How is this still acceptable in this day and age?

[Eumaybe]

Picture attached, not sure it will show straight away, but it shows a photo of someone called David Ross sitting next to a table by Allen Jones.

YABU: it’s just art.
YANBU: appalling, just another example of sleazy male nonsense disguised as art.

Grim. This has put me off ever going to the Nevill Holt festival assuming it’s all connected.

It’s just so awful I don’t know how he can sit next it for a photo. Gross

I don’t like it and would judge someone who had this in their home. But I’m fairly sure this isn’t a recent piece of art. I think I bought a book with a photo of this in it in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

It isn’t art, it is a show of domination. You can imagine Epstein having a set “modeled” on his victims.

Ugh. Horrible

Cute dog though

Yes, there are several different ones, from around 1968 or 69. Iconic.

They were made in 1969 so not ‘this day and age’. The artist has explained why he made them and we can debate whether that’s ’an excuse or an apology’ in his words.

Why David Ross thinks it’s acceptable to be pictured next to it is another question. Rich man buys symbol of exploitation? Of course he does.

He’s one of Britain’s most famous pop artists and his pieces have been controversial since the late 60s.

Art is obviously completely subjective. It’s not my cup of tea, but it does highlight the objectification of women.

Personally, I think it’s pretty ugly and mannequins freak me out!!

I hadn't heard of the artist but I just looked at his wikki page and this is the type of work he is famous for: Jones is known for incorporating erotic imagery into his works, including rubber fetishism and BDSM, and this sexuality has often been a focus of both art critics and the press.[20] Mark Hudson wrote in 2014 that Jones' "subjects have included musicians, dancers and London buses, but in the popular perception his name is irrevocably linked to his peerlessly kinky fetish women, whether in two or three dimensions, with their machined surfaces and blank expressions – images that are as emblematic of classic British pop art as Peter Blake's Beatles paintings or Hockney's swimming pools."[2] In a review on Jones' career, Richard Dorment wrote in November 2014 that "you could argue that Jones's work isn't really about women; it's about men and how they look at and think about women. Men use various strategies to neutralise or control desire. One is to fetishise the female body...[while] another is for the man to appropriate it."[29]

Personally I find it offensive but apparently it's " art".

He might think it's acceptable to own and proudly show off this "iconic" piece of art but I think it's misjudged of the paper/magazine to print a photo of him sitting next to it in a post me-too/ Epstein world.

Presumably they did it for the clicks and publicity for the article but that's pretty low and still exploitative of women in an indirect way.
He is clearly a dickhead to be happy being pictured by it. I am sure it's worth loads but it's the kind of piece to be kept for its value but kept in storage these days.

My « this day and age » was more about happily being pictured next to it and the newspaper choosing it as main photo.

2 close family members of mine live in Nevill Holt and attend David’s parties regularly. They often see celebrities in neighbouring gardens doing things they shouldn’t! Definitely wouldn’t see me there especially with that furniture taste

Just because it is art doesn’t mean it’s ok. People chose what to have in their homes. It says a lot about him. Grim.

Not too dissimilar to Vettriano.

If people are dickheads, I'm comfortable with them being pictured as such in ways that have high public visibility. It's a form of public service.

When someone tells you who they are, listen.

He’s telling everyone he’s a vile misogynist and he doesn’t care who knows.
If I walked into that room, I’d walk straight back out again and leave the house.

It’s very gauche but clearly he’s not ashamed of it

Oh yeah, exactly the same 🤔

I'm surprised his PR machine thought for a nanosecond that this would resonate with public opinion but what do I know.
Repulsive.

Same as Epstein.

No idea who he is, but that’s grim. What a pig.

It’s not acceptable. Disgusting.

I was at school at Neville Holt when it closed in the 90s. It used to be such a lovely old country house with amazing grounds (that we'd frequently disappear into and ignore the teachers frantically ringing the bell).

Both grounds and house are now full of rather bizarre art. I think it's ruined it, but it's not my house and it would be a boring world if we all had the same taste. While I see the significance of the piece in the photo, I think it's a poorly chosen piece to have on the cover photo for the article...

absolutely - it’s about context and this was not thought through. Photographer is possibly happy as they got a very striking image with a real agenda (perhaps the interviewee was a bit of a knob, and they wanted to stitch him up?)

it’s one thing owning a piece of controversial art, and viewing it in the context of a gallery or collection, and it’s quite another posing next to it with no context or explanation. I haven’t read the interview so perhaps it was addressed.

Foul. The fact he is proud of it enough to be photographed next to it is at least letting people know what type he is though so that's a win.

Until all stuff like this is consigned to history, we don't really stand a chance.