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

"who says they're a group? calling them "brigades" makes you sound indignant"

I find it funny.

"Do you really think it's a good idea for children to be exposed to adult themes like blowjobs and piss-drinking at age 9?"

I suppose being an artist myself, the thought doesn't fill me with absolute horror as I do see it as art. Crap art quite possibly, but art. As I said before, I'd rather protect them from certain types of advertising.

And I'm not just saying this to get away - but my baby is screaming, partner is giving me looks and I really need to feed her! Sorry!

Your children, your choice. Why take that choice away from someone else.

Yes, but it's not a case of Kimi's children actually being forced to stop and study these pictures. Just a case of the route being through that gallery. So if the route had lain through the gallery of Old Masters, with satyrs raping nymps and bleeding heads on plates, would the same cry have gone up about taking the choice away from parents? Or can anyone tell me where the boundaries lay in the 17th century? It's not all beautifully posing nudes, you know.

I like Monet, Turner, Rembrandt, I am not keen on Van Gogh or Picasso if I am honest.
I find Dahl interesting, I can look at an unmade bed in my sons room or a cut up cow in Tesco, I thought the Mona Lisa was small but I could look at the thinker or the kiss for days, I would love to work in the Queens gallery at Buckingham palace the joy of looking at those paintings day after day would be wonderful.

G&G is not to my taste although I have been to their exhibits, but stand by the fact I think it is not something a child should be looking at.

And I have a very nice and expensive diamond bracelet but no pearls to twist I am afraid

MillyR Sun 11-Oct-09 11:48:00 Add a message | Report post | Contact poster

"Cory, out of the three painting you mentioned, only John the Baptist's head is a graphic depiction."

Really? I've seen some pretty graphic Marsyas paintings.

I think G and G is really quite in your face. The stylisation, the cartoon nature, the extraordinary colours, which can attract a child's eye. It's a design/advertising element which draws one in. I can imagine it would be more noticeable than other paintings however briskly one walked or chatted.

They do have bright colours and are eye catching, Just the sort of thing DS2 would like to look at (colours not content)

cory's point of 16.27 is an excellent one and doesn't seem to have been responded to.

The old masters are not as bright or in your face as G&G

i did, sophable in my post of 16:37

still don't really get this.. G and G are supposed to be subversive, shock art etc

wouldn't they be a bit disappointed to find that most of their admirers think their work wouldn't even shock a nine year old boy?

LOL Stiff

STUFF

or even pique his curiosity apparently

LOL...you've got it on the brain kimi

do you really really think that if you'd just marched on thro and chatted away he would have taken any notice?

Oooh, it really annoys me when people go on about 'cut up cows' and 'unmade beds.'

If you think art is just pretty pictures, then that's lovely.

But you're absolutely missing the point if you just dismiss contemporary pieces as what they are on the surface. If it's just a bed or just a cut up cow to you, then you're sadly lacking in imagination and empathy. Or are just deliberately obtuse.

I'm not saying you have to like them or think they're well done, but surely they must make you think a little. Damien Hirst has thought long and hard about mortality. There's loads of writing that goes with the 'cut up cow' etc. and a lot of lead-up work before he got to making that piece. You can follow his thought process and it's pretty intricate imo.

I entirely agree with McSnail about comments like 'Well my 5 year old could do that' - no. No, he couldn't. He could splatter paint on the wall, but he couldn't write an artist's statement about it. He couldn't explain what it was expressing. The art isn't just about what you see upfront.

Also, what the hell is all this 'And I asked my friend who is BI' business? How does that make her any more qualified on the subject? And all this gay porn business? Is heterosexual porn any better?

Carmen - I think Kimi was referring to gay porn, because G&G do pictures involving gay sex.

Despite agreeing with Kimi about the unsuitability of the Tate making families walk through the exhibit, I would actually disagree with the description of the pictures as 'gay porn' Art is about more than the pictures, it has a story and a message. The only message for porn is usually 'wank here' and I don't think that applies to G&G (it's not particularly titillating)

If the pictures depicted women going down on men (or vice versa) I'd still not want my DCs looking at them (whether is cartoon form or not!)

I understand contemporary art is about more than the surface. I still don't like 90% of it. It leaves me cold.

'They are not artist it is not art is is nasty stuff I do not want my 9 year old seeing. Vile just vile'
Before you became well reasoned and rational Kimi this was your original post, and way back yesterday before I escaped to a large glass of wine, I said that description of them made me seethe. Since then you've sounded much less reactionary, but you've still gone on to call G&G pornographic and continued to label them vile. To me it seems vile for you to attach such labels. And before I'm shouted down actually I was one of the people who said I respect a parent's right to choose.

You are more then welcome to your opinion smee as am I to mine.
You like their work, I do not, you find it unoffensive I on the other hand think it cold offend many, you may not mind a child seeing it, I do not wish to expose mine to it, this is why everyone is different with different view points.

You label my comments vile as I label some of their "art" work vile.

I am sorry but I can not term blow jobs as anything other then porn, and pissing in to others mouths as vile.

Kimi I didn't say I like their work. I don't especially. And if it was just a gallery full of blow jobs, well I wouldn't take my son in either, but let's face it it's not. I also respect your right to let your son see what you think is appropriate - have never said anything other than that. But my comments are separate - surely you can see that? I'm objecting to your labelling G&G as vile and pornographic as to me that's offensive. I couldn't let you write such red top pap without saying woah hold on. G&G are respected artists not pornographers. And before you wade in screaming 'blow jobs', well a blow job's a sexual act. Do you see all sexual acts in art as pornographic. Must make your gallery visiting limited surely. Simply, I couldn't see such a reactionary post and not pass comment. You're right we'll never agree though.

Result.
Spoken to the Tate today and they are going to put a sign outside the exhibit.

No smee I love the gallery's that is why we pay lots of money to be members and keep them running.

lol at blow jobs are art wrk

That's a good outcome Kimi. Good for you for saying something.

And you're certainly entitled to be listened to if you pay subs to the Tate.

All this has reminded me though how it's been ages since my last Tate visit and now I very much want to go!!