Is it wrong to identify as something you aren’t?

I was defending Perry as a fine artist.

It is ambiguous as to how far that kind of action is art or not, and as far as I am concerned its a case by case issue as to "but is it art" the whole Brit Art movement was all about the artists person as well as what they made. Think Tracy Emin's bed, think Damien Hirst's publicity stunts, and much much more.

This is a good framing of art produced

"The YBAs (young British Artists) (1990's onwards) capitalised on the "Cool Britannia" era, where art, music, and celebrity merged. They were not afraid of the media, and a willingness to challenge the establishment ensured widespread coverage, even if it was sometimes scathing"

It was a "thing of its time" 2007 wise.

here is a full page of Graysons current work, worth a peep.

www.google.com/search?client=safari&hs=rITU&sca_esv=f87974b672c12508&rls=en&sxsrf=ANbL-n5xmb2Vvg1d8MQm_PSOLXNZrv1Y7Q:1768040949449&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3vWUtYx0DZdicpfE1faGYemg2KC4yuMPyQlIvlWqq2AtcdVMJmMDffRprXURy79lwfxbZzYnz1kUI8qHk4viuoEed0kgzFYLYoplHE7lygXKKR-2SMoTH8fnmGiCKRsfKxmnay2JDj7ljpvwSBY9KaiYk60urr1aVOHyMyB7ntf5Or4DNA&q=what+current+work+is+Grayson+perry+making&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq4vXl4YCSAxUqT0EAHYEtLwsQtKgLegQIFxAB&biw=1128&bih=620&dpr=2&aic=0

I think the “Me Too” movement moved thinking on as to what women should accept in terms of men’s desires and need to exhibit their sexuality.

So that hopefully Grayson Perry would not now be allowed to indulge his fetish and expect women to meekly accept his right to do so - even if he used art and fame to justify his sexual thrills.

I was a teenager when men masturbating on the Underground was a common sight and I was told to just look away. Later in life, I accepted that bosses would masturbate under the table in meetings, then it was GP et al telling us it was all “art”.

It’s all the same thing. Women must bow to men’s desires.
I’m thankful some of us can see past it.

The other adults at the 2007 event hadn't consented to be a part of his fetish, but he involved them any way. The actions of a man who puts his own needs above any consideration for others, just like the man who waggles his penis in front of unsuspecting women and girls in the park.
Wyllow I'm not stupid, I know there are vulvas in art as well as in pornography but you obviously couldn't find a photo of little children proudly holding their plastic vulvas on sticks.

You now say that the incident in 2007 wasn't GP's finest hour because it wasn't art but earlier you were defending it as art?

Well, given that no children were "forced" to see the picture of this 2007 exhibition, it went unnoticed at the time, by and large, and it only came to light because Spiked decided to bring it all up to do a shock horror article last year

I'm not sure where the argument is, either.

But nobody is disputing that there are genitals in Art, or that GP is a good artist. People have said that they also like a lot of his work, but that doesn't mean that this case can be excused.

What we are saying, and it seems you agree (?), is that in this case his exhibitionism outweighs any claim to his outfit being 'Art'.

I'm not sure where the argument is, really.

Simple - because I don't think it's Art in this case - I just think he is "showing off".

I love the bulk of Perry's work, the tapestries, the pottery et al.

There are loads of vulvas in Art, especially since the 1970's, most done by women

www.google.com/search?client=safari&hs=zHTU&sca_esv=47635443e4d56f69&rls=en&sxsrf=ANbL-n4xjz6X8ZA-dOoxFypXPDPC5CIAjg:1768037750722&udm=2&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpaEWjvZ2Py1XXV8d8KvlI3o6iwGk6Iv1tRbZIBNIVs-5-bUj3iBl-UxHsANYwOkWWIHyK1NRBVtxaVLlI368r1sO_OMujwuZE1H9wBGiUEFKaIv-UExzkT4rqVSLwXbL5yWPGopUNljv5GQ5DwuDVa-IKUeFZ70StwpJt_rJTYvLKtJx3fZhTEKDS9dAdZKM0nO474w&q=vulvas+in+Art&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjk_NLw1YCSAxUvRUEAHYdNIGgQtKgLegQIExAB&biw=1129&bih=609&dpr=2&aic=0

Cross posted Doodledog

Wyllow the difference between the museum and GP is that visitors consent to see phallic material by purposely attending, not get exposed to it because GP gets a thrill out of forcing it on people without their consent. Totally different. Presumably the parents of the children holding what look like plastic penises on sticks also consented to their children taking part. I wonder why penises and not vulvas, surely not the dominance of men and their desires?

There is a huge difference between a museum that people can opt to visit and the GP incident. I know nothing of the background to the Japanese thing, but 'what about this lot?' is never a defence of much, is it?

As a matter of interest, why do you think it wasn't GP's finest hour?

Then there was the Kanamara Matsuri, Festival of the Steel Phallus, Wakamiya Hachiman-Gu shrine in Kawasaki, Japan, 2006...

Haven't a clue, not have a clue.

I have a clue. I told you I thought it was silly and not al all Perry's finest hour. But I also think its worth not taking it oh so shocking, look here:

visitreykjavik.is/service/icelandic-phallological-museum

"Housing the worldʹs largest collection of penises, the Icelandic Phallological Museum offers visitors a unique and unforgettable learning experience.

Over recent years the family friendly museum has grown steadily and as of 2020 the presentation has been improved immensely

And now with a phallic themed bistro, the visitors can enjoy exclusive craft beers and dishes.

The only relevance I can see of it happening in 2007 is that the political landscape has shifted since then, and it is no longer acceptable for men to act out their fantasies with the public as non-consenting participants.

If no children were there it’s not quite so bad (I thought there were), but all the same, the appearance was to raise money for a children’s charity. If GP had turned up as ‘Claire’ wearing a child’s dress he would just have looked ridiculous, but the enormous codpiece poking through his coat is a step beyond that. I can’t help thinking that ignoring the obvious sexual relevance of that (not to mention the less than subtle message that people who appear to be harmless female children can be potent men underneath their clothing) is deliberately making a point about men’s right to put their desires right left and centre.

He can dress like that at home if he wants to. But to pose for media photos with an erect penis poking through a children’s coat is making a statement, surely? What do you think that statement might be, Wyllow?

Yes that is why I said childrens charity fundraiser.
If you read the spiked article you will see that GP talks about why he does it, there are a number of comments in this and other pieces describing the sexual thrill and humiliation of it. He is performing his fetish in public. Now some people may be fine with that, others won't. Some may see him as a boring transvestite. All of which are valid opinions.

Eazybee 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Well, I' don't get it', and I most certainly do not want it.
Grayson Perry has a degree of talent and a fascination with the penis as a decorative motif, but it is his strange cross -dressing, peculiar sexual orientation, and above all his skill at self-publicity, that pitchforked him into fame.

It would be interesting to see a retrospective of his work in twenty years time and how it is judged then.

Doodledog

Galaxy

Just so we can be clear on his art. He is wearing a dildo to a childrens charity fundraiser.
I have a different interpretation to his art that is all.

Yes. I think GP is a good artist, and his TV programmes are intelligent and thought-provoking. All well and good. But his behaviour when it comes to dressing like that in front of children is not acceptable, and it is behaviour that matters when it comes to the law.

We must be clear about one thing, tho I have no desire to go back to the subject.

Doodledog, it was a posh celeb charity fundraiser in 2007.

No children were there: it was not in front of children

Spiked, where it recently was recently talked about in august(they chose to make an issue of it 18 years later) confirms that,
as does a resulting discussion on Mumsnet (Yes. all checked out).

I checked the picture out. Frankly he just looks very silly and it's rubbish art stuff on that occasion. but no children were there nor harmed by it.

^ If one man gets away with it, what is to stop an aggressor trying to con sailors into firing their guns on a boat, by pretending to be a superior officer telling them it is about to invade their homeland, or that it is carrying an illegal cargo? Unlikely? Probably - but possible. A lot of things that we thought were impossible do actually happen.^
Elegran your argument above perfectly explains why no man should get away with claiming to be someone he isn’t, including claiming to be a woman.

If one man (who means no harm and is just indulging his fantasy) gets away with it, what’s to stop others, with more harmful intent using that as a excuse for doing exactly the same thing.

Thanks for your post!

". . . I find it irritating that a man whose pretence causes offence to another man can be taken to court be fined £500 whilst other men who cause offence to women . . . " etcetera

If someone dresses up as a fake high-level naval officer and is arrested for it, it is not because he has offended someone, it is because an officer of that level has the authority to give orders to hundreds - thousands - of other officers and ratings to take their warship to a certain location and attack a port. He could order them to act as pirates to capture a craft at sea belonging to another country. It could be carrying a valuable cargo - oil, perhaps?

If one man gets away with it, what is to stop an aggressor trying to con sailors into firing their guns on a boat, by pretending to be a superior officer telling them it is about to invade their homeland, or that it is carrying an illegal cargo? Unlikely? Probably - but possible. A lot of things that we thought were impossible do actually happen.

Nothing that I have read suggests he was a failure at all and he had very good well paid jobs even if posters don’t regard them a prestigious!
He also had a really lovely house in Wales apparently .
I can’t see any reason for him to do what he did other than the reasons he gave to the police.

Oreo

butterandjam

Oreo

I suppose it was a bit of fantasy that went too far.He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he and maybe in retirement he needed to continue to be admired? Am certain he really regrets it, not a big fine really but it’s the shame of it that will haunt him.

He had quite a prestigious past didn’t he

? No.

He's a retired teacher.

He did have quite a prestigious past.He was a teacher at a well known public school and then went on to be the rowing coach at Christ Church College in Oxford where he was much liked it seems.

To me, none of the above qualifies his past as "prestigious "

The naval deception was spotted by numerous people, which suggests he's intrinsically a second rate failure.

Not unknown even in well known public schools /universities.

Men pretending to be military is not uncommon - maybe women also but I've never heard of that. The ones I'm aware are men pretending to be soldiers.

One man used to mix regularly with the soldiers in pubs in Hertfordshire where my nephew is based, picking up anecdotes, names and ranks, and other bits and pieces until he could pass himself off as an ex soldier. He came unstuck eventually when he recounted an anecdote as if he had been there and one of the men listening had been there, and started asking questions about him. No idea why he did it but the men he mixed with were not amused.

Oreo

Allira

Iswym, a good job but not what I'd call prestigious.

Self-esteem problems? Strange that he needed to do this.
He's not the only one, though.

That’s because you go carousing with an Admiral😜

Yes, we shall have a little tipple together this evening.
Oops, the sun is over the yardarm already! 🍸

Allira

Iswym, a good job but not what I'd call prestigious.

Self-esteem problems? Strange that he needed to do this.
He's not the only one, though.

That’s because you go carousing with an Admiral😜

Iswym, a good job but not what I'd call prestigious.

Self-esteem problems? Strange that he needed to do this.
He's not the only one, though.