Does The Presence Of Pubic Hair Turn Art Into Pornography?

Art is an elusive and fickle mistress, and everyone's got different definitions of what constitutes art. For some, art is a crucifix submerged in piss, and for some it's whatever the fuck this is. It's hard to argue that a painting of a naked woman isn't art, however. Even E. Buzz Miller appreciated a nice painting of a naked broad on a couch. 

According to The Guardian (link below), one London art gallery has deemed this painting pornographic. Yeah, this one. Right here. The painting, titled Portrait of Ms. Ruby Mae, Standing by Leena McCall, was removed from The Mall Galleries in London who issued the following statement.

"As an educational arts charity, the federation has a responsibility to its trustees and to the children and vulnerable adults who use its galleries and learning centre. After a number of complaints regarding the depiction of the subject and taking account of its location en route for children to our learning centre, we requested the painting was removed."

Who lodged these complaints? Helen Lovejoy?

The article goes on to say...

Mind you, the Society of Women Artists was permitted to replace McCall's work with another less provocative nude: one where the model wasn't tattooed and standing hand-on-hip, all unbuttoned. It seems the Mall Galleries' clientele can cope with nudes, so long as the model is a more passive and unthreatening recipient of the wandering viewer's gaze... The implication's clear: the minute a woman is alive and free to move, an active agent of her own sexuality, she is a menace to society.

McCall is understandably incensed at the censoring of her portrait, as her avowed intention in painting it was to explore, "how women choose to express their sexual identity beyond the male gaze". It's an added irony that her work should be removed from an all-female exhibition, curated by women.

It's disheartening to see a continued puritanical attitude towards sex and, more specifically, sexually empowered women. How about instead of someone thinking of the children, someone thinks of the women? 

Via The Guardian