https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/sep/20/police-called-to-hay-on-wye-gallery-after-it-puts-painting-of-naked-woman-in-window

I don’t have a problem with the art work, but I’m bemused by the artist’s statement that “most straight women haven’t seen a vulva.”

WTF does she think we keep in our pants, sweets??

It's a grotesque painting. Talentless crap.

Perfectly put

I was prepared to cut a third year student some slack wrt her artwork being thought provoking, but reading her nonsense about women never seeing vulvas and being scared of them has convinced she is very far from clever and not even thoughtful about her own work.

You're all right, I'm all wrong, it is childish and obvious, take it away. I'm amused that it was allegedly only chosen for display because it was the right size and proportions for the shape of the window.

I live not far from Hay and while I can't say I know Val, who owns The Table and The Chair galleries, I've encountered her several times and bought paintings in the past, including a Tina Balmer in July. Most of the artists she exhibits are class: not necessarily my cup of tea but quality. I was there in early September for the Zen event: had fun making my own marks in a workshop. So seeing this is a disappointment. I mean, no one's going to mistake this for, say, Tracey Emin, whose talent and serious issues shine through her work. Sad.

Of course, the Daily Mail thought that Tracey's art is vulgar and crude and presages the end of civilisation, so whoever complained in Hay is probably a DM reader:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2796506/tracey-emin-s-vulgar-proves-art-luvvies-dragging-civilisation-backwards-quentin-letts-finds-artist-s-latest-exhibition-embarrassing-infuriating.html

If you scroll down the images there's a rather wonderful embroidery with TE standing in front of it that could be mistaken for a landscape at first glance.

I don't like it at all. Unnecessary, inappropriate, bad taste.. also bad art. For too long now too many talentless artists have been achiving success by creating controversy/sensations rather than having worked hard to hone a craft that actually results in beautiful works of art. Sick of it.

Many straight women for example; even ones who might live in Hay on Wye, work in situations where they see more vulvas in any given shift than that student has had hot dinners.

Exactly. The artist doesn't sound like the sharpest tool in the box.

It's not clever.

It's very poor quality and there for shocks. On another thread it's claimed the "artist" has got a comments book and that is what her study is really about.

I don't care, it's fucking awful

The artist seems to have mainly talked about the figure being "female" (although talks about "women at a party"). The Graun has taken this to mean 'woman' in their article, rather than describing them as a "vulva-haver"!

Bigots!

Me neither, it's gross.

Fuck me could that student artist be any more patronising about ‘people from Hay on Wye’ or ‘straight women’? Many straight women for example; even ones who might live in Hay on Wye, work in situations where they see more vulvas in any given shift than that student has had hot dinners.

Agree the artwork’s wresting boots//party situation/no head or expression visible connote snd invite sexualisation of the female figure even if the artist did not intend it or the artist ‘just’ meant to incite comment on sexualisation. I’ve never been to a party where one solo woman takes her clothes off either. That would be wierd.

Placing such an image in a place adult people choose to enter to view it is fine. Not in a high street shop window though at kids eye level. Because ottherwise you’re just contributing to the problem while pretending you’re not because you’re naive about the context of your art and being a massive cool girl (with wierd ideas about what flies in London).

Easy bit of publicity from the gallery curator. Mission accomplished.

Is it pornography? Well if it didn't feature a pornographic trope of cowgirl boots then the debate is more valid. Painting a picture of a woman with her legs spread apart, wearing only cowgirl boots and called "Party Time"...

The artist is one of two things:

• A liar (who knowingly knows what this is about).
• Had her mind so warped by the prevalence of pornography that she can no longer see the difference between pornographic imagery and non-pornographic imagery and behaviour.

Of course they could.

But that wouldn’t have brought them publicity in the UK press and media.

Well, what an empowering experience that lazy self-publicist has created for the primary school and secondary school girls being subjected to harassment from boys for whom scenes of extreme-sexual-violence-against-women-as-entertainment-for-boys-and-men is freely available via the phones in their pockets.

How marvellous for those girls that they can walk home from school and be reminded in a shop window that a naked woman with her legs open is just a common occurrence, no big deal, don’t be such a prude you “pearl clutcher” (to quote a current thread on her about the increase in rapes of 14 yo old girls).

Let’s all stroke our chins about how “interesting” and “thought provoking” this self-identifies-as-“art” publicity piece is.

Or not.

What if this was a male figure, painted spreadeagled in all that weirdly proportioned 'glory'. Would that be acceptable in a shop window? If not, then why so for women. Why do we deserve to be depicted in art so publicly like this.

I'm still sore about Mary Wollstonecraft.

easy to see the whole painting if you do a google image search of the artist's name

It looks a bit more sexualised due to it being displayed in the window and the media (including the BBC) photographing and reporting it with the board covering the subjects genitals. Need to see the whole painting to form a view, but inside the gallery and without the media spin would have been more appropriate

It is sexualised and inappropriate to be on display in a window.

Though if the artist really said this she must be very short sighted or have odd proportions, because I think most of us have caught a fleeting glimpse of our own body, even if not of anyone else's - thought that would require a very sheltered life, particularly since she is extending that to seeing artworks. I'm glad I'm not scared of my own nethers.

Baynham read aloud a statement defending the work: “Most straight women haven’t seen a vulva so I see why they might be scared of it and it is clear to me there must be a lot of straight women in Hay.

Come to think of it, one of my grandmothers spent a couple of years in a posh convent school where they were expected to bathe in a long garment to preserve holy purity, but she said that even then (ca 1910) they'd bath naked as usual then swish the garment around in the water so they could satisfy the lay sister on duty outside the bathroom that they'd obeyed the rules.

I can't see it as anything other than sexualised. I'd definitely be steering my daughter away, if it were near me.

It's not 'pornography' and it's arguable whether it's sexualised or not, but I still don't think it's appropriate for a publuc-facing window display. Could they not find any pictures which weren't of a naked person displaying their genitals?

They think it's a woman because the pubis is on display and they know the difference. Also the breasts are shown but she has no head or face (again unlike the sheela-na-gigs). Women's faces, heads, brains, thoughts, voices don't matter once their breasts and genitals are available.

It's a clever artwork and the painter is making interesting points, but a shop window on a street isn't the place for it imo.

“This is a body of work made for this exhibition,” she said. “It’s called Party Time. It’s women having fun at a party, and one of them has chosen to take their clothes off.”

Has anyone here actually been to a party where a woman has done this, struck that pose and no one batted an eyelid? Because unless it's a swingers party, then I'd be very surprised.

Why do they think it's a woman? Is the gender identity also on display?

Of course it's sexualised. It's a naked woman with her legs spread.
If if it were a more natural pose in a more natural context, such as a woman swimming or doing something else non-sexual, then there could be a discussion but women don't just hang about naked with their legs wide open in public. That's a porn thing.
It might be a painting, but it's not that different to porn otherwise. It's a bit disingenuous to claim it isn't. I agree it should come down.