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

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.

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?

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.

Haven't a clue, not have a clue.

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

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?

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?

Cross posted Doodledog

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Rosie51

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 put Rosie51

Wyllow3
Then there was the Kanamara Matsuri, Festival of the Steel Phallus, Wakamiya Hachiman-Gu shrine in Kawasaki, Japan, 2006...

Wow! You seem to be getting really desperate when you have to use Japanese culture to justify Grayson Perry’s art!

PS I know about the museum in Iceland, but as has already been said, it’s my choice to go and see a lot of dead things, with or without my family. It’s not something that is forced on me

I do enjoy the fact that it is ok for a man to wear a dildo in public ( he himself having described the sexual thrill he gets from cross dressing) but that it is is somehow questionable for women to question this behaviour because they did it some years after the event.

Perry has written a brilliant book called "the Descent of Man". In it he brings to light traditional ideas of masculinity and suggests they are punitive (to women as well as selves) and restrictive.

This page shows the book but also a clip from it, well worth a read. I've read the whole book, some time ago: it takes apart traditional masculinity and the damage it does.

www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/554644/the-descent-of-man-by-grayson-perry/9780143131656/excerpt

I posted overseas example to show how ubiquitous representing the penis is: shown posters pages of vagina pix, when someone said, "oh but what about the vagine/vulva"

Given a broad idea of Graysons work as a whole, put it in historical context of "the artist as celeb" at that point in time:

I've said as much as I can usefully say, over to others. A lot of yesterdays remarks were prefaced on the assumption that children with cancer were attending the event, which of course turned out to be entirely false - beware SM presentations.

The idea that he would know what is damaging to women is hilarious.

I haven't seen any SM media representations except those by feminists exploring hus behaviour. Feminism frequently explores the issues of boundaries, porn, etc,.

I think The Descent of Man is a classic case of “Behold and be amazed at my original thinking - but kindly ignore my traditional, entitled male behaviour”.

Personally I rather dislike people whose actions don’t match their preaching. I always wonder are they deceiving us - or themselves.

For me, integrity is a crucial factor in art.

'Pretending to be someone else.'
Have just read a long article about a serial 'catfisher', who has ended up in jail, for pretending online to be a charming doctor.
So, the intent to deceive, is considered in the sentencing.

I listened to a fascinating podcast about a couple in America who pretended to be military veterans, they also pretended to be working for the CIA or something, I do wonder how the extreme pretenders get away with it. If someone told me they worked for the CIA my first instinct would be to disbelieve them.

Maremia- just read same article. I agree re intent to deceive - I posted about 8 January at 10.44

Obviously that's where the fake Rear Admiral went wrong and why he ended up in court.
He wasn't displaying a fake penis.