Crosswords1 min ago
Does paedophilia belong in public art exhibitions?
20 Answers
Do we really need the new Royal Academy exhibition supporting artists such as Gerald Davis, whose caricature depicts a young girl with pompoms on her socks engaged in oral sex with an older man? This is classed as paedophilia - and the artist doesn't even deny that! The Royal Academy exhibitions are visited by adults and children alike. I have never shared or understood Charles Saatchi's taste in art (remember Tracey Emin's Soiled Bed?), but once again he baffles the mind with the so called artists he supports so readily. Do we really have to put up with paedophilia in our public art exhibitions? Does this not support and condone this type of behaviour? Does this kind of thing not belong in a private exhibition, if it must be shown at all? Your views please.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Carakeel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No it is not meant to be for the general unwashed is it, it is meant to be for the 'Kings new Clothes' mentality, us flat cap wearing proletariat have more nowse than to take any notice of those jumped up so called artists. we know what we like and it isn't that rubbish and so let the millionaires pay for the rubbish, they are fools. It is ridiculous you are right.
Thanks for that Dot. There are a lot of artists out there who are disgusted at what is nowadays being called 'art'. To me there is no art in slicing a dead pregnant cow in half and placing it in formaldehyde. Nor do I see it as art when a soiled bed is placed in the middle of a public gallery, all inclusive of the 'artist's' soiled knickers and half filled cup of coffee etc. To me, these people and their supporters make a mockery out of art and do a lot of harm to others who create in the 'old fashioned' way.
I think it's a very difficult matter to judge and indeed I've not seen it so can't readily comment, however I don't think just because there is a piece of art whose subject matter is say rape, paedophilia, murder etc that it necessarily supports it, it may be very much the opposite, it may be a huge visual condemnation of it which makes people question their opinions which as a society we really should be doing on a daily basis, as people suffer these abuses everyday and only the adjustment of society and it's opinions can stop that, so no I don't have a problem per se with controversial works being on public display in fact I think it might do a lot of good.
With regard to the work you cite ( which I have not seen personally), when you say "young girl" how young are you actually talking about because if the depiction is of someone over the age of consent (16) then certainly it is not paedophilia, clearly if it is a child then that is a different matter. What is the artist trying to say in the piece?What is the context of it?
I have to say that trendy talentless art certainly isn't to my taste, nor are works that seeks to shock just for their own sake, however if the artist genuinely has something to say either personally or about society in general and it's well executed then I would support it, if not then they are just another attention seeking weirdo getting rich on the basis of other people's unhappiness.
With regard to the work you cite ( which I have not seen personally), when you say "young girl" how young are you actually talking about because if the depiction is of someone over the age of consent (16) then certainly it is not paedophilia, clearly if it is a child then that is a different matter. What is the artist trying to say in the piece?What is the context of it?
I have to say that trendy talentless art certainly isn't to my taste, nor are works that seeks to shock just for their own sake, however if the artist genuinely has something to say either personally or about society in general and it's well executed then I would support it, if not then they are just another attention seeking weirdo getting rich on the basis of other people's unhappiness.
nox, thanks for your comments. The artist does not deny his art is paedophilia and states that the image is of a young girl he knew and fantasized about some years ago and that - as he couldn't put his fantasy into action at the time, he acted it out in this image. Going by the child's body shape and the sad fearful look in her eyes, I doubt this child is more than max. 13, while he definitely looks adult, holding a beer can in one hand while relaxed back in a chair. He also exhibits a realistic drawing of a frightened young boy (perhaps around 8 yrs old) whose arms are being held back by another child while a third child writes FAG BOY on the child's chest in crayon. Being an exhibiting artist, I feel responsable for what I place in front of the public. I think we have a responsability to the people, young and old, who come to see our work. Images like the above mentioned should not be put in public places where they will upset and offend those who are vulnerable... nor should they promote what is essentially very, very wrong! The artist's skills are not in questions here, but his morals certainly are.
I'm going to go against the grain here but I've just clicked on the link posted by Bednobs (thank you) and I liked what I saw.
My interpretation of the two pictures that you mentioned was that the artist was making a comment on lost innocence and the fact that the society we live in does indeed have an ugly side. I found both pictures touching in the sense that it made me think about all the aspects of modern life that happen and that we don't talk about enough. Children are bullying other children, they know more explicit terms that I ever did when I was a child. Children are also learning about sexuality and indulging in it at younger ages and reports of child abuse is on the rise.
While I take your point about the artist himself admitting that he liked this child and I agree that the child in the picture did not look happy, the fact remains that the artist did not indulge in this practice. In fact he used the picture to show the fear that a child that age would face should he have put his thoughts in to action. The picture is all the more striking with the pom poms on the socks. I think more than an image of sex this picture to me is more a representation of the types of thoughts we can all have that are taboo and that we would never admit to having.
As far as your point about the work being exhibited, I think it's down to personal choice whether you view it or not. I don't want to go back to a time when works of art were banned because they were controversial.
At the end of the day, this artists work has got people talking about aspects of life that we would all prefer weren't there and I think this is always a good thing, much better than walking around with rose tinted glasses. Perhaps it is down to individual interpretation. I certainly didn't see what you saw but then isn't that the point to art anyway? It's all subjective.
My interpretation of the two pictures that you mentioned was that the artist was making a comment on lost innocence and the fact that the society we live in does indeed have an ugly side. I found both pictures touching in the sense that it made me think about all the aspects of modern life that happen and that we don't talk about enough. Children are bullying other children, they know more explicit terms that I ever did when I was a child. Children are also learning about sexuality and indulging in it at younger ages and reports of child abuse is on the rise.
While I take your point about the artist himself admitting that he liked this child and I agree that the child in the picture did not look happy, the fact remains that the artist did not indulge in this practice. In fact he used the picture to show the fear that a child that age would face should he have put his thoughts in to action. The picture is all the more striking with the pom poms on the socks. I think more than an image of sex this picture to me is more a representation of the types of thoughts we can all have that are taboo and that we would never admit to having.
As far as your point about the work being exhibited, I think it's down to personal choice whether you view it or not. I don't want to go back to a time when works of art were banned because they were controversial.
At the end of the day, this artists work has got people talking about aspects of life that we would all prefer weren't there and I think this is always a good thing, much better than walking around with rose tinted glasses. Perhaps it is down to individual interpretation. I certainly didn't see what you saw but then isn't that the point to art anyway? It's all subjective.
China Doll, thanks for your opinion. My question is really about - should we be showing pieces like these in public galleries that are frequently visited by school children of all ages? I am fully aware that each individual adult will have their own view and interpretation of these pieces and that is fine with me. But to put these in front of classes of young school children? The Royal Academy is often visited by both primary school and secondary school groups. To me, this is not responsible nor appropriate. As I said before, this has nothing to do with the talent or skill of the painter, but with his morals of placement.
I do take your point Carakeel but this is why I put in my interpretation of the art work, to try and show how although a piece of work may be controversial there can be different interpretations which is why I think it should be viewed in the public arena.
I think this type of work will provoke much debate amongst the children that see this. I would think that they have been given permission by their parents to go and in the current climate of political correctness I'm sure that any school trips organised would have thought deeply (hopefully) about whether this work is appropriate to be viewed or not.
I think controversial work such as this should be viewed and discussed at length. Art is so often a representation of the current climate of society and with all the things that I think this artist is addressing I welcome the idea that it will spark debate and thoughts about modern life and what goes on behind closed doors and indeed in the darkest places of our heart. Hence I think that the public arena is where this work should be addressed.
Apologies if I caused any offence, it was not intentially done.
I think this type of work will provoke much debate amongst the children that see this. I would think that they have been given permission by their parents to go and in the current climate of political correctness I'm sure that any school trips organised would have thought deeply (hopefully) about whether this work is appropriate to be viewed or not.
I think controversial work such as this should be viewed and discussed at length. Art is so often a representation of the current climate of society and with all the things that I think this artist is addressing I welcome the idea that it will spark debate and thoughts about modern life and what goes on behind closed doors and indeed in the darkest places of our heart. Hence I think that the public arena is where this work should be addressed.
Apologies if I caused any offence, it was not intentially done.
Thank you all for your comments. You have all made valid contributions and I respect your individual views. Personally, I just hope that those taking children to the Royal Academy in the next few weeks do indeed research the exhibition before going and make wise decisions re. the age group of the children they plan to take. There are many 'silent' victims of child abuse who will find this part of the exhibition extremely upsetting, even harmful - and many foreign tourists with their young children who will not be able to research this exhibition before going ... pause for thought!
I think what support and condones this behaviour is the people who let there prepubecent children go out dressed like prostitutes. Why both gibbering about some bloody painting in a gallery which will be seen by a vanishing few. When most kids are allowed out of the house in apparal that wouldn't be out of place at a paedo/pederastic convention.
Lets be quite honest about these pictures and supposedly artists(tongue in cheek) its only got to be weidos that go to look in the first place, what sort of man wants to buy pictures of that sort in the first place. The only place I can think of is Social Services offices to remind them that it is going on,and do more about it,instead of taking kids away from parents because they don't think they clever enough to look after them.Put the kids in some foster homes,and they end up like the pictures !!!! enough said.
Having clicked on the link that bednobs kindly posted I am now happy that this is not paedophilia but rather the artists's interpretation of social issues. I wouldn't find it something that I would be concerned about my children seeing as it is in no way pornography, but thoughtful abstracts which would be useful to a teacher in making social comment and discussing important issues which involve all children like the sanctity of their own bodies. Just because something is a depiction does not mean it encourages, it can rather invite revulsion and critisism and imho art, wherever possible, should make us all think.
As the victim of extensive childhood physical abuse, I think it would be helpful to those suffering currently to see their emotions expressed in art, and far from it being damaging I think it would be a positive thing and reinforce the message that these things are morally wrong.
It's intention is not to titilate but to repell, therefore I consider it a legitimate work and worthy of public exhibition.
Sorry that this does not tie in with your own views, but I thought they were rather well executed and were of social and moral importance and therefoer belonged in the public domain.
As the victim of extensive childhood physical abuse, I think it would be helpful to those suffering currently to see their emotions expressed in art, and far from it being damaging I think it would be a positive thing and reinforce the message that these things are morally wrong.
It's intention is not to titilate but to repell, therefore I consider it a legitimate work and worthy of public exhibition.
Sorry that this does not tie in with your own views, but I thought they were rather well executed and were of social and moral importance and therefoer belonged in the public domain.
well, it would seem that even some of the academicians see the works I have been talking about as pornographic. Have a look at this article. I feel a bit better now, knowing that my values and concerns are shared by a number of other artists and members of the public and that the academy is thinking of taking action.
sorry, forgot to put in the link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2 372128,00.html
I can't comment on the other works mentioned in the link you posted as I've not seen them, but the one in bednobs link very clearly demonstrated the misery of child abuse, which makes that particular piece of art valid enough for me as it makes a social statement. You will always get the fors and the againsts any exibition particularly a sexually explicit one so whether the Academy is overjoyed or p1ssed off to the back teeth doesn't really matter. The Art will be judge by those that go to see it, if it stands up to scrutiny then great and if it doesn't equally great, another myth exploded, and since they hate him so much, they'll know better than to let old Saatchi near the place again next time won't they. It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup really, plenty more art, plenty more artists, if people don't like it then don't go and see it.I actually would be more worried if it was censored to be honest, as we need to be discussing these things and anything that makes people think and debate and discuss has to be good surely?
Carakeel's argument is that art should have limits. I'd ask what they are? If it's the limit of what we find obscene or shocking then half the art in the world would have to go, including Picasso's Guernica - for my money the greatest painting in the world. It's hard to draw this line: would Carakeel ban Lolita?
I've seen this picture, and it's pretty shocking, but it's obviously a serious and powerful work. Indeed, so good is it that it forced Carakeel to ask questions which couldn't be answered easily, and this is just what art should be about. But Carakeel couldn't do the job, so he or she went on theanswerbank for help. I'd say that true art doesn't condone anything - it's left to us the public to fill in the gap with our own views.
Let's not get carried away: no-one is going to molest a child by seeing one picture, if they wouldn't have done it anyway. However, it's possible many borderline paedophiles might think twice when they think of the repercussions of Gerard Davis's challenging image. It's always better for us to discuss such matters as paedophilia rather than try to pretend they don't happen.
I've seen this picture, and it's pretty shocking, but it's obviously a serious and powerful work. Indeed, so good is it that it forced Carakeel to ask questions which couldn't be answered easily, and this is just what art should be about. But Carakeel couldn't do the job, so he or she went on theanswerbank for help. I'd say that true art doesn't condone anything - it's left to us the public to fill in the gap with our own views.
Let's not get carried away: no-one is going to molest a child by seeing one picture, if they wouldn't have done it anyway. However, it's possible many borderline paedophiles might think twice when they think of the repercussions of Gerard Davis's challenging image. It's always better for us to discuss such matters as paedophilia rather than try to pretend they don't happen.
Johngammon, you totally missed the main point of my thread. I did not say that art should have limits. Any limits are up to the artist! I am an artist myself, belong to several strong art associations and hence have many artist friends. We are all creative thinkers and not narrow minded prudes. However, if you would had read my thread properly you would have noticed that the main question I was posing was: is it right to display images of paedophilia in a gallery such as the Royal Academy, which is visited daily by primary and secondary school children? I have spoken to teachers and artists alike about this exhibition and all feel like I do, that this kind of art belongs in private galleries and should not be put before the eyes of young children. If you had followed the thread and the links on this thread you would have noticed also that according to the Royal Academy academicians themselves, they were misled about what was to be shown and themselves are not happy to have the offending pieces on public view. These academicians are leading artists themselves. That should tell you something!! This was just another case of Charles Saatchi hijacking the academy for his own commercial benefit, as one academician stated. If you had read the link above, you would have realised that the academicians themselves have decided that these images should not be shown where children can see them.
So please johngammon, read threads properly so you don't find yourself misjudging what other ABers are asking or saying. I did not say that art should be limited. A point I was making was that I feel as artists who exhibit we have a responsibility to show our works in appropriate places. It is not for me to judge whether these images should be shown at all, it is up to the artist and the gallery. I also did not say that paedophilia should not be discussed. Why do you think I brought the subject up????? I opened a debate on this subject with my questions ... did you not
So please johngammon, read threads properly so you don't find yourself misjudging what other ABers are asking or saying. I did not say that art should be limited. A point I was making was that I feel as artists who exhibit we have a responsibility to show our works in appropriate places. It is not for me to judge whether these images should be shown at all, it is up to the artist and the gallery. I also did not say that paedophilia should not be discussed. Why do you think I brought the subject up????? I opened a debate on this subject with my questions ... did you not
1 to 20 of 20
