Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Literature, Music, Art & Entertainment => Topic started by: Humph Warden Bennett on December 06, 2017, 10:45:19 AM
-
Is this so disturbing that it should be removed from public display?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/arts/met-museum-balthus-painting-girl.html
To my eye a far more disturbing work is this:
https://pksupernovel.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/headless-women.png?w=640
-
I'm not a big fan of censorship, so leave things be.
-
Is this so disturbing that it should be removed from public display?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/arts/met-museum-balthus-painting-girl.html
To my eye a far more disturbing work is this:
https://pksupernovel.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/headless-women.png?w=640
Agreed.
In a lot of these cases the protest says far more about the protester than about whatever it is that they are protesting about.
-
I'm not a big fan of censorship, so leave things be.
Also agreed, but I would say that, in this case, were the model not wearing underwear it would be a different matter.
-
Balthus is famous/notorious for this sort of issue - have a look at The Guitar Lesson and see what you think. I think it should remain but it's far from a simple case. It's difficult to have a simple policy of what is/is not acceptable - there are many renaissance paintings that are questionable on this approach.
-
Teenagers are sexualised in our culture. One painting isn't going to make a huge difference.
-
Teenagers are sexualised in our culture. One painting isn't going to make a huge difference.
Though if it's shown in a major gallery, there's an argument that it validates it in a way some other apsects don't.
-
Balthus is famous/notorious for this sort of issue - have a look at The Guitar Lesson and see what you think. I think it should remain but it's far from a simple case. It's difficult to have a simple policy of what is/is not acceptable - there are many renaissance paintings that are questionable on this approach.
Certainly the Guitar Lesson is an extreme example and, to my mind the only feature of note is that both participants are female and the child's left hand would suggest an active participation on her part.
That said, I would agree that public exhibition of this work would be a better candidate for protest than Thérèse Dreaming.
-
This reminds me of the Graham Ovenden case.
Ovenden was known for executing (technically highly accomplished) drawings and paintings of prepubescent girls. To my eyes at least they don't come across as overtly sexualized - I wouldn't put them in the category of erotica - but it seems that the artist thought of them in such a way since a few years ago he was convicted and sentenced to two years in choky for a number of sexual offences against underage girls (the specifics are of course online, starting with his Wikipedia page). The judge ordered that Ovenden's photographs and sketches which were preparatory materials for the finished artwork be destroyed.
When I used to watch The Wright Stuff occasionally around this time Matthew Wright used to pose the question, would anyone then, knowing what they know of Ovenden, still have his other artwork - landscapes and still lives for instance - on their walls. His insinuation and implication was heavily in favour of the view that nobody should - although in the case of his landscapes I would since to me (subjective aesthetic opinion alert) I think his soft, hazy, dream-like landscapes are strikingly beautiful:
https://tinyurl.com/yb5n3v6o
Striking out these because of the artist's unacceptable sexual orientation seems a step too far for me - this argument of course goes back to Wagner and Caravaggio and doubtless earlier.
-
This reminds me of the Graham Ovenden case.
Ovenden was known for executing (technically highly accomplished) drawings and paintings of prepubescent girls. To my eyes at least they don't come across as overtly sexualized - I wouldn't put them in the category of erotica - but it seems that the artist thought of them in such a way since a few years ago he was convicted and sentenced to two years in choky for a number of sexual offences against underage girls (the specifics are of course online, starting with his Wikipedia page). The judge ordered that Ovenden's photographs and sketches which were preparatory materials for the finished artwork be destroyed.
When I used to watch The Wright Stuff occasionally around this time Matthew Wright used to pose the question, would anyone then, knowing what they know of Ovenden, still have his other artwork - landscapes and still lives for instance - on their walls. His insinuation and implication was heavily in favour of the view that nobody should - although in the case of his landscapes I would since to me (subjective aesthetic opinion alert) I think his soft, hazy, dream-like landscapes are strikingly beautiful:
https://tinyurl.com/yb5n3v6o
Striking out these because of the artist's unacceptable sexual orientation seems a step too far for me - this argument of course back to Wagner and Caravaggio and doubtless earlier.
Agreed.
-
I can't see anything controversial in either picture.
I know the title of the following has made kids giggle, thinking it was about someone 'going to the toilet': http://tinyurl.com/ycf7sbbj
-
I can't see anything controversial in either picture.
I know the title of the following has made kids giggle, thinking it was about someone 'going to the toilet':
http://tinyurl.com/ycf7sbbj
http://tinyurl.com/create.php
-
There was nothing on your link, Seb.
The 'Guitar Lesson' is a bit strong! Doesn't have much to do with guitar lessons, more like kiddy porn.
However I can't see anything wrong with 'Therese Dreaming'.
I had a second look at the other one in the op and don't understand why the woman has one boob popped out.
-
There was nothing on your link, Seb.
The 'Guitar Lesson' is a bit strong! Doesn't have much to do with guitar lessons, more like kiddy porn.
It was a link to tinyurl to make your link shorter. Given it was brought to the mods attention I did that for you.
-
There was nothing on your link, Seb.
He was trying to tell you to shorten the inordinately long link you posted earlier - which I see one of The Management has now done.
-
Oh right.
-
There was nothing on your link, Seb.
The 'Guitar Lesson' is a bit strong! Doesn't have much to do with guitar lessons, more like kiddy porn.
Not so sure about kiddy porn as such, to my eye it looks like bad taste BDSM porn, An ugly image.
However I can't see anything wrong with 'Therese Dreaming'.
Neither can I, to my eye it could perhaps be the last truly childhood dream she has before adolescence hits.
I had a second look at the other one in the op and don't understand why the woman has one boob popped out.
At first glance, this is just a child playing in a nursery. But as you look closer, you notice that she has one single breast, why is it showing? It is not innocent, nor sensual, nor motherly. And who is the man trapped in the cage? And what is with the clowns head that she is playing with? Then you notice that her face no longer looks innocent, it looks more and more sinister.
TBH I recommend reading a professional art critic's opinion of this work. FTR I am glad that I have my mind, not that of Max Ernst. Yes he was a genius, but boy did he have some problems.
-
Perhaps he found it therapeutic to put the darkest bits lurking in his psyche on canvass.
-
Perhaps he found it therapeutic to put the darkest bits lurking in his psyche on canvass.
He wouldn't be the first, nor yet, I suspect, the last to do so.
-
Hello Nightowl.
I agree that art is very therapeutic, it's certainly my therapy and I love expressing myself in that way.
-
Hello Nightowl.
I agree that art is very therapeutic, it's certainly my therapy and I love expressing myself in that way.
That's "Bleedin' Insomniac Owl" if you don't mind!
I regret that my artistic endeavours never got past stick figures; according to my younger daughter her father is terminally incapable of drawing a straight line with a ruler or a wiggly one with a corkscrew. This is, I regret to say, a painfully accurate assessment of my artistic abilities made all the more painful by the fact that she is a very good Manga artist.
I tend to follow the route of writing things down (typing them on a computer) and filing them away and it is amazing how some of my skeletons pop up again and again after remaining dormant for a year or do. The beauty of this is, of course, that I can use all the language that would get me banned from here instanta.
-
Manga art is quite something. My nephew is an art student (I think his course is Fine Art & Design ), he has told me a bit about Manga which is very popular & originated in Japan apparently.
I too write things down and come across it years later :).
-
My daughter is a huge anime fan (Attack on Titan, Death Note etc) and draws manga - she’s brilliant at it.
-
Manga art is quite something. My nephew is an art student (I think his course is Fine Art & Design ), he has told me a bit about Manga which is very popular & originated in Japan apparently.
I too write things down and come across it years later :).
Question for both you, Robbie, and also for Rhiannon
Do you know what the difference is between Manga, Anime and Hentai?
-
Question for both you, Robbie, and also for Rhiannon
Do you know what the difference is between Manga, Anime and Hentai?
Manga - printed cartoons in books/magazines
Anime - animation, films
Hentai - lets not go there
-
Wot Rhi said.
-
Manga - printed cartoons in books/magazines
Anime - animation, films
Hentai - lets not go there
Subtle as always!
My daughter has a friend who is, if anything, a little more dyslexic that she is, and an accomplished 2D animator and has been coaching Natasha for about four or five years now and her slowly, slowly catchee monkey programme has worked wonders.
She has also met Sonia Leong who has published Manga versions of Shakespeare, among other things, amd has been really kind in her assistance to Tash.
Hentai - if you are not au fait with Japanese attitudes to certain things it can come as a shock to the system!
-
Hentai is not alone. The content of some bandes dessines can be ... err ... arresting!
I love anime and the prospect of Studio Ghibli closing down now that Hayao Miyazaki has retired saddens me. The possibility that When Marnie was There may be its last production, I suppose, does mean that Ghibli ends on a high note.
Back to Balthus. The Met is completely correct to continue to exhibit the painting - there are too many people in the world who believe that their right not to be offended pre-empts the rights of everybody else. Balthus was as good a painter of cats as anyone.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/dec/07/arguing-over-art-is-right-but-trying-to-ban-it-is-the-work-of-fascists
And an excellent article here.
https://tinyurl.com/y9fhck3r
To be clear, the issue isn't the content but that someone wanted to paint the content, a man in a position of power. I think it is important that in this debate there is no suggestion that the girl shouldn't have been doing what she was - of course she should, she is at the age of awakening and it is important that both girls and boys feel empowered to explore their sexuality as they grow and not repress it. But she should have been free to do so in private, and this is where the exploitation becomes hideous. And out is important that the exploitation is discussed and not swept away into a museum store cupboard.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/dec/07/arguing-over-art-is-right-but-trying-to-ban-it-is-the-work-of-fascists
The problem then is the question of what is art. The writer is, I presume, happy to have some things banned, hate speech, shouting fire in a crowded building, someone telling a 5 year old what they would like to do to them sexually. Is any or all of that allowed if someone says it's art? The use of the term fascist is almost Vladdist.
-
The problem then is the question of what is art. The writer is, I presume, happy to have some things banned, hate speech, shouting fire in a crowded building, someone telling a 5 year old what they would like to do to them sexually. Is any or all of that allowed if someone says it's art? The use of the term fascist is almost Vladdist.
Yes, there is very much an idea that if something is skilfully executed it transcends to a different level from your average sexting screenshot.
-
Yes, there is very much an idea that if something is skilfully executed it transcends to a different level from your average sexting screenshot.
And then there is the problem that 'art' covers Duchamp's Readymades. No exhaustive skill involved.
-
And then there is the problem that 'art' covers Duchamp's Readymades. No exhaustive skill involved.
Is this conversation evolving into a What Is Art discussion?
-
Is this conversation evolving into a What Is Art discussion?
I thought it always was that? Combined with the questio of if we regard something as art, what does that mean. What privileges do we give to the art/artist that we might not otherwise?
-
I thought it always was that? Combined with the questio of if we regard something as art, what does that mean. What privileges do we give to the art/artist that we might not otherwise?
I think that the second part of that is probably what were have been discussing. And I'm wondering how this would be if it were a photograph taken on an iPhone and not a skilfully executed painting.
-
I added this to my earlier post but it might get lost now so I'm reposting.
Of course it just might not be very interesting. :)
https://tinyurl.com/y9fhck3r
To be clear, the issue isn't the content but that someone wanted to paint the content, a man in a position of power. I think it is important that in this debate there is no suggestion that the girl shouldn't have been doing what she was - of course she should, she is at the age of awakening and it is important that both girls and boys feel empowered to explore their sexuality as they grow and not repress it. But she should have been free to do so in private, and this is where the exploitation becomes hideous. And out is important that the exploitation is discussed and not swept away into a museum store cupboard.
-
I think that the second part of that is probably what were have been discussing. And I'm wondering how this would be if it were a photograph taken on an iPhone and not a skilfully executed painting.
Surely the first question is directly implied by the question of what privileges we give art? If we can't say what it is, anx your iPhone question seems to fo directly to what is art, then saying what privileges we offer it is secondary, though absolutely relevant to the subject.
-
Surely the first question is directly implied by the question of what privileges we give art? If we can't say what it is, anx your iPhone question seems to fo directly to what is art, then saying what privileges we offer it is secondary, though absolutely relevant to the subject.
I think it inevitable that we'd end up with 'what is art', certainly. But given that the discussion on this before has turned to whether clouds can be art, or whether there has to be a mind of an artist to see something as art, we could end up getting way off where we started.
I saw the Paul Nash exhibition three times when it was on at the Tate (bit of a fangirl) and he is so interesting on the concept of found art.
-
I think it inevitable that we'd end up with 'what is art', certainly. But given that the discussion on this before has turned to whether clouds can be art, or whether there has to be a mind of an artist to see something as art, we could end up getting way off where we started.
I saw the Paul Nash exhibition three times when it was on at the Tate (bit of a fangirl) and he is so interesting on the concept of found art.
Agreed that it could all becone a bit theoretical but it seems to me that if we eant to say that something is acceptable because it is ' ART' then inevitably we end up at the issue of what do we call art. There are lots of photographs in art galleries, and as you noted, if this was a photograph would it feel the same? Mapplethorpe's photographs caused controversy but were at least in theory voluntary by those capable of giving consent. Would this pucture be ok if it was actually an imaginary sitter?
(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )
-
Agreed that it could all becone a bit theoretical but it seems to me that if we eant to say that something is acceptable because it is ' ART' then inevitably we end up at the issue of what do we call art. There are lots of photographs in art galleries, and as you noted, if this was a photograph would it feel the same? Mapplethorpe's photographs caused controversy but were at least in theory voluntary by those capable of giving consent. Would this pucture be ok if it was actually an imaginary sitter?
(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )
But are we saying that this is acceptable because it is art, because it is skilfully executed or whatever? Maybe that is the argument of some; for me it is the fact that it opens up debate about the fact that it isn't acceptable that is key.
I think the fact that this is a painting removes us a step from the subject. And if you think about that, Therese, presumably, would have been required to assume that pose several times, for long periods of time, in a way that a photograph doesn't require. Do we become so blind to the skill of the artist that we ignore that?
Is it really enough to say that this painting is important now because of what it says about male power, as so many works of art do? Is there something to take from it and apply to the world of the people viewing it today?
-
But are we saying that this is acceptable because it is art, because it is skilfully executed or whatever? Maybe that is the argument of some; for me it is the fact that it opens up debate about the fact that it isn't acceptable that is key.
I think the fact that this is a painting removes us a step from the subject. And if you think about that, Therese, presumably, would have been required to assume that pose several times, for long periods of time, in a way that a photograph doesn't require. Doing we becomes so blind to the skill of the artist that we ignore that?
Is it really enough to say that this painting is important now because of what it says about male power, as so many works of art do? Is there something to take from it and apply to the world of the people viewing it today?
Agree that it is the argument about what is acceptable that is key but we do give free passes to art that we wouldn't elsewhere. The oft made discussion point about Page 3 versus the Rokeby Venus highlights that. And indeed the Rokeby Venus as a painting slashed by a suffragette underlines that this isn't a new question.
Your point about the sitter posing for the painting is quite disturbing. Does the the distance we have in it being a painting mean we consider the sitter less important?
To link to an earlier comment,I think that works of art such as those by Caravaggio or Wagner created by people with objectionable views or having committed dreadful acts are not the same question as works of art that in themselves are problematic. I am uncomfortable with censorship but I don't like the ideathatsimoly because something is a challenge that it gets value.
(And a further note, I like this type of discussion where there seem to be more questions than answers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs, for those taking part)
-
I don't know if it is that we consider the sitter less important, so much as less real.
-
I don't know if it is that we consider the sitter less important, so much as less real.
Interesting point, again I'm drawn back to the idea that theycoukd actually be completely imaginary, and we couldn't from looking at the painting tell if there was a sitter.
-
Don't see why it makes a difference if there was a sitter or not. Plenty of people pose for long periods in much more awkward arrangements.
- Unless being seen in your underwear is somehow an assault?
-
Don't see why it makes a difference if there was a sitter or not. Plenty of people pose for long periods in much more awkward arrangements.
- Unless being seen in your underwear is somehow an assault?
It relates back to the idea that some paintings might be seen as less acceptable as photographs. For a sitter under the age of consent, surely there is a question of what they can consent to as a sitter?
-
Interesting point, again I'm drawn back to the idea that theycoukd actually be completely imaginary, and we couldn't from looking at the painting tell if there was a sitter.
Yeah, absolutely, is she a character from a fairy tale?
I wonder too if there is something in the possibility that subconsciously painting is the medium of the past and photography the present, and that is distancing too? Like it happened a long time ago, even if it didn't, and wouldn't be relevant if it had...is that making sense?
-
It relates back to the idea that some paintings might be seen as less acceptable as photographs. For a sitter under the age of consent, surely there is a question of what they can consent to as a sitter?
Yes, how aware is she of what she is being asked to do? And even if she was ok with it at the time (and this is what grooming is about, remember) what effect did it have on her and how did she feel about it later?
-
Yeah, absolutely, is she a character from a fairy tale?
I wonder too if there is something in the possibility that subconsciously painting is the medium of the past and photography the present, and that is distancing too? Like it happened a long time ago, even if it didn't, and wouldn't be relevant if it had...is that making sense?
There are echoes here of McLuhan's hot and cold media, which tbh I don't think I have ever properly understood, but I think he would have said photography was hot and painting was cold (I may be wrong). I'm not sure if it's about the past/present thing as painting has always had a freer rein that most arts. It seems to me an almost an
'If I could have imagined it, then it's imaginary' take. And what if the painting was taken from a photo of the person? Would it matter if they had given consent? Or were too young to give consent? There is a pretty good episode of The Good Wife about an artist who shows photos of her children naked and their rights to object after they have grown up that relates to this. I also just realised that in shortening photographs/photography to photos, I caused a little shift in how I viewed the seriousness of the art. Humanity is just weird.
-
Parents could consent if the model is under-age. Here the model was a neighbour who posed for a number of paintings.
If that's what it was, I don't think there is a problem. If grooming or actual abuse/assault is involved, that is a different matter. The reason photographs of naked children are regarded as illegal porn is not that there is anything wrong with the images themselves, but that it encourages and supports, or is directly the cause of, child exploitation and abuse.
-
Parents could consent if the model is under-age. Here the model was a neighbour who posed for a number of paintings.
If that's what it was, I don't think there is a problem. If grooming or actual abuse/assault is involved, that is a different matter. The reason photographs of naked children are regarded as illegal porn is not that there is anything wrong with the images themselves, but that it encourages and supports, or is directly the cause of, child exploitation and abuse.
Why would photographs be different to paintings in that regard though?
-
Parents could consent if the model is under-age. Here the model was a neighbour who posed for a number of paintings.
If that's what it was, I don't think there is a problem. If grooming or actual abuse/assault is involved, that is a different matter. The reason photographs of naked children are regarded as illegal porn is not that there is anything wrong with the images themselves, but that it encourages and supports, or is directly the cause of, child exploitation and abuse.
Parents can't consent to something sexual on behalf of the child and that is the question that has to be asked about the sitter here. How did he get her to pose like that? How aware is she of how her pose will be interpreted? What effect did it have on her?
And does this painting have the same effect on predators as photographs of naked children?
-
Why would photographs be different to paintings in that regard though?
I think in principle they could be treated the same, also literature (eg. Nabokov, Nin, and more ), but in practice as these are less in demand, more effort to produce, distribute and so on, and can be produced by anyone without any need for a real child, mean that they are not seen as a major problem. Have any such cases made it to court?
-
Parents can't consent to something sexual on behalf of the child and that is the question that has to be asked about the sitter here. How did he get her to pose like that? How aware is she of how her pose will be interpreted? What effect did it have on her?
Don't really think that sitting around in underwear or even naked is "sexual". Now, of-course there is lots we would like to ask of Therese - but we can/will never know. That is part of it as "art".
And does this painting have the same effect on predators as photographs of naked children?
I don't know. What is the evidence that photographs do? I think we assume that photographs do from the correlation that convicted paedophiles usually have large collections of such images and with activity in porn and trafficking industries.
-
I think in principle they could be treated the same, also literature (eg. Nabokov, Nin, and more ), but in practice as these are less in demand, more effort to produce, distribute and so on, and can be produced by anyone without any need for a real child, mean that they are not seen as a major problem. Have any such cases made it to court?
Interesting point about literature, I suppose in that case we have no evidence of the person being real at all. Though if again there could be a case where someone uses the literature as evidence of abuse. I think though I may well be wrong that this was sort of used in terms of the prosecution of Graham Ovenden that Shaker covered. And again I may be wrong but I think his paintings were considered as a basis of prosecution for child pornography.
I also suspect that the difference between photography or filming and painting and literature in terms of prosecution is the ease of proof. Which then prompts me to wonder what about virtual child porn that takes a lot of effort to create, involves no actual individual?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ovenden
So he was prosecuted for photographs and pseudo-photographs -but the case was thrown out.
In 2009 Ovenden was charged with 16 counts of creating "indecent" photographs or pseudo-photographs (i.e., artistic renderings which appear to be photographs) of children, and two counts of possessing 121 "indecent" photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. The 121 images are all versions or stages of the 16 works and had been deleted from Ovenden's computer at the time his home was raided in 2006. The images were subsequently undeleted by police. The prosecution argued that these images are "indecent" and that there can be no defence of creating or possessing "indecent" photographs or pseudo-photographs for artistic purposes. The defence argued that the works 121 images were temporary stages toward the creation of the 16 works, that those works constitute art and in no event were any of the works created with criminal intent. The Crown has not alleged that the images at issue depict any actual children.
His eventual conviction was for indecency and indecent assault on children - some of whom had posed for him.
Interesting point about virtual porn, - could be quite disruptive.
-
Don't really think that sitting around in underwear or even naked is "sexual". Now, of-course there is lots we would like to ask of Therese - but we can/will never know. That is part of it as "art".
I don't know. What is the evidence that photographs do? I think we assume that photographs do from the correlation that convicted paedophiles usually have large collections of such images and with activity in porn and trafficking industries.
When I was five I was asked to take part in a PE lesson in just my knickers, and a man came and watched us with my teacher. Trust me, that felt exploitative - I can remember wanting to go for a pee desperately because it felt so uncomfortable. And I was five.
So look at this picture and consider that Therese will have been asked to pose, just so, arms here, leg here, skirt here, showing a flash of white petticoat...and it's not even the underwear that's the issue.
I think the idea in the Washington Post article that part of this painting's value is that it gets us to consider how to respond to it responsibly is a good one.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Ovenden
So he was prosecuted for photographs and pseudo-photographs -but the case was thrown out.
His eventual conviction was for indecency and indecent assault on children - some of whom had posed for him.
Interesting point about virtual porn, - could be quite disruptive.
Hadn't realised it got as far as being a case to prosecute for pornography but again I think the paintings were used in the actual case as evidence.
I think the virtual porn question is problematic but it highlights the idea that if no actual child is used in the making of the porn does that effectively make it 'victimless' and that has the corollary that if a someone who couldn't consent, and I agree with Rhiannon that a parent cannot give consent here, is used in a painting then that is surely the same as a photograph or video?
And that triggers off the question about various films where children are involved in adult situations,not necessarily sexual, which are consented to by their parents. Jodie Foster springs to mind.
-
And now we are getting into Minipops territory, and those beauty pageants for four year olds that are popular stateside.
A few years ago I watched a programme on the Beeb about a seaside landlady who takes in a group of deprived youngsters aged 11 or so from London every year for a holiday. It was one of the sweetest and most uplifting programmes I've watched - until the workers who accompanied the children got some of the boys to perform that scene from The Full Monty for the Talent Night. Only down to their boxers, but wtf? I mean, Wtf? I think it was on probably before I'd even had my kids and some of the debates that have been had around the sexualisation of children hadn't happened then, but even so. Wtf?
-
Sorry, I'm lost now. Not sure what it is you want.
-
Reading your last post, Rhiannon, and it almost reads like a description of some Brass Eye parody. Skin crawling.
I think the main thing I an taking from the discussion here,which I have really enjoyed, is that the This is ART idea has pretty much no value to justify things.
-
Sorry, I'm lost now. Not sure what it is you want.
Not sure anyone is wanting anything. I think posters are just using the forum here to talk about the thoughts and questions the painting prompts without looking to either make or argue against a specific point. I can understand that it's an unusual approach for here.
-
Agree with your last two posts, NS, it has been enjoyable, and no, I don't 'want' anything, there are points that raise more questions and thoughts leading to ideas but no answers.
-
I am enjoyably even less certain than when I started reading the thread. At first the idea of censoring the picture seemed understandable but wrong, now I dunno - the idea of having the sitter deliberately pose is creeping me out, and yet I still can think that the person could be entirely fictional, and not understand if that makes a real difference.
I am currently the apocryphal Bulgarian footballer who scored the goal in the confused muddy goalmouth stramash, Fuctivanov
-
(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )
No, you're doing what you do a lot on here and what you do incredibly well - Devil's Advocate!
-
(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )
No, you're doing what you do a lot on here and what you do incredibly well - Devil's Advocate!
Not really, I do on occasion but I am honestly struggling with what I think here and enjoying that go
-
When I was five I was asked to take part in a PE lesson in just my knickers, and a man came and watched us with my teacher. Trust me, that felt exploitative - I can remember wanting to go for a pee desperately because it felt so uncomfortable. And I was five.
So look at this picture and consider that Therese will have been asked to pose, just so, arms here, leg here, skirt here, showing a flash of white petticoat...and it's not even the underwear that's the issue.
I think the idea in the Washington Post article that part of this painting's value is that it gets us to consider how to respond to it responsibly is a good one.
That used to be quite the thing, wearing PE knickers instead of shorts. I never did it, nor would I, but you even used to see girls playing netball like that sometimes.
-
A question about both pictures. I have looked them again and I wonder if either picture was of live models.
-
That used to be quite the thing, wearing PE knickers instead of shorts. I never did it, nor would I, but you even used to see girls playing netball like that sometimes.
I'm talking about 5 yr olds, in their underwear, no sports kit, nothing on the top half, being 'inspected' by a man as we did PE. I'm assuming that it was dodgy as I've never heard anyone else say 'do you remember getting your kit off for the PE inspection', ever.
Cant even think why I mentioned this as relevant now. Will go back and have a look.
ETA - oh that's right - underwear and whether it is sexual or not.
-
When I was five I was asked to take part in a PE lesson in just my knickers, and a man came and watched us with my teacher. Trust me, that felt exploitative - I can remember wanting to go for a pee desperately because it felt so uncomfortable. And I was five.
I have to say that sounds "wrong". As I recall, when I was at Primary School back in the late sixties, we were sent to a doctor who performed some tests on us, but it was nothing too intimate, we were all, boys and girls, told to wear PE kit.
Some years later, as teenagers, we were obliged to down our trousers and underpants for a middle aged Indian female doctor to look at our testicles as we coughed. At the time we thought it a bit of a laugh, but in retrospect they could have sent us a male doctor instead.
-
So many 'school doctors' are female GPs but I do believe an effort should be made to recruit a few more males (though....). Adults do need to be sensitive to how kids feel too. I certainly didn't like queuing for the school medical examination in my underwear - with blazer over the top as we were in a corridor! Nor standing there undressed, being examined with two staff members present.
Regarding children in underwear, I gather that ordinary underwear (eg white pants) is something that paedophiles find extremely attractive. In the days when children modelled underwear for catalogues, paeds got a lot out of looking at the pictures. Probably because they appeared so natural and innocent.
It's horrible and very sad, a small child in vest and pants would not signify anything to most of us.
-
And now we are getting into Minipops territory, and those beauty pageants for four year olds that are popular stateside.
A few years ago I watched a programme on the Beeb about a seaside landlady who takes in a group of deprived youngsters aged 11 or so from London every year for a holiday. It was one of the sweetest and most uplifting programmes I've watched - until the workers who accompanied the children got some of the boys to perform that scene from The Full Monty for the Talent Night. Only down to their boxers, but wtf? I mean, Wtf? I think it was on probably before I'd even had my kids and some of the debates that have been had around the sexualisation of children hadn't happened then, but even so. Wtf?
An extra from me, I meant to respond to this in my last post.
I too think those kiddy beauty pageants are horrible with little girls all made up and posing.
However what you said about those little boys doing 'The Full Monty' is horrendous! IIRC that film was only approximately 20 years ago, I've not seen it but those who have said it was very funny - for adults though! It's difficult to imagine the adults caring for those kids thought it was appropriate to get them to do it.
-
Ah, I see what the problem is... strong emotions about the horrors of child abuse spread out, jumping through association, raising emotions of fear and disgust about activities which may or may not be related, likely entirely "innocent".
It's due to a confusion of the symbolic with actuality. As an analogy, we know that poaching of elephants occurs because of the demand for ivory. So we ban export/import of ivory, then we ban trade in ivory, then we ban stocks of ivory, then we ban possession of ivory artefacts.. in the end we are burning ancient ivory artworks and possibly looking on neolithic carvings on mammoth tusks in disgust. In actuality, there is nothing wrong with ivory, it is just material from dead animals and entirely suitable for artwork. What is wrong is the murder of elephants - the causes of which we seem to have forgotten to address.
-
No, I think that it's precisely the question of what is symbolic as opposed to actuality that is being discussed in the questions about whether the medium used is significant, whether there is a sitter or not, what the circumstances of any sitting is.
Also I think that the ivory example is a false analogy with an added slippery slope argument where you link the extreme opinion to be what comes from any other position. The analogy seems false to me because the question is whether this in some way validates looking at children sexually. As Rhiannon has pointed out it is only one picture but it is something that might be seen to give it more credit than an ad in a magazine because of the kudos that is attached to art.
-
To be clear, the issue isn't the content but that someone wanted to paint the content, a man in a position of power.
How do you know it was a man in a position of power?
I think it is important that in this debate there is no suggestion that the girl shouldn't have been doing what she was - of course she should, she is at the age of awakening and it is important that both girls and boys feel empowered to explore their sexuality as they grow and not repress it. But she should have been free to do so in private, and this is where the exploitation becomes hideous. And out is important that the exploitation is discussed and not swept away into a museum store cupboard.
In all probability, the subject of the painting was a model. Would it make a difference if the model was really under age in some sense or merely painted to look under age?
To me the painting has no sexual overtones whatever. It's just a girl reclining. Should artists be banned from painting pubescent girls just in case some people see a sexual connotation?
-
How do you know it was a man in a position of power?
In all probability, the subject of the painting was a model. Would it make a difference if the model was really under age in some sense or merely painted to look under age?
To me the painting has no sexual overtones whatever. It's just a girl reclining. Should artists be banned from painting pubescent girls just in case some people see a sexual connotation?
He's an adult, and yes, the sitter was a pubescent neighbour.
-
He's an adult, and yes, the sitter was a pubescent neighbour.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/489977
-
He's an adult, and yes, the sitter was a pubescent neighbour.
And the second part of my post?
-
And the second part of my post?
Who has suggested that?
Are you aware of some of his other art?
A few years ago the Gagosian Gallery in New York held a show of some of the Polaroids Balthus had taken at the end of his life, of a young girl named Anna Wahli, who was usually semi-dressed when he photographed her. She sat for him one afternoon a week from the time she was 8 until she was a teenager. After the sessions, they would watch the soap opera “The Bold and The Beautiful.” A German museum had canceled an exhibition of the images previously, with a newspaper calling them documents of pedophilic greed.
From
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/we-need-to-talk-about-balthus.html
-
By assiduously covering particular parts of the body we draw attention to them. By preventing those parts from being seen we fetishise them and ascribe special value to the garments involved.
I recall a conversation with my mother-in-law in which she told (with some pride) of her mother's habit of, when hanging out washing, of hiding "unmentionables" inside other garments so that people seeing the washing drying on the line would be able to see any undergarments. My response was to suggest that the first thought of casual observers would have been that no-one in that house wore knickers.
Like jeremyp, I see no sexual overtones in the painting.
Balthus was very good at painting cats.
-
By assiduously covering particular parts of the body we draw attention to them. By preventing those parts from being seen we fetishise them and ascribe special value to the garments involved.
I recall a conversation with my mother-in-law in which she told (with some pride) of her mother's habit of, when hanging out washing, of hiding "unmentionables" inside other garments so that people seeing the washing drying on the line would be able to see any undergarments. My response was to suggest that the first thought of casual observers would have been that no-one in that house wore knickers.
Like jeremyp, I see no sexual overtones in the painting.
Balthus was very good at painting cats.
Does it mater to you when you see it in the context of his other work?
-
Does it mater to you when you see it in the context of his other work?
Guilt by association?
-
Guilt by association?
Erm, how does that work? Association with himself?
Note, I'm like NS, I don't have the answers here, I didn't initially have a strong reaction to the painting but on stopping and thinking about it, there are questions that lead to other questions, memories, ideas. I guess our response to art is often formed from personal experience. And that doesn't make something ok just because It Is Art.
-
Who has suggested that?
Lots of people have.
Everybody, in effect, who has said this paining should be banned because of sexual stuff. I don't see anything sexual in the painting at all. Maybe the artist didn't, maybe the subject didn't.
Some people (bizarrely imo) see sexual connotations in women breast feeding in public. Are they right?
-
Lots of people have.
Everybody, in effect, who has said this paining should be banned because of sexual stuff. I don't see anything sexual in the painting at all. Maybe the artist didn't, maybe the subject didn't.
Some people (bizarrely imo) see sexual connotations in women breast feeding in public. Are they right?
Who *here* has said either?
-
Who *here* has said either?
That's not the question you asked.
-
That's not the question you asked.
I thought it was pretty obvious.
-
Erm, how does that work? Association with himself?
Note, I'm like NS, I don't have the answers here, I didn't initially have a strong reaction to the painting but on stopping and thinking about it, there are questions that lead to other questions, memories, ideas. I guess our response to art is often formed from personal experience. And that doesn't make something ok just because It Is Art.
Yes, you are describing a subjective interaction with the art, which is what art is mostly about - here it doesn't matter what the subject or content of the art is, it could be beautiful or utterly vile. OK or not, when deciding whether it should be available for viewing or destroyed, it is the objective, real life, evidence and consequences of distribution that must be considered - not how it makes any individual feel.
"The Ring" is a great or horrible film depending on whether you like to be horrified or not, as such it is shown in cinemas, distributed on video and generally available to consenting adults. However, if someone was actually in possession of the video within the film, that kills whoever watches it, it would, obviously, be best to destroy it asap.
-
...
Like jeremyp, I see no sexual overtones in the painting.
Balthus was very good at painting cats.
Whether something, apart from actual sex, is sexual or not is a subjective matter. But if you agreed that there were sexual overtones in the painting - does that make a difference in how the issue is resolved? Does something being sexual make it a special case?
-
Yes, you are describing a subjective interaction with the art, which is what art is mostly about - here it doesn't matter what the subject or content of the art is, it could be beautiful or utterly vile. OK or not, when deciding whether it should be available for viewing or destroyed, it is the objective, real life, evidence and consequences of distribution that must be considered - not how it makes any individual feel.
"The Ring" is a great or horrible film depending on whether you like to be horrified or not, as such it is shown in cinemas, distributed on video and generally available to consenting adults. However, if someone was actually in possession of the video within the film, that kills whoever watches it, it would, obviously, be best to destroy it asap.
I think a better analogy here might be a 'snuff' film? What is someone claims it is art? The question seems to be about what is 'real' and I don't think that is necessarily as easy a question as it might feel. That's why we have been having the discussion about whether films/photos are in some way different, does it matter if there is an actual sitter, etc. Surely real life evidence also involves how it makes people feel?
-
If it makes people go out and kill or maim people it does or involve harm (ie. assault, violence or death) to the people depicted it is clearly unacceptable. No-one could claim that an ISIS propaganda film could be "art". However, there are a thousand and one Hollywood films where scores are gunned down with never a second thought.
So, for the Therese painting, if this is an "ad" to recruit pedophiles then it should be destroyed, but I don't think that that has been shown.
-
If it makes people go out and kill or maim people it does or involve harm (ie. assault, violence or death) to the people depicted it is clearly unacceptable. No-one could claim that an ISIS propaganda film could be "art". However, there are a thousand and one Hollywood films where scores are gunned down with never a second thought.
So, for the Therese painting, if this is an "ad" to recruit pedophiles then it should be destroyed, but I don't think that that has been shown.
And I don't think anyone, even those who started the petition, have argued that it should be destroyed. Further again many of the issues are about whether it itself is effectively the record of what might be regarded as some form of sexual harassment because it involves a live sitter or not, and whether had it been a film or photo that makes a difference - note as already covered by Rhiannon there seems to have been a difference in the reaction to the proposed photographic exhibition.
As was raised earlier in the thread, we could go down the route of what is art, but the question is does it make any difference to call something art?
-
Lots of people have.
Everybody, in effect, who has said this paining should be banned because of sexual stuff. I don't see anything sexual in the painting at all. Maybe the artist didn't, maybe the subject didn't.
Some people (bizarrely imo) see sexual connotations in women breast feeding in public. Are they right?
No, the original petition says nothing and implies nothing about banning painters, (and again is there something different because it's a painting and not a photo?) from painting pubescent girls. It's about displaying it as part of the collection.
-
And I don't think anyone, even those who started the petition, have argued that it should be destroyed. Further again many of the issues are about whether it itself is effectively the record of what might be regarded as some form of sexual harassment because it involves a live sitter or not, and whether had it been a film or photo that makes a difference - note as already covered by Rhiannon there seems to have been a difference in the reaction to the proposed photographic exhibition.
As was raised earlier in the thread, we could go down the route of what is art, but the question is does it make any difference to call something art?
Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether something is called art or not. Anything could be called art at some point and probably has. Also, I don't regard art as something sacrosanct to be collected or preserved for eternity. I would not value, say, the Mona Lisa, above a good copy of it. All this stuff is just part of transient life experience.
Balthus seems obsessed, maybe sexually, by girls, but is there enough actual evidence to convict him for sexual harassment of his models? I doubt it, and in my view, the picture itself does not provide good evidence.
-
Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether something is called art or not. Anything could be called art at some point and probably has. Also, I don't regard art as something sacrosanct to be collected or preserved for eternity. I would not value, say, the Mona Lisa, above a good copy of it. All this stuff is just part of transient life experience.
Balthus seems obsessed, maybe sexually, by girls, but is there enough actual evidence to convict him for sexual harassment of his models? I doubt it, and in my view, the picture itself does not provide good evidence.
Then the question of whether someone calls an IS film art is irrelevant. Your second point seems to indicate that there is a boundary about whether it is good evidence to convict someone of sexual harassment. Do you think the photographs in the exhibition are good evidence for this? Is the need to show that such a thing would need to be good evidence of harassment to lead to destruction of the piece which I haven't seen suggested other than by jeremyp and you, or to prevent it being shown by a major art gallery?
-
Haven't seen any photographs from the exhibition. Even with a photograph how can you tell what actually occurred or what was posed or made up?
All this was in the 1930's - so now is relevant only to the extent that accessibility to the material increases the likelihood of current or future abuse - it does not in my opinion.
-
Haven't seen any photographs from the exhibition. Even with a photograph how can you tell what actually occurred or what was posed or made up?
All this was in the 1930's - so now is relevant only to the extent that accessibility to the material increases the likelihood of current or future abuse - it does not in my opinion.
In answer to your firsr, don't know but surely that is part of the issue. If you have an adult filming pubescents in a state of undress that you don't know any informed cobsent has been given, isn't there a problem there too ?
For your second paragraph, you seem to state a value judgement as a fact i.e. that the only relevance is future abuse. Then take it as a fact that it is the only consideration and then make an assertion based on that.
-
In answer to your firsr, don't know but surely that is part of the issue. If you have an adult filming pubescents in a state of undress that you don't know any informed cobsent has been given, isn't there a problem there too ?
Of-course, but surely this is covered by current legislation?
For your second paragraph, you seem to state a value judgement as a fact i.e. that the only relevance is future abuse. Then take it as a fact that it is the only consideration and then make an assertion based on that.
If you think there is another consideration you could put it up?
-
Of-course, but surely this is covered by current legislation?
If you think there is another consideration you could put it up?
Not sure what the point about current legislation is? Surely it's a question of what evidence might be conclusive and that no evidence on your take here to fulfil your stated criteria is sufficient?
Novel use of the argument from ignorance, I suppose. It's also a bit odd given there have been questions about whether showing 'art' that may be the result of sexual harassment of a minor but isn't sufficient evidence of it is ethical. Indeed in that sense your second paragraph appears to completely ignore the point that you make in your first paragraph.
-
Not sure what the point about current legislation is? Surely it's a question of what evidence might be conclusive and that no evidence on your take here to fulfil your stated criteria is sufficient?
Novel use of the argument from ignorance, I suppose. It's also a bit odd given there have been questions about whether showing 'art' that may be the result of sexual harassment of a minor but isn't sufficient evidence of it is ethical. Indeed in that sense your second paragraph appears to completely ignore the point that you make in your first paragraph.
But these points were covered earlier.
We have legislation that covers child porn, in particular photographs or film, even historic, that involves or could lead to abuse and exploitation of minors.
And, imo, for paintings, it is ethical unless it is likely to increase likelihood of further abuse.
Also, if we could not see the picture, we could not indulge in this discussion of it.
-
But these points were covered earlier.
We have legislation that covers child porn, in particular photographs or film, even historic, that involves or could lead to abuse and exploitation of minors.
And, imo, for paintings, it is ethical unless it is likely to increase likelihood of further abuse.
Also, if we could not see the picture, we could not indulge in this discussion of it.
I think we have touched on them, but I don't think I have any clear idea about what your position on them is, or why you take them. Are you saying that one possible objection you would allow is if it could be good evidence of harassment, rather than assault? Is it important when that harassment might have happened? Is it significant if no harassment has been claimed? Is it important that no harassment has been alleged in the courts? Is it important that a case could be brought forward on the basis of it or not?
How would you evaluate likelihood of abuse? How do you evaluate the possibility that something that could form the basis of a case of harassment won't lead to a justification of abuse? How do you evaluate the issue of it being displayed by a major museum and how that won't affect what is acceptable? If you know that it came form a sitter who was pubescent by and adult, what would be acceptable or not, given the position of power?
-
I think we have touched on them, but I don't think I have any clear idea about what your position on them is, or why you take them. Are you saying that one possible objection you would allow is if it could be good evidence of harassment, rather than assault? Is it important when that harassment might have happened? Is it significant if no harassment has been claimed? Is it important that no harassment has been alleged in the courts? Is it important that a case could be brought forward on the basis of it or not?
How would you evaluate likelihood of abuse? How do you evaluate the possibility that something that could form the basis of a case of harassment won't lead to a justification of abuse? How do you evaluate the issue of it being displayed by a major museum and how that won't affect what is acceptable? If you know that it came form a sitter who was pubescent by and adult, what would be acceptable or not, given the position of power?
I don't have an exact position or rule on any of these questions, nor do I need one.
In practice, there are no infallible answers: We have a general framework in which all these questions are decidable for any specific harassment or abuse case, or acceptability of any particular artwork for display or publication, by judges, juries, editors and museum or gallery curators and directors.
Rather surprised that you think abuse could be justifiable.
-
I don't have an exact position or rule on any of these questions, nor do I need one.
In practice, there are no infallible answers: We have a general framework in which all these questions are decidable for any specific harassment or abuse case, or acceptability of any particular artwork for display or publication, by judges, juries, editors and museum or gallery curators and directors.
Rather surprised that you think abuse could be justifiable.
Where do I suggest that it is justifiable? And I didn't ask you for infallible answers - indeed I would suggest that I've been saying that they don't exist.
-
You said: "... won't lead to a justification of abuse?" -which implies that you think there is that possibility.
Are you saying that these questions are un-decidable then? Or just leaving it up to someone else to sort out?
-
You said: "... won't lead to a justification of abuse?" -which implies that you think there is that possibility.
Are you saying that these questions are un-decidable then? Or just leaving it up to someone else to sort out?
You seem to think that it's acceptable to show the picture even though there might be abuse, so I was asking a question of what you think is acceptable here.
So if you say there are no infallible answers that's ok but if I say it I am leaving it to others to 'sort out'? Odd approach.
-
You seem to think that it's acceptable to show the picture even though there might be abuse, so I was asking a question of what you think is acceptable here.
So if you say there are no infallible answers that's ok but if I say it I am leaving it to others to 'sort out'? Odd approach.
I do think it is acceptable to show the picture.
We don't know if there was abuse or not, though my inclination is that there was not. But even if there was abuse or harassment say, the picture is not a justification of it - in that case it would be preferable that there were no abuse and that the picture did not exist.
I'm saying that there are no infallible answers in that, given that information is missing and judgements on probabilities of outcomes is needed, we can't be fully certain of any answer. However, on the basis of rational discussion by people with appropriate expertise working on the objective facts of each case, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.
But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know".
-
I do think it is acceptable to show the picture.
We don't know if there was abuse or not, though my inclination is that there was not. But even if there was abuse or harassment say, the picture is not a justification of it - in that case it would be preferable that there were no abuse and that the picture did not exist.
I'm saying that there are no infallible answers in that, given that information is missing and judgements on probabilities of outcomes is needed, we can't be fully certain of any answer. However, on the basis of rational discussion by people with appropriate expertise working on the objective facts of each case, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.
But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know".
So where are the objective facts here, and how do you move from an ought to an is? Who are the experts in this? You seem to be assertions and then have nothing to back them up but your further assertions. You seem to need to personalise this.
-
So where are the objective facts here,
To get to my conclusion on this case I'm just using the info in the original link and wikipedia and some guesswork.
and how do you move from an ought to an is?
I moved from an ought to an is?
Who are the experts in this?
In general, there are experts in history, art, psychology, law, and juries to make decisions - but not used in this case - as the decision is the responsibility of the museum.
You seem to be assertions and then have nothing to back them up but your further assertions.
I can attempt to back up any unsupported assertion if not obvious.
You seem to need to personalise this.
Not me. You keep accusing me of making logical flaws so I try to answer those, but you seem not to want to come to a conclusion.
-
To get to my conclusion on this case I'm just using the info in the original link and wikipedia and some guesswork.I moved from an ought to an is?In general, there are experts in history, art, psychology, law, and juries to make decisions - but not used in this case - as the decision is the responsibility of the museum. I can attempt to back up any unsupported assertion if not obvious.Not me. You keep accusing me of making logical flaws so I try to answer those, but you seem not to want to come to a conclusion.
Stating that I see your position as flawed is not personalising, stating 'But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know"' is.
You are too intelligent a poster to not see that, so I'm bemused.
-
Stating that I see your position as flawed is not personalising, stating 'But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know"' is.
You are too intelligent a poster to not see that, so I'm bemused.
OK, I retract that comment.
I've tried to put together the chain of thoughts that get me to an answer, though it is very rough with many unjustified assumptions and jumps. I'd better stop here!
-
OK, I retract that comment.
I've tried to put together the chain of thoughts that get me to an answer, though it is very rough with many unjustified assumptions and jumps. I'd better stop here!
Thank you. I'm fine with that - that's all I've been trying to do as well. Perhaps there is a value in the painting being shown in a context of the questions it raises.
-
I thought it was pretty obvious.
Yes, it is obvious that that was not the question you asked. You didn't restrict your question to members of the forum, so why should I infer that is what you meant?
-
Yes, it is obvious that that was not the question you asked. You didn't restrict your question to members of the forum, so why should I infer that is what you meant?
Because I'm not discussing the painting with people that aren't here. I'm discussing it with people that are here.
-
Because I'm not discussing the painting with people that aren't here. I'm discussing it with people that are here.
Your question was a challenge to a post that I wrote which made a claim about people in general, not people on this forum. The context of your question is therefore - reasonably - the context of my post.
-
Excuse me, I need to wash out the salad drawer in my fridge.
-
Excuse me, I need to wash out the salad drawer in my fridge.
You concede the point then.
-
You concede the point then.
No, the wilted lettuce and squished cherry tomatoes are more interesting.
-
No, the wilted lettuce and squished cherry tomatoes are more interesting.
You concede the point, but you're not prepared to admit it. Fine.
-
You concede the point, but you're not prepared to admit it. Fine.
I could have sworn she said no to that.
-
I could have sworn she said no to that.
Saying no is not the same as not conceding the point.
-
Saying no is not the same as not conceding the point.
It is when the "No" is preceded by the question: "So you concede the point then."
-
You concede the point, but you're not prepared to admit it. Fine.
Over the years Rhi has shown a far greater propensity for admiting defeat than you ever have!
So NO - Rhi has conceded nothing except that she has lost interest in your line of argument.
As have others - me included.
-
I came across this on the following site: http://www.sexualintelligence.org/
It contains the following sentence:
I'm tired of some people seeing sex everywhere, feeling threatened, and wanting to protect themselves (and everyone else) by stripping away and dumbing down the world's art, fashion, words, products, and, ultimately, eroticism itself.
Which applies equally to the Manchester Waterhouse in another thread.
Underpants In a Painting—Always About Sex?
New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art is now displaying a painting that some people don't like. In fact, some 10,000 people have signed a petition to do SOMETHING about the damn picture.
It's the 1938 painting Therese Dreaming by Polish-French artist Balthus. It shows a 12-year-old girl relaxing in a simple rustic room, eyes closed, looking away from us. One leg is propped higher than the other in a common, comfortable posture. Since she's wearing a long peasant-style skirt, the viewer can see her underpants between her thighs.
As a consumer, I'm not a fan of painting. I prefer Bach to da Vinci, Shakespeare to Van Gogh, and Hepburn to Warhol.
But I know the demonization of art when I see it. That demonization is almost always about sex. And frequently about protecting children.
Mia Merrill's complaint is a familiar one, tarted up with today's politics. The painting is "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child. If you are a part of the #metoo movement or ever think about the implications of art on life, please support this effort."
"Shocked" to see the painting depicting a young girl "in a sexually suggestive pose," she notes that "Given the current climate around sexual assault and allegations…in showcasing this work for the masses without providing any type of clarification, the Met is, perhaps unintentionally, supporting voyeurism and the objectification of children."
Merrill says she doesn't demand the painting be destroyed (how too too tolerant of her), she just wants it removed from view or paired with editorial comment. She'd be satisfied "if the Met included a message as brief as, 'Some viewers find this piece offensive or disturbing, given Balthus's artistic infatuation with young girls.'"
So to summarize:
• The picture needs "clarification." Viewers must be told about the picture, rather than being allowed to consume it unaided.
• Displaying it supports "voyeurism" ("perhaps unintentionally"!). It's wrong if art creates the wrong kind of response in consumers.
• The painting should be "removed from view" or paired with a message that "some viewers find this piece offensive." So consumers shouldn't have the chance to think about it or discuss it with others, coming to their own conclusions about its merit, meaning, or any larger issues.
Merrill's worst statement is describing the subject in a "sexually suggestive pose." Most people would just see a girl on a chair daydreaming next to her cat. Some would see interesting colors, lighting, shadows and textures. Apparently Merrill is one of those people who sees sex everywhere. Censors always do.
Where you or I might see casual affection between two male friends walking down the street, some see sex, and feel assaulted. Where you might ignore a tampon commercial, those uncomfortable with sex feel assaulted. Where you might be bored with a fart joke on late night TV, they feel assaulted. That's a lot of feeling assaulted.
If you're not obsessed with sex, you wouldn't even consider these three things part of a single thread. You might casually observe "friendly people + health product + dumb joke." But they perceive "sex + sex + sex." And for them, it never stops; people who obsessively construct erotic imagery (which they claim they dislike) never have a nice day.
Like kids in a candy store or at a scary movie, people obsessed with erotic imagery are simply not emotionally equipped to ignore what they see. These people deserve sympathy, but they don't get mine because they deal with their upset in such an aggressive way. They want to cleanse the public sphere of sexuality—and they imagine the public sphere as practically the whole world. It includes Greek statues in City Hall, radio ads for birth control, string bikinis on the beach, vanity license plates, lube in the drugstore—the list is almost endless.
Most of us want to end violence and exploitation, especially around sexuality. It's difficult to know exactly how to do that, and so we sometimes reach out in odd, unproductive places. Like Merrill, we can resemble the drunk guy looking for his car keys at midnight under a streetlight. Is that where he dropped them? No, he dropped them over there in the dark, but the light's much better here under the streetlight.
I'm tired of some people seeing sex everywhere, feeling threatened, and wanting to protect themselves (and everyone else) by stripping away and dumbing down the world's art, fashion, words, products, and, ultimately, eroticism itself.
I'm also tired of people simplistically claiming that practically everything can lead to sexual violence, "the patriarchy," or "rape culture." In our attempt to be insightful about sexism and clearly against actual violence (both great steps forward), we're speeding toward a Stalinist suspicion of almost everything: anything connected with gender, beauty, yearning, childhood, playfulness, courtship, pleasure, underwear, and yes, sexuality itself.
We can strip the world of The Wizard of Oz and Philip Roth, the Marx Brothers and casual Fridays, Taylor Swift and Janis Joplin, Princess Leia and Princess Diana—but the world would be far poorer than it is now.
More importantly, it would be no safer.
-
No, it doesn't apply equally to the Waterhouse painting debate. Not in the slightest.
-
No, it doesn't apply equally to the Waterhouse painting debate. Not in the slightest.
Yes, I am not seeing that the cases are the same. I also think that the points made in the article ignore the context of the painting and what we know about Balthus. It's one of those attempts at Olympian disdain which is undermined by it thinking that art is somehow deserving of a special pass because the little people don't understand it.
-
Yes, I am not seeing that the cases are the same. I also think that the points made in the article ignore the context of the painting and what we know about Balthus. It's one of those attempts at Olympian disdain which is undermined by it thinking that art is somehow deserving of a special pass because the little people don't understand it.
Very much agree with this.