It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York Met defends ‘overtly sexual’ 1938 painting

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has defended a painting depicting a teenage girl in what some described as a “sexually-suggestive pose.” The Met refuses to pull the piece, despite a petition to reconsider it garnering more than 9,000 signatures.

“I was shocked to see a painting that depicts a young girl in a sexually suggestive pose,”

"It can be strongly argued that this painting romanticizes the sexualization of a child.”
Source

I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this. The New York Metropolitan Museum of Art is facing a petition signed by thousands of people to remove a painting which they claim is sexually suggestive and "romanticizes the sexualization of a child". Unless I'm missing something here, I fail to see how this painting is in any way sexual. In my mind, if someone looks at this painting and sees something sexual, there's probably something very wrong with how they view children. This really reminds me of how sometimes when people are vehemently outspoken against things such as homosexuality, they're actually secretly homosexuals themselves. Sex just isn't something that comes to mind when I see children, let alone fully-clothed children, so it would never have crossed my mind to start a petition to remove this painting on the grounds that it's "sexualizing a child".
Opinions?

The image in question:




posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I'm not sure I would have automatically assumed it was a child and automatically thought child molestation but maybe my brain isn't wired for that kind of thinking I don't know.

I just assume everything is #fauxoutrageculture and that there will never be an end to the things people can be outraged by.

I am curious to see what others think though.

Although it is sexual in nature. I just don't think I would have had a second thought about it viewing it in an art collection I would have viewed it and moved on.
edit on 6-12-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   


if someone looks at this painting and sees something sexual, there's probably something very wrong with how they view children.


I agree totally. The ones who claim to be the biggest defenders of morality almost always turn out to be the biggest pervs.

If a piece of art offends you, don't look at it.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
There is something to the pose that one normally associates with adults.
What you have though, is a view into the private world of a kid, relaxingi n her room with her cat.
It does make you wonder what the artist intended to portray by this, but the 30s were a rough time, she could have been working all day and is just snatching5 minutes before the next chore.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

I can see where people would say that it is suggestive. While most of us do not view it as sexually exciting, you know that there are those out there that do.

On a side note, the artist is not great at painting cats, imo.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The movement is turning and has now begun to consume itself, the rate will only continue to increase and reach out to new segments of the population.

It's a nice painting, thats what I as a normal person says.

I'm sure many view it as having several issues regarding sexuality, race, promoting binary gender norms, white privilage, etc etc etc.

Keep tearing it all down from the inside you loonies.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: trollz
While most of us do not view it as sexually exciting, you know that there are those out there that do.

Yeah there are people who do, but the burden shouldn't be on everyone else to hide images from them that may "excite" them... Kindof like how a school shouldn't be forced to relocate because a child molester moved into the area.

originally posted by: butcherguy
On a side note, the artist is not great at painting cats, imo.

That made me laugh




posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
What does the cat signify?



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
What does the cat signify?


The cat signifies the artist's quiet but rich and magical inner nature, with the golden-blonde color of the cat's fur representing the force of life itself that is struggling to get out from under the grips of his depression. The cat eats, but from a plate that isn't full, which tells us that the artist wants us to all take pause for a moment and reflect on our greedy nature while taking the time to appreciate the things we have. Finally, the cat's eyes are closed, meaning...

...it's actually just a cat. It doesn't signify anything.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
What does the cat signify?


The cat usually shows that civilisation is a whisker from wildness and an anarchic experience.

Cats are always important in art and never there by accident.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Have you seen any other of Balthus's pieces? The guy seems to have a propensity for depicting young girls in suggestive poses.

I don't agree in censoring "offensive" art, ever.

But to honor a perv with a spot in the Metropolitan Museum of Art? I wouldn't.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
there is nothing sexual about her, just some girl chilling.
you can argue that the semi spread position of her legs is somewhat suggestive, but pretty much everybody will sit or lay like that at some point, it seems to me more like a peek at someone relaxing, unseen, in the privacy of their own room/home, like a window into something we all do at some point or the other.

dat cat, on the other hand...



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

So it's not enough for people just to not want to see it.

They want everyone else to not see it.

That's called censorship against free expression.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz


When they end up having to sell it let me know, it would look great in my pizza shop.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: trollz

Have you seen any other of Balthus's pieces? The guy seems to have a propensity for depicting young girls in suggestive poses.

I don't agree in censoring "offensive" art, ever.

But to honor a perv with a spot in the Metropolitan Museum of Art? I wouldn't.

Yes, I looked his work up to look into this story. He has lots of weird stuff out there, but that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the one in the NY Metropolitan Museum, or that we should even be censoring any art unless it's illegal. Art museums are for art, but besides the point, I don't think the one in question is sexually suggestive.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

I think I may have found why some people think the painting is sexually suggestive. It has to do with the artist.


Balthus often depicted pubescent girls in erotic and voyeuristic poses. One of the most notorious works from his first exhibition in Paris was The Guitar Lesson (1934), which caused controversy due to its sadistic and sexually explicit imagery. It depicts a young girl arched on her back over the lap of her female teacher, whose hands are positioned on the girl as if to play her like a guitar: one hand near her exposed vagina, and the other hand grasping her hair.



Many of his paintings show young girls in an erotic context. Balthus insisted that his work was not erotic but that it recognized the discomforting facts of children's sexuality. In 2013, Balthus's paintings of adolescent girls were described by Roberta Smith in the New York Times as both "alluring and disturbing"


Wikipedia: Balthus



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
People love to scream outrage about any damn thing.
It's a time piece from 1938.
It depicts a young woman kicking back and relaxing, in a time in which women were not allow to Display anything but being proper

The painting could mean that all the properness of that time was just a facade. behind closed doors all people would drop the act and be normal.



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
She looks hot, like being painted as a person would act and feel on a hundred degree day. I think it is a good painting. I do not consider it overly sexual in nature. Maybe if a person is sexually obsessed they will only see the sexual expression in this painting, their view of things is being steered by their beliefs. We see what fits our beliefs. I see a hot girl, that can be taken two different ways.
edit on 6-12-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

By choosing a different painting in the first place, censorship wouldn't be an issue. Now that it's up, it's up!

There are so many great works of art out there.. but they chose this.

(shrugs)



posted on Dec, 6 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
When they end up having to sell it let me know, it would look great in my pizza shop.


Sorry to be the bad news bear, but I am pretty sure this particular painting is on loan from a private collection.

If it comes down, it will most likely be put into MET storage, or returned to the owner's collection.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join