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'.

And this? Where the fuck to begin?

Shed, I'm glad it's not hidden actually.

Puts a different spin on watching Izzard and his new boobs, claiming it's his girl genes.

Yes, I commend Greyson's honesty even though it means I want to step back from being a fan and put him in the box marked 'Yet another man getting his kicks at other's expense'. I think that's his saving grace in a way — that he's at least an honest fetishist and not trying to pretend that what he's doing is any more ground-breaking than that.

Mmm! I may be influenced by the fact I have lng had a 'tranny' friend. I've known him since we were in our late teens (now late 50s). Like PG he isn't gay, doesn't want to be a woman and gets a kick out fo wearing dresses.

He used to wear slinky dresses and his work boots to the pub after finishing work on a building site on Fridays but would be out with his wife on Saturday dressed 'normally'. He stopped cross dressing when out with us years ago, we're too accepting, apparently! Nowadays he too wears very over the top creations, charity shop finds, prom dresses, a Margaret Thatcher outfit etc, but only if he thinks his 'audience' will be a bit shocked!

Yes, it's a fetish. One that is sustained by mulitple second glances and shocked expressions. It requires nothing more from its audience. I think many women do this too.... thinking of all the trout pouts, perma tans, etc!

Like PG he find Eddie Izzard ridiculous. He simply isn't a girl!

Gosh, that LGBT film for kids... I can see that making me crosser throughout the day...
I don't know about Cahun. I can see the gender fluid aspect but would Cahun have wanted to be called "they"? It seems to me like Ollie missed a chance to big up a woman and hasn't mentioned them being a lesbian. He also didn't explicitly say Marlow was, she's just a natty dresser with a partner called Antoinette. Fairly quick to mention the men being gay though.
I did splutter at the bit where Ollie says the way Marlow represents herself can be seen in their work... and it cuts to a few bits of wood stuck on a white board. I don't know if I'm a philistine or it's one for pseudo corner.
So out of 5 artists, one isn't LGBTQ and he focuses on what the women wore without mentioning that they were lesbians. Or a woman in Cahun's case.
P.s. Ollie's constant top changes were really distracting.

• pseuds

I think the raison d'être of many artists is to shock. To create something that makes people look again, and provokes them to feel strong emotion - whether that be anger or disgust or admiration or whatever - and examine what lies behind the reaction. I think that's what Grayson Perry means when he says there's no point in dressing up if people don't react.

(Full disclosure: I am also aware that I have an oddly inexplicable instinct to defend him and try to minimise this behaviour, I guess because I find him interesting, intelligent and likeable beyond his transvestitism. Unlike Izzard.)

I really like GP as a TV presenter. He comes across as an interesting and likeable person. His contribution to the current culture around gender and presentation is also intriguing.

I'll admit that I've always liked GP so I'm sure that colours my opinion of him.

But I think it's extremely helpful to have him as a very well known example. We're not actually allowed to say or think that a male wearing stereotypically women's clothing could be doing so as a sexual fetish. And yet he's already so beloved by the art world establishment that he gets away with continuing to be honest about himself. If Perry wasn't saying it, there would be nowhere acceptable to the mainstream that voiced this truth.

I'm amazed that he is not criticised by the woke. I suppose the Tate has to call him queer otherwise the cognitive dissonance is too much. But I'd love to hear their defense of why they did so!

And its impossible not to compare Perry to Eddie Izzard and wonder why they diverged in their approach to the same thing.

He has these clothes specifically designed to hide an erection

Can you link to where he said that?

I like him too.
I really liked his interviews with the people whose work was going in the final exhibition, I thought he was warm, friendly and respectful- for example when he was with the man with autism (?) who made all those colourful figures.
I think the fact that 'in real life' he presents as an ordinary bloke tells you that his dressing up is performance. It functions partly to make us question gender which is a good thing surely. Yes there is a sexual element but women also identify sexual pleasure in clothing and how they present, why else do they wear sexualised clothing?
I think suggesting his dress is designed 'to hide an erection' is ludicrous. I've seen TW criticised (IMO rightly) for wearing tight skirts that reveal the shape of a penis, so what is correct? Dresses designed and cut for women will never look right on men, they have a different shape, so anything he has specially designed is probably going to be looser, as he will have no waist.
I really do think he is on the right side of history.

As for the pot, it's not one I would share with younger children. But the image of the bound woman is not sexualised, and I don't see why you wouldn't talk to a teenager about what that might be intended to convey to us.
But the film with Olly is completely appalling.

Yeah, it is wierd that he hasn't been torn to shreds by the woke.
I can imagine it now
'self-hating TW in denial'
'traitor'

But the film with Olly is completely appalling.

What's that then?

@ABCDay

He has these clothes specifically designed to hide an erection

Can you link to where he said that?

Yes, I'd like the actual reference as I've already started telling peeps about this.

@CatsCantCatchCriminals2

But the film with Olly is completely appalling.

What's that then?

film from the Tate linked to above LGBTQ+ artists for kids

I'm sure it would be really helpful if FWR posters criticising Grayson Perry could agree a list of clothing usually worn by women but which they consider suitable for men also.

This is where the "anyone can wear anything" mantra falls down as it's qualified by "unless it's to shock or to draw attention to the wearer or the wearer's are suspect or if , generally we don't like it"

.....better than clothing designed not to hide an erection surely?

@DidoLamenting

I'm sure it would be really helpful if FWR posters criticising Grayson Perry could agree a list of clothing usually worn by women but which they consider suitable for men also.

This is where the "anyone can wear anything" mantra falls down as it's qualified by "unless it's to shock or to draw attention to the wearer or the wearer's are suspect or if , generally we don't like it"

No, because this isn't about sartorial choices.

Perry is dressing as something, not in something. The whole point of 'anyone should be allowed to wear anything' is to remove the taboo Perry is exploiting.

His fetish means dressing as a female child is sexually arousing to him.

He makes his clothing choice as feminine and 'girly' as he possibly can, so that no one is on in any doubt as to who he is trying to impersonate.

It's not about which clothes are acceptable or not. It's about challenging his motivation for wearing them.

@testing987654321

He definitely wants a reaction, on Sandy Toksvig's R4 programme the other day he said it's no fun doing it in New York because they don't react.

I think that's the best thing to do, just accept people dressing how they want provided they are decent. Over time they won't get a reaction and hopefully dresses and skirts can just be seen as clothes in the same way that shirts and trousers are.

I'll be honest, I know very little about him, but is that definitely a sexual thing?

As someone whose fashion has always been more OTT (goth, punk, retro, etc) part of the fun has always been the reactions, not because it's arousing (that would be fucking weird), and I know a lot of others who feel the same. It's just fun to stand out sometimes.

Such mixed messages.

Women, wear what you like, you are wearing that make up, those heels that dress because it makes you feel good. Feeling sexy, attractive, getting looked at, being noticed... all good!

And yes, when you choose to wear flats, trousers, jumpers and ditch the make up, that's fine too.

Men, don't you fucking dare cos you are getting your rocks off!

That's where the distinction between being gender critical and being entrenched, separatist
gets lost.

I really liked his interviews with the people whose work was going in the final exhibition, I thought he was warm, friendly and respectful- for example when he was with the man with autism (?) who made all those colourful figures.

Yes, they were great. I think he is genuinely interested in people beyond superficial identity labels.

But a lot of what he says just reinforces the idea of gendered clothing. He went to collect his CBE dressed as "Italian mother of the bride". Why not Italian father of the bride? It's very honest of him to admit that cross-dressing is arousing for men like him, but I wouldn't call him a gender bender.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Such mixed messages.

Women, wear what you like, you are wearing that make up, those heels that dress because it makes you feel good. Feeling sexy, attractive, getting looked at, being noticed... all good!

And yes, when you choose to wear flats, trousers, jumpers and ditch the make up, that's fine too.

Men, don't you fucking dare cos you are getting your rocks off!

That's where the distinction between being gender critical and being entrenched, separatist
gets lost.

It's ridiculous and the explanation given by Datun doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

"Challenging his motivation for wearing them". It's still demanding that he only wears them if he meets some sort of radical feminist purity of thought test.

@RozWatching

I really liked his interviews with the people whose work was going in the final exhibition, I thought he was warm, friendly and respectful- for example when he was with the man with autism (?) who made all those colourful figures.

Yes, they were great. I think he is genuinely interested in people beyond superficial identity labels.

But a lot of what he says just reinforces the idea of gendered clothing. He went to collect his CBE dressed as "Italian mother of the bride". Why not Italian father of the bride? It's very honest of him to admit that cross-dressing is arousing for men like him, but I wouldn't call him a gender bender.

Well presumably because "father of the bride" is a very smart but conservative suit which presumably wasn't what he wanted to wear and calling what he was wearing "father of the bride would make no sense whatsoever as no-one would know what he was on about.

Dido Sure, but why describe it as a woman's outfit? Doesn't that undermine the idea that anyone can wear anything?

But the fact that anyone can wear anything doesn't change societal expectations... or judgements.

And if he is right, my friend thinks much the same, then those societal expectations are becoming less polarised and judgements are getting fewer.

Which will probably render cross dressing trannyness redundant, eventually.

Though probably only temporarily, see the 80/90s for example.