“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.

Yes this art is also pornographic.
Pornographic isn’t a criticism it is a description.

It’s shit. And unpleasant in that sighting. Trying to shock like A level students do. Except it’s not even GCSE level.

25 years an art teacher. David and the Bachalian Revels are classical sculptures/relief. Carefully created with proportion and classical lines. It’s a crime to compare that Cowboy Boot shite to them. They are graceful and aesthetically appealing, Spread leg cowboy boots aren’t.

No, however despite being a wrongun’ Schiele’s work is generally considered to have value and be worthy of display. The artist of this piece
has at least tried to explain it make a valid statement.

The artist says in the Guardian article "“It’s just expressing the female body and normalising the female body, because everyone sexualises it."

But their image is obviously informed by the sexualised images of the female body in pornography. This isn't an image of a woman, but just literally of a female body; no head, no arms, splayed and supine.

The painting isn't pornography, and it isn't offensive, but it is a very objectified image of a female body and that is nothing new, interesting or valuable.

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*

no, I was using quotes as it’s online not written. But you’re right that was incorrect. It is a published dictionary. Why have you determined it’s a spoof? American Heritage Dictionary is widely discredited too

I dont even get that?? Maybe they should have worked out what a nepobaby is, rather than throwing "what the fucks" around

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

no. I just didn’t understand why throwing an insult around the children of celebrities made any sense as that’s not the case here. Unless I’ve missed something

Funny Wiki makes no mention of AHD being “widely discredited”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Heritage_Dictionary_of_the_English_Language

I get what you mean of course.

There are also some modern/post modern/whatever artists that purely set out to shock and skirt the limits of what's 'allowed,' and sometimes there's not much more to it than that.

Whatever it is, it is not a good painting. The right place for it is not the shop window because it ought to go in the bin.

What you saying then? You’re quoting from dodgy dictionaries to support your argument and then going “that’s not what I said”.

She was saying that there's perhaps no other reason why the art would be on display as it's hardly impressive. I think that's potentially a valid inference.

😂

It’s not a dodgy dictionary.
If you quote x, then that is what x says, not what you say.
It is the argument of x, not your argument.

Everything you wrote about naked this and naked that was what you said and was your argument. None of it was mine, even though you mistakenly attributed it to me.

Don't know or care if it could be classified as porn. Probably not, but I don't think it needed to be displayed in a window purely for the purpose of provoking people. It's hideously ugly.

@GoodieMcTwoshoes yes I understand now but still don’t think it’s a relevant comment as the artist isn’t a nepo-baby or related to the owner etc

If you quote x, then that is what x says, not what you say. It is the argument of x, not your argument. Everything you wrote about naked this and naked that was what you said and was your argument

You see @jen337. no idea why you would be confused by what this poster is actually trying to say in her many many posts!

Too true, hideous, monstrosity😂

Whatever it is, it's shit.

I don't particularly like it but that's probably the point...it's provocative, bordering on offensive I.e. objectifying, devoid of context, why does she only have boots on, what is her story/motive. Also why is it terrible?! 😂

I could see it on the wall of some bar maybe. Anything else you want to read Into it is your interpretation.

Here endeth my art critic career.

How would we know if they're related to a friend of the owner's etc? I think that's the most likely. An extension of nepobaby. The person has only got their 'art' there because their mum is the owner's bestie or something.

I really don't think that it's necessary to debate whether it is 'art' or 'pornographic'. The question is, should it be placed in a shop window where people who may prefer not to see it should be subjected to it? Personally, I think not. I also find it disengenous of the artist to claim that it's non sexual and that she's merely attempted to normalise the female form. What's the point of the cowboy boots and the Playboy centerfold pose. Also, what does her intent matter if the opposite is achieved? When I look at the painting I see a poorly painted highly sexualized depiction of a woman, which, in my view is more degrading than empowering. I see it as yet another talentless attempt to court controversy rather than achieve the artists aims through talent.

1. the painting is pornographic, as it falls within the definition of licentious painting, and
2. it likely has some social commentary as this is common in contemporary art. What that is only the artist knows and the rest of us are allowed to make our own interpretations.

There, it’s not that complex or confusing really. 🤔

😂