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 don't think that a gallery needs to put up a sign saying not suitable for families; it could instead say parents would need to decide, as we do with PG films. It is up to the parent to decide if a film is suitable or not.

Kimi, I do think that the pic you showed does need parents to be informed and make a decision. I didn't see a blow job depicted until I was 13, and I was quite startled by it. Maybe I was immature and maybe kids grow up faster now, but I wouldn't want my 8 year old seeing a picture of a blow job. Other parents would want their children to see it. We should all be allowed to make an informed choice. You were not allowed to do that.

thirst

these are what I object to most, and I do think they are vile, and plain wrong to show a child, I understand others will disagree,

But how do you manage go through museums of Old Masters without seeing things that are at least as unsuitable? The Rape of Lucrece, John the Baptist's head on a dish, the Flaying of Marsylas. At least this thing is pretty stylised, not like something out of the Baroque era.

I would walk through briskly talking about whatever is ahead. Covering someone's eyes is just plain scary.

The old masters do not have 6 foot high willys shoved in someones gob do they

OK. I'm not a big fan of contemporary art (I don't go to the Tate Modern as I tend to get very sarcastic and mouthy about it all) I have seen the G&G exhibit at Tate Britain though. I quite like them although I'm never quite sure why. However, I think the messages and the themes of their work are adult and very overtly so. I'll talk to my DCs about pretty much anything, tailored to their age level, and I can't yet think of any reason why I'd show them pictures of oral sex outside of an art gallery. In fact, if I did I think I'd probably get in a fair amount of trouble...

It's rather unfair to put a child's activity in such a place that you have to go through such an explicit installation. I don't want to discuss the themes of G&G's work with a 9yo (or my 11yo or 5yo!) Maybe in a couple of years. It's not the same as simple nakedness, and it's not the same as a retelling of some ancient myth/legend/piece of history.

Cory, out of the three painting you mentioned, only John the Baptist's head is a graphic depiction. I think that many children generally are aware of beheadings; it is discussed before the watershed on Horrible Histories. I don't think that blow jobs are within the knowledge range of children.

As an adult I'd find a blowjob (which can be nice) less disturbing to see than a beheading (which is never nice), but that is because I am an adult.

There are paintings which are not contemporary art which I would not want my 8 year old to see. I would not take them to a Bosch exhibition, but neither would I think badly of a parent who did.

DS1 is 13 and has seen some G&G (we get the magazine from the Tate being a member) but I have a choice of whether I leave it on the coffee table for DS2 to see or not.

9 is a tad young to be looking at blow jobs and pissing in to each others mouths IMO

I think it's quite clear what it is and my dc would def ask what it was all about. I think they're too young to see an image like that.

(I like those links btw, but that's besides the point.)

I'm just imagining what they'd make of something like the Chapman brothers actually. I know they'd initially be very attracted to the funny little models....then on closer inspection.

I like it and am interested but my 8 yr old is too young to look at it.

And yes, older art could be disturbing too. Hieronymus Bosch has enough material for a months worth of nightmares.

I have no solution to this. As I said earlier, I do think children should be around art - very much so. And to see art not just as something pretty to hang up, but as a social comment, a shock, a useful mirror to what goes on in the world. All valid. But some of the things that go on in the world they are not ready to see.

That's why I switch the tv news off quite often nowadays. I want them to have an innocent childhood for as long as possible.

This hangs in the Louvre.

This is on a hillside in plain view of all.

I saw this on a wall in my aunt's convent at 8 or 9 and it traumatised me far more than anything G&G have ever done, particularly the links Kimi gave.

PMSL @ Cerne Abbas giant...

Yes and some people get their jollys from looking at pictures of six year old boys being buggered by grandad.
I am not saying I do not want my children to see the naked form I am saying I do not think 9 is a suitable age to see gay porn.

Tate Britain are f awful - they claim to be family friendly but they are not, for toddlers at least. Had awful experience there recently, was very disappointed. They need to plan it out and give more direct instructions for parents of where children should go. Children's activities are pathetic, and apparently family friendly floors of the Tate contain delicate paintings and sculptures not suitable for toddlers... I'm not surprised they would do something stupid like this. I walked into a gilbert and george exhibition with the pushchair and felt absolutely mortified to be bringing my baby to see their work! Would not be happy to walk past it with a large group of family and friends with toddlers and young children!

OK yes those are quite explicit - the G&G cartoons. But I'd probably still walk past them. The 10yo would go 'what is that?' and I would breezily say 'well, what do YOU think that is, darling' and the younger ones would not take the slightest bit of notice.

I do still find myself worrying more about what he sees on TV than in art galleries. At least in a gallery the point is to help them question stuff. MTV is a fecking nightmare.

DS watched the top 20 this morning. I made him count how many of the videos had virtually naked, bikini'd women thrusting their crotches at fully-clothed men in some drunken party setting. 10 out of 20. I don't even mind them knowing about sexuality and nudity. I do however mind the mindless sexism and brainless macho culture that says this constant stream of sexualised bimbos is OK.

I felt obliged to point out that women have some other important roles in life too...

It's not really gay porn though, is it? They themselves say it is deliberately stylised.

Would anyone here sit a 9 year old down to watch Debbie does Dallas?
Would anyone give a 9 year old a copy of the Sunday sport to read?
I don't think so it would be wrong and offensive, so why is the fact I do not want my 9 year old to see massive penis's and pissing in to each others mouths so hard for some people to understand?

If I saw you in the Tate with a 9 year old looking at G&G I would not come up and say you were in the wrong, it is your choice, it is mine NOT to want to expose my 9 year old to it.

I am not anti gay, nor am I anti nude, I simply think a choice should be given, would you think it was unreasonable if I said that a devote Muslim had to walk through this exhibit to get to the Islamic art? (much better Islamic art at the V&A though, but you get my point)
So why should I not feel it is not right to expect small children to walk through it in order to get to the family thing

What is Debbie does Dallas please?

A porn film (the only title I know )

How is the picture from the Louvre equivalent to a blowjob? The Cerne Abbas giant is just a naked man.

On a side issue, I do think the Cerne Abbas penis is too large. When first created, the penis was quite small. It was the Victorians who changed it so that it joined the belly button. Some say it should be restored, to its lesser, original size.

It is smaller on cold days

pmsl at 'as a christian i could say they are an abomination'.

Fibilou if you read the whole thing and look at the links you will see I do not have a problem with nudes, I have a problem with blow jobs and pissing in to mouths.

And if either of my children are gay so bloody what.
Do you think I am going to stone them to death or something?

kimi, i'm sure you don't mean to, but you sound so shrill.

i imagine your 9 y o would have ignored/taken it in his stride.

you seem so exercised by it that you're getting off on it!

I also think that your i 'could' comment was just as laughably offensive as if you did say it.

I don't see what is do 'disgusting' about it.