Museum removes 19th century painting in ridiculous gender protest

a reply to: InTheLight

Exploitation of women in art?

You have exaggerated just a bit.

Art exploits women now. Ok.

It is fit for the display. The people who take issue do not belong in the showing.

So how come these so called feminists and SJWs are so happy about "slutwalks"????

a reply to: Raxoxane

What's a slut walk?.

a reply to: InTheLight

I'd say there's no doubt they appear to be younger and appear to be seducing the man. Someone unfamiliar might think there is an older man(or younger as he was depicted- depending on the viewer) attempting to seduce these younger women. Or, of course, the young women seducing the man. Though, the younger Hylas was in a relationship Heracles.

It is unknown who the model/s are for the painting, being he was secretive about his work but some of his models were known of/many were said to be family. As it is speculated to be inspired by his models as they fit his preferred physiognomy(facial, ethnic wise).

Waterhouse's main model throughout many years was Muriel Foster. She was said to be 15 years old when he started painting her. However, Muriel Foster was thin(as people stereotypical denote a thinner, smaller breasted woman as a young teen) during her life.

Panic over.

The painting has returned.

BBC report

No one died. Debate was had. Sense has prevailed.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

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"

This debate is about intent, motivation and ideologies back then and now in the depiction of women through artwork and in the media/advertising. Does your artist, Georgia O'Keefe, depict women in either 'femme fatale' or sexually exploitive/demeaning and/or other subservient-like ways?

Oh please, just using their fame is exploitation. Her paintings are graphic.

You are talking thought crimes, with some intent no one knows.

That's BS.

It's the N-word, only the sanctioned can sing it or see it, play it or do it.

F that.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Is anyone here ready to move forward for a rational debate?

Here is the question the curator and museum staff are asking for your answer.

Is a pre-Raphaelite painting of nude nymphs in a pond tempting a man to his doom fit for display in the #MeToo/Time's Up era?

www.independent.co.uk... oo-a8190606.html

What era?! Who says there is an era?!

Maybe not in the #metoo museum, but that's their choice if they even had the money to buy it and hang or burn it on youtube.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: InTheLight
At what age to you put those naked nymphs?

At what age do you put them? They are described as pubescent nymphs.

The artwork is called "Hylas and the Nymphs" and tells the Greek myth of the youth Hylas who fell in love with the water nymphs, and that was that for him.

Now, a nymph is a spirit, so who knows their age.

But the nymphs are in female human form, so their age can be reasoned.

No it can't.

It's only a body/vessel, they could be otters or any mythical water spirit.

Like that creepy japanese thing.

Ageless, just materializing for your eyes only.

12 yo gymnasts or 100 yo turtles, up to you.

It's art. Like the Piss christ.

Deal with it

originally posted by: paraphi
Panic over.

The painting has returned.

BBC report

No one died. Debate was had. Sense has prevailed.

This petition is what originally sparked all of this.

The furore came two months after two sisters started a petition asking the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York to remove, or at least reimagine the way it presented, a painting by Balthus of a neighbour's daughter in an erotic pose. The sisters said the Met was "romanticising voyeurism and the objectification of children". The museum refused to remove it, saying it wanted to encourage "the continuing evolution of existing culture through informed discussion and respect for creative expression".

originally posted by: paraphi
Panic over.

The painting has returned.

BBC report

No one died. Debate was had. Sense has prevailed.

I love the art from the past. It doesn't seem to have been painted with the intent of causing harm or hurt. More of a disscussion piece. I have had many long disscussions about art such as this. With both men and women. Nobody was offened, nobody died.
Sometimes people look too much into things that are just not there.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: InTheLight

I'd say there's no doubt they appear to be younger and appear to be seducing the man. Someone unfamiliar might think there is an older man(or younger as he was depicted- depending on the viewer) attempting to seduce these younger women. Or, of course, the young women seducing the man. Though, the younger Hylas was in a relationship Heracles.

It is unknown who the model/s are for the painting, being he was secretive about his work but some of his models were known of/many were said to be family. As it is speculated to be inspired by his models as they fit his preferred physiognomy(facial, ethnic wise).

Waterhouse's main model throughout many years was Muriel Foster. She was said to be 15 years old when he started painting her. However, Muriel Foster was thin(as people stereotypical denote a thinner, smaller breasted woman as a young teen) during her life.

Also, during that era girls as young as 12 years old were considered old enough to be married off, primarily due to necessity brought on by dire poverty. Today, with the enactment of laws put into place to protect children, we naturally judge people's behaviour and intentions (paintings) from that bygone era with a more enlightened and educated opinion regarding the sexual exploitation of girls/women in art.

Oddly, naiades, nymphs, sprites and what have you, from mythological readings are not described as being nude, but rather some are described as being sensuous, while others not at all, but that does not necessitate nudity. As an artist, if I were to try to visualize a nymph, I would read the mythological story first and if the ancient mythological story has nymphs being nude, I would certainly paint them in that manner. But it seems J. W. Waterhouse preferred to paint young female nudes from mythological stories where nudity was not mentioned.

www.talesbeyondbelief.com...

As for the painting, it now needs to be paired with conceptualized text to explain the initial petition made against the gallery and why it is considered to be soft porn/pedophilia by some of today's critics/viewers. It is all about conversation, debate about wider issues and the interpretation and display of art, including "Presenting the female body: challenging the Victorian fantasy" and I always like a challenge.

The painting – part of the gallery’s highly prized collection of Pre-Raphaelite paintings – was temporarily removed from display as part of a project the gallery is working on with the contemporary artist Sonia Boyce, in the build-up to a solo exhibition of her work at the gallery opening on 23 March 2018.

Boyce’s artwork is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens. The painting’s short term removal from public view was the result of a ‘take-over’ of some of the gallery’s public spaces by gallery users and performance artists last Friday January 26th.

Since its filmed removal as part of the Boyce project a week ago, the painting and its temporary absence from the gallery has captured the attention of people everywhere, and in so doing has opened up a wider global debate about representation in art and how works of art are interpreted and displayed.

Given the sheer volume and breadth of discussion that has been sparked by the act of removing the painting, the gallery is now planning a series of public events to encourage further debate about these wider issues.

Amanda Wallace, Interim Director Manchester Art Gallery, said: “We’ve been inundated with responses to our temporary removal of Hylas and the Nymphs as part of the forthcoming Sonia Boyce exhibition, and it’s been amazing to see the depth and range of feelings expressed.

manchesterartgallery.org...

a reply to: InTheLight

Really?

And you don't have any problem with female music performers dressing like prostitutes, licking dildo on stage, grinding against a man on stage, simulating sex on stage, showing vagina signs on stage, but you have a problem with a legitimate art piece?

Why is all of the above allowed in the Time's up and Metoo era, but legitimate art is not? Is all of the above somehow considered to be art expressions?
You can lie to yourself all you want, this was an obvious censorship attempt by lunatics

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: InTheLight

Really?

And you don't have any problem with female music performers dressing like prostitutes, licking dildo on stage, grinding against a man on stage, simulating sex on stage, showing vagina signs on stage, but you have a problem with a legitimate art piece?

Why is all of the above allowed in the Time's up and Metoo era, but legitimate art is not? Is all of the above somehow considered to be art expressions?
You can lie to yourself all you want, this was an obvious censorship attempt by lunatics

I disagree and I do so because the intent was for conversation and debate and it served it's purpose.

Who are these performers exploiting?

a reply to: InTheLight

Who are these paintings exploiting?

If you don't want to admit that a large number of female performers are exploiting themselves to get media coverage, then I don't know what to tell you. It's even more dangerous when we know that they have millions of fans that are young, underage girls. Why don't we censor explicit female performers?

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: InTheLight

Who are these paintings exploiting?

If you don't want to admit that a large number of female performers are exploiting themselves to get media coverage, then I don't know what to tell you. It's even more dangerous when we know that they have millions of fans that are young, underage girls. Why don't we censor explicit female performers?

These female performers are mature women who have the right to exploit themselves if they want to for money or fame, or whatever motivates them. As for underage fans, girls or boys, it is up to the parents to step in and decide what is acceptable or not for their children, not you or I.

holy hell i honestly can't think of a worse place on the internet to attempt to have anything remotely like a meaningful conversation about this
InTheLight, you have my admiration for keeping calm and rational in the face of all these posters attempting to push the term obtuse into brand new stubborn dimensions. i could only even stand to skim read the damn thread and even at that i'm going to have to get off the computer a while now.
god damn what an abyssmal pit this place has become.

originally posted by: continuousThunder
holy hell i honestly can't think of a worse place on the internet to attempt to have anything remotely like a meaningful conversation about this
InTheLight, you have my admiration for keeping calm and rational in the face of all these posters attempting to push the term obtuse into brand new stubborn dimensions. i could only even stand to skim read the damn thread and even at that i'm going to have to get off the computer a while now.
god damn what an abyssmal pit this place has become.

Thanks for the voice of reason, but I think it very important to try my best to get to the root of our problems, so I will keep spelunking down and around this pit because I have something to say, and a need to connect with like-minded people who enjoy debate and learning (or re-learning for some).

a reply to: InTheLight

You haven't answered my question.

How do you think it impacts the Time's Up and Metoo era, when you have female performers exploiting their body for fame and money? Women demand respect, and then you see all these female performers degrading themselves...

How do you reconcile the two?

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: InTheLight

You haven't answered my question.

How do you think it impacts the Time's Up and Metoo era, when you have female performers exploiting their body for fame and money? Women demand respect, and then you see all these female performers degrading themselves...

How do you reconcile the two?

I would have to read each and every woman's mind from those movements to gleen a consensus. As I said before, any mature woman is free to choose how she displays herself to society and if that entails degrading themselves because they want fame or money, then that is their choice. Did you ever consider these performers don't give a damn if you respect them or not?

The crusaders in these movements have a singleness of purpose and that is to bring to the light sexual harassment and abuse against people of any gender.

Your focus on women's behaviour is missing the point of the movements, the problem is others' feelings or rationalizing their entitlement and a blatant disregard for the human rights and dignity of others through sexual harassment and abuse even when women are not performing or acting in any manner eliciting loose morals.

a reply to: InTheLight

Don't get me wrong, but I could care less if someone is offended by a work of art. You don't have a right not to be offended.

I agree with you. We should let artists do their magic and express themselves any way they seem fit. It's a dangerous thing to attempt to censor art, and/or remove historic monuments. That's a sign of totalitarian regime.