Grayson Perry interview

[Shewholovedthethebanhills]

I thought his answer to the question on gender stereotypes was refreshing: “As a transvestite, I’m heavily invested in gender stereotypes, because otherwise I wouldn’t have a barrier to cross. It would just be dressing.”

She’s a psychotherapist but I think she works with adults. She wrote a book about parenting.

Ugh I didn’t know about a lot of this stuff either. I thought it was more about being a cartoonish version of feminine, I hadn’t realised it was deliberately about dressing as a little girl, or about his “favourite artists”.. My small degree of distaste is a lot bigger now :(

He can explain about the girls in his or their art being symbolic of the fantasy self or whatever. But those images and ideas are still horrible and unacceptable to most of us, to women and girls, to victims of paedophiles. For him not to understand or maybe care about that suggests he’s very egocentric or solipsistic.

@littlbrowndog

Oh ffs

Horrid. What lives in that mans. Head

I guess he shows us what’s in his head

Yuck

I'm not reading it again, but he appeared to be saying something like little boys are never praised for being cute or gorgeous, or whatever.

Sad as that might be to believe, I have zero sympathy. He is a grown adult, and he is so unbelievably self analytical, that he knows exactly what he's doing.

Vile stuff.

I wrote to the Clore Duffield Foundation, Barlby Primary School and Oxford Gardens Primary School expressing safeguarding concerns. Grayson Perry's motivation is so easily found in publicly available online as he talks about his fetishes every chance gets. It has been nearly a year and none have replied. I didn't write to Kate Middleton but I probably should, just I am aware of the Royal track record on things like this.

Is the article with the discussion about an erection?
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/04/grayson-perry-dress-tranny-art-who-are-you-tv

There is nothing here that makes me think he shouldn’t be in schools.

Neither do I think he has dressed as a child.

Mostly frumpy outfits, or the little bo prep look. Or costumes from art students.

The thing about ‘shock’, or barriers… because he is not trans, or remotely pretending to be a woman or know how a woman feels, he just seems not to want to be ‘ordinary’ as an unnoticeable woman in a Monsoon outfit because that is more dishonest than the performative obvious ‘man in a dress’ nature of his transvestism.

No evidence at all that he is any danger to kids.

Neither do I think he has dressed as a child.

"Claire appears in public and in Grayson’s art in a number of different guises, ranging from a little girl in a frilly dress to an adult woman. As Claire, he can dress in an outrageously flamboyant way and enjoy the reaction she causes."

www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/whatson/walker-art-gallery/exhibition/making-himself-claire#section--the-exhibition

He has a humiliation fetish and finds dressing as a little girl top of the list. He becomes particularly aroused when the general public find this shocking.

He is including unwitting men, women and children in his sexual fetish, and getting off on it.

@KathleenWho

I did used to admire GP but now I find him a little disturbing I admit it's refreshing that he acknowledges that he is a cross dressing man and that it is a fetish but, given the clothes he wears and the presentation, I find that fetish disturbing. I also don't like others being forced to feed the fetish given that shocking other people is part of it

I feel the same.

When he is not dressed up he appears empathic and what he has to say about society interesting (much I agree with)

His fetish side I find very uncomfortable he has admitted that he likes to shock people who would see him and think he is weird but now they recognise him the shock value is no longer there

The little bo beep type outfits I find disturbing

I am glad he admits it’s a fetish but does this have to be on show surely they whole thing about a fetish is that it goes against the norms that why it attracts some people (many who can’t stop telling everyone)

@EdgeOfTheSky

Is the article with the discussion about an erection? www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/04/grayson-perry-dress-tranny-art-who-are-you-tv

There is nothing here that makes me think he shouldn’t be in schools.

Neither do I think he has dressed as a child.

Mostly frumpy outfits, or the little bo prep look. Or costumes from art students.

The thing about ‘shock’, or barriers… because he is not trans, or remotely pretending to be a woman or know how a woman feels, he just seems not to want to be ‘ordinary’ as an unnoticeable woman in a Monsoon outfit because that is more dishonest than the performative obvious ‘man in a dress’ nature of his transvestism.

No evidence at all that he is any danger to kids.

In saying that you have ignored almost everything he has ever said about himself.

Aside from the fact that indulging in a sexual fetish in public is gross and disturbing, it's also kind of insulting to rely on my "shock". What if I'm not shocked at a man who wears a dress (because I'm not a 19th century schoolmarm) but kind of wearily dismayed? In fact, I think men should be able to wear what they like, as normal clothes. There are lots of men who wear "feminine" clothes to various degrees who do not shock me.

So that makes me think, if GP can't shock or get that "humiliated" vibe by wearing women's clothes, is the process that he needs to go further by emphasising it, making it more childlike, talking about erections and so on. It's like if we're not shocked enough by cross-dressing itself, does he have to find something worse and more shocking to get his kicks – and that's a worrying thought.

( wearily dismayed by the fetish aspect that is, rather than the dress itself)

I like GP, went to recent art expo in Manchester and I had no idea About any of this stuff! I'm saddened by his link between humiliation and being female 😕

I find this thread quite sad to read. I’m a very committed GC feminist, but I also firmly stand for freedom of expression generally, and artistic freedom in particular.

GP is a talented artist. A lot of his art explores the taboo side of human psyche. There is absolutely nothing (that I am aware of) to suggest he is himself a child abuser, a woman abuser or a sexual criminal.

Sexual perversions and proclivities are an integral part of human behaviour. I’m not saying they are a part I enjoy or even agree with, but they exist. I don’t think it is wrong for artists to explore them in their art form.

What happened to Kathleen Stock shows how any attempt to clamp down on freedom of expression can lead to dangerous witch hunts. I would be very sorry to see GC ideology co-opted as a justification for cancelling Grayson Perry or other artists.

He has never pretended to be a transwoman.

I agree with Yellownotblue

I don’t think GC feminists are in the cancelling business, though? I think making a judgment about an artist and their work based on what they themselves say is absolutely fine. People can see his work or him, not see him, see him but find him problematic…no “cancelling” need go on.

Just as, if TRAs don’t like Kathleen Stock’s book, they’re completely free not to read it - but not to “cancel” her with harassing protests. I don’t think anyone here is planning to turn up outside his house shaking a tambourine or letting off smoke flares

Personally, I'm not suggesting Perry has physically abused children. But his admission that I or my daughter's shock at his impersonation of a little girl gives him a hard on, makes him harmful, in my opinion.

I and my children aren't his wank fodder.

I'm constantly amazed that him being honest about how he co-opts the public into his fetishes seems to sanitise them somehow.

I would be very sorry to see GC ideology co-opted as a justification for cancelling Grayson Perry or other artists.

He has never pretended to be a transwoman.

No-one is cancelling him and it's nothing to do with transgenderism.

I disagree because he enjoys impersonating little girls as the ultimate sexual humiliation and then uses them and the rest of the general public, without their consent, or even their knowledge, in his fetish.

@WingsOfGahan

I agree with Yellownotblue

I agree too. Its the same as pantomime/drag acts. I know some women really don't like them. It can be interesting to look into why and how that sort of humour evolved and exists (I think its probably often a sign of wider social misogyny but also more complicated than just that) but I would never want to ban them. (I do quite like pantomimes in general). Weirdly I think a lot of TRAs don't like drag etc because it is appropriating their space which ummm... must involve a lot of mental gymnastics.

Obviously not saying anyone here is trying to cancel anything...

The wank fodder idea is horrible, of course, but just being in the world seems to make it impossible not to be, it's uncontrollable. Standing still dressed as a tree it seems like someone is going to have a fetish about it. I don't especially like that either but I don't find it any worse that a 'normal' person to person encounter.

I understood GP had an abusive childhood and has had a lot of therapy. Therapy is to be encouraged. He makes art, he tries to speak thoughtfully about things.

I'm probably talking crap, I am not trying to be argumentative at all, I understand these issues are very sensitive.

Than

He’s not trying to be a woman, he’s a man in a dress!

I really like that Perry’s publicly trying to analyse masculinity in a public way in his book and films, but I find the fetishisation of gender stereotypes aimed at women and kids disturbing and insulting. These stereotypes of femininity blight our lives to a greater or lesser extent and the goalposts of acceptable femininity are changing all the time to keep us on the back foot. So to me the standards and signifiers of ‘femininity’ are absolutely toxic. So, they’d be impossible to see as just a sexy retro plaything for anyone who truly sees women as being people.

I agree with all of that, ChattyLion

But isn't the fact that the signifiers of 'femininity' are toxic, what he's playing with? I'm not sure it's just 'sexy retro'

There is absolutely nothing (that I am aware of) to suggest he is himself a child abuser, a woman abuser or a sexual criminal.

Woah! Don't go stretching what has actually been said here.

The only things we know about his choices, motivations come from him. When he explains he wears certain skirts to 'hide a stiffy' that he says he finds it harder to get his fetish frisson these days, because a man in a frock isn't as shocking any more, I believe him.

Then he is seen out wearing a dress, a flared skirt, when attending an aoccasion for children. What is different about those days?

Why should anyone be asked to ignore that because 'he is an artist?' or 'he had a miserable childhood'?

He may well be the nicest, least harmful cross dressing artist in the world. But he still uses women and girls for his own sexual gratification - and we know that BECAUSE HE TOLD US SO!