Not female pubic hair! The horror! THE HORROR.
A gallery in London has removed an oil painting that depicts a woman with a small strip of pubic hair, as it was deemed ‘too pornographic and disgusting’.
The painting, by artist Leena McCall, is titled “Portrait of Ms. Ruby May, Standing”. It was hanging in London’s Mall Galleries as part of an annual exhibition by the Society of Women’s Artists, but after two days, McCall was notified that the gallery had decided to remove it after receiving several complaints.
Here’s the painting in all its horrifying, lady-pube glory:
A little bit of pubic hair on a woman was just too confusing and frightening for some, so it had to go. And “won’t somebody think of the children!” etc etc.
Leena McCall nailed it when she said this:
“My work deals with female sexual and erotic identity. The fact that the gallery has deemed the work inappropriate and seen it necessary to have it removed from public display underlines the precise issue I am trying to address: how women choose to express their sexual identity beyond the male gaze.”Artist Leena McCall Exactly. As usual, women can be sexual, but only if it’s the way women are allowed to be sexual. And pubes are not allowed.
The gallery released a statement saying that they took into account the fact the painting was en route to the learning centre, so children would be walking past. But they then replaced McCall’s painting with another nude of woman. Presumedly with less offensive pubic hair.
We have officially reached the point where even paintings are getting brazilians.
CLICK THROUGH the gallery to see other censored artworks and advertisements.