Inappropriate Art lesson

Yes it’s inappropriate and weird painting for a 9 year old. There are other paintings by Frida Kahlo or other artist to choose from.

Children in the UK go on school trips to churches where they see paintings and images of a naked, scourged, beaten, slashed & crucified Jesus from a very early age, particularly those in faith schools, yet few people seem to question children’s exposure to such horrors. Many children are familiar with Van Gough’s self-portraits (including those sans one ear) by the age of 9: there is even a series of children’s picture books about him. Art can deal with ugly issues and difficult emotions.

i agree with this
I have a 9 yr old I don’t think he’d care but it’s just an odd choice.

Thanks, that is helpful, as looking closely at this has changed my view on the topic somewhat.

It still doesn't look to me as if she is being strangled (is it absolutely agreed by all critics of the painting that she is? I know nothing about the work or the artist so will absolutely cede to anyone's superior knowledge here).

But anyway she DOES look to me, on closer inspection, that she is bound around the neck and waist with a rope, is that right?

To me that changes it from a straightforward nude to an image of the degradation of women - and it's a sad fact that such imagery is often also a feature of pornography.

Discussion of this would be fertile ground I am sure, but not for none year olds. So for this detail I do agree the picture was inappropriate. (Though I wouldn't phone up to complain as teachers are human too and most do a great job, so my bar for complaint is very high - I'd just discuss it with my child and try to reassure them if it raises any questions for them).

I'd still like to know more about what the topic was, what was said to the children about the picture, whether they were asked to copy it or produce work inspired by it, etc etc

But as previous posters have noted, any young child who is brought up Christian or even just wanders into a Christian church once will have seen extreme torture on display! (Crucifixion! Martyrdom of saints!) And how banal to reduce art to "negative" or "positive" themes. Sigh.

I don't know the painting but I am assuming tbe teacher presented as learning about art, history or culture rather than focussing on anything sexualised.

When my brother was in reception, he found a copy of Playboy that my dad had been given. He wanted to take it to school to show his teacher! 🤣

And.. way to take it literally, sigh. You get the idea... and yes, some very young children were exposed to some quite disturbing content online, thankfully things are changing.

THIS painting however is art. If the child is a, comfortable and b, taught well in the context then no problem.

But if you study why the suggestion of strangulation is taking place, it isnt at all inappropriate.

Thats the point of studying art, that what you see isnt necessarily what is being said. The visual version of "reading between the lines".

The nudity part wouldn’t bother me, but a depiction of a naked woman being strangled would. The world is full of paintings and there’s no reason why this particular one needs to be studied in school by nine-year-olds.

“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,’ said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added, ‘or a plinth. Both is best, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.’ ‘What about a potted plant?’ ‘That’s okay if it’s in an urn.’ ‘What about if it’s not got an urn or a plinth or a potted plant?’ said Nobby. ‘Have you one in mind, Nobby?’ said Colon suspiciously. ‘Yes, The Goddess Anoia Arising from the Cutlery,’ said Nobby. ‘They’ve got it here. It was painted by a bloke with three i’s in his name, which sounds pretty artistic to me.’ ‘The number of i’s is important, Nobby,’ said Sergeant Colon gravely, ‘but in these situations you have to ask yourself: where’s the cherub? If there’s a little fat pink kid holding a mirror or a fan or similar, then it’s still okay. Even if he’s grinning. Obviously you can’t get urns everywhere.”
― Terry Pratchett, Thud!

I dont think its inappropriate at all.

If all you see is the negative then you are missing the point.

As noted earlier, I probably wouldn’t have chosen it for a class full of nine year olds but I’m not scandalised by that choice. Art is full naked people, they can’t hide from it forever.

I think 9 is way too young for this sort of thing. Not appropriate.

l think children age 9 can make better comments than ‘l like the green bit’

They HAVE to analyse work as part of the NC. And that includes subject matter, imagery and context. Yes, even at age 9

I don’t know about inappropriate but it’s bloody hideous. 😁

Ds did this in art aged 9 too, he's 24 now.I think it was a bit wasted really as if they'd left it another couple of years they could've really discussed her life properly rather than a censored version.

It's year 4 art not an History or Art degree. The insight level will be more like - I the green bit

They would probably be talking about the Bayeaux tapestry. Which is nether threatening or intimidating.

This is a different sort of imagery and isn’t suitable for 9 year olds.

There are lots of other feminist artists. She could have used any of them.

It IS unsuitable for year 4.

Its hard to look at. I used to take Dd to loads of art galleries. But she could just walk on by if she didn’t want to look. This will be a point of analysis in the lesson, so will be studied quite closely.

But that would happen if a 9 year told their teacher lots of things: "Mummy showed me a cartoon where hundreds of men were brutally massacred, many of the them were naked with horses, one was even shot in the eye with an arrow."

Yep. As an ex art teacher this was my thinking.

Flip it the other way: 9 year old child tells their teacher, my parents show me pictures of naked women being strangled.
The teacher would report to safeguarding!

I was ready to call you a prude, but no, I don't think this is appropriate for a year four / year five art class. It's a bit like getting them to read Jane Eyre in year six - they might be able to read it in a literal sense, but there's all the nuance and context and subtext that they're just not able to comprehend, and it's not Mary Whitehouse to want kids to study art which will expand their world view gently rather than ask them to comprehend extremely adult life experiences.

(Liquidification - I did a topic on it - in Year 8 interestingly! Google it, it’s fascinating.)

Actually this has cast my mind back to when I was 10 (which was before they starting giving ‘year numbers’ so no idea what ‘year’ that is) and we all had to do an end of year project before we left primary. I asked to do ‘Mysteries of the Unexplained’ using my mum’s Reader’s Digest book. I did ‘sea mysteries’ - so the S.S Watertown, the Marie Celeste and Flannan Isle.

My teacher didn’t bat an eyelid and said to
my mum at Parent’s Evening: “She’s got a very inquiring - if spooky - mind doesn’t she?!”

Do you even know anything about this artist?

This painting, like most of her work, is autobiographical and represents some of the hardship she went through in her life. There is nothing pornographic about it...

In fact she is considered to be a good example of a strong, talented, feminist woman who had to deal with a lot of physical pain /ill health in her life but who showed great resilience and ended up being a celebrated painter known worldwide.

Plus if you go into any museums your kids will be exposed to paintings and sculpture that show nudity, scenes of violence, death and suffering. That is just part of the human condition.

Frankly it is an odd thing to consider this "inappropriate" in any way.