“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.

It's in the window because it's representative of the artist's other work inside the shop, on her instagram page etc. It's not a one off...it's what she does.

THERE IS NO VULVA / NO VAGINA

theres a black triangle.

dont know about you but I’d ask for my money back if i paid for porn and got a black triangle over the woman’s genitalia

Go ahead, but art usually is commentary on something in society - think Banksy if it isn’t of an actual person.

I agree that the owner probably called the police as a lovely little bt of PR. Along the lines of 'No such thing as bad publicity' . :)

@ToBeDetermined reference/ evidence for that statement please?

Pornography doesn’t even need an image, it can be a written story.

I find it crass and I would never buy a piece by that artist or from a gallery that would stick in the window.

I see it as a form of abuse to force the general public to have to see it if they want to walk along the street.

Nasty, no talent crap that makes the world that little bit more sleazy just by existing.

Horrible picture! I wouldn't have it on my wall.

Literally the first hit when googling the definition.

Can you not work this one out for yourself? Genuine question?
But I’ll bite
Define ´kids’ - I wouldn’t be worried about teenagers seeing this artwork. But I wouldn’t show it to my preschool or primary school aged kids for the same reasons I wouldn’t let them watch adult tv with sex scenes. Sure, it might not actually be porn because no genitalia is visible and no sex is actually taking place - but it’s still an artistic depiction of sex and so I don’t think it’s appropriate or fair to show it to a child.

Terrible, ugly painting. Wouldn't call it pornography but do think it would be displayed inside ideally.

I wouldn't be surprised as it reads like no one else has complained.

i think 'pornography is subjective, wouldn't be pirnigraphy in my opinion, but I think it's vulgar and there was no need to put it in the window, especially at a child's height.

I checked out the artist's other work on her website, and tbh it looked to me like doodles on a twelve year old's pencil case. But maybe I'm missing the point. 🤷‍♀️

I'd say it's a bit odd and not really child friendly. Not because it's female genitalia but just because the legs are spread right open. Similarly I would want my kids to see I giant penis in a shop window

@ToBeDetermined I meant your assertion that a woman wearing cowboy boots was ‘clearly’ a reference to young TAylor Swift fans because all art, except for portraits, are a comment on society. Which you said

It's not a photograph though.

Sure, it might not actually be porn because no genitalia is visible and no sex is actually taking place - but it’s still an artistic depiction of sex and so I don’t think it’s appropriate or fair to show it to a child

whst do you mean it’s a depiction of sex? How?!

I would ‘take’ my 10 year old to see it (because it’s shit not least) but I wouldn’t be horrified if she did. We’d probably laugh about it

L'Origine du monde

Guess you've never been in the Musée d'Orsay then.

That's a definition that you made up.
Not all pornography is licentious, and not all imagery of naked people is pornographic.
As I have said before, you are categorically wrong in what you are saying. This is not a matter of opinion or perspective.

What an eyesore.

If it was a photograph would it be pornography?

no. It would be a photo of a woman with a black triangle over her genitalia

I think it’s pointless…

Why use a woman’s naked body for shock value unless there is a message behind it?

Naked woman in a strong assertive pose maybe. But naked woman in a submissive sexualised position… no thanks.

And if the point was supposed to be here’s my vagina in all its glory, then what was the point in not drawing a vagina?

🤪🤪😂

I wouldn't want my children to see it and I think people should have a choice, not have it forced on them. In the same way I'm not against pornography, nudists, sex toys etc etc but it should be my choice to see them, and not walk my children past them unintentionally.

@Bex5490 Naked woman in a strong assertive pose maybe. But naked woman in a submissive sexualised position… no thanks.

What on earth do you mean by this?
What exactly is a "strong assertive pose"?
What exactly is a "submissive sexualised position," and what aspect of the painting would be classified as "submissive" or "sexualised"?