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

[KimiTheThreadSlayingAxeKiller]

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

I can't believe the work on display was that bad. I went to Sensation at the Royal Academy in 1997 and all the really nasty stuff was in a separate room - I was only 16 at the time, me and my friend had to sneak in for a look at the Chapman Brothers stuff!

If it really was as offensive as you say, I am sure the media would have picked up on 'children being subjected to filth at Tate'...

If you don't want your children to see nudity, torture or sexuality portrayed in art, then don't take them to a gallery!

rapeandmurder

torture

Ooh I like G&G!

I enjoy the concept of them as 'living art'; its eccentric and interesting. I always look out for their work at the Tate.

whoops!

rapeandmurder

Rape and murder? I know it gets heated sometimes but Mumsnet isn't that bad surely Sabire?

NM, do you reckon the Mail will pick it up ? "Mumsnet horrified at children subjected to extreme homoerotic art at Tate"

You can just see it, can't you...

Catsmother is quite right I think. It's up to the Mum whether or not to give the children a "taste" of Gilbert and George (ahem). W|hether or not you agree with Kimi's view of G and G.

It's tremendously patronising and superior to take that choice away. A warning would have been helpful.

I'm couldn't find anything offensive when I googled Gilbert and George. I do agree with the principle that a gallery should take children viewing art into account. I don't think it would have been acceptable if children had to walk through a Chapman brothers' exhibition to get to the children's area.

I thought the children's activities at Tate Britain were rubbish anyway, although I did go a year ago. They may have improved now.

Kimi I've just read your longer posts and they are articulate and reasonable.

People shouldn't be looked down on for not liking Gilbert and George, or even calling it vile: if you are all for free expression, then you are also for free speech. You'd think.

Presumably free speech includes the right to tell the OP that we think she is being unreasonable?

unless you are being self-contradictory: lauding one while criticising the other: ibid rather a lot on this thread

I can't see it myself. Perhaps you could provide an example.
All I can see is people disagreeing with her.Nothing wrong with that is there?

I do not object to G&G ( I do not like their work and that is up to me) what I object to is putting a family activity in a room that you can oinly get to through the G&G one.

And why would I give a shit if my sons turn out gay? I am not anti gay.

Kimi, could you provide an example of a G&G image you would not want a child to see? I am sympathetic to your argument that there are some things in a gallery that children should not see, but I cannot see a G&G image that would be controversial.

Hm I can understand where Kimi is coming from with this.

I love the Tate and contemporary art but how much do I want my child so see at a young age?

I wouldn't be at all happy if they were making pictures made out of say shit on ArtAttack on tv.

But because it's in a gallery it's ok for children to see?

It is an area which skates on some very thin ice. that's what makes modern art interesting but some subjects aren't ok for children to see even if there is a valid reason to comment on them within art.

Art Attack is/was a children's programme though. The Tate is quite different.

Besides who gets to decide what is and what isn't offensive? Some people would be offended by any depiction of nudity in art.

Yes it is a gallery and different to Art Attack but clearly they are aiming things at children if they also have specific family areas too.

Had to go away.

Someone saying it made them seethe: someone saying kimi had a problem: someone saying she shouldn't have gone there in the first place. That kind of thing.

She has a reasonable point of view, saying it's not fair to take the choice away from the parent: and she has the right to express her opinion of the art, also entirely reasonable.

How would any of you feel about walking through to the family area with small children, through the mannequins of children with penises for mouths?

It should be a choice: not "Look at this, or lose your right to look at anything".

Headless wombat, I suspect the person who would decide what is and isn't offensive would be a gallery professional who would have postgraduate qualifications in gallery management, and a gallery education officer, who had probably worked as a teacher earlier in their career. They would both have a lot of training and experience in understanding a wide range of public responses to, engagement with, and perception of art. They would then have a good understanding of what was likely to cause offence, and how to manage such displays.

It would not be some random individual making the decision based on their personal level of offensiveness. It would be a professional disregarding their personal response and thinking instead of the responses of others.

They could then think of solutions such as notices saying what was in an exhibition, and adult areas, such as exist in exhibitions on surgery and anatomy.

It is not an impossible problem to resolve, unless you are still living in some postmodern lecture room in 1988.

To be fair to the Tate I'm not sure how you can really house uncensored art under the same roof as a family activity really.

They'd have to keep specific works in a big Xrated gallery.

It seems an awful shame to keep children away from art and yet some of it isn't suitable really for them to see is it? (Personally that doesn't mean nudity for me but some subjects aren't at all ok)

Interesting dilemma.

Tsar I agree: and I hate the signs everywhere telling us what to do and not do, what to look at and what not to look at, what is "appropriate" and so on. So I do find myself torn. And as soon as you put up a sign saying: not suitable for families then some busybody will report those people (for eg on this thread) who ARE happy to expose their children to more explicit art.

Plus, the art has to suit the space of course, so things can't just be shunted around.

However the Tate has such a proliferation of printed material I wouldn't have thought it beyond the wit of man to alert families that they might not want their children to see some of the most explicit art on show.

hunger

Also, would you let a 9 year old look at top shelf magazines? No, just because you call it art does not make it less offensive.

My children have see nudes, I am not saying they have not, I am saying that there should have at least been a warning or a choice.

We go to the Tate, RA and so on a lot, DS2 loves doing the activity's, and while I know it fazed me more then him I just feel it is not nice to put a family activity in a room accessed via this stuff.