Grayson Perry irks me

[everythingisbetterafteranap]

Not sure if I'm going to articulate this well, so bear with me.

I was reading a Guardian article on a therapist who is married to the artist Grayson Perry. Reasonably interesting article with a focus on self awareness as a parent.

But it got me thinking again on why so many bright, intelligent women so readily accept men dressing up as women in such a garish pantoesque way. Where is the feminist critique of this?

Grayson Perry has his alter ego 'Claire' who looks like the silliest version of female you could find. Why is this acceptable and not challenged? Would Grayson Perry be lauded for having a black alter ego with big lips and exaggerated gestures? There is even an annual 'let's dress Claire' competition at St Martins art college. Why aren't the students there questioning this?

What is this really all about? It doesn't feel female empowering to me.

It is funny to watch but is really does illustrate the problem doesn't it. We have to listen endlessly to stories about where women buy their t shirts and yet poor Geraldine who posted yesterday about how she was gaslit endlessly in the same way as posters here who are denying sexual fetish was pretty much blanked.
I got told off for mentioning Geraldine's point!

He literally went to get his gong off the queen in his erotic clothing. Are we all going to suggest there was nothing disrespectful in him engaging the queen in an erotic encounter.

Dear oh dear.

As an exercise in futility, it's right up there.

Just think of the lurkers. It’s never futile.

I always think a man donning a bra is a fairly good indication of what's going on

I agree, Bernard.

Man in a dress (looking like a man in a dress). Fine.

Man in a dress with fake breasts. Not fine.

Just think of the lurkers. It’s never futile

yep. through the course of this thread I've gone from

'he looks fucking awful, but whatever'

to

'jesus tapdancing christ. people are applauding this man involving unwilling participants in his sexual fetish'

it's never wasted.

Just think of the lurkers. It’s never futile

yep. through the course of this thread I've gone from

'he looks fucking awful, but whatever'

to

'jesus tapdancing christ. people are applauding this man involving unwilling participants in his sexual fetish'

it's never wasted.

^ this.

Though I am sometimes guilty of putting my twopenneth in when my opinions are more advanced than my understanding to back them up, I'm primarily here to learn. To all who post considered opinions, thank you.

Yes, what very hard work this thread has become - and I haven't even commented!

What started as interesting and thoughtful has become irritating and goady.

I do try to take people in good faith but trying to follow one of the most prolific posters on here is impossible without thinking they are doing it deliberately - and taking great pleasure from it.

Ok. Couldn't read all that.

The only reason cross dressing is a fetish is because men feel it is humiliating to dress as a woman. They get off on the humiliation! So women wearing men's clothes is really nothing of the same thing at all.

If the class hierarchy between men and women, didn't exist... if we were truly equal there would be no cross dressing fetish. Men looking for humiliation for sexual kicks would dress as dogs or something. Oh isn't that a thing too? Yes it is.

It's possible in a more equal world that humiliation/subordination wouldn't be a sexual thing at all I suppose. Depends what the root of it is.

The idea of fetish is so odd. Do women even get proper fetishes? Or is it a much more male sexuality thing?

Hello,

I’ve been following this thread with interest. The initial OP was something I wanted to post for a while but I’ve not felt brave enough to do so.

GP is the Chancellor of UAL. That’s the university that Central st Martins is part of. I mention that as the college was mentioned in the OPs first post. Lots of women work for UAL. UAL has a gender pay gap. UAL really listens to Stonewall. It’s not a great place to be GC. I think it’s the next Goldsmiths.

It’s quite frightening being a woman there at the moment. Having GP as the Chancellor irks some women that work there. Mostly the unimportant lowly ones. Now I don’t know if I’m right or wrong in being irked. I get a feeling from this thread that I’m wrong. So now I feel very alone.

I’d like a Chancellor who gave as much of a damn about the staff as he does about the students. I also feel really odd about the students and technicians designing and making his clothes for him. It just seems a way of him getting off on the power he has.

I’m not as articulate as you all. I’m a lurker who name changed for this. I’ve had to wait till I’m not at work to post. I’ll continue reading when I’m away from work.

I felt I had to say something as no one has mentioned he has a position of power in an institution.

Now I don’t know if I’m right or wrong in being irked. I get a feeling from this thread that I’m wrong. So now I feel very alone.

You are not wrong. Hence the thread.

I have featured in a documentary with him years back and have found him to be a strange soul. Nice enough guy but very isolated.

You're not wrong. But you're right to believe that because of his power and position GP has apologists who will misrepresent the views of others and contort their own to send the message "I suppose you might have a point about some fetishists but Grayson's lovely".

I’d like a Chancellor who gave as much of a damn about the staff as he does about the students. I also feel really odd about the students and technicians designing and making his clothes for him. It just seems a way of him getting off on the power he has.

It's naivety, and also all caught up in the sex positive movement, which minimises any issue with men's sexual dominance. And in fact, seems to ignore the power dynamic between men and women entirely.

So no, I would have thought it would feel very odd watching someone encourage students to make their fetish clothes.

Especially if that fetish is not explored as something that is damaging to women and rooted in misogyny.

If Perry has decided that wearing these clothes is no longer getting him off, perhaps encouraging young, unsuspecting people to make them on his behalf is doing the job instead?

Either way, I'd bet my right arm that he's getting off somehow.

Now I don’t know if I’m right or wrong in being irked. I get a feeling from this thread that I’m wrong. So now I feel very alone.

Not alone.

But what a horrible place to work - devaluing women in pay and conditions, while at the same time giving GP power to use students as his own personal dressmakers.

Stonewall Champions may as well advertise that they are sexist, and be done with it.

Thank you for posting GPismyboss - that's a very interesting comment you've made.

Of course it's not appropriate for a Uni chancellor to get students and technicians to make their clothes. I'm assuming these are 'Claire's' clothes.

If Claire is no longer Perry's fetish and no longer 'real', why is he getting students to design, sew and fit him for what is in essence a theatrical costume? What is the point?

If it's not a fetish then is it to save him some cash? Or give the students a marvellous 'experience'?

What can't be ignored are the dynamics of power that will be involved. The transgressing of boundaries. The role playing associated with being fitted and 'dressed', a queering up of subordination and power.

Like Datun, I can't help thinking this floats his boat.

This would not be an 'opportunity' I'd want my student daughter to be given.

I also feel really odd about the students and technicians designing and making his clothes for him. It just seems a way of him getting off on the power he has.

Just coming back to this, is this declared as a taxable benefit, are the students getting paid for this, who buys the material and how can this work as a conflict of interest issue let alone an ethical one?

The students are paying thousands for the honour of making the emperors new clothes. It's like Versailles isn't it?

I think that the way students are encouraged to make clothes for GP has changed over time.

Originally it was some CSM fashion students who made clothes for him as Claire. He then chose the ones he liked and paid them a nominal amount.

Im not sure if this competition still goes on.

Students now design an outfit for his professional role. That makes me feel a little easier, as it’s not for him personally. Also I’m imagining there is no financial outlay by the students, I hope UAL pays.

I’m pretty sure he must be fitted and I’m not sure how I feel about that. Anyone being fitted might get off on it, however we kinda know he will-don’t we?

Oh, and I’m sure he is a lovely bloke and all that. I just don’t really care in the context of him being the Chancellor. He could stand up for the women of UAL but he hasn’t done so, not publicly at least.

yep. through the course of this thread I've gone from 'he looks fucking awful, but whatever' to 'jesus tapdancing christ. people are applauding this man involving unwilling participants in his sexual fetish'

Me too. It reminds me of how I first stumbled upon a thread here and went from "I don't mind a nice harmless transwoman in the toilet" to peak trans. There's a clear difference between a man wearing a skirt because it's cool, and a man wearing women's clothing as a fetish. However, you don't see it immediately, because GP is like that nice harmless transwoman in the toilet.

But you can't differentiate just on the basis of whether someone seems like an interesting talented bloke, which is what is causing the confusion. The differentiation is on whether or not it's a fetish. In some cases, this may be difficult to identify. But with GP, he's actually said it's a fetish!

Does anyone have any insight into the persistence of sexual fetishes over time? Do people get bored of them after a while or, if it’s a libido-driven thing, do they wane with age?

Bit of a niche area of expertise...

www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/exhibitions/grayson-perry-dresses/

Ah thank you NeurotrashWarrior

"After many years of experimenting with cross-dressing and wearing conventional female clothes, Grayson became dissatisfied with the lack of reaction he provoked. In response, he developed the persona known as Claire. As Claire, he can dress in an outrageously flamboyant way and enjoy the reaction she causes."

I've spent ages thinking about this post and I'm really only brain dumping.

I'm reading with interest.

I don't like that women and femininity are fetishised.

The the art world has been pretty fucked up at various points throughout history. It’s horrendously sexist and misogynistic. Read about Eric Gill (Gill sans, which used to be the font of the BBC till very recently and you'll be sickened. Too often this shit is dismissed.)

Off topic but useful for context, women are muses and objectified, raped, killed, painted dying far more than men. I’ve mentioned AAB before but she is shining a spot light on this, in today’s galleries; far too often we’re told to appreciate horror as art. Tweet today: twitter.com/barbiereports/status/1104740581081792512?s=21

I watched Kusama:Infinity recently (on amazon at the moment) and was horrified at how she was treated for being a woman (and Japanese) in the art world. And yet all those men stole her ideas. Warhol etc. Please watch it if only the trailer, it is a very powerful comment on misogyny.

She makes her own clothes in similar ways to Perry, but doesn’t talk about fetish and obviously is a woman. One phase was covering anything and everything with penises.

Of course there is much fetishising of women in Japan; foot binding etc. Fetishising seems, to me, too often ultimately harms women. I don’t know much about it though. Fashion very much fetishises women. See MB’s recent lingerie line. Crippling shoes. Size 0 clothes.

In the link I posted up thread he refers to Heronimos Bosch; which is very perverted painting. I’m speculating but wondering if the ‘clothes for Claire’ is a focussed project to get students to both use the medium of textiles (very challenging) and knowledge of art history or social contexts to be then displayed on Perry rather than in a gallery.

I don’t know. It’s another perspective. I personally really like his art. I’ve always found him explaining it very openly. He clearly likes shocking people. Many artists do. I wonder if his ideas have changed since he has had a daughter.

*hieronymus

I am not really sure aha Grayson Perry is talking about when he talks about "fetishes".

The word has a nuanced meaning that is disputed and constantly subject to revision and refinement within the psychoanalytic literature.

Perry talks a lot about "shamanism" but does not really seem to understand what it means, unless, as I think is likely, he is referring to the new age, bastardised, perverted, culturally appropriated "core shamanism" that is so very popular amongst quacks, grifters and hippy psychotherapists.

If he is referring to core shamanism (and I think it very likely that he is) he may have confused psychoanalytic concepts of fetish with spiritual concepts.

My concerns in relation to him are specifically in relation to connections to promoters of satanic ritual abuse conspiracy theories (as promoted by his friend Valerie Sinason) and his multiple connections (sometimes directly and sometimes through his wife Philippa) to dubious organisations that promote real controversial spiritual movements that are often referred to as cults by former members.

Philippa Perry openly promotes a belief in dissociative identity disorder (previously multiple personality disorder) in her book Couch Fiction

books.google.co.uk/books?id=dr0cBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=%22philippa+perry%22+%22dissociative%22&source=bl&ots=yUarXmfyn9&sig=ACfU3U03mp77i3XVMMYB-W80u7UBRWuGVA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVvLrHtvfgAhVG3aQKHTHID0YQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22philippa%20perry%22%20%22dissociative%22&f=false

(scroll up a little to the bottom of page 57)

The groups the Perrys are connected to are the Bowlby Centre, Confer andThe School of Life, all of which have promoted some interesting things.

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NLZQLOYJaAUJ:lecturelist.org/content/view_lecture/6029+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=safari

Sam Roddick (Anita's daughter) delivered an interesting "Sunday sermon" at the School of Life

Founder of the erotic emporium Coco de Mer, Sam has become established as the voice of erotic liberation, urging us use sex to bring more excitement, imagination, debate, life and texture to the world.
Not for the frigid nor the faint hearted, Sam’s sermon will be a wake-up call for lovers across the capital

Under Sam's leadership Coco de Mer ran a variety of sexual training courses provided by all kinds of interesting people.

The archive is your friend :)