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: 9
33
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
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.


I agree, but it's a progressive thing to be able to debate context and intent within art as pertains to the problems experienced in society.

We may not care if someone else is offended by a work of art, but the curators and people in charge of displaying art to the general public should care and address any concerns.




posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

Haven't you seen? It's when feminists walk around bare-boobed in the streets like a type of march,to make some point or the other.Go to YT and type in slutwalk,should get you some footage.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raxoxane
a reply to: testingtesting

Haven't you seen? It's when feminists walk around bare-boobed in the streets like a type of march,to make some point or the other.Go to YT and type in slutwalk,should get you some footage.


To make some point or other. I wonder what the point is, unlike you.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

edit on 3-2-2018 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Plotus

Don't forget the male performers grabbing their crotches, hip hop lyrics with subservient women, and way back during a Pink Floyd concert I went to, the all male musicians had a naked woman come up from under the stage and tip toe across the stage.

Musicians, advertisers etc. have always been performing using sex to get their point across, how you define what actions and behaviour as terminally ill is completely your opinion.

That's show biz.
edit on 02CST11America/Chicago023111128 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.


Actually it's just women. No offense but all I see in the news is women complaining about everything. Never a man.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
So will they put pants on David or simply cut it off?
I suspect the latter...
Especially from this particular group.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Raxoxane

Us men could do something similar...we could call it bollocks out day and let them swing free.



posted on Feb, 3 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

The curator was the first to challenge the painting in particular. Wonder if there's plans for more of the Pre Raphelites/Victorian error.

As an artist myself also, been trying to keep emotional feeling despite what I felt about it. Guess if anything helped me see another side-already don't care for indeed see an issue with Waterhouse's choice of younger body depictions.

Gonna share a source I found similar I was familiar with from art History pertaining to Pre Raphelite art.


If we look beyond the canvasses and see the living women who posed for them, we see different types of women. To the credit of the Pre-Raphaelites and their followers, not just one type of woman was idealized. Women of different shapes and sizes were used as inspiration and the strengths of each have merged into what we now recognize as the Pre-Raphaelite Stunner. As much as I abhor the act of reducing a woman by talking solely of her physical appearance, I would now like to look at a few of the models and how their images shaped what we now describe as “Pre-Raphaelite”.


Perhaps there's some context here as to why the artwork hasn't been challenged as such before.

Elizabeth Siddal was not a conventional Victorian beauty. A petite frame was prized at the time and she was considered quite tall. Red hair was also not in favor, yet Rossetti and other Pre-Raphaelite artists depicted flowing red locks with such magnificence that they challenged the notion that red hair was both ugly and unlucky. Later, Siddal’s hair would become famous when Charles Augustus Howell reported that her hair had continue to grow after death, supernaturally filling her coffin. This, of course, was not true. However, it has become another Pre-Raphaelite tale that has passed into legend.

Source



--------------------------------------------
Interesting to see the painting returned so fast.




top topics



 
33
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join