“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.

There's such a fine line and I don't believe that any of us can make a decision either way on the basis of what we can see here.
If I was still at school I wouldn't be happy with schoolboys or pre-teen boys being able to stare at it.
But from an artistic point of view it looks pretty awful anyway.

If this is produced by a so called ''art'' student, no wonder they say degrees are becoming devalued.

It's dire.

Technically poor and without any merit at all.

pearls before swine

That was my immediate thought.

Trying to get coverage for a talentless juvenile daub that was probably done in an hour or less.

yeah, but it's not in a shop window in Haye-on-Wye.

My personal definition of pornography is that it is designed to arouse and the only thing that picture arouses is my suspicion that the gallery is not full of talented artists

Spot on! 🎯

‘David ‘ is the opposite of well endowed and is certainly not aroused.

So it/ he is certainly not ‘pornographic’.

It is commonly supposed to be an allegory of the small state (Florence) defending itself against and annihilating its more powerful enemies.

Edited because predictive text is in love with incorrect apostrophe.

“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.”

Yes. It is a pornographic image per the definition of pornography.

“Then you gave a definition for licentious from a dictionary.”
I was asked what is the definition of licentious apparently by someone who did not know, so I posted that to be helpful. It wasn’t part of any ‘argument.’

“Tell me how you think that definition you gave applies to this painting.”
I did.

“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?”

It’s not my personal made up definition, as I said, it is the dictionary definition.
I see no reason to go into a litany of what is not porn. If you don’t know what a licentious image of nude female body is compared to just a nude female body that isn’t really my problem.

My only ‘arguments’ were
-this painting is pornographic, as it falls within the definition of licentious painting, and 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.

Everyone’s a critic. Like to see you do better.

Yes, because at 9 she is probably still naive to the wider connotations (of the cowboy boots and playboy centerfold pose). So she would likely view it more innocently and also laugh at how badly it is painted. I also have a 9 year old daughter and she would probably find it amusing.
A boy or child of a different age might view it differently or it could introduce him to the notion that women are to be viewed through a certain lens. I would be more concerned about my son seeing a woman depicted in that denigrating pose.
What the artist, may have succeeded in, is reinforcing gender stereotypes rather than normalising female genitalia.

18th and 19th 'pornographic' engravings are very different to this crude effort.
Edouard Henri Avril did a similar 'view' of female anatomy.

It is a repulsive painting, and is objectifying the naked female form. There's a place for that sort of grotesque art, but the front window of a gallery ain't it.

Personally, I'd throw it in a skip, but there you go, it takes all sorts. I don't know much about art, but I know what I like, and I certainly don't like that.

Possibly you ''ARE'' the 'Artist'...as others suspected!

Ok, you sure do a lot of arguing for someone not making an argument. And you just want to spout some obvious statements and not have them questioned. Thanks for clearing that up.

Jen337.
Possibly listing synonyms for licentious might assist you in understanding what a “licentious image” is: indecent, lascivious ,lubricious, obscene, prurient , rude, salacious, vulgar

Nothing to do with merely nakedness.

Please for the love of God tell me which of those apply to this?

There is something intrinsically offensive about it. It’s shite.

Looks like a smutty school kid was taking the piss for a dare.

They are synonyms, so they all apply to this albeit each with a different nuance.
It would not take long to click on each one- I have helpfully linked to their definitions in case of unfamiliarity. Go on, have a read, you’ll see pretty quickly how they apply to a crude painting of a naked woman wearing only cowboy boots, with her legs spread in sexual fashion, and her genitals portrayed as a crude triangular (man)hole with a pink merkin on top.

Highly sexualised depiction of female genitalia.

As someone else pointed out, what if it was a photograph?

I think nobody would disagree that that was pornographic. So this is just a question of how lifelike you think the depiction is.

Not appropriate for the side of a road.

Sorry but I laughed out loud at this. It's hilarious,especially with the sign in front of it which actually makes it worse. Plus the replies here, better go 😂😂😂

Also porn.

Manga cartoons of porn are far worse depictions and I doubt anybody would question whether they are porn or think it appropriate to put them on the bottom shelf.

We're not in Japan (where that kind of thing doesn't go on the top shelf)

Guernica is a moving piece depicting the bombing of innocent civilians.

I know what all those words mean thank you.I wish you’d just come out with what you really want to say without running for the dictionary. I guess we all bring our own baggage to what we see. Putting aside the obviously poor execution, the words that come to me are more like naturalistic, human, relaxed, candid, free, uninhibited.

No, but I am off to find my cowboy boots.