“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 is fucking terrible.

I don't like the style, it's very nepobaby - and displaying her genitals and therefore not appropriate. People are not allowed to walk around naked, while it's legal to, it's not acceptable

Right, so in a previous post you’re saying reliefs of Bacchanalian orgies are licentious and pornographic. And by the definition, licentiousness is ignoring accepted rules or standards, being naked in public is against accepted rules, but there are thousands of naked statues in public places worldwide. So naked art, or porn by your standards, being displayed in public goes back centuries, across cultures, and is revered in museums and galleries. Then this (admittedly rather poor) work is in keeping with that tradition, or where would you draw the line?

it’s very nepobaby

What the actual fuck @TheRavenSaid

Pretty sure that’s exactly the issue at hand. Why are you assuming that those of us who would rather not have to walk past this particular piece of crappy art with a primary school or preschool aged child would not educate our kids about sex in a more appropriate place with better drawings?

I don’t think that children, or indeed anyone, should be exposed to such dreadful ‘art’. It’s rubbish!

I didn’t make up the definition, it is a published definition and therefore perfectly valid to use it when discussing if a painting is pornographic or not.

You didn’t ask me defend the statement that ‘all art apart from portraits is social commentary’ because that isn’t what I wrote,

See screenshot.

@Bananapancakemaker i don’t think my 9 year old if she saw it would think about it being sexual. She’d probably find it funny and a bit silly. Which it is.

The pose of Michelangelo’s David is not in any way sexual. The pose of this ‘piece’ is. I actually understand the ‘nepobaby’ comment - the picture in question is trying to demand attention for being explicit, rather than being actually good🤷🏼‍♀️.

That is classical-style sculpture or whatever, you won't find any of that with a woman with a 'split beaver or a bloke with his bum cheeks spread etc.

There are Sheela-na-gigs I suppose, but they don't look quite like this. It is moe like someone stylising something from porn in an ugly-ist (there's probably a proper term for this artistic -ism, if it exists) way.

As someone posted about this artist upthread www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-liverpool/life-motion-egon-schiele-francesca-woodman/five-things-know-egon Some facts about Egon Schiele who allegedly seduced and kidnapped a minor….@jen337 artists can and do use inappropriate sexual images and have sexually questionable motives ! Just because something is defined as art doesn’t mean it automatically has value or is making a valid statement.

Oh hey, @ToBeDetermined this is valid too then as it’s ‘published’ in the Urban Dictionary

Again, you’re out of your depth here

I’m not saying it.

Bacchanalian paintings is given as an example of pornography, under one of the definitions of licentious paintings or writing in the Dictionary definition that I screenshotted. I posted a photo of a relief, because they are more durable, to show you what they look like.

You seem to be conflating nakedness with pornography to posit some strange strawman standards that are not mine.

I think that was the point of the nepo comment.

If that person wasn't a loved one or friend of someone involved, it wouldn'tve been considered good enough to be anything. Like with the Olympic 'breakdancer.' 😂

Imo, it objectifies the sitter as a body (rather than a nude)with the head cut out of the painting and the full on pose with boots. If the artist and gallery didn't expect that to shock then they were naive - but it's certainly got them some good publicity.

"All her paintings were of the female body, she said. “It’s just expressing the female body and normalising the female body, because everyone sexualises it."

It could be argued that showing a woman with open legs is a girl.of sexualising

Sheela na gigs are way way more explicit than open legs and a black triangle. It’s a woman with her hands in her vulva spreading her lips.

History is rife with sexual art. But this is very very tame. It’s literally a black triangle

What don't you understand?

Yes, sorry - I was replying to the person who seemed to be mortally offended by the first nepobaby comment prior to mine - probably the artist’s Mum👍😂

You’re citing urban dictionary knowing it’s a spoof/joke dictionary (hence the quotes around published) as a way to tell another poster that it’s unreasonable to use a proper dictionary to look up the various meanings of words and yet you believe the other poster is ´out of (their) depth’?
Your logic’s failing a bit there.

Nepobaby - shit work (normally 'art') where they are 'doing well'
See Beckham kids photo book, scary spices kid 'paintings'

I think the person thought the commenter was implying the art was showing what nepobabies get upto, and was appalled at the suggestion.

Peak mumsnet.

I really don’t think I am out of my depth.
I did get top marks in GCSE and A Level art.
I also did half a joint studio Art & Art History degree before switching to archaeology because I found Art History more interesting.

Perhaps you could try discussing instead of making contemptuous and authoritarian statements? Even a fresher art student would know better than to tell everyone they are “categorically wrong” that contemporary art usually has social commentary in it- when it does.

🧑‍🎨

It's when someone gets a role/their work profiled etc just due to who they know or are related to.

Not my thing to be honest, can’t see the ‘art’ in there but what do it know.

I think it was a great way of publishing the gallery.

The painting is shit.