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.

 

Museum removes 19th century painting in ridiculous gender protest

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LSU0408

Really? Sure sounded like you were saying adults shouldn’t get so offended, and if they are, they should just look the other way. That only applies to old artwork and not new artwork?


Yes, I'm referring to pieces of past history. My point is that when you pass artwork or road signs or statues every day for your entire life, or people have been coming and going for decades and not being offended, or simply avoiding what offends them, then it shouldn't be an issue at all. The time to complain about such things would have been when they were first created. Now they're a part of history that we've all seen and or avoided.




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: kaylaluv

Sounds hardcore. It doesn't sound like the museum wanted it in there at all. I'm referring to paintings that are hundreds of years old and have been on display for just as long, and nobody having a problem with it until now.


As per the curator, this action is to "provoke debate about the way we display and interpret artwork", it has nothing to do with censorship.


I'm talking about the artwork kaylaluv said she saw, and then said museums won't put it in their galleries. There's a difference between a museum choosing not to put artwork on display, and a museum choosing to remove artwork that's already there and has been there on display for a long time.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: kaylaluv

Sounds hardcore. It doesn't sound like the museum wanted it in there at all. I'm referring to paintings that are hundreds of years old and have been on display for just as long, and nobody having a problem with it until now.


As per the curator, this action is to "provoke debate about the way we display and interpret artwork", it has nothing to do with censorship.


I'm talking about the artwork kaylaluv said she saw, and then said museums won't put it in their galleries. There's a difference between a museum choosing not to put artwork on display, and a museum choosing to remove artwork that's already there and has been there on display for a long time.


Do you feel that it is a censorship or a societal sensibilities interpretation of artwork issue by the curator/people who run the gallery/museum? If the curators have questionable authority to interpret, then who does? This applies to both scenarios.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Waterhouse is one of the least to worry about in the context the curator is making. Assume they didn't have another example to make? I will have to look up the gallery later. Also,the curator didn't attempt to interpret the meaning such as changing the painting description considering there is one provided?

I agree with the discussion point on the first page and in questioning that pink hat power is okay but the femme fatal,etc., portrayal is not.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: InTheLight

Waterhouse is one of the least to worry about in the context the curator is making. Assume they didn't have another example to make? I will have to look up the gallery later. Also,the curator didn't attempt to interpret the meaning such as changing the painting description considering there is one provided?

I agree with the discussion point on the first page and in questioning that pink hat power is okay but the femme fatal,etc., portrayal is not.


This action has nothing to to do with pink hat power, it has everything to do with questioning and interpreting artwork in relation to opening up debate about the understanding of how women were depicted then, and how women are still depicted now (similarities such as femme fatale or of a sexual or subservient nature) within an artistic framework.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Isnt it funny how Feminist demand the right to show their t*ts but dont you dare look at them when they do?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: trollz

Oh my god! It's a lovely painting. One of my favorites.

I'm a feminist BTW.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: InTheLight

# off


Did you read the first paragraph and the comment about mindless physicality?


InTheLight,
You support the ban on a classic Victorian painting because the breasts are showing.

What if it was genitals ?
By your standards, ban Michelangelo's David perhaps?


Banning reeks of PC small mindedness and gross ignorance and appreciation of fine art.

But, go ahead, go for the next step, Ban the Renaissance - yeah, that's it ../sarc


Deny Ignorance.
edit on 1-2-2018 by M5xaz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: EroSennin
Isnt it funny how Feminist demand the right to show their t*ts but dont you dare look at them when they do?


No, not funny. One is choice and the other is exploitative.

Back to topic. My take on this is that the gallery is overly sensitive to complaints and have taken action to (as they say) to start a debate.

It is a wonderful picture. Seeing art in the flesh (so to speak) is a quite amazing. People need to concentrate on the art and the story, even if the image is uncomfortable to them. The fact that art illicit an emotional reaction is good, even if the context has changed since the artist did his work.

If people are worried that fragile minds will be challenged, then all well and good. That's the purpose of art. If you cannot accept art for what it is then you should live in a dark room.

As a side note (but linked) the UK are pushing back on the strange practice that has been growing in universities, where censorship and lack of intellectual debate is being encouraged by niche minorities. Let's hope that this "push back" drags this artwork back into public view.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: InTheLight

# off


Did you read the first paragraph and the comment about mindless physicality?


InTheLight,
You support the ban on a classic Victorian painting because the breasts are showing.

What if it was genitals ?
By your standards, ban Michelangelo's David perhaps?


Banning reeks of PC small mindedness and gross ignorance and appreciation of fine art.

But, go ahead, go for the next step, Ban the Renaissance - yeah, that's it ../sarc


Deny Ignorance.


You jumped in here without reading the whole thread and you don't know what you are talking about. There is no banning and, again, context is everything. So very tiresome.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I assume Georgia O'Keeffe's work will be destroyed?

Stay away from the Water!!!

Damn sirens.




edit on 2 2 2018 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I assume Georgia O'Keeffe's work will be destroyed?



You know what they say about assuming.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I assume Georgia O'Keeffe's work will be destroyed?



You know what they say about assuming.


Makes an ass of u?

So what gives her a pass?




posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I assume Georgia O'Keeffe's work will be destroyed?



You know what they say about assuming.


Makes an ass of u?

So what gives her a pass?



I am not understanding why you think she does not deserve a pass.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Art shouldn't be banned.
A funny story though about art here.
I took a guy with learning disabilities to leeds art gallery and there was a lovely painting of a nude redhead in a stream, my dude clocked this ran up to it shouting "boobies" "it looks like Danielle!" (a fellow support worker). Everyone looked shocked but after a few minutes everyone was laughing and looking at my dude with fondness.
If they ban art like that I will miss out on the fun we had and my guy will not actually like any art.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:54 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Aright, thanks for the discussion, I seen that relation in the article but do not agree this is the painting for it. Also, didn't find a list of the artwork in the gallery to compare and contrast if I had found on had represented the argument better.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: InTheLight

Aright, thanks for the discussion, I seen that relation in the article but do not agree this is the painting for it. Also, didn't find a list of the artwork in the gallery to compare and contrast if I had found on had represented the argument better.


Yes, we'd have to ask the Curator and all the other people involved to find out why this particular depiction of women was selected to open the 'femme fatale' or subservient woman depiction in artwork debate and how it may apply to modern art/advertising, as well. But considering crusaders to end sexual harassment and abuse are involved, the painting is simply a means to an end, that being, a deeper debate of the depiction of women not only through the visuals of the artwork but the underlying motivation and intent throughout history and up to modern times.
edit on 02CST04America/Chicago00340428 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 02CST04America/Chicago00740428 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: trollz

What the actual hell. Thats an exquisite piece. Only a savage would remove it out of fear or anger.

edit on 2 2 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: InTheLight

# off


Did you read the first paragraph and the comment about mindless physicality?


InTheLight,
You support the ban on a classic Victorian painting because the breasts are showing.

What if it was genitals ?
By your standards, ban Michelangelo's David perhaps?


Banning reeks of PC small mindedness and gross ignorance and appreciation of fine art.

But, go ahead, go for the next step, Ban the Renaissance - yeah, that's it ../sarc


Deny Ignorance.


You jumped in here without reading the whole thread and you don't know what you are talking about. There is no banning and, again, context is everything. So very tiresome.


I read the thread very well.

Your position is undefensible - weak minded attempts at deflection notwithstanding.

Your ignorance is tiresome.



posted on Feb, 2 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
I assume Georgia O'Keeffe's work will be destroyed?



You know what they say about assuming.


Makes an ass of u?

So what gives her a pass?



I am not understanding why you think she does not deserve a pass.



It's ok if you're a woman painting nude women art but not a man?

Anyway, sorry about the delay, just got back from "All the money in the World"







top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join