https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/sep/20/police-called-to-hay-on-wye-gallery-after-it-puts-painting-of-naked-woman-in-window

[RaspberryParade]

Fgs! Drag acts can be as obscene as possible in front of children and tras get their knobs out on live tv, but godforbid a so obviously non sexualised barely representational painting of a naked woman be in a gallery.
And I thought Hay on Wye was full of Guardian arts luvvies and that Sheelah Nae Gigs would be right up their street.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/sep/20/police-called-to-hay-on-wye-gallery-after-it-puts-painting-of-naked-woman-in-window

Ooops didnt mean to put the link in the heading🙄

Her legs are spread wide open and it’s in a window that presumably kids and others walk past all day. Hay isn’t just Guardian reading adults. It’s hardly surprising some complained and I don’t see the link to the trans coverage on TV. Parbets can choose not to turn on the TV but can’t turn off a shop window. The police haven’t been able to act they are just monitoring the situation because people have complained. People complain when lewd stuff is on TV but it’s easier to get traction with complaints about a local art gallery window display.

Well they best not look up next time they're in a 12 c church

I'd be a bit pissed off by seeing that in a window, too. Regardless of the painter's intentions, its spread-leg cowboy-booted presence on a shopping street is all of a piece with the parodic sexualisation and objectification of women's bodies on which drag/crossdressing thrives.

In a gallery or some other appropriate context it could perhaps be contextualised by the surrounding imagery etc to subvert its superficial message, but on a high street it is just more lads mag.
It's not as if it does anything much with the sexualised pose, it just replicates what is so often available as porn.

I am not convinced it is non-sexualised. Having something in a window is different from inside a gallery or shop where people have made a positive choice to enter.

She isn't naked. Unlike the Sheela-na-gigs.

She's wearing boots, which codes her as sexualised, as does displaying her among the wares in a shop window.

i would not be happy at all seeing that in a shop window

The artist needs to study anatomy and needs to do a lot more life drawing.

L'Origine du monde (1866) is far superior to this pale imitation IMO.

Of course it's sexualised. It's a naked woman with her legs spread.
If if it were a more natural pose in a more natural context, such as a woman swimming or doing something else non-sexual, then there could be a discussion but women don't just hang about naked with their legs wide open in public. That's a porn thing.
It might be a painting, but it's not that different to porn otherwise. It's a bit disingenuous to claim it isn't. I agree it should come down.

Why do they think it's a woman? Is the gender identity also on display?

“This is a body of work made for this exhibition,” she said. “It’s called Party Time. It’s women having fun at a party, and one of them has chosen to take their clothes off.”

Has anyone here actually been to a party where a woman has done this, struck that pose and no one batted an eyelid? Because unless it's a swingers party, then I'd be very surprised.

They think it's a woman because the pubis is on display and they know the difference. Also the breasts are shown but she has no head or face (again unlike the sheela-na-gigs). Women's faces, heads, brains, thoughts, voices don't matter once their breasts and genitals are available.

It's a clever artwork and the painter is making interesting points, but a shop window on a street isn't the place for it imo.

It's not 'pornography' and it's arguable whether it's sexualised or not, but I still don't think it's appropriate for a publuc-facing window display. Could they not find any pictures which weren't of a naked person displaying their genitals?

I can't see it as anything other than sexualised. I'd definitely be steering my daughter away, if it were near me.

Though if the artist really said this she must be very short sighted or have odd proportions, because I think most of us have caught a fleeting glimpse of our own body, even if not of anyone else's - thought that would require a very sheltered life, particularly since she is extending that to seeing artworks. I'm glad I'm not scared of my own nethers.

Baynham read aloud a statement defending the work: “Most straight women haven’t seen a vulva so I see why they might be scared of it and it is clear to me there must be a lot of straight women in Hay.

Come to think of it, one of my grandmothers spent a couple of years in a posh convent school where they were expected to bathe in a long garment to preserve holy purity, but she said that even then (ca 1910) they'd bath naked as usual then swish the garment around in the water so they could satisfy the lay sister on duty outside the bathroom that they'd obeyed the rules.

It is sexualised and inappropriate to be on display in a window.

It looks a bit more sexualised due to it being displayed in the window and the media (including the BBC) photographing and reporting it with the board covering the subjects genitals. Need to see the whole painting to form a view, but inside the gallery and without the media spin would have been more appropriate

easy to see the whole painting if you do a google image search of the artist's name

What if this was a male figure, painted spreadeagled in all that weirdly proportioned 'glory'. Would that be acceptable in a shop window? If not, then why so for women. Why do we deserve to be depicted in art so publicly like this.

I'm still sore about Mary Wollstonecraft.

Well, what an empowering experience that lazy self-publicist has created for the primary school and secondary school girls being subjected to harassment from boys for whom scenes of extreme-sexual-violence-against-women-as-entertainment-for-boys-and-men is freely available via the phones in their pockets.

How marvellous for those girls that they can walk home from school and be reminded in a shop window that a naked woman with her legs open is just a common occurrence, no big deal, don’t be such a prude you “pearl clutcher” (to quote a current thread on her about the increase in rapes of 14 yo old girls).

Let’s all stroke our chins about how “interesting” and “thought provoking” this self-identifies-as-“art” publicity piece is.

Or not.

Of course they could.

But that wouldn’t have brought them publicity in the UK press and media.

Easy bit of publicity from the gallery curator. Mission accomplished.

Is it pornography? Well if it didn't feature a pornographic trope of cowgirl boots then the debate is more valid. Painting a picture of a woman with her legs spread apart, wearing only cowgirl boots and called "Party Time"...

The artist is one of two things:

• A liar (who knowingly knows what this is about).
• Had her mind so warped by the prevalence of pornography that she can no longer see the difference between pornographic imagery and non-pornographic imagery and behaviour.

Fuck me could that student artist be any more patronising about ‘people from Hay on Wye’ or ‘straight women’? Many straight women for example; even ones who might live in Hay on Wye, work in situations where they see more vulvas in any given shift than that student has had hot dinners.

Agree the artwork’s wresting boots//party situation/no head or expression visible connote snd invite sexualisation of the female figure even if the artist did not intend it or the artist ‘just’ meant to incite comment on sexualisation. I’ve never been to a party where one solo woman takes her clothes off either. That would be wierd.

Placing such an image in a place adult people choose to enter to view it is fine. Not in a high street shop window though at kids eye level. Because ottherwise you’re just contributing to the problem while pretending you’re not because you’re naive about the context of your art and being a massive cool girl (with wierd ideas about what flies in London).

Me neither, it's gross.

The artist seems to have mainly talked about the figure being "female" (although talks about "women at a party"). The Graun has taken this to mean 'woman' in their article, rather than describing them as a "vulva-haver"!

Bigots!