giving head

A Brisbane artist's work depicting oral sex has brought controversy back into art, with the police sent to inquire reports that the Art Gallery of NSW made the work available to school children too.he mixed media image, titled The Pornography of Hope, caused a furor in the extremely popular Archibald, Wynne and Sulman Prizes.

Found at news.com.au London, May 3, 2007

Anna Kournikova giving head to the invisible man. YAMMI !

The Rocks Police were informed by a gallery visitor, who was disturbed with the fact that children as young as primary school age were allowed to view the artwork, by Andrew Frost.

On May 2 Students from esteemed Waverley College were busy examining the piece and many more were visiting the collective exhibitions.

"There was someone concerned there was a painting depicting a sexually explicit act and children had access to it. We investigated and there are signs warning that there are paintings of that nature there and that children aren't to enter the area," The Daily Telegraph quoted Inspector Ian Perkins, as saying.

However, AGNSW director Edmund Capon defended the whole issue and said that the gallery had received up to 10 telephone calls and letters regarding the painting, but they were observations and comments rather than complaints, and hence he had not considered eliminating the picture.

Some visitors were taken aback by the mixed media picture, principally because thousands of schoolchildren will visit the exhibition until it ends on May 13.

Ruth Naghten, a visitor, said The Pornography of Hope was not a suitable viewing for children.

"I really don't want to look at it, and I don't call myself prudish," Naghten said.

Bruce Marquette, another visitor, slammed the work as pornographic and said that shouldn't be there.

However, some art lovers like Carrie Ade and Lynn Styman-Lane were unflustered and defended the painting as an exceptional work of art.

"I think art's art. You can express it any way you wish in 2007," Styman-Lane said.

Education co-ordinator Tristan Sharp said that the gallery had cautioned school groups about the Frost painting when they made their booking.

Sharp also added that a handout was also given to teachers, advising them to assess the painting before permitting the students to view it.

ANI

Giving head Comments:

Hi Robert

I don't have kids. But I do remember primary school and yes at seven years of age a lot of kids were experimenting with each other.

Sexual shame is a disease passed from parent to child. Its about time we treated kids with respect and told them the truth instead of pretending that ignorance is innocence.

Cheers Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Poole of Wynnum 6:52pm May 03, 2007
Comment 31 of 31

Perhaps the gallery should display this pornography in the nearest brothel....Where it belongs.

Posted by: scooper of b 3:21pm May 03, 2007
Comment 30 of 31

Well put Michelle. Apparently Rob thinks that if his 8 yr old listens to the wrong radio station then his child may become a pervert as well. It is the stupidity of people "trying to protect" their children that cause a lot of problems. If you talk to your child (yes I have a couple) about this things, explains the facts, dont over emotionalise it, they will appreciate the information and wont have to deal with all of the half truths they get from other kids whose parents think that children need protecting from reality. If more people worried about thier childrens health and education and less about the evilness of sex education our kids would all grow up much happier and well adjusted.

Posted by: JJ of Brisbane 3:13pm May 03, 2007
Comment 29 of 31

"Sexually explicit exhibitionism"....quite a gob full isn't it???

Posted by: Steve of Brisbane 1:25pm May 03, 2007
Comment 28 of 31

It would appear to me that the main problem is the location of the painting. If, as the article says, you have to walk past it to get to the exit, then this is inappropriate. I don't find the artwork perticularly graphic or offensive, but I wouldn't want my children viewing it. Just move it to a different location that has limited access. That way if you choose to view it, you can, but it is located away from the main areas that school tours will be visiting.

Posted by: Tony Horn of Coopers Plains 12:30pm May 03, 2007
Comment 27 of 31

Merv C of Bartlett, if society used the Bible and Koran as a guide to living, we would be living in an archiaic society. Where people would face public stonings. You and the "faithful" like you are the exact reasons why organized religions have failed society countless times. All you people having a whinge about this painting should shut up and contrubiute something useful to the community. God gave us free will, seems to me the best way to waste that gift is to use that free will to complain about everything. Seriously calling police? Way to waste their time on something so stupid when they could have been doing something more useful, like Oh I dunno, helping someone in need.

Posted by: Mark Schluter of Brisbane 11:42am May 03, 2007
Comment 26 of 31

Has anyone stopped to consider the irony that had the parents participated in the act shown in the painting at the time of conception, then they would not have children there to view it. If I take my 8 year old son to view it, then it will be just another thing I have to explain, along with what nasal delivery spray is for (Billboards), what thrush is (tv) and a multitude of other things that goes through on the radio stations in the afternoon. It is to the point I now listen to 4kq, because at least they dont swear or discuss what I consider are lude subjects for an 8 year old to be exposed to. So before you worry about a picture in an art gallery, and lets face it, not that many people make the effort to go to any art galleries, consider what kids are being bombarded with from the tv and radio.

Posted by: rob of brisbane 11:33am May 03, 2007
Comment 25 of 31

the sexually explicit scene in this piece of art only makes up a portion of the entire story shown, when looking at it as a whole is it really that much of a big deal? yes think of the children - teachers were sent information, there are warning signs before you view the painting. with any luck most younger children shouldnt have much understanding of what they are looking at and older children should be taught to appreciate art in all shapes and forms, including the human body in all it's poses - beautiful, ugly or otherwise and I'm sure some children have seen more vulgar acts on television and on the street.

Posted by: openminded reader of brisbane 11:28am May 03, 2007
Comment 24 of 31

I'm certainly no religious crank but... I'll base my arguments on religious stories.

It's the old story. I'm not a prude but... Some of my best friends are (insert group) but...

I've not seen this art work if you don't want your children to see it then behave like parents and don't take them. Some art work is designed to shock and that is to be expected in a society that allows some degree of freedom of speech (as long as you don't say the wrong thing, go against social trends or generally step out of line).

Posted by: Aaron of Optional 11:20am May 03, 2007
Comment 23 of 31

Remember kids, human sexuality is something dirty, sinful and evil, and any mention of it must be avoided at all costs! Why, just viewing this painting will clearly turn children into serial rapists, paedophiles, and other sorts of perverts!

Posted by: Michelle of Melbourne 11:18am May 03, 2007
Comment 22 of 31

Wow, I was expecting something pretty pornographic, but that's rather tame. I suggest those upset over the painting untangle their underwear and find something more constructive to do.

Posted by: Cianan Delahunty of Brisbane 11:14am May 03, 2007
Comment 21 of 31

Anybody who is upset by a paintin should try concerning themselves eith more important issues. honestly, australia is on the verge of becomming the dumbest nation on earth because of censorship and an overbearing government that does not want people thinking for themselves, australia should be ashamed i believe. im sure the government would be happy if there were no artist and everyone was working 60 + hrs a week to fill the coffers of there mates and there egos, wake up australia!

Posted by: dan broad of valley 11:05am May 03, 2007
Comment 20 of 31

I have two comments. 1/ If a parent takes their child into a venue displaying a warning of graphic images then they accept the responsibility. If once inside they donÂ¿t like it then their fitness as a parent should be the thing to be judged not the content. 2/ How can Ruth Norton claim the picture is inappropriate when she admits she hasnÂ¿t seen it? I havenÂ¿t either and wont due to lack of interest, so neither she nor I have the right to declare the value of something without direct personal experience. Its time our public censors, censored their own outbursts

Posted by: john stevenson of cairns 10:54am May 03, 2007
Comment 19 of 31

Now before any of you 'futuristic artistic types' who chant on about 'these are modern times now', if you have children between 6 & 13 years of age I suggest you go and visit SBS's website and view an article on their "Insight" Program called "Bratz, Bras & Tweens" before making any further comment. I will warn you that Part2 of this article contains sexually explicit descriptions, not pictures and should be viewed by adults only. Children were removed from the TV Studio audience during this part.

After watching this episode, I was quite shocked at what happened in Part2. Everyone else who I know has seen this was equally shocked. After you watch this, can you honestly tell me that the ONLY people who should EVER teach children ANYTHING about sex CAN'T be the parents ONLY, with the correct guidance in conjunction with the school system??

We are having far too many problems with our kids today MAINLY due to media, including so-called 'art' short circuiting or bypassing the PARENTS' reponsibility in teaching their children at the APPROPRIATE age about sexual matters. A child's brain is NOT capable of processing this sort of information at such a young age, like it or not, that's fact. Seems as a society we are avoiding cold hard facts in the name of 'political correctness'.

Posted by: Darryn of Ipswich 10:37am May 03, 2007
Comment 18 of 31

I'm certainly no religious crank but we, as a modern and, presumably, civilised society, have to draw the line somewhere - some things we grown-up mortals do should be private and personal, and remain so - and some things we adults do should not be bluntly and shockingly purveyed to our children in their formative years. Many of us of Oz profess to being of the Christian, Muslim or Jewish creed and, in the sacred books covering those ancient religions there is (in the Koran and the bilbical Old Testament) the story of Sodom and Gomorrah given as an account of what happens to a society when it lets it all hang out, so to speak. Perhaps the Biblical and Koranic account is simply a myth, a fable, maybe a warning - perhaps it's absolutely true - if we, as a community cavalierly and shamelessly allow sexually explicit conduct - blissfully described as "art" as indicated here - perhaps Lot's lot may revisit us in time. That image is a disgrace and an insult to us all - it should be removed from the public venue.

Posted by: Merv C Bartlett. of Brisbane. 10:27am May 03, 2007
Comment 17 of 31

To Barry of Benarkin - Is there any topic of controversy you can't turn into a whinge about the current government? Keep your political comments to the political stories.

Posted by: Rohan Davies of Brisbane 10:09am May 03, 2007
Comment 16 of 31

Oh whoopty doo! It's part of normal sexual practice unless you are prehistoric and 'turn the lights out'! As a parent I can assure all that school kids know more about the 'subject' than we do or think! This is just another instance prude do-gooders looking for cheap publicity. If this type of artwork offends, stay away! I'd like to say more about the 'gallery visitor' but it would probably not be published!

Posted by: Justin Case of Brisbane 9:35am May 03, 2007
Comment 15 of 31

Oh won't somebody pleeease think of the children!!!!

Posted by: Mrs Lovejoy of Springfield 9:10am May 03, 2007
Comment 14 of 31

Why the fuss? Check out the wood carvings on the Nepalese Pagoda at South Bank, in full public view. At least the gallery provides warnings for teachers if they want to avoid viewing the painting.

Their must be a lot of bored journalists out there......

Posted by: MediaBeatUp of Brisbane 9:01am May 03, 2007
Comment 13 of 31

ZZZZZzzzzzzz!

Posted by: bazza of Bazzbane 8:31am May 03, 2007
Comment 12 of 31

I agree with Jeff! And please don't expect me to believe that kids haven't already seen pictures and talked about oral sex or heaven forbid, even participated in the activity.

Let's all grow up and stop treating students like idiots! They were at an Art Gallery to see art, the fact that one such piece was a little raunchy, well if they are studying art then they would, I would have thought, already be aware of the human form and all it's manner of undress and dare we say it the 'rude bits'. Why keep normal human function in a closet and pretend we aren't sexual beings.

Hey people, warnings were given, so stop crying foul!

Posted by: Tracy of Brisbane 8:30am May 03, 2007
Comment 11 of 31

Yeah, I agree.

Better they are off watching some violent TV program, DVD or playing a video game.

Posted by: Brett of Brisbane 8:19am May 03, 2007
Comment 10 of 31

Maybe they chould change the Gallery's name to 'Naughty But Nice' or what about advertise on one of those billboards screaming 'Want longer lasting SEX'? (I'm sure there have been many parents dreading the next couple of K's after seeing one of those. "Mum, what's sex?")

Let's face it those that make this so called 'art' probably don't have kids and are frustrated by their inability to have any because they are so out of touch, so they use shock tactics to gain notoriety. The arts community fan the flames by putting it on show.

If people want to see porn just watch some of the music video clips on a Saturday morning which are more accesible to the impressionable young than rubbish in an (alleged) Art Gallery.

Posted by: Simon of Carina Heights 8:10am May 03, 2007
Comment 9 of 31

Please, as if there wasn't already sexually explicit artwork to be seen at the Art Gallery before this came along.

Only yesterday I was at the art gallery in Brisbane to see the Asia Pacific displays and there was a whole line of work from a Japanese artist with naked Geisha girls, naked Japanese men and large condoms.

One could interpret these paintings the wrong way and say "Ohh thats sexually explicit because it's showing children condoms and they shouldn't learn about that!"

But the real interpretation of these paintings was a warning against AIDs.

And there were at least 8 or 9 school groups I saw touring the gallery. No one has yet to say a word about how sexually explicit these paintings were.

If we can insinuate intercourse with naked men, women and condoms, why so concerned about a penis in a mouth?

p.s

<i>"I really don't want to look at it, and I don't call myself prudish," Ms Naghten said.</i>

Give me a break! PRUDE!

Posted by: Kara Zigenbine of Brisbane 7:59am May 03, 2007
Comment 8 of 31

That really sucks!

Posted by: Shane Sutton of Mansfield 7:52am May 03, 2007
Comment 7 of 31

WHO CARES ITS A PART OF LIFE

Posted by: MEL of BRISBANE 7:48am May 03, 2007
Comment 6 of 31

Jeff.. Do your primary school children do it every day then ?

your quote: "I confess that I've never understood why people get so hot and bothered looking at depictions of something that everyone does in one form or another every day."

If this was adult only exhibition, then maybe OK. But we are talking about thousands of schoolchildren viewing it. As the law currently stands, it is illegal for these schoolchildren to purchase pornography, but some people obviously think that children should be exposed to it at an early age.

Posted by: Robert of SEQLD 7:46am May 03, 2007
Comment 5 of 31

"Outrage"? Why, all of a sudden? I saw the pic some 4 weeks ago where its been for some time before that in public view, no one seemed outraged then. But why the sudden police action?

Posted by: Chris McGrath of Gold Coast 7:25am May 03, 2007
Comment 4 of 31

There is a reason sexually explicit material is not readily available to minors, especially groups of schoolchildren; could someone please remind me what it is?

Oh! That's right; they are impressionable and malleable and have not yet learned the way to make up their own mind. So if they see something that they are not turned away from or corrected on, they will think it is right. Next thing you have (in this instance) is a bunch of primary-age school kids giving each other head jobs in the playground because 'that's what they were doing in the picture'. Punish them for that and you have a whole lot of kids confused at adult double standards - again.

Maybe we could get our bastion of hope and sanity, Mr Kneejerk Howard, to stop in to the gallery on his return to Sydney today and deliver his opinion on whether or not it should be on public display in an area where children can view it...

Won't have time? Oh! Of course! The only reason you are taking an extra (round) trip out of your Tasmanian tour - at taxpayer's expense - is to have a nosh-up dinner with the cricketers on their tumultuous return from playing a game or two in the sun, isn't it? Of course you are allowed to do this because all Australians know you are a self-confessed cricket tragic and should be able to demonstrate your arrogant disdain at the electorate just because you can. Forget you have a minister for sport (or whatever) who would be more in keeping with an event such as this; after all, these really are life-saving heroes, aren't they?

Posted by: Barry Crews of Benarkin 7:22am May 03, 2007
Comment 3 of 31

Oh give over! Two dire warning messages on the slide show! Anyone would think we were looking at something that could damage our retinas or give us radiation poisoning!

There's plenty of ancient Chinese and Hindu art that's a lot more graphic than that!

I confess that I've never understood why people get so hot and bothered looking at depictions of something that everyone does in one form or another every day.

I do note that the loudest squeals usually happen when there's a willy depicted, be it flaccid or upstanding . Our ingrained sexism does seem to invest the male bits with some mystical extra power to offend that vagina's seem to lack!

And as to the usual nonsense about the Poor Kiddiwinkies, it's beneath contempt. Enforced ignorance never did anyone any good except for the perverts.

Ah well I suppose all the enemies of joy, pleasure and art will get their jollies trying to prevent others from seeing this. I sincerely hope that they fail.

Cheers Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Poole of Wynnum 7:15am May 03, 2007
Comment 2 of 31

The funniest thing here is that the best thing the Gallery of NSW - and, one supposes, Australian artists - can come up with is blowjob pictures. But set one as your computer desktop wallpaper at work and suddenly you have to go to a "meeting"!

Further hilarity to be found on this feedback form itself: LOCATION (OPTIONAL) SUBMIT COMMENT BZZZT! PLEASE ENTER YOUR LOCATION!

Methinks your work experience programmers aren't doing all they're not paid for.

Posted by: JPW of yr mum 6:40am May 03, 2007

"THE UNIQUE APPROACH TO SEX I USE TO LAST OVER 30 MINUTES IN BED"

giving head art painting creates commotion in Brisbanne

Anna Kournikova giving head to the invisible man. YAMMI !

Giving head Comments: