Inappropriate Art lesson

[Copingmama]

My 9 year old was shown a painting by Frida Kahlo in his Art lesson, which he also stuck into his book. It’s called ‘What the Water Gave me’ and includes naked women, including one being strangled. Does this seem inappropriate?

I don’t know about inappropriate but it’s bloody hideous. 😁

l think children age 9 can make better comments than ‘l like the green bit’

They HAVE to analyse work as part of the NC. And that includes subject matter, imagery and context. Yes, even at age 9

I think 9 is way too young for this sort of thing. Not appropriate.

As noted earlier, I probably wouldn’t have chosen it for a class full of nine year olds but I’m not scandalised by that choice. Art is full naked people, they can’t hide from it forever.

I dont think its inappropriate at all.

If all you see is the negative then you are missing the point.

“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,’ said Fred Colon. This sounded a bit weak even to him, so he added, ‘or a plinth. Both is best, o’course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.’ ‘What about a potted plant?’ ‘That’s okay if it’s in an urn.’ ‘What about if it’s not got an urn or a plinth or a potted plant?’ said Nobby. ‘Have you one in mind, Nobby?’ said Colon suspiciously. ‘Yes, The Goddess Anoia Arising from the Cutlery,’ said Nobby. ‘They’ve got it here. It was painted by a bloke with three i’s in his name, which sounds pretty artistic to me.’ ‘The number of i’s is important, Nobby,’ said Sergeant Colon gravely, ‘but in these situations you have to ask yourself: where’s the cherub? If there’s a little fat pink kid holding a mirror or a fan or similar, then it’s still okay. Even if he’s grinning. Obviously you can’t get urns everywhere.”
― Terry Pratchett, Thud!

The nudity part wouldn’t bother me, but a depiction of a naked woman being strangled would. The world is full of paintings and there’s no reason why this particular one needs to be studied in school by nine-year-olds.

But if you study why the suggestion of strangulation is taking place, it isnt at all inappropriate.

Thats the point of studying art, that what you see isnt necessarily what is being said. The visual version of "reading between the lines".

And.. way to take it literally, sigh. You get the idea... and yes, some very young children were exposed to some quite disturbing content online, thankfully things are changing.

THIS painting however is art. If the child is a, comfortable and b, taught well in the context then no problem.

I don't know the painting but I am assuming tbe teacher presented as learning about art, history or culture rather than focussing on anything sexualised.

When my brother was in reception, he found a copy of Playboy that my dad had been given. He wanted to take it to school to show his teacher! 🤣

But as previous posters have noted, any young child who is brought up Christian or even just wanders into a Christian church once will have seen extreme torture on display! (Crucifixion! Martyrdom of saints!) And how banal to reduce art to "negative" or "positive" themes. Sigh.

Thanks, that is helpful, as looking closely at this has changed my view on the topic somewhat.

It still doesn't look to me as if she is being strangled (is it absolutely agreed by all critics of the painting that she is? I know nothing about the work or the artist so will absolutely cede to anyone's superior knowledge here).

But anyway she DOES look to me, on closer inspection, that she is bound around the neck and waist with a rope, is that right?

To me that changes it from a straightforward nude to an image of the degradation of women - and it's a sad fact that such imagery is often also a feature of pornography.

Discussion of this would be fertile ground I am sure, but not for none year olds. So for this detail I do agree the picture was inappropriate. (Though I wouldn't phone up to complain as teachers are human too and most do a great job, so my bar for complaint is very high - I'd just discuss it with my child and try to reassure them if it raises any questions for them).

I'd still like to know more about what the topic was, what was said to the children about the picture, whether they were asked to copy it or produce work inspired by it, etc etc

i agree with this
I have a 9 yr old I don’t think he’d care but it’s just an odd choice.

Children in the UK go on school trips to churches where they see paintings and images of a naked, scourged, beaten, slashed & crucified Jesus from a very early age, particularly those in faith schools, yet few people seem to question children’s exposure to such horrors. Many children are familiar with Van Gough’s self-portraits (including those sans one ear) by the age of 9: there is even a series of children’s picture books about him. Art can deal with ugly issues and difficult emotions.

Yes it’s inappropriate and weird painting for a 9 year old. There are other paintings by Frida Kahlo or other artist to choose from.

Yeah not for 9 year olds. In my opinion, this is fine for Year 7 upwards.

I think it’s ok

if he watched Tom and Jerry or any cartoons are quite violent and silly.

Is that a problem though? It’s ok to cry at things, it doesn’t mean kids should be protected from every single thing that makes them cry.

op, if your school did an excursion to the Tate or the natural history museum, would you keep them home because there are definitely some complicated concepts in those places? The national portrait gallery? Michaelangelos David- a huge naked man? Wanting him to not see this is really being overprotective and not doing him any favours.

We’re not a Christian country anymore. So they won’t necessarily have been in a church.

Re your snooty comment about ‘banality:

Teachers have to be careful what they use due to safeguarding or other religions. So actually you have to choose quite carefully. And with lower school it makes sense not to have anything too controversial.

So you don’t get to classify ‘banal’ It’s following teaching standards. Or is that ‘banal’too? Who the fuck are you to classify banal? I’ve shown plenty of age appropriate paintings. But there’s a time and a place. And the time is KS4 and 5. What would you expect to see? The idea is to get some knowledge of art history. Not whether it’s banal or not.😂 Nash is hardly banal. Escher is hardly banal. But they aren’t negative.

The teacher concerned who introduced this picture was not following these.

Can't wait to hear what happens when you take DS to the Sistine Chapel.

Good grief of course it's not appropriate. So many wannabe cool moms on here.

There is plenty of art that they could have studied that doesn't have naked women lying about the place.

Does it have a place in art? Absolutely, but not at 9. And yep, he'll see very similar at an art gallery but that's very different to studying it in depth in a focussed lesson(s).

My more sensible reply, OP, is similar to most others. It's probably not what I'd choose for a nine-year-old, but it's a significant artwork and a powerful example of the artist telling a personal story. It's more intriguing than looking into why 16th century portraits feature globes, skulls, swords and exotic fruit (which some disappointed teacher explained to my vaguely uninterested class. It's stuck, though, so who knows what insights your DS will gain from Kahlo?!)

My distant childhood was totally porn-free and pre-internet. I saw endless incredibly gory depictions of torture in churches and Bibles, sexually graphic sculptures in museums and galleries, and the Joy Of Sex - a brilliant book with explicit details and illustrations - was de rigueur on every coffee table.

In short, you're worrying too much 🙂

My DS has had classes on Kahlos in his last year of primary school. Did a recreation of her portrait, learnt about her etc. But he is 2 years older than OP son and he actually educated me in some of her struggles (I am not an art fanatic). He really enjoyed it and got her "age appropriate" story.

The picture in the OP, or me, would be unacceptable, but the topic and the age appropriate artwork worked out well for my 11 year old.

No one has ever called me a cool mum before so that’s a win. Certainly not my kids who think I’m far too strict on what they can watch and play.

The brains were quite runny at that point...they're not the most solid of organs in the first place and once a stick has been stuffed up the nose and the contents of the head... stirred... less so.

I learned this at probably 6 or 7, when we 'did' Tutankhamun' and ancient egypt at primary school. Fascinating stuff.

I don't agree that nudity and the naked female form is automatically inappropriate for this age group. The strangulation also isn't an issue for me - again, kids will be familiar to the point of totally ignoring, an image of a half naked man, wounded and crucified, bleeding and suffocating on a cross by that age. And many will have seen all manner of nasty shit online - in the last four weeks I have seen three people die in video clips I was not looking for, and I don't have Tiktok!

I do think this particular piece is too complex for a teacher at that level to give it the time it actually needs or for the whole class to grasp even some of Kahlos themes... There are better Kahlo pieces to choose, but I'd not kick up a fuss about it either. If the teacher struggles to explain, and your kid comes home with questions, direct them back to her (she started it!) or just say 'well artists are often quite odd, don't worry about it' and then change the subject.