How is this still acceptable in this day and age?

I don’t like the table but the article is about an arts festival on his estate and all of the photos are him with sculptures etc so in that context it makes more sense but in the current climate it seems like a very bad PR move to have this photo at the start of the article…

They didn’t! They knew it would get people talking which, look, it has.

What’s worse than doing an article that offends people? Doing an article that nobody reads or cares about!

surely this is just depicting a bdsm kink. Many women are also into that. As long as it’s 2 consenting adults enjoying themselves then crack on! (Literally!)

So what do you say about women who are into BDSM now? Are they unacceptable?

I feel sorry for his dog living with someone like that.

While I think art should be generally uncensored and people should be free to purchase as they wish, the issue here is the public element of it. To be pictured beside something so crass tells you everything you need to know about this man. Either he is totally clueless and self absorbed and doesn't stop to think that this might he offensive or he understands it is offensive and doesn't care because he wants to cause controversy and offense. I'm not sure which is worse. I would take issue with the media that published it too.

Thankfully I never purchased anything from Carphone Warehouse. And am glad I have not contributed to his wealth. And lack of taste.

Did you mean Vargas?

Foul. The fact he is proud of it enough to be photographed next to it is at least letting people know what type he is though so that's a win.

Until all stuff like this is consigned to history, we don't really stand a chance.

absolutely - it’s about context and this was not thought through. Photographer is possibly happy as they got a very striking image with a real agenda (perhaps the interviewee was a bit of a knob, and they wanted to stitch him up?)

it’s one thing owning a piece of controversial art, and viewing it in the context of a gallery or collection, and it’s quite another posing next to it with no context or explanation. I haven’t read the interview so perhaps it was addressed.

I was at school at Neville Holt when it closed in the 90s. It used to be such a lovely old country house with amazing grounds (that we'd frequently disappear into and ignore the teachers frantically ringing the bell).

Both grounds and house are now full of rather bizarre art. I think it's ruined it, but it's not my house and it would be a boring world if we all had the same taste. While I see the significance of the piece in the photo, I think it's a poorly chosen piece to have on the cover photo for the article...

It’s not acceptable. Disgusting.

No idea who he is, but that’s grim. What a pig.

Same as Epstein.

I'm surprised his PR machine thought for a nanosecond that this would resonate with public opinion but what do I know.
Repulsive.

Oh yeah, exactly the same 🤔

It’s very gauche but clearly he’s not ashamed of it

When someone tells you who they are, listen.

He’s telling everyone he’s a vile misogynist and he doesn’t care who knows.
If I walked into that room, I’d walk straight back out again and leave the house.

If people are dickheads, I'm comfortable with them being pictured as such in ways that have high public visibility. It's a form of public service.

Not too dissimilar to Vettriano.

Just because it is art doesn’t mean it’s ok. People chose what to have in their homes. It says a lot about him. Grim.

2 close family members of mine live in Nevill Holt and attend David’s parties regularly. They often see celebrities in neighbouring gardens doing things they shouldn’t! Definitely wouldn’t see me there especially with that furniture taste

He might think it's acceptable to own and proudly show off this "iconic" piece of art but I think it's misjudged of the paper/magazine to print a photo of him sitting next to it in a post me-too/ Epstein world.

Presumably they did it for the clicks and publicity for the article but that's pretty low and still exploitative of women in an indirect way.
He is clearly a dickhead to be happy being pictured by it. I am sure it's worth loads but it's the kind of piece to be kept for its value but kept in storage these days.

I hadn't heard of the artist but I just looked at his wikki page and this is the type of work he is famous for: Jones is known for incorporating erotic imagery into his works, including rubber fetishism and BDSM, and this sexuality has often been a focus of both art critics and the press.[20] Mark Hudson wrote in 2014 that Jones' "subjects have included musicians, dancers and London buses, but in the popular perception his name is irrevocably linked to his peerlessly kinky fetish women, whether in two or three dimensions, with their machined surfaces and blank expressions – images that are as emblematic of classic British pop art as Peter Blake's Beatles paintings or Hockney's swimming pools."[2] In a review on Jones' career, Richard Dorment wrote in November 2014 that "you could argue that Jones's work isn't really about women; it's about men and how they look at and think about women. Men use various strategies to neutralise or control desire. One is to fetishise the female body...[while] another is for the man to appropriate it."[29]

Personally I find it offensive but apparently it's " art".