Museum removes 19th century painting in ridiculous gender protest

“The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?” the gallery’s statement reads.

“This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!” the museum stated

The painting was taken down as part of an exhibition by Sonia Boyce, the gallery team, and other collaborators, including drag artists from Family Gorgeous. Together, they want to explore “‘gender trouble’

Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art ... said, however, that the decision to remove the painting was also influenced by the #MeToo movement
Source

This politically-correct gender BS has gone way too far.
A Museum in England has taken down a work from a well-known, accomplished artist (my personal favorite artist, actually) because it featured artistic nudity. The painting in question, Hylas and the Nymphs (see it at the link), from artist John Willliam Waterhouse, features several "nymphs" - female nature deities - luring a man to his death into the pond they inhabit. The problem? You can see their breasts. Apparently the museum felt that the artwork was not relevant to modern society, and that they needed to "challenge this Victorian fantasy" and "explore gender trouble".
The museum gallery's curator admitted that the decision to remove the painting was also influenced by the #MeToo movement.

Everyone behind this asinine protest doesn't belong in a museum. Further, banishing actual artwork is literally the same thing as the fascist censorship that so many of these idiots are always apparently terrified of.

a reply to: trollz

They are only a step away from ISIS destroying art in the name of Allah.

Might want to bust up Greek and Roman statues because.... BOOBS!

"Fools. The nymphs, lesser goddesses of nature, are subjugating Hylas! They are exercising agency! There's nothing passive, timid or gratuitous about their forms. They are in control and luring a man to his doom! Rabid feminists might be overjoyed, but they're too obtuse."


It could be said... if all is fair

originally posted by: Plotus
"Fools. The nymphs, lesser goddesses of nature, are subjugating Hylas! They are exercising agency! There's nothing passive, timid or gratuitous about their forms. They are in control and luring a man to his doom! Rabid feminists might be overjoyed, but they're too obtuse."


It could be said... if all is fair

Yes, and if I am not mistaken... the nymphs are groping that poor fellow before they destroy him.

PC.... remember Disco or Rollerblades or snowboards or Hacky Sack.... all gone.

PC will fall out of Vogue and become a nuisance.

The name of the paint is "What a lucky guy".

Art galleries are masters of spoken word bs, it's how they sell so much garbage.
Technically proficient painters, especially realists need to removed to avoid comparison with said garbage.
Discipline was for another age of art and music, we have abstract expressionism and rap now to democratize the arts.

a reply to: trollz

By removing these paintings (or controversial statutes of statesmen, as another example) that are deemed not relevant to, or offensive, to today's society, there is no avenue for addressing past depictions of women in submissive or stereotypical roles or the historical relevance to any understanding that it was deemed acceptable then but is not acceptable now and why. This can be achieved with adding a side panel explaining the historical to modern changes of thought to, perhaps, enlighten some of us. Then again, perhaps they also want to display and explore newer modern art that speaks to a wider audience.

As for the nymphs having all the power, I would counter that by saying the only power they had was to use their bodies/sex and they had no other avenue for any other type of power over their lives.

a reply to: trollz

I loved that painting - Fascist arseholes!

Further, banishing actual artwork is literally the same thing as the fascist censorship that so many of these idiots are always apparently terrified of.

a reply to: trollz

What's so ironic about these people is that one minute they're marching with pink hats that they call p*ssy hats and wearing vagina costumes and they're marching topless for women's rights, and then the next minute they're having paintings taken down because it's disrespectful due to topless women luring in a man. This is one of the reasons we call it a mental disorder. Gaggle of damn drama queens.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: trollz

By removing these paintings (or controversial statutes of statesmen, as another example) that are deemed not relevant to, or offensive, to today's society, there is no avenue for addressing past depictions of women in submissive or stereotypical roles or the historical relevance to any understanding that it was deemed acceptable then but is not acceptable now and why. This can be achieved with adding a side panel explaining the historical to modern changes of thought to, perhaps, enlighten some of us. Then again, perhaps they also want to display and explore newer modern art that speaks to a wider audience.

As for the nymphs having all the power, I would counter that by saying the only power they had was to use their bodies/sex and they had no other avenue for any other type of power over their lives.

They lived in a pond. It's not real. There's nothing to counter other than emotional hypersensitive people getting offended over naked women using their looks to lure in a man who wants to sleep with them. Would people be happier if the artist made them look grotesque so that Hercules's companion keeps walking? I highly doubt it because then the same people would complain about all women being beautiful even though in the real world, they're not.

Meanwhile in France:

"L'Origine du Monde" (The Origin of the World), an 1866 oil painting by the realist painter Gustave Courbet, may hang on the walls of the Musee d'Orsay in Paris.

   

But its status as a cherished work of art did not stop Facebook shutting down the account of a French teacher who shared a picture of it, because of the social network's ban on nude images.

Facebook in French court for 'censoring' vagina painting (link potentially NSFW)

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: trollz

By removing these paintings (or controversial statutes of statesmen, as another example) that are deemed not relevant to, or offensive, to today's society, there is no avenue for addressing past depictions of women in submissive or stereotypical roles or the historical relevance to any understanding that it was deemed acceptable then but is not acceptable now and why. This can be achieved with adding a side panel explaining the historical to modern changes of thought to, perhaps, enlighten some of us. Then again, perhaps they also want to display and explore newer modern art that speaks to a wider audience.

As for the nymphs having all the power, I would counter that by saying the only power they had was to use their bodies/sex and they had no other avenue for any other type of power over their lives.

They lived in a pond. It's not real. There's nothing to counter other than emotional hypersensitive people getting offended over naked women using their looks to lure in a man who wants to sleep with them. Would people be happier if the artist made them look grotesque so that Hercules's companion keeps walking? I highly doubt it because then the same people would complain about all women being beautiful even though in the real world, they're not.

What is real to some people is the historical meaning which offends them - the same with taking down statues. Some people's hypersensitivities are justified and that is why statues and paintings are being taken down by those that have authority over them. However, I don't agree with their removal, but rather as I posted previously, that an educational comparison of what was acceptable then and why it is not acceptable now.

Why aren't there any peni paintings as the main subject out there for anyone to censor? Because it is not artwork it is deemed pornography.

a reply to: MindBodySpiritComplex

"The question comes to a head"

LOL

That's a helluva bush, you can tell it was painted prior to the 1990's.

Reminds me of Ripley in Alien. I was watching Alien(s) the other night and when Ripley awoke the second time from her pod after she traveled back to a station with a new crew of Marines, she was in a tank top and underwear. It panned down to the pod opening, which just so happened to be at her pelvic area and you could see pubes hanging out of the side of her panties, lol. My first thought was "Ewww" but then I remembered that Aliens came out in 1986 and that little sneak peek of pubes was as satisfactory as a titty nipple shot to any guy above the age of 13 back then. I was only 7.

a reply to: trollz

The only way we can be sure we overcame "gender trouble" is when I can walk down the street naked without drawing hateful jealousy of so called "feminists".
They're moving in the exact opposite direction of what would be right.
#freepussy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: trollz

By removing these paintings (or controversial statutes of statesmen, as another example) that are deemed not relevant to, or offensive, to today's society, there is no avenue for addressing past depictions of women in submissive or stereotypical roles or the historical relevance to any understanding that it was deemed acceptable then but is not acceptable now and why. This can be achieved with adding a side panel explaining the historical to modern changes of thought to, perhaps, enlighten some of us. Then again, perhaps they also want to display and explore newer modern art that speaks to a wider audience.

As for the nymphs having all the power, I would counter that by saying the only power they had was to use their bodies/sex and they had no other avenue for any other type of power over their lives.

They lived in a pond. It's not real. There's nothing to counter other than emotional hypersensitive people getting offended over naked women using their looks to lure in a man who wants to sleep with them. Would people be happier if the artist made them look grotesque so that Hercules's companion keeps walking? I highly doubt it because then the same people would complain about all women being beautiful even though in the real world, they're not.

What is real to some people is the historical meaning which offends them - the same with taking down statues. Some people's hypersensitivities are justified and that is why statues and paintings are being taken down by those that have authority over them. However, I don't agree with their removal, but rather as I posted previously, that an educational comparison of what was acceptable then and why it is not acceptable now.

We're supposed to be adults. Adults are supposed to be able to handle offensive things. None of this was ever a problem, for over a hundred years, until this particular decade. Makes ya wonder.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Why aren't there any peni paintings as the main subject out there for anyone to censor? Because it is not artwork it is deemed pornography.

Have you seen The Creation of Adam?

It's part of the ceiling at the Sistine Chapel. I think Adam might have been Irish ( tee hee )

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: trollz

By removing these paintings (or controversial statutes of statesmen, as another example) that are deemed not relevant to, or offensive, to today's society, there is no avenue for addressing past depictions of women in submissive or stereotypical roles or the historical relevance to any understanding that it was deemed acceptable then but is not acceptable now and why. This can be achieved with adding a side panel explaining the historical to modern changes of thought to, perhaps, enlighten some of us. Then again, perhaps they also want to display and explore newer modern art that speaks to a wider audience.

As for the nymphs having all the power, I would counter that by saying the only power they had was to use their bodies/sex and they had no other avenue for any other type of power over their lives.

They lived in a pond. It's not real. There's nothing to counter other than emotional hypersensitive people getting offended over naked women using their looks to lure in a man who wants to sleep with them. Would people be happier if the artist made them look grotesque so that Hercules's companion keeps walking? I highly doubt it because then the same people would complain about all women being beautiful even though in the real world, they're not.

What is real to some people is the historical meaning which offends them - the same with taking down statues. Some people's hypersensitivities are justified and that is why statues and paintings are being taken down by those that have authority over them. However, I don't agree with their removal, but rather as I posted previously, that an educational comparison of what was acceptable then and why it is not acceptable now.

We're supposed to be adults. Adults are supposed to be able to handle offensive things. None of this was ever a problem, for over a hundred years, until this particular decade. Makes ya wonder.

Gender troubles have always been an issue throughout history. It is just recently that women and men of all persuasions have had enough - Time's up.

a reply to: Peeple

You'd probably get a lot of hate from their counterparts as well....the beta male.