Who the fuck takes their preschooler to an Andy Warhol exhibit curated by David Cronenberg?

I found it odd (picture a mother shielding her young daughter's eyes with one hand while holding one of those audio tour/magic wand gadgets with the other) , and I'm not usually a prude about sexual things being shown/explained to kids.

But I did have visions of indignant soccer moms a) ignoring the clearly worded disclaimer at the exhibit entrance and b) raising hell with the staff.

We take our two quite often to the Baltic Arts centre, and they quite often have stuff like things around.

It's a simple matter of
a) Checking the warnings
b) looking at the thing being warned about and deciding if they can see it or not.

eg. the Spencer Tunnick "nude bodies around Gateshead" video/art display was not a problem as far as we were concerned, but I did see some astonished folks around. The kids were quite unfussed.

I feel like the answer to #1 is sort of up to the parents -- only they can decide what's appropriate for their own children. But if the complaint is really about #2, then I can kind of understand the frustration: either let the kids look (and be prepared for questions), or don't bring them into the exhibit in the first place.

j/k luv u Andy

There's a guy-on-guy blowjob (albeit not very brightly lit), and some full frontal female nudity, so, yeah. The clip is an hour-long loop, so you can arguably check in and out of it as you look at other pieces in the exhibit.

But if the complaint is really about #2, then I can kind of understand the frustration: either let the kids look (and be prepared for questions), or don't bring them into the exhibit in the first place.

That's kind of where I was going with this, because I know that if I had been that little girl, I would've thought "this place doesn't seem that bad or scary, so what is that I'm not allowed to look at it?" Thank you for pointing out the source of my ambivalence/incredulity.

I wasn't exactly blown away by it either.

Nor were we. It was kinda like "18 bucks a pop for this, and the rest of the gallery has only a third of its stuff on display while they renovate? Feh."

how about we stop treating explicit sex like it's a bad thing?

doesn't seem like a big deal to me for a kid to see this. seriously.

Only if they want them to grow up to be peeping toms.

I don't think little kids should be exposed to stuff like that, but if they are, the worst thing for parents to do is OHMIGOD GET AWAY FROM IT NOW.

Yes, and then I respond to jaymc:

That's kind of where I was going with this, because I know that if I had been that little girl, I would've thought "this place doesn't seem that bad or scary, so what is that I'm not allowed to look at it?" Thank you for pointing out the source of my ambivalence/incredulity.

My issue here is not so much with the kids as it with the parents.

(Also, hstencil, I've explained the injoke behind my screen name elsewhere on these boards. Look it up if you care to. It doesn't bare repeating.)

several xpost

Freudian slip? Or just thinking of that Warhol loop?

xpost ok seriously I guess you're pretty determined to make the thread about that instead of what it was actually about, cool beans dude.

hstencil, is it OK to masturbate in front of a baby?

srsly, wtf is that?

I was wondering who would catch that!

I suspect that the mother in question didn't know what she was doing when she bought those tickets.

I dunno, the disclaimer at the ticket counter made it pretty clear. Not that people read signs anymore.

that seems to be the conservative line re: the foley scandal!

i don't think grainy art films with pornographic elements are even nearly equivalent to porn, at all.

Not that people read signs anymore.

that's definitely the problem here. people do not read signs, at all.

You call them pornographic elements but it's not equal to porn. I guess the money shot is your mitigating factor? Ball sucking? Fisting? The orgasm face? A Dirty Sanchez?

There's a guy-on-guy blowjob (albeit not very brightly lit), and some full frontal female nudity, so, yeah. The clip is an hour-long loop, so you can arguably check in and out of it as you look at other pieces in the exhibit.

i'm guessing you've never seen a warhol film, or a jack smith film, or...

xpost - someone too cheap to get a sitter?

xpost

I really don't get that.

Who the fuck takes their preschooler to the fucking art museum?

People with no couth.

*waits*

xposts

This is a fine distinction to make for adults (one of my favorite Cronenberg quotes is "Censors are like psychotics; they can't separate fantasy from reality") but it's a little trickier with kids. Not to get into the whole sex vs. violence debate, but I can tell a 6 year old all day long that the blood in Texas Chainsaw Massacre is karo syrup & red food coloring and it's not going to make much of a difference.

but i didn't think it was "real" - in any case the difference between fake and real blood, or a movie about sex and actual sex in front of you, isn't what this thread is about, is it?

But not hummer films, nope.

showing a kid a representation of a sexual act is not nearly the same thing, even legally, as performing a sexual act in front of them

There is a difference, of course, but I don't think it's a bad idea to limit the number of graphic images a preschooler sees.

Also, nudity is different than sex acts.

4yr old + Statue of David vs. 4yr old + orgy tape: is there a difference? I think so.

Totally dragging this thread off topic, but I remember warnings about exposing kids to all the news coverage of 9/11 - i.e. every time they see the buildings falling small children will think it's happening all over again.

http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/421611138/17.jpg

That picture:

Exactly. Preschoolers and kids in general are freaked out by all sorts of shit, and parents should not contribute to freakouts under the guise of wanting to educate their kids.

Masturbating near your sleeping baby: WRONG
Showing pre-pubescent kids blowjobs: OKAY

Insulting people from passing cars: OKAY
Putting salt on food: WRONG

ILX Morality Trendwatch

Not caring about a yankee pitcher's poor piloting skillz: OKAY

Is your name "ILX"?

phew, glad I came out okay on that way.

stence, I don't think Nabisco meant HStencil Morality Trendwatch, hence the ILX
duh, xpost

and since that was the only non-stencil example...

I don't agree with this - we took my 5 and 2 year old to the RISD Museum for their Goodnight Moon exhibit. We also took them through the rest of the regular exhibits and just boogied past questionable stuff (which was not a lot, honestly). The point is to make it fun and let them linger over stuff they're interested in, not some heavy-handed YOU MUST ENJOY ART NOW. Frankly, the biggest problem is keeping them from scaling the installations.

Pretty funny from someone who always tells me *I'm* too literal-minded!

Edrward3rd: preschoolers, dude, preschoolers. 5 year old=ready for art, sure, whatever. I guess. I think even taking kids to an art museum that young, though, smacks of YOU MUST ENJOY ART NOW no matter how you slice it, but I don't have kids.

unless you are, actually, way too literal.

perhaps you're right, too bad nobody's actually advocated that in this thread.

Really? Huh. Care to explain that one to me?

xpost

GODDAMN YOU KIDS STAY OFF MY DUCHAMP

chill yo - i didnt say anyone had! just saying that mr que's objections are kinda silly, cause they seemed to suggest that getting your kids interested in things at all was a lame idea or something...

No no no: I think it's good to get kids interested in stuff. I think kids can totally appreciate Goodnight Moon in a museum and maybe other stuff like Matisse cutouts, that sort of thing.

I try to follow my kids' interests and go along with them. If my 3-year-old says "mommy, what's an art museum? I want to see one." or if he starts picking out books about Van Gogh in the library, damn right I'm going to take him to the museum.

xpost Maria, no offense to you personally as you seem to be a perfectly reasonable and responsible and nice parent, but I can't say that I'm not nodding at parents of small children just have to wait years before enjoying museums again. Museums are one thing because there's a lot of museums that do things that cater to or would be beneficial to kids, just like some movies are for younger audiences and some are for older audiences. It's the people who apparently cannot/refuse to tell the difference between stuff where kids would be ok and places where they aren't that cause me to nod my head.

To be totally honest I think my own parents barely took us out unless it was very specifically a kid-oriented event, an art museum rarely would've qualified as such.

Maria, that's my point--I don't think kids are going to appreciate the art museum the way we as adults appreciate the art museum. They'll remember the awesome yogurt raisins. And yes, if my kid started about Van Gogh I would totally take them to the art museum. I just don't think that's super likely, though.

but i bet theyll be way more likely to appreciate the art museum in a couple years than they would be had you not taken them as little kids

I like the idea of parents bringing their young children out. I just look to the parents to be competent and considerate.

-- PETE SMITH!!!! (plsmit...), October 17th, 2006.

Good point, I didn't think about it that way. Or I did, just didn't think about long term effects.

big time xpost

i don't think kids "discover" art museums and, like, art house movies and shit like that "on their own" until young adulthood, if ever. i'm incredibly grateful that my dad instilled in me an appreciation for all sorts of crazy shit.

Step 1 - emphasize the concept of "inside voice/hands/feet"

Step 2 - bribery will get you everywhere

Step 3 - master the "DON'T TRY IT" look in eye, shoot frequently

Step 4 - guilt tripping will get you everywhere that bribery won't

Step 5 - don't take yr kid places they know they aren't allowed to misbehave in, because these are the places they will misbehave

Epilogue: when all else fails, the belt.

* I DO understand that this is not an option in every city on the face of the earth, we are unusually hobbled with museums in DC.

i went into the men's loo and the guy was in there with his daughter - he used the urinals. why he didn't at least take her into one of the cublicles or the baby changing room, i don't know.

guys I'm going to come out and say on this thread that I kind of hate art museums as a concept to begin with, I can never stand to be in one for more than an hour, tops, before I lose my mind and start getting psychosomatic pains all over unless there is a REALLY REALLY REALLY awesome exhibit that I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to see, and even then it's still like a half hour spent on that awesome thing and then get the frick out of there. I like history museums, and science museums, and zoos. So I feel very attuned to the plight of the 4 year old.

Despite what I just said, I take it back -- it kind of actually is all about the kids. I probably just wouldn't take my kids to an exhibit unless I thought they were going to enjoy it or be intrigued or somehow kept engaged, because if they're bored after 2 seconds, good fucking luck trying to look at any of the exhibit myself. There's nothing more tiring or taxing than being in a public place with kids who'd rather be doing something else and getting dirty looks from strangers.

Somehow I don't see many preschoolers expressing an interest in the post-impressionist movement.
Kids are weird. Kids even at such a little age get serial obsessions. Impressionism is not far-fetched. My 3-year-old reads field guides.

Well, that just speaks to small children's propensity to focus on insane details. I take them to the aquarium and they remember the pizza - doesn't mean they're not getting something out of a trip to the aquarium. And Ally's OTM, I could take them to Jurassic Park but a trip to the gift shop is going to trump any and every thing.

If you ask a 3 year old, "What was your favorite part of skydiving from a transluscent plane piloted by Elmo while holding hands with The Wiggles?" they'll inevitably answer, "We went to McDonalds for lunch that day!"

haha, understatement of the week; reminds of DeLillo's idea for child porn...

I totally think kids should be taken to museums, because especially now there are so many museums that cater to kids with special exhibits and activities. Also there's lots of specific children's museums. Of course, if the kid hates it and cries, I wouldn't force it. I think kids (and adults) should be exposed to as many things as possible. The coolest parents who bring their kids to my storytime allow the kids not to go if they don't want to. Some kids get up to the door and start screaming and crying and the parents shrug and are like, not this week, I guess. The other parents hold them down and force them to sit through storytime, which is, at the least, disrespectful of the others there. My parents never took me museums, sob, but I read a Judy Blume book where the girl went with her grandmother to the symphony, and it sounded fun.

Ha ha, I've had to stand there with my hand over the electric eye with mine!

And to chime in on everyone else's point -

taking yr kids to something so they can experience it = classic
taking yr kids to something so you can experience it = dud

Details?

That's awesome.

-- Euai Kapaui (tracerhan...), October 17th, 2006. (tracerhand)

this is EXACTLY the opposite of what i think. i think kids should discover sexuality separate from their parents.

additionally, i sort of think its awesome for kids to discover most things (music, movies, etc) separate from their parents, but i just say that cause my parents never listened to punk rock, and im jealous of people whose parents did.

xpost Maria, totally parents should not base their entire lives around their kids. Hell mine started leaving me alone by myself for short periods at like age 8.

I agree with this, but think 89% is too high. Fifty-fifty maybe.

also, had i kids, i'd take them to the local science museum for the new featured exhibit, Star Wars.

it hardly needs to be said that this is otm
your experience is obv going to be different when you're with the kids - and it could even be a better experience! but i see a lot of parents not willing to take that logical leap, for whatever reason.
- xpost, but yeah, having one's own interests is totally important for kids to see too, totally, m!

does it work to, like, tire a kid out by going to the park beforehand (as long as you have a stroller)? because wandering around an art gallery with a sleeping kid seems like a nice idea and when i've seen such a thing it's always warmed my heart. but yeah, then kid wakes up.

we went to the museum of anthropology (at ubc) a lot when i was a kid, which is like art gallery x totem poles and crazy freaky wooden masks. i remember being into the art and exhibits but i think just being in a different kind of quiet place with a very specific kind of light also had a big impact on me. (also, we always did a lot of walking around before and after.)

"Who the fuck takes their preschooler to a Scorsese movie?" There were at least three pre-schoolers in the audience. One began crying early on and one of the parents left. Another cried out once during the final gun battle. The third behaved himself, but since when did it become appropriate to take little kids (preschoolers here) to a Violent Movie?

Fucking parents.

xpost

killer.

and, xpost, it makes sense that kids love noize.

...at the coffee shop the other day, a mother (who clearly did not spend much time with her son) forced him up from the table and made him stare at the only-decent paintings on the wall. "see son? that's art. you have to stand for a while and look at it." she then proceeded to shuffle him along the wall of the cafe and look at each painting in sequence for about 20 seconds apiece. totally unbelievable.

Okay, we've established kids shouldn't be exposed to Warhol orgy loops, but this and The Departed thing is far more disturbing to me. Fucking selfish child abusers. One of my favorite movies is Audition but I'm not gonna sit the kids down for that anytime soon.

x-post re: the noize thing - yeah kids love noize and I could see them having a great time at a Lightning Bolt or Magik Markers show (if it were outside - let them get to high school before we destroy their hearing). Wolf Eyes, uh, maybe not.

Whenever I put on the Bad Brains my 5 year old starts leaping around the kitchen and doing knee-spins.

Like why bring your preschooler to a modern art museum in DC when you can walk ten feet and go to the America museum that has a Muppets exhibit for god's sake.

I don't see why you shouldn't do both. Kids can get modern art. My girlfriend and I take her 5-year-old to all the galleries we visit and she always finds something (or someone) interesting to amuse herself with.

In terms of movies, we don't take her out to see adult stuff often, although sometimes if we're watching a film at home we'll let her watch it with us. Last night we watched Total Recall and she self-censored it (covering her face) during the sexy and violent bits. (although by the end she was laughing along with us at the totally over-the-top violence) We also watched Herzog's Nosferatu the other night and she handled it pretty well.

I can sympathise with the referenced mother in the first post. I think it's fair enough to want to take your kid to a Warhol exhibition whilst still maintaining your right to shield them from anything too intense. You'd be a dick if you complain about it to the curators afterwards, though.

They were older kids though, and Mapplethorpe's stuff is pretty blatant.

http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/421611138/17.jpg

megalolz

The horror film story is one of the worst things I've ever heard.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/155652580X.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

I don't hate kids, but I have a very dim view of parents.

No

Is it the act of breeding you find contemptible?

Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.

Your own parents?

I think they did a good job of raising me and my siblings.

Or are you talking about the ones you notice when out and about?

The parents/child-rearers/whathaveyou who are going a good job are the ones that you don't notice.

Except when you meet a kid that is extraordinarily bright, interesting/interested, and happy. In that case I notice good parenting at work.