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.

I agree with all of this.

Whether you think the art was made for sleaze reasons or whether you agree it sheds a light of the objectification of women, or whether you think it represents something else is irrelevant really.

Art can be disturbing, unsettling, revolting - and that’s probably as it should be because otherwise who decides what’s acceptable?

FWIW, I think this is not just hideously ugly, I find it really offensive. I don’t believe it was made with the intent to support women, especially given when it was made. It’s fucking awful in every way.

But I would always defend the right of the artist to make this.

Conversely, I absolutely would judge a man for choosing to have furniture like this in his home. I think it conveys a certain attitude towards women even though he clearly thinks he’s edgy and cool.

All credit to the photographer and journalist - it’s throwing shade at him and conveying a message to the audience without saying a word.

I waitressed at a birthday party for this delightful chap many many years ago. It involved sushi being served using almost-naked women as a plate. Vile.

I made a chair out of a mannequin as part of my GCSE art in the 90’s. I was heavily inspired by pop art.

Sure does , typical . No class obviously

Gives me the ick

Too much money. Not enough taste.

Im not bothered by the artwork. It is from the 70s and probably brought up alot of questions and discussion at the time (I feel like feminism was going through abit of a fashionable revivial at the time so I can see how something blatantly objectifying like this, and his chair and hat stand, would be contraversial).
So whilst Im not creeped out by the artist or art I am creeped out by the super rich guy posing next to it. I mean what exactly is he trying to say?

I don’t think he’s trying to say anything. I think The Times has stitched him up and he was too naive to see it coming.