“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 creator hasn’t made the picture for its own sake. There is a comments book inside the gallery. She intends to use the comments for her final year thesis.

This is what bothers me - she hasn’t created a work of art, she is reaction-farming and will use this product (the comments book) to create something else. It seems dishonest. And the painting is crude and ugly.

It would be more correct to say it features a naked woman's body. We don't even see her face.

And if someone quotes something, it's to suppport their point they're making in some way.

Unless they're saying 'X says Y but this is b*llox because..' Even then, they quote that for a reason.

‘Boiled lobster with cowboy boots’

Ah ok. 'Could you help Di with her thesis for uni, mate?' Makes sense.

your explanation would make an awful lot more sense, having had 2 siblings do art degrees I was perplexed at a 3rd year producing this , thank you!

I don't think it looks like a very good painting from what I can see.
I guess in a high street shop front in a fairly small rural town, if the depiction of her vulva/labia etc looked very prominent I'd imagine a few older people or the more conservative minded finding it a bit shocking.
If a picture of a penis of similar size was displayed instead I'd imagine it would have caused a similar commotion.
In a London gallery I'd think it wouldn't be a bother.
I personally wouldn't care what it's of except it looks executed in a way I'm not fond of.
But I'd still not call it porn.

There is a very interesting discussion to be had about the sexual and power dynamics behind the prevalance of the naked female body in art, and where this painting sits in relation to that.

So far this thread is not it.

Personally, I think Sarah Lucas' “TWO FRIED EGGS AND A KEBAB” (1992) is pretty much the definitive statement on the female body as/in art.

I’ll try one last time with you. I can’t work out what you’re saying, you’re hiding behind semantics. You started by saying this painting is porn by definition, which is a licentious image or something I can’t be bothered going back to check. Then you gave a definition for licentious from a dictionary. Tell me how you think that definition you gave applies to this painting. And, if many, many artworks are considered porn, by your definition, which if any depictions of the nude female body you consider not to be porn. E.g. is Olympia or Manet’s bathers porn, is page 3 or the wonderbra advert porn? Where do you draw the line?

Half the entries in Urban Dictionary are obviously jokes - the definition of pornography that you citing being one example. It’s quite obvious when you try to use it to look up a word you actually don’t know and the definition doesn’t actually tell you anything about what the word means. The jokes happen because Urban Dictionary lets anyone edit with an anonymous username. I just had another look and it seems to be pretty full of trolls writing horrible racist rubbish now. The American Heritage Dictionary appears to be backed by a well known publishing house and isn’t openly and anonymously edited.

The full painting is on Instagram. Just search for the artist's name on Google.

BBC news article covers the thesis aspect. Plus there is a note on the comments book in the shop. But I bet the “artist” is hoovering up the online debate.

By definition, sexual harassment is sexual harassment of the victim feels like it is. It is about the victims perspective. so if people are passing and it makes them feel uncomfortable due to the sexual nature, and they report that to the police, then it should be removed, because it is the experience of the "victim" (unsuspecting passer by) that counts, not the "artist" who deliberately positioned it there.

🤣 can’t believe this is how I’m spending my Friday night! Wish I was that woman in the painting!

Where will it end?

-But I think the artist needs to lay off the weed or whatever and go and do something wholesome instead.

Hey, you could always recreate it while posting.

Hahah so you think that Brooklyn (or whichever one it is) Beckham is a talented photographer, who deserves a sell out photo book, I mean come on

All about self promotion, nothing more than that.

It's just about getting attention and 'fame' by 'trying to shock'

She's not nearly as proficient as Lucian Freud who paints with massive technical skill.

More of a teenaged daub than 'art'.

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?

That, for me, is the main issue. That removal of choice!

No one is going to get turned on by this so I wouldn't say it's pornographic, no.
I'd imagine the artist was trying to convey that even such a crude image of a woman in this pose is still deeply shocking. I think it's really juvenile personally. If I saw this in a gallery, I would roll my eyes. I hope my daughter when she is older would do the same. I wouldn't be happy to walk by it on display in a window with her now (she's 5). They shouldn't have put it on display limb that imo.

I'll try and make it easier for you - it's shit, and not deserving of a window display for an art show

It needs an urn really. Got to be art then, with an urn.

I wouldn't say it counts as pornography, but I find it grim.

@jen337 you are not the artist I hope ! Otherwise prepare for your thread to possibly appear in a thesis….!