# UNCENSORED: controversial art exhibtion?



## Delphian Sibyl (May 8, 2008)

We're organizing an exhibition of 'controversial' work by a painter called Angela Edwards.  She tackles issues like rape, prostitution, drug abuse, poverty and gun crime head on in what she calls the damaged life of british lower class society.

The work is hard hitting, you can view our gallery site here

http://www.gallery435.com/current_exhibition.html

and you can take a look at her my space here

http://www.myspace.com/cinderellasnowwhitesmith

Has anyone got experience of showing this type of work? Any tips or advice?  Sadly she's already had one painting slashed and been asked by local borough councils to take down her work after exhibiting in libraries etc.  We not tied to any local govt. body but we do get the empty warehouse for free from a local business.  Anxious not to piss them off while also defending the work.


----------



## nogojones (May 8, 2008)

Sorry, but I couldn't see anything controvertial there and frankly I didn't think much to the art. Not hard hitting....

Just spam, though I guess its cleared spam.


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (May 8, 2008)

hi nogo, that's cool if you don;t like it. 

point is we're in Slough, people out here not used to seeing anything explicit and if it's not a watercolour landscape they don;t like it.  So, it's about context I guess.

I haven;t cleared this thread with the mods as I'm asking for advice. I will clear it now though. I'm Robster970's partner, he posts here quite regularly but I know some of this community know me too.


----------



## Robster970 (May 8, 2008)

BTW - DS is not really too interested in inconsequential comments about the curation and quality of work. What she/we are interested in is constructive advice from anybody who has experience of showing work that can be deemed as controversial and ways to deal with any problems associated with it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 8, 2008)

Delphian Sibyl said:


> hi nogo, that's cool if you don;t like it.
> 
> point is we're in Slough, people out here not used to seeing anything explicit and if it's not a watercolour landscape they don;t like it.  So, it's about context I guess.)



But is it really explicit?

That sort of 'rounded building block' style, made me think, 'mayan'.

Or Aztec. Like a picture of Quetzalcoatl. Ripping out a heart. About the same level of explicitness.


----------



## keithy (May 8, 2008)

Usually we put up a warning at the entrance to the room which has the potentially offensive work in.


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (May 8, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> But is it really explicit?
> 
> That sort of 'rounded building block' style, made me think, 'mayan'.
> 
> Or Aztec. Like a picture of Quetzalcoatl. Ripping out a heart. About the same level of explicitness.



I think the point is that some people will think that it is explicit. We want to avoid our sponsors getting angry letters from their customers saying "what are you doing allowing people to put pictures of cocks on walls?"


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (May 8, 2008)

keithy said:


> Usually we put up a warning at the entrance to the room which has the potentially offensive work in.



cool, although I think that'll have to be at the entrance to the whole gallery, not just one room! 

do you put the warning on flyers, press release, web adverts etc?


----------



## Jografer (May 8, 2008)

Presumably the 'uncensored & controversial' bit is just to pull in the punters... because I can't see how either description applies.....

.... and that's an opinion from rural Somerset, which is even less 'metropolitan' than Slough...


----------



## keithy (May 8, 2008)

you could put it on flyers etc but you have to get a balance. can't make too much of a big deal of it being 'controversial' etc, just have to make sure there's a little warning at the gallery so that if people go in and are offended you are sort of covered.


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (May 8, 2008)

sure, single line at bottom of flyer etc, that's what we were thinking too. cheers.
You ever had any grief over a show?


----------



## keithy (May 8, 2008)

I have limited experience with curating and showing my own work, but the people I'm working with at the moment have a lot of experience and we've been talking about this... they don't see it as a problem.

It does depend on the kind of exhibition though, and what people will come along. If you are actually worried about what the bloke who runs building and the sponsors will think then you should run it by them.


----------



## untethered (May 8, 2008)

Delphian Sibyl said:


> The work is hard hitting



Why not show something pleasant and inspiring rather than the visions of Hell that exist between this unfortunate lady's ears?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (May 8, 2008)

You invite the local police to the private view and ask them for advice about what might be deemed publicly offensive, or illegal in anyway. Said copper takes job to heart and confiscates a couple of pieces. You then blitz all media, local and national with the news.

Always seems to work


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 11, 2008)

Check your local by-laws. Some areas still have anti-nudity and anti-pornography rules that are fairly loosely defined, and could see you liable for a fine if you contravene them.


----------



## Firky (May 11, 2008)

Hardly Elton John's piece by Nan Goldin is it? 

http://www.4debatetalk.com/klara_and_edda_belly_dancing.jpg

(Wouldn't click on that if you are at work or are senstive about children nude)


----------



## The Groke (May 11, 2008)

Delphian Sibyl said:


> http://www.myspace.com/cinderellasnowwhitesmith.





Is the artist a 14 year old boy?


----------



## Paul Russell (May 12, 2008)

Good to see you're putting on shows again...


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 16, 2008)

How's it going, by the way?


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (Jun 18, 2008)

It's going well. Most who came to the opening thought it was great, a small minority said it wasn't 'their cuppa tea'....fair enough.

We've had one complaint from the public - and they have gone to the press. We have subsequently contacted the police who say we acted appropriately. Obviously, we've fed that back to the press, saying we are assured of our safeguards and policy etc.

We will see what the local papers say on Friday.....


----------



## zenie (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm gonna try and pop down to see you guys soon 

xx


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 19, 2008)

zenie said:


> I'm gonna try and pop down to see you guys soon
> 
> xx



be nice to see you stranger...........


----------



## Rainingstairs (Jun 21, 2008)

not explicit? not really something you'll put on a postcard and mail to mum and dad either...

i thought she depicted the notion of violation quite effectively imo.


----------



## 1927 (Jun 22, 2008)

Swarfega said:


> Is the artist a 14 year old boy?



A 14 year old boy who can't paint by the looks of it!


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 22, 2008)

As expected, a divided opinion on the merits of the work.


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 23, 2008)

ooops, not logged in as me!


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (Jun 23, 2008)

Well, the Slough Observer thinks it's controversial. We made the front page.

http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/articles/1/3317/

Just to clarify, the kids workshops were 2 rooms away. We had someone supervising the entrance to the exhibition the whole time. Signs on the walls and verbal warnings upon entering. The idea is that the kids can be creatively occupied/supervised while parents, who might not otherwise be able to get childcare, can view the show.


----------



## zenie (Jun 23, 2008)

Delphian Sibyl said:


> Well, the Slough Observer thinks it's controversial. We made the front page.
> 
> http://www.sloughobserver.co.uk/articles/1/3317/



What a nasty article i see they got the 'ex drug addict' bit in quickly. 

You seemed to turn it round ok though.


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 23, 2008)

zenie said:


> What a nasty article i see they got the 'ex drug addict' bit in quickly.
> 
> You seemed to turn it round ok though.



We're not bothered. TBH nobody seems particularly bothered. It's neither increased or decreased the visitor numbers.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 24, 2008)

"A SEXUALLY explicit art exhibition which has been banned from 80 galleries in London is on display under the same roof as a children’s workshop in Slough"

Hmmm, makes it sound like you had the *audacity* to stage it near a "children’s workshop" rather than put on the children’s workshop creche thing yourself for the benefit of visitors.

Overall, a typical and sadly desperate example of local news reporting...


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 24, 2008)

Paul Russell said:


> Overall, a typical and sadly desperate example of local news reporting...



Indeed.


----------



## Delphian Sibyl (Jun 24, 2008)

Robster970 said:


> We're not bothered. TBH nobody seems particularly bothered. It's neither increased or decreased the visitor numbers.



to me that's the biggest shocker - front page news and still the apathy can't be shifted in some quarters.


----------



## panpete (Jul 4, 2008)

nogojones said:


> Sorry, but I couldn't see anything controvertial there and frankly I didn't think much to the art. Not hard hitting....
> 
> Just spam, though I guess its cleared spam.



kidding right?
The myspace is full of em.

Fair play to the artist though. Everything is worthy of expressing artistically, and if it touches but one soul ( Im sure this'll a few 000,000,000's more like) then it's done its job.

Cindy Sherman is but one other artist who comes to mind, on the subject of dark sexual art.





Maybe a quick read about the web, on how she, or others like her, go about maximum benefit for viewers and artists alike on this dark subject.
Sorry I cant help more.


----------

