Is she right or is she wrong

It's not my cuppa, but it's not pornography, although the fact that the woman's head is missing is, IMO, dodgy - objectifying body parts is one of the red flags, I think.

I also think that the fact she has asterisked the word 'p**nography' is telling. Many websites or social media pages won't allow certain words, so people 'bleep' them - fine, but this is a printed notice . She seems a bit confused, unless she's showing it off all over the place and can't be bothered to edit her messaging to suit the media channel.

It's boring and rather ugly and depicts a woman with huge breasts and a tiny waist which reminds me of comic book women.
I just think it's all a bit sad.

But this argument is a old as the hills.

As far as I can judge, whether a work of art is just that or pornography depends on how good the artist who drew, sculpted, painted the subject was. Or for that matter wrote the book or poem.

AND on whether the main purpose of the work has been judged to be only to arouse or satisfy lust in the viewer (reader) or serves some other more aestetic purpose.

If the purpose was to shock, and only to shock then painting a woman with her legs open, displaying her genitalia, or with menstrual blood dripping down her legs seems very Old Hat to me - yes, it caused a sensation in the 1970s, as did pictures of naked men with erections, but honestly, can anyone be shocked today?

Disgusted, perhaps, or soberly feel that the work demeans both the model and all others of the same sex. But again this must depend on the quality and purpose of the work.

In a textbook for medical students, student nurses or midwives or teenage schoolchildren, it might well be acceptable, but not if hanging on the wall of a tea-room.

NotSpaghetti

It's on Instagram in a little video if anyone wants to actually see it.

I don't see what the fuss is about.
Artists have done this for years - L'origine du monde by Courbet, church carvings like the one in Kendal (Sheel -ne gig?).. There was an artist in Sweden who painted/drew (?) God giving Birth.

All sorts.
And certainly let's of textile art too

This picture reminds me greatly of work coming out by women artists from the 1970's onwards who were reclaiming a reality away from a long history of male nude idealised portrayal by choosing to portray themselves from their own perspective. Warts and all, etc.

Really this artist is just repeating this work in her own way, my body, my choice.

Certainly not porn, its a sort of humour with the knitted bit, I don't rate it much, rather a second rate copy of the sort of work I've mentioned some of which is done with great skill.

Yuk 🤮

Poppy Baynham said the controversy was improving her profile as an artist

I cannot buy into the opinion that anything goes when it comes to art. There was a great hoohah about those knitted nudies in the shop window so why not about a painting of a female inviting people to peer up her fandango. A great example to set the grandchildren.
Anyone thinking of buying the painting to hang in the dining room?

It's on Instagram in a little video if anyone wants to actually see it.

I don't see what the fuss is about.
Artists have done this for years - L'origine du monde by Courbet, church carvings like the one in Kendal (Sheel -ne gig?).. There was an artist in Sweden who painted/drew (?) God giving Birth.

All sorts.
And certainly let's of textile art too

Grandmabatty

My art tutor, who is a well respected artist, paints buses, male and female. I have painted male and female nudes, many artists do. The human body is interesting to paint so I have no issue with a nude painting in an art gallery.

Same here Grandmabatty.. My father always had Russell Flint's work in our house, so I grew up with nudes around me, and have since done many life drawings and paintings myself..

This particular work is made by the niece of the Gallery owner who is a much respected curator.. I'm amazed that anyone in Hay has objected...

Would this be allowed as a photograph in a window? (Serious question.)

I don't see the difference between some wannabee artist painting it and some old codger photographing it and sticking it on the internet - but he would probably get a world of trouble for it even if he called it art.

I don't have a problem with pictures of body parts, there are plenty around. Can't really say I want them in my face, male or female, when I'm doing my shopping but I wouldn't complain about it. I certainly wouldn't buy her art though.

How very lovely. 🤮

Breasts! Not breaststroke!!!

I think I saw this painter and some of her work on TV, a couple of months ago.

She also paints menstruating images, such as a woman with blood running down her legs, and so on, as well as women who have cellulite, blotches, ugly veins,bulbous breaststroke, and all the other things we all have, to some extent.

Mollygo

What was the purpose? To draw attention to her and her work. IMO, if that’s the best she can do, she certainly needs the publicity.

"It just shows how closed-minded people are, and let's say if I was a famous artist I don't think anyone would say anything."

Oh they would still say something even if she was a famous artist and the work was any improvement on hers. Think of the statue of David where people criticised the anatomical incorrectness of the hand sizes.

It’s not being close minded. That’s a typical attempt at self-justification.
For me it’s also the fact that she reduces the importance of a female to her genitalia- and a very poor representation of them.

Ms Harris said a sign next to the painting urged passers-by to come in and share their views in a visitor book.

Give her due, that’s a better marketing strategy than come and look at my paintings.

You said it all, so I don’t need to 😃 yeah, just a look at me type thing for attention.

No problem for me.

I've seen plenty before, and yes, they're intricate works of art, each and every one.

So that’s a picture of a woman in a shop window, in a particular pose meant to shock, not to praise the female form, not of great artistic value IMO.
How will all posters on here feel when a would-be Banksy decides that’s the next great idea for the side of a building.
I’m curious, foxie48
Do they run the life classes outside in public places?
Do all sorts of positions include the display of female genitalia here with or without the fabric covering on this painting?
Would you volunteer to display yourself in that position for a life drawing class?
I did life drawing as part of a Uni course many years ago and my artistic talents are about on a par with that artist, but the nudes, whatever age, were always tasteful.

Many of us are trying to tell our granddaughters that they don't have to share photos of their bodies. I can just imagine a lad saying to his girlfriend "it's on display in the High Street, it's fine for you to do the same"

I used to do life drawing from nudes but I still feel that this picture is tasteless and objectifying. It is also very poorly executed and ugly.

The naked human body is beautiful but this picture is clumsy and inaccurate.

ferry23

So it's ok to put this in a street level window, but not ok to openly sell magazines depicting the same detail?

Other than one being labelled Art and the other being labelled pornography, what's the difference?

Agreed!
There's a big difference between displaying this inside a gallery where people choose to view it, and having it "in your face" as you do your shopping and have no choice but to see it.

So it's ok to put this in a street level window, but not ok to openly sell magazines depicting the same detail?

Other than one being labelled Art and the other being labelled pornography, what's the difference?

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. I go to life drawing classes and draw males and females in all sorts of positions, they are all ages too.

The subject matter itself wouldn't bother me, I might not think it was a great piece of art (or maybe I would) - but I wouldn't be offended.

Buses. Flip! Should say nudes!😂

My art tutor, who is a well respected artist, paints buses, male and female. I have painted male and female nudes, many artists do. The human body is interesting to paint so I have no issue with a nude painting in an art gallery.

Love it or loathe it, it's done what she clearly intended it to do and got her noticed, so good for her on that score! As for whether it is offensive or not, I wouldn't want it on my wall either, but that's because I also don't think it's a particularly good painting.

Give her due, that’s a better marketing strategy than come and look at my paintings

This. When I friend and I had a look at stuff produced by some of the students at Glasgow School of Art a few years ago, the overall impression we came away with is that what they were being taught is how to sell themselves as artists.

There was some good stuff.