“This is not pornography”

[jen337]

Police called to Hay-on-Wye gallery over painting of naked woman in window.

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

“Officers went to the gallery after complaints that the painting, which features a naked woman wearing cowboy boots, her legs splayed to reveal a black triangle with pink wool on top, is not art but pornography.”

“Police had asked the painting be moved further inside the gallery, but Harris said she was “making a stand”. She said she was shocked to be told about the complaints, but that support online had been “massive” – “around 90% pro and 10% anti”, she said.”

Discuss.

My view is that the artist is correct, there’s nothing intrinsically offensive about a naked body, and there are are many depictions of the female form deemed acceptable, the famous and well loved little mermaid and countless other statues in public places, the many works of William Etty that hang in major galleries, Manet’s Olympia, etc. Although, I will admit this is not particularly “good” art, it’s still valid, and it might will have been deliberately placed to be provocative and court controversy, in which case it’s worked and highlights the hypocrisy.

I'd buy it. Not porn imo.

Doesn't the definition of pornography involve the intention, i.e. the intention to arouse?

I don't feel that is the case with this image. It's designed to be provocative, but not to cause arousal.

Can’t see the painting in full.

but pretty sure the gallery owner probably called the police for a bit of PR tbh

If it was a photograph would it be pornography?

Well it looks like pornography to me. I went to see the little mermaid while in Copenhagen and don't recall her displaying her genitals, ditto Manet's Olympia. And it's a crap painting, so I suppose, minus talent, the artist only had shock value to fall back on.

Not porn in the sense I doubt it's going excite any males walking past! But possibly a pornagraphic pose in a badly painted picture. I certainly wouldn't want it on my wall. What's it's message or point?

What’s the Little Mermaid got to do with the price of fish?

is Michelangelo’s David pornographic @RuleForFire

Pornography or not, it's a bloody hideous painting. If someone bought it for me, I would chop it up and burn it. I don't give a stuff who painted it, it's horrible.

It may not be porn but it’s still inappropriate. I wouldn’t want my child to see this when walking past the window thanks.

I think you could easily argue that the posture/pose contributes to our perceptions of whether a particular naked artwork is sexual or not.
I think the police response was measured and reasonable - the picture was not censored or banned or even age limited - a suggestion was just made that the picture be moved a few metres so that the public can decide whether they want to look at it/ want their small kids to look at it as they walk past the gallery.

Why can kids not see a black triangle? Genuine question.

Currently because there's a sign in front of it.

What about “The Origin of the World” then?

Fab gallery, I love visiting it. And no, it isn’t pornographic.

Good point, there’s no genitalia on display, only breasts.

Agree - it’s the posture. Women only sit like this, naked with legs splayed out, when having sex or possibly giving birth. Both of which are private, intimate moments that don’t really need to be in the window.

The more I look at it it really isn’t a good painting, but still wouldn’t say it’s offensive.

To me it looks like the standard of work you occasionally see on bus stops alongside the ubiquitous cock and balls and 'come on you reds'.

A naked woman isn't pornography and if it is, why is Egon Schiele in the Met?
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/483454

It's an ugly painting and the way the legs are splayed is sexual. If the woman was standing and naked it would be fine but not in that position. Just put it in the back of the shop where no one has to see it would be my suggestion.

Does anyone else see a bug eyed crab like alien?
I don't find it offensive but agree with another poster that the police approach seems appropriate.

It’s not displayed behind a street facing window. That’s the issue imho.
Pornographic images should be kept more discreetly as they are not child friendly images due to their graphic sexual content.

I find it offensive because it’s shit, not because it’s pornographic.

The Egon Schiele and The Origin of the World are in the gallery.

You make a choice to enter the gallery to view it and can judge if the works in the gallery are appropriate for the viewer given their age.

The Met and the Musee d'Orsay didn't put the paintings in their front window.

Does art have to be pretty?