“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.

The meaning of art is something that unless the artist says what they intended, anyone looking at it can make their own links. It is true that most modern art is a social commentary of sorts.

https://www.mattgablerart.com/post/the-silent-conversation-exploring-art-as-a-medium-of-social-commentary

https://www.creativityandmadness.com/blog/art-as-social-commentary-how-artists-critique-social-norms-and-advocate-for-change

https://www.artgallery.co.uk/blog/17883-how-does-contemporary-art-reflect-current-social-and-political-issues

https://www.khederpaintings.com/post/art-as-activism-addressing-social-issues-in-contemporary-art

https://www.vice.com/en/article/10-artists-who-tackle-the-social-issues-of-today/

Many more if you feel like googling.

Exactly this. A painting of a naked woman wouldn't bother me, it's the legs splayed open that's the problem, and in the shop window.

I’m conflicted now. The artist obviously can’t paint, perhaps that’s why she hasn’t attempted a head, although they come out with all kinds of waffle to justify themselves, perhaps that’s the point, the focus is just on the body. Would it be more ok if it was more aesthetically pleasing? Does that raise a question about beauty ideals and how ‘ugly’ women are treated? What if it were a male nude, something by Freud? Women’s bodies are viewed as more acceptable, more frequently used in art and advertising often using ‘sexiness’ to appeal to the male gaze. Naked Gail Porter was projected onto Westminster, that was way more pornographic and don’t recall the police being called.

@Switcher

well, at least everyone else has given their opinion, how does your post add to the thread??

The pose! I dont understand why you can’t see that it’s a depiction of sex or at least could be interpreted as a depiction of sex. I guess a women might be naked in that position while giving birth too but she isn’t 9months pregnant in the drawing so I think we can rule that one out. If you’re being nit-picky about what counts as sex exactly then perhaps this is what one partner sees about a half a second before the sex actually starts.

What’s the definition of licentious?

The offence for me is how ghastly the thing is.

I didn’t make it up. See screenshot. It’s from a reputable published dictionary.
I think a naked woman with legs spread in a sexual manner is licentious.
It shows more than the example of Bacchanalian paintings. See example of an ancient Roman Bacchanalian relief. (Many paintings are faded and incomplete due to ravages of time)

I agree. I'm surprised. The woman who owns/ runs The Table and The Chair galleries usually has far better taste than this. I live not far from Hay and have bought several paintings in the past. Good art. I'm surprised she'd actually put either of these in the window. It's not exactly Tracey Emin, is it?

If you’re being nit-picky about what counts as sex exactly then perhaps this is what one partner sees about a half a second before the sex actually starts

some legs with a black triangle?

Not my favourite artist nor piece of art but if you can’t possibly bring yourselves to have a conversation with your children (regardless of their ages) about what they have seen and what it shows or doesn’t then that seems like a slightly more worrying problem to have than whether this is considered pornography or not. Primary school aged children are perfectly capable of having age appropriate conversations about pretty much anything you can think of if given the chance. Perhaps removing the element of choice over where and when the conversation has to happen is not ideal, but that’s not the issue that seems to be at hand is it? If they ask what it is then tell them. If they ask questions then answer them. It really is not hard.

Here you go!

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross

'amazing art' ???

wouldn't give it wall space, in the garage, let alone the house

It shouldn't be in the window. People who want to go into the gallery should be allowed to see it. But people who just want to walk or drive past shouldn't have to see it.

Exactly, if a real life woman went in public naked, wearing only red cowboy boots and spread her legs like that in the park…she’d be arrested for public indecency. Pretending the painting is not at all overtly sexual in nature is just being contrary.

Well, if art is meant to provoke discussion, it's certainly succeeded in that!

Oh @ToBeDetermined you are out of your depth and really need to brush up on gaining evidence from reputable sources. The American Heritage dictionary is known as being not only a conservative compilation, but also one whose writer ignored the very panel set up to contribute and randomly wrote his own definitions.

Also I wasn’t asking ‘is any art a social commentary.’ I was asking you to defend your statement that ‘all art apart from portraits is social commentary.’

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Heritage_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language#:~:text=The%20AHD%20was%20edited%20by,in%20the%20use%20of%20language.

It's too ugly to be porn but it is inappropriate, and attention seeking by the art gallery proprietor. She would know people would have a reaction to that.

But I think it'd actually put people off going in, rather than encourage them to go in, like a window display it supposed to.

I suppose they say any publicity is good publicity and more people will know about her gallery now.

@ToBeDetermined I didn’t make it up. See screenshot. It’s from a reputable published dictionary.

It would be a far less common definition, hence why it's last.

I think a naked woman with legs spread in a sexual manner is licentious.

No it isn't.

Nooooo, but if you want to paint someone for posterity, I think she should at least be presented attractively. In this case, attractiveness doesn’t come into it. Whether or not the general opinion is that it is pornographic, I don’t consider it appropriate for a window where children walk past. It’s not even very good!

pornographyin British English
(pɔːˈnɒɡrəfɪ )
noun
1.
writings, pictures, films, etc, designed to stimulate sexual excitement
2.
the production of such material
Sometimes (informal) shortened to: porn, porno
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

Collins dictionary is one of the standard dictionaries widely used in publishing in the UK.

I suppose 'obscene' is a better word for it.

Exactly, if a real life woman went in public naked, wearing only red cowboy boots and spread her legs like that in the park…she’d be arrested for public indecency

what if a real man took all his clothes off and stood in Florence would that be ok? (Michelangelo’s David)

The pose is without doubt provocative & sexual to my mind - would I want my younger kids to walk past and think this was a normal pose to adopt? Absolutely not. But I think the artist/ gallery owner is being provocative for a reason….. like many ‘artists’ / ‘promoters’ these days - more interested in creating a shocked reaction than creating something of interest & true worth.

being naked is not pornographic ,being naked in certain postures can be. I find this image offensive as it’s reminiscent of a porn pose, many women would not choose to be photographed in this pose whilst wearing clothes. (I don’t find the human body in itself offensive.)