here.

There is plenty of art that they could have studied that doesn't have naked women lying about the place.

Does it have a place in art? Absolutely, but not at 9. And yep, he'll see very similar at an art gallery but that's very different to studying it in depth in a focussed lesson(s).

Can't wait to hear what happens when you take DS to the Sistine Chapel.

We’re not a Christian country anymore. So they won’t necessarily have been in a church.

Re your snooty comment about ‘banality:

Teachers have to be careful what they use due to safeguarding or other religions. So actually you have to choose quite carefully. And with lower school it makes sense not to have anything too controversial.

So you don’t get to classify ‘banal’ It’s following teaching standards. Or is that ‘banal’too? Who the fuck are you to classify banal? I’ve shown plenty of age appropriate paintings. But there’s a time and a place. And the time is KS4 and 5. What would you expect to see? The idea is to get some knowledge of art history. Not whether it’s banal or not.😂 Nash is hardly banal. Escher is hardly banal. But they aren’t negative.

The teacher concerned who introduced this picture was not following these.

Is that a problem though? It’s ok to cry at things, it doesn’t mean kids should be protected from every single thing that makes them cry.

op, if your school did an excursion to the Tate or the natural history museum, would you keep them home because there are definitely some complicated concepts in those places? The national portrait gallery? Michaelangelos David- a huge naked man? Wanting him to not see this is really being overprotective and not doing him any favours.

I think it’s ok

if he watched Tom and Jerry or any cartoons are quite violent and silly.

Yeah not for 9 year olds. In my opinion, this is fine for Year 7 upwards.