Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the Tate should not make families with small children walk through a Gilbert and George exhibit to get to a family activity

152 replies

KimiTheThreadSlayingAxeKiller · 10/10/2009 16:19

They are not artist it is not art is is nasty stuff I do not want my 9 year old seeing.
Vile just vile

OP posts:
Original poster
KimiTheThreadSlayingAxeKiller · 10/10/2009 16:20

gilbert and george

OP posts:
pigletmania · 10/10/2009 16:22

disgusting and vile not art at all, whatever happened to Constable, or Renoir

pofacedandproud · 10/10/2009 16:24

Oh for goodness sake. Yes they are artists.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 10/10/2009 16:25

They died.

What's disgusting about G&G?

Original poster
KimiTheThreadSlayingAxeKiller · 10/10/2009 16:26

I went to see Turner and the old masters beautiful exhibit. DS2 age 9 wanted to do an activity tray so we get one and head off to the area we were recommended only to have to go through this exhibit.

Drinking from a straw stuck in the end of someones penis and paintings of oral sex are not what I want my nine year old to see.
I shall be complaining and as a member who pays a shit load to be so they better bloody have a re-think

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 10/10/2009 16:26

are they dead? I didn't think they were?

pofacedandproud · 10/10/2009 16:27

they didn't die. Eh?

pofacedandproud · 10/10/2009 16:28

I don't think it is going to damage him for life.

Original poster
KimiTheThreadSlayingAxeKiller · 10/10/2009 16:28

I think they are (not that I give a s*).

I was taken to a massive showing of their "work" and each to his/her own but I do not think this rubbish needs to be on show to children.

OP posts:
Original poster
KimiTheThreadSlayingAxeKiller · 10/10/2009 16:31

I don't think it is going to damage him for life either I COVERED HIS EYES but it is really not something that children need to see.
The problem I have with it is there was no other way in to the family activity and this stuff is NOT suitable for children to look at, and no one can really think it is

OP posts:
madlentileater · 10/10/2009 16:35

you covered the eyes of a 9 yr old so they wouldn't see a penis?
I don't much care for their work, but this will surely just draw his attention to it?

SomeGuy · 10/10/2009 16:38

It's an art gallery. I don't think your children will be damaged by this. Mary Whitehouse does not need to be in charge of art galleries.

tethersend · 10/10/2009 16:40

So, just to check...

Art can't be offensive? or vile? or nasty?

Right, ok. Just 'nice'. Art can only be nice.

FWIW, Impressionist paintings caused scandal and outrage when they were first exhibited.

cory · 10/10/2009 16:44

I don't care for their work, but if you covered your 9yos eyes, I reckon he will have imagined a lot worse than anything that was actually on display.

oneofakind · 10/10/2009 16:51

I was brought up with gilbert and george - in the 70's our mum used to kick us all out of a saturday morning (4 of us aged from 6-10) and we used to go to the birmingham art gallery (free and warm!) and there were several g and g works there - we loved them (the brightly colored glass, the size of the tryptychs) we did'nt quite 'understand' them but we were never shocked (and we were catholics too!!!) never did me any harm although I guess they have become more explicit

Fruitbeard · 10/10/2009 17:06

I took DD along to a G&G exhibition at White Cube when she was 2. It was beautiful. She loved the stained glass colours.

And no, G&G aren't dead. They walk up Bishopsgate every morning at 7.45am precisely - you can set your watch by them. Always beautifully turned out. Gilbert makes eye contact but George doesn't.

YABVVU. You will have affected your 9 yr old far more by covering his eyes than if you'd just walked through without comment. My parents used to do that sort of thing to me as a kid if something 'unsuitable' came on tv - just made me very curious and freaked out by what I imagined I wasn't seeing!

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 10/10/2009 17:11

Sorry, my last was a x post; G&G aren't dead, but Constable and Renoir are.

(Was off ebaying, sorry - but I won! )

smoking2shoes · 10/10/2009 17:12

they will see worse in life

TheHeadlessWombat · 10/10/2009 17:15

YABVU.Covering their eyes was unnecessary and you're having a major overreaction.

PeachesMcLean · 10/10/2009 17:23

yes, they shouldn't have to see naked penises in an art gallery.

this on the other hand is entirely acceptable.

6feetundertheGroundhogs · 10/10/2009 17:23

Saw them on a plane to Lisbon once, they were very odd, but each to their own.

YANBU, the Tate ought to consider the routing to a family exhibition, for sure!

OFGS, just seen that post, just because there is worse in real life, doesn't mean we have to see it aged nine... you can't unring a bell.

The more extreme images are repeated in society, the less extreme they will seem.

The rise and increase in accessibility of x-rated films, games etc do have a debilitating effect on society. Violence is becoming more and more a part of everyday life, and it needn't be.

What's wrong with a parent wanting to prevent their 9 year old seeing something, displayed as art, by artists that have depicted child-dummies and imagery in such controversial and often disturbing manners??

janeite · 10/10/2009 17:26

YABU

G&G don't really 'do' it for me but to cover a 9 year old's eyes sounds really OTT to me.

We have taken our dds to galleries since they were tiny and they have seen all sorts - they either ignore the stuff you think may shock them, or they find something really innocent and comment (dd2 once loudly commented that the brass nodules on the banister at a large gallery were like nipples!)on that instead.

And yes, if David statues etc are 'art' then a penis here or there is nothing really. And there are always loads of paintings of naked women too - do you cover his eyes past them?

Fruitbeard · 10/10/2009 17:28

Aren't you getting them confused with the Chapman brothers, 6Feet? G&G have never used dummies in their work, to my knowledge...

There's nothing particularly violent in G&G's work either, that I recall - and I certainly don't see the problem with depictions in art of sex or sex-related activity - there were an awful lot of naked women in those Old Masters, and several VERY unsavoury depictions of rape, beheadings etc etc...

I love Robert Mapplethorpe's work too and wouldn't think twice about taking DD along with me to see an exhibition of his.

catsmother · 10/10/2009 17:31

Hold on ....... I think some of you are giving the OP a very hard time here. Yes - art is subjective and we all have our own ideas about what is and isn't aesthetically pleasing, but we're not talking here about her objecting to - "simply" - a naked body, for example, something like "The Birth of Venus", but to explicitly sexual images !!

It is surely her right, as a parent, to decide what is and isn't appropriate viewing for her kids ...... in much the same vein that many parents object to "girly" mags being displayed at kids-eye view in some newsagents. Why the hell should she get criticised for daring to object to depictions of oral sex because it's "art" and in a gallery, whereas I bet if she'd come on here and said that there were porno mags also showing oral sex in the local branch of W H Smiths, would she be jumped on then ??

For the record, I actually like (most of) G&G's stuff and was over the top excited when I saw them for real in Spitalfields once. However, because so much of their stuff is explicit, I would like the choice about whether or not I expose my children to it. Okay - some parents would think it okay - that's their perogative ...... but to effectively "force" all parents to go through their work en route to a specifically family orientated activity without any forewarning is unacceptable. It's not the Tate's place to play God regarding what they think is suitable for other people's kids to see ...... where there's potentially upsetting work on display (think anything which wouldn't be shown on TV pre-watershed - violence, sexual imagery etc) then surely it's responsible to bring this to parent's attention at the entrance to said galleries so they can make an informed choice ???

SomeGuy · 10/10/2009 17:35

Yes, but you are in an art gallery rather than a softplay centre, and should expect to find challenging material. It's not really reasonable to expect them to rearrange their gallery to accommodate parents who are not comfortable with that.