Is she right or is she wrong

I suppose its the pose I wouldn't care to look at also is the gallery open to children, nudity mostly is tastefully done this dosnt sound tasteful

Grandma Batty I thought it was a typo 😂

Oh Mollygo, well batted, touch'e! You do have a valid point & yes each to their own. Not everyone would appreciate the now infamously lurid picture on their mantlepiece. I still rather like it but I soooooooo take your pointed point. 😊

Wyllow you have described it much better than I could. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I'd say just different minded not narrow minded.

And the details of what is good or bad art work or distasteful or appropriate is in the mind of the person looking at the work, not an absolute. And the mores of society generally and the context of seeing the work.

Any art work - visual, a book, music, is up for interpretation by the viewer or reader

Narrow minded works both ways.
Saying people are wrong for finding something distasteful, inappropriate or simply poor artwork is soooooooo narrow minded too.

Hear,hear! Lahlah65. We should not be ashamed of our miraculous bodies. The controversial artwork in Hay was original & brave, celebrating the wonder of the female form in a quirky manner, Some people are soo narrow-minded 😊

I haven't seen what the artist was or is, saying - not sen that drowning woman, either.
I need to have a look.

It’s interesting tho ( Oscar Wilde) even if hideous.Has the artist said what point he was making?
The same for the statue of a woman in the river which lights up at night, the artist says he was thinking of Ophelia but to the casual eye looks like a female drowned body.

Has anyone seen the new Oscar wilde art?
Hideous, I think his family have called it.

It's his head, split into slices.

Thank God 'art' in on the streets now - galleries finished. Round my way there is so much Fabulous art to see just 'out there' - this of David Attenborough just down the road. www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl74595pv58o

Best place for them.
Although, I quite like them.
But that's a whole other thread.

MissAdventure

Ooh you rude woman!
How very dare you say armpit.

Yes, a big, hairy armpit.

Sorry for being so indecent. Armpits should be kept inside the shirt. 😄

My GS was told when he was at nursery that he must not let anyone but his parents see his bottom and some people believe that showing pictures of people's genitalia is a good thing for children?

Ooh you rude woman!
How very dare you say armpit.

Yes, a big, hairy armpit.

MissAdventure

How about showing other parts of bodies in art, because there is certainly a lot of that?

Like an armpit?

How about showing other parts of bodies in art, because there is certainly a lot of that?

I’m not sure telling/demonstrating to children, via art that exposing their genitalia for all the world to see is OK.
If that makes me prudish, so be it.
For me as a teacher, that’s a safeguarding issue.

L’Origine du Monde is part of a genre of erotic art, painted by men, to be viewed by men. It may be a picture of a courtesan ie a sex worker. Although it is now on display in a public art museum, it would have been kept in a private space. It is anatomically accurate and intended to be a ‘titillating’ image not to be observed in mixed company or by men’s families.
The image in the gallery in Hay is not intended to be an anatomically accurate image of a female body but a depiction of a woman showing off her anatomy for the fun of it - not to arouse or please men. I would defy anyone to find this image titillating. And whatever folk think about the execution of the painting, surely the artist should get some credit for the intention (and the fun) behind this.
I am really not sure why people think that children should not be exposed to the image - 50% of them have this anatomy. And perhaps the other 50% wouldn’t be so heavily reliant on pornography to build their understanding of women’s bodies if we were less prudish.

Yes! I agree about the naturalists, cooking the sausages, must be particularly hazardous handeling the ³little chipolatas 😃

Displaying it there and like that, especially since the artistic talent is questionable, is as inappropriate as naturists doing a barbecue without an apron.

Hear, hear, Granmabatty, it's an artistic image of a human body, we've all got one. I have some marvellous naked female Picasso prints in my bedroom, which just wonderfully celebrate the female human form. People are soo upright in the UK.🤔

I don't think the work in the O/P is effective or good art, but imo the subject itself isn't denigrating, depends on how it's done.

For so long women were taught that their "private parts" were shameful or unmentionable in some way and there was so much ignorance about it (I include myself at 18!).

missdeke
Beckett
Actually I have no problem with the subject - just think it is an awful painting!
My thoughts exactly.

Today 15:19 rowyn

I have no issues with depictions of nudes, of either sex, but I would expect a decent piece of art.
There's also the feeling that the person who did it ( can't call them artist) is deliberately denigrating the female body.

Yes to all these points.