Grayson Perry's Art Club' Exhibition

[BitMuch]

www.channel4.com/programmes/graysons-art-club. I really enjoyed watching this series during lockdown because the amateur artists are very diverse and it showcases some interesting work. In this week's episode, for the final exhibition of their work, Grayson Perry dressed up in a way he is open about being very sexually aroused by. He has these clothes specifically designed to hide an erection. He didn't dress this way in any of the previous episodes. I found this totally disrespectful of him, especially when he was talking to the amateur artists who travelled to Manchester for the event despite covid, including a 17 year old girl and a young man with autism. The programme was primarily about the members of the public and showcasing their art. It's a nice pre-watershed family-friendly programme that has children on it, like a young 12 year old boy who made a collage of his twin brother who passed away.

Why does Grayson act out his fetish in events he attends that are not remotely 'adult' in nature?

Grayson went to a a primary school event with the Duchess of Cambridge and decided to wear his fetish gear to that so I have no idea where he draws the line. This is so accepted by society at large but I cannot feel comfortable with it. He seems so Jekyll and Hyde. Would a man wearing a gimp suit be invited along with a royal to speak with children in a primary school?

Also, his wife Phillipa Perry was the joint presenter and she made art too so I don't know why her name was missing from the title. It would have been more accurate to be called 'Grayson and Phillipa's Art Club'.

[nauticant]

Are you posting in invisible font OP? Do you think that's the reason why some posters fail to engage with the words that GP has actually used to describe what motivates GP?

[Clymene]

It does feel like it nauticant

[DeaconBoo]

Your full post was deleted so I could only respond to the edited version. I stand however by my comment that you and others are policing thought- not actions. Your example of example of a man wearing blue jeans highlighted that.

Nothing to do with my deleted post. (On further thought I think it was probably deleted because I said a post should be 'taken with a pinch of salt' or similar which could have looked like troll-hunting - it was not intended to be). My example was about someone undertaking two actions, not about their thoughts. If you genuinely can't see the difference in the two concepts then I see no point in responding further.

I didn't see your deleted post btw- I'm curious- was I the poster you were criticising which earned you a deletion? If so asking for "courtesy" would seem misplaced. Actually even if it wasn’t me demanding " courtesy " from others is equally misplaced since you apparently don't show courtesy to others.

You're going to be rude because you are imagining I said something rude. Got it.
Do you think that expressing distaste regarding someone's clothing is 'policing' them? (I have my doubts that you will answer this with either yes or no rather than a 'but...', but I'm being extra courteous and assuming good faith).

[DidoLamenting]

Your post is rather garbled. I can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say in the first paragraph.

I'm not sure why you think I should respond to your demand that I answer. I'm not sure there is more to say. I stand by my comment- I think your blue jeans example was ridiculous and yes it was an attempt to police what is acceptable.

[borntobequiet]

The blue jeans example was a bit forced but to be fair it was an attempt to respond to the silly notion that this is a thread about policing the clothes that people wear - which it isn’t - versus being about the normalisation of a sexual fetish associated with the wearing of specific clothes - which it is.

[guinnessguzzler]

Actually I thought the jeans example was a good one.

The point is, of course we can't know what everyone else is thinking or their motivations for dressing or behaving a certain way. Depending on the clothes (eg gimp suit) it might be fairly obvious. In the case of some clothes (like the jeans example), it might not be. As far as I can gather there are many fetishes out there and something that seems entirely innocuous to you may be the source of great sexual satisfaction for someone else. Of course we can't possibly police that and no doubt there are people consistently getting their rocks off by doing certain things, dressing a certain way etc whilst those around them have no idea. There is really not much anyone can do about that, however unpalatable it might be. However, if someone has publicly announced their motivations for dressing a certain way are sexual, then we can say it isn't appropriate for them to dress that way at an event focussed on children. I don't think that should be controversial in a society that has broadly agreed that adult sexual gratification and children don't mix.

[CatsCantCatchCriminals2]

Excellent post guinnessguzzler.

Agree 100%

[DeaconBoo]

I'm not sure why you think I should respond to your demand that I answer

Thank you for confirming my prediction!

[thinkingaboutLangCleg]

if someone has publicly announced their motivations for dressing a certain way are sexual, then we can say it isn't appropriate for them to dress that way at an event focussed on children

Exactly. I’m surprised that anyone disagrees.

[Datun]

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

if someone has publicly announced their motivations for dressing a certain way are sexual, then we can say it isn't appropriate for them to dress that way at an event focussed on children

Exactly. I’m surprised that anyone disagrees.

I'm shocked, but not surprised. The normalisation of removing boundaries and disregarding safeguarding is rife.

[carefulvulvadriver]

I watched the final episode with my young daughter as I had heard vaguely about it and thought it might be nice for her to see the artwork others had made. I was cautious at first in case he was presenting in drag, and relieved he wasn’t.
Then came the exhibition. I found it completely disingenuous to be honest as, even without knowing the background others have posted here about GP’s public comments on his fetish, it was clear it is all about attention and shock. The premise of the episode was about showing the wonders of what Joe and Joanne Public have done with their art, but look, he’s GP choosing THIS precise moment to instead draw attention to himself. Just ick. Patronising and disrespectful to precisely the people he was pretending to want to put in the spotlight.
I agree on what others have said re how GP gets away with exercising his sexual fetish around children partly because he is so open about it (the Donald Trump plain sight strategy) and partly because he comes across as charming and erudite. On the latter, I actually don’t find him any more insightful than your average A level history of art or sociology student. That he gets kudos for projects like his tapestry on social class is more an indication of how low brow and un-intellectual/unreflective the rest of our popular culture is. If you really want to test out if GP has anything interesting or new to say, try listening to his Reith lectures. Big fat zero. He ran out of content about 10 minutes into the first

[RozWatching]

@nauticant

The thread has taught me that the lobbying for people to be free to enjoy their sexual fetishes in public and to draw in other (unwitting) people as part of their fetish is definitely meeting with success. That this is now supposed to be acceptable around children is startling although that was the direction of travel. I wonder how far this will end up going?

Yes, this thread has been very enlightening. Apparently some people think that it should be accepted because it's a sexual orientation like L/G/B
In case it needs saying, same-sex attraction is not a fetish.

[DidoLamenting]

@DeaconBoo

I'm not sure why you think I should respond to your demand that I answer

Thank you for confirming my prediction!

Er , I did actually answer your question - did you not bother reading beyond the first part?

[borntobequiet]

That he gets kudos for projects like his tapestry on social class is more an indication of how low brow and un-intellectual/unreflective the rest of our popular culture is. If you really want to test out if GP has anything interesting or new to say, try listening to his Reith lectures. Big fat zero

This.

[DeaconBoo]

Dido My question was unrelated to any analogy of blue jeans or other clothing, so I didn't realise your response talking about an analogy about blue jeans was meant as a response to the unrelated question.

The question was "Do you think that expressing distaste regarding someone's clothing is 'policing' them?". I'll assume from what you've since said that your answer is "yes, I think that expressing distaste regarding someone's clothing is policing them'."

[Clymene]

I had forgotten about this until your post carefukvulvadriver but I remember a friend telling me how, some years ago, she went to a wedding where GP was also a guest. GP dressed on full on Claire gear and was the centre of attention, as I'm sure he intended.

Such very male behaviour

[CatsCantCatchCriminals2]

Did that piss off the bride clymene (or the groom)?

[DeaconBoo]

Tbf I would assume GP was a friend or relative of the couple and they might have expected that!

[Clymene]

I'd imagine the couple expected GP to behave like any other wedding guest and make sure the day was focused on the happy couple.

I don't know if they were pissed off but many of the guests were absolutely appalled by his behaviour.

[DidoLamenting]

@DeaconBoo

Dido My question was unrelated to any analogy of blue jeans or other clothing, so I didn't realise your response talking about an analogy about blue jeans was meant as a response to the unrelated question.

The question was "Do you think that expressing distaste regarding someone's clothing is 'policing' them?". I'll assume from what you've since said that your answer is "yes, I think that expressing distaste regarding someone's clothing is policing them'."

Gosh you really are determined- yes I think the level of distaste as you call it displayed by some posters on here is verging on policing.

I am firmly of the view that for all the trumpeting which goes on here in general about "everyone can wear anyything" that lip service is paid to that. There is the disparaging tone which is frequently adopted about feminine clothes; the frequent denigration of clothes designed for women as being so poor quality, badly designed etc etc and the level of suspicion towards men who do actually not conform; the pitying tone about the amount of time, money and effort which is wasted.

I expect you (general you) will deny that ever happens and/or demand evidence, but it does.

I have responded to your (not particularly couteous) demands to reply. I see you ignored my question whether I was the poster in the comments which merited a deletion.

[DeaconBoo]

Oh sorry, your question was about "the poster you were criticising". I hadn't (intentionally) criticised any poster in the deleted post, and specifically stated "I say this with no judgment" or something similar (I don't keep copies of my posts, so an relying on memory), so I didn't really know what you were looking for.

[DeaconBoo]

And to avoid further misunderstanding, please could you quote the wording I used that you interpreted as "demands to reply"?

[dumpling23]

Well @BitMuch - what a brilliant thread with amazing evidence you've presented! It has really got me thinking.

A few years ago, I definitely would have strongly supported GPs right to wear a dress. After all, for feminists, freeing ourselves from restrictive dress codes has been fundamental to feminism so how could we plausibly deny men this option too? Well, your evidence does really force a rethink.

1. Feminists have argued against traditional female dress in a bid to promote a more equal society. But as GP himself very clearly says, his cross-dressing is NOT motivated by equality concerns. He’s committed to these inequalities and stereotypes – he just wants to cross them, not demolish them. There’s absolutely no connection between this and feminist concerns in this domain.

2 Feminists seeking to wear non-traditional female clothing have been motived by freedom and comfort. We know this isn’t GPs concern because again – he tells us many times over. He does this because it gives him a ‘stiffy’. FFS. This is a sexual fetish, which has never formed any part of feminist concerns in this area. The man can have whatever fetish he wants, the question is: is an environment with children the right place for him to indulge it? Many of us think not! (Of course, this means we will be accused of 'pearl clutching' but that's another story ...)

I think this is why this thread has been particularly cantankerous. Since Edwardian feminists sought to break free of crinoline and corsets, clothing has been an important area of feminist action. It doesn’t come naturally to feminists to critique people’s appearance/clothes, because this kind of criticism always ends up playing out so badly for women. Still, you’ve convinced me that GP’s cross dressing just can’t be seen as a feminist act - and indeed, it's quite problematic.

Do check back in and let us know how your complaints go. Given that you’ve only had partial success on a board that is about women’s rights, frankly – I’m not holding my breath! But that's a comment on society, not on the strength of your arguments, which I think are absolutely spot on.

[ArabellaScott]

Noting as much to myself as anyone else that

1. I like GPerry, I find his work inspiring and his talks interesting. Fresh and accessible.
   

1. He is clear this is a fetish
   

Much cognitive dissonance going on between respecting Perry as an artist and person and finding this aspect of his behaviour very troublesome.

I know he also makes a point of using men's toilets, apparently out of consideration for women.

What do we think should happen? If a fetish relies on shocking and scandalising people ... it relies on other people's [unwilling] participation ... it's problematic.

I don't know what can realistically be done about this.

But yes, we can be clear that someone wearing what is, for them, clothing that they wear for a sexual thrill, around children, is not straightforward and fine.

What I would really like is to hear GPs wife's thoughts on this matter. She should have some very useful insights, given her training especially.

[DidoLamenting]

@DeaconBoo

Oh sorry, your question was about "the poster you were criticising". I hadn't (intentionally) criticised any poster in the deleted post, and specifically stated "I say this with no judgment" or something similar (I don't keep copies of my posts, so an relying on memory), so I didn't really know what you were looking for.

Really? You don't remember? You made quite the song and dance about your deleted post. You posted 2 follow up posts about how hard done by you were.

^Oh, I see my message was deleted, presumably for alerting others to previous comments made by a poster on similar threads about 'gendered clothing'.
I'll just make a general comment as to not getting derailed!^


^I'm not sure which part of my post it was, but I made the same points as others - to me, as a general point, if a male friend announced he got turned on when wearing blue jeans and it was part of a sexual fetish, then turned up to primary school wearing blue jeans, yeah I'd think that was not on.
It's the combination of the clothes and the announcement of the fetish that makes sure everyone is 'in on it^

If it was this part of my post that merited deletion then feel free to delete again MNHQ but please let me know - I do think it's a bit unfair to delete without specifying which bit broke the guidelines. I didn't lie about anything but posts that contain obvious untruths are allowed to stand

I was wondering which poster you were commenting on.