New York Met defends ‘overtly sexual’ 1938 painting

originally posted by: peck420
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.

*sigh*

Maybe I'll give Tony P. a shout and see if any of his stuff is for sale.

Sounds like a bunch of people with problems. I hope they avoid the beaches.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
What does the cat signify?

The guy's favorite subjects were girls and cats.

Personally, I don't think the art in question is that sexual. I guess it could be considered as such, and apparently there were tons of people staring at the painting, thus prompting the "outrage." But then again, sex has been and still is being used in advertising and I don't see any outrage over that.

As someone who isn't attracted to kids, I don't find that picture to be suggestive.

I thought PC rules didn't apply to art anyway?
If you don't like it, don't look at it.

a reply to: trollz

It's more an admission of guilt than a slight against the painting itself. If you look at that picture and automatically think sexual thoughts, you probably have a problem.

What? Is it time to start burning books and artwork again?

Okay, let me get my brown shirt and swastika on and I'll meet you in the town square.

I like it. Some of you might not remember back in the day, girls wore dresses all the time. My mom made "play" shifts for me to play outside in after school. I roller skated in dresses LOL.

Now imagine if the subject was a young girl today, wearing jeans, her pose wouldn't be a big deal at all. We wore dresses all the damn time the only time I wore pants was in the winter and even then pants were often worn under a dress.

We were taught to be young "ladies," we had to be careful how we sat/carried ourselves etc. We were still young, made mistakes (especially tom-boys like me), female relatives were quick to correct. Seems we were always under the microscope.

This pic reminds me of those times. The carefree days of childhood gone, family/social expectations could be confusing and restrictive, time alone with kitty or close peers was precious. It was the only time we could truly relax, away from prying eyes/rules. It was a different time.

a reply to: trollz


I was going to post the obvious joke but I wont

' The Met refuses to pull the piece, despite a petition to reconsider it garnering more than 9,000 signatures.'
It's not the righteous indignation, its simply a Competition on who can force the other to submit.

I'd go further and say it's not a very good painting, and likely simply to provoke.

Looks to me like someone trying to relax when its hot and they have limited means to cool off, I do not see anything sexual about it and I would have guessed if I had to that she was teen aged.

a reply to: trollz

up next, book burning.

Well,
If you go by the figures, accept that the picture is voyeuristic, with 10 million visitors last year, against 9000 conplaints, that means 98% plus of the visitors have a problem of some sort....I wonder what it is?

Either that or those complaining have a problem.

As a footnote, the Met has had the painting since 1998, and it has been around world museums as well.

The petition was started by one person online, so not hard to guess that most petitioners had not seen the painting in the gallery, but online.