“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.

From the Guardian piece. Val Harris, gallery owner and aunt of the budding Artemisia Gentileschi

“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.”

Really?

@oakleaffy those are absolutely beautiful.

I Understand where you come from, I do.

There is a lot of beautiful art around, there really is something for everyone.

And sometimes too much beauty makes you take it for granted. You need the dark to appreciate light, at least I do.

That explains a lot! Anyone not related would possibly not want to give this picture house room!
Rightly or wrongly, I think it’s totally revolting!

Neither building has a front window however they do display posters near the entrances from time to time.

There is a lot of porn in art galleries.

OP example is just a shite painting.

Why intimate moments be used in art though - what about God Giving Birth by Monica Sjöö?

That’s a lot of baggage you have listed.

"In my opinion, all the women that have something bad to say about the painting aren’t grossed out so much as insecure."

I think the young artist is insecure. The painting is pornographic and shitty. There are tons of beautifully done pornographic art. Pornographic doesn’t mean bad or wrong or shitty, but a type of sexual theme expressed artistically. The art itself can be astoundingly beautiful and meaningful or look like the painting in the OP- crude, amateurish and jarring.

Sheela na gig's have been made with better reason and more skill since the 12th Century.

It's really not that deep.

How much was it selling for..? I reckon I could knock a few of these up and I’d be minted if that’s what people are calling art.

Christ on a bike, what’s happened to her shin..? Must have been one hell of a bang (nothing worse that a shin bang imo) and her looks badly out of shape and mighty bruised oouch!

Art is in the eye of the beholder!

I don't see it as pornography. Provocative, yes, especially placed in the window where it was surely meant to provoke a response, but pornographic?
No.
To cross that line, I think there'd need to be some more explicit... activity.
Liking the painting or not is not relevant, imo.
I"m puzzled by the suggestion that a painting cannot be considered both pornographic and art

I wish people would stop patronising us by telling us that if we object it’s just because we are frigid / prude hags who have just never seen genitalia. Nobody is ‘scared’ of the vulva in the painting, despite the artist’s claims. It’s just that a legs-open close up of someone’s (anyone’s, even in a painting) genitalia is a pose that we don’t all go about doing and showing one another every day. Where we do see those postures is in porn. And where we don’t put them is on display in the eyeline of passers by and kids.

Looks as if the artist was tryng to make up for a lack of talent with a provocative picture. It’s a poor example of art and my answer to the lady who asked whether a photograph of that pose would be pornographic, I’d say yes. I doubt if any TV station would broadcast it before the watershed and therefore thempolice requesr for the painting to be placed further into the gallery is entirely reasonable it’s not appropriate for children to be exposed to an image like that.

We don't agree on what porn is. The picture from the article doesn't expose genitals, it has a triangle in front of them. It doesn't come across to me as painted in order to titillate but rather to provoke a reaction. Job done, obviously.

The painting is overtly sexual. If David had an erection, then that would be a fairer comparison.

Seems she's fine unless she does gollies. Then it's different. Especially frisky gollies.

I specifically said it wasn't to be compared. It's shite but not porny, hence " just".
I was merely pointing out that being in a gallery does not make something not porn.
And no, art doesn't have to be pretty.

It's neither porn or art.

not porn - may not be great art but def not porn

It looks like I'm the only one who finds it really funny & more so with the notice in front it and what it says. I was laughing out loud at the painting and the comments. I just find the whole thread hilarious 😂

I"m puzzled by the suggestion that a painting cannot be considered both pornographic and art

Me too. Art can be pornographic and still be good or bad art.

The painting is irredeemably vulgar and should not be in a public-facing window.

Stop everyone!!! @The13thFairy has spoken