Museum removes 19th century painting in ridiculous gender protest

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Peeple

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

Don't you mean the family man.

No, I mean the beta male. A feminist male. I don't know of any family men like that.

a reply to: InTheLight

It's still silly and childish to have it removed.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Peeple

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

Don't you mean the family man.

No, I mean the beta male. A feminist male. I don't know of any family men like that.

So now we have another created stereotype to bash.

originally posted by: cenpuppie

On Friday, the Manchester Art Gallery announced it would be temporarily removing a painting from the 1890s in order to “prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artwork” during a time when several sexual harassment scandals are in the headlines.

Its obvious most of the replies in this thread lack critical thinking, so before and after posters get retarded (too late!) I encourage you to actually read the article.

Those gals are about to treat the dude like a black widow spider does to her mate when she's done. I don't see what it has to do with sexual harassment or furthermore, what its temporary removal will do to counteract or bring to attention, sexual harassment.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: InTheLight

It's still silly and childish to have it removed.

I think it's an interesting exercise and if that is the only way to open up dialogue about gender issues related to how women were (and are?) depicted in artwork, then do so because it hurts nobody.

a reply to: InTheLight

It's not a stereotype, beta males are soft males. They're not alphas. It's a simple concept.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: InTheLight

It's still silly and childish to have it removed.

I think it's an interesting exercise and if that is the only way to open up dialogue about gender issues related to how women were (and are?) depicted in artwork, then do so because it hurts nobody.

It didn't work. Instead we're discussing its removal and nothing about the depiction of women in artwork.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: InTheLight

It's not a stereotype, beta males are soft males. They're not alphas. It's a simple concept.

You are stereotyping soft males as feminist males as beta males, it's a generalizing concept.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: InTheLight

It's still silly and childish to have it removed.

I think it's an interesting exercise and if that is the only way to open up dialogue about gender issues related to how women were (and are?) depicted in artwork, then do so because it hurts nobody.

It didn't work. Instead we're discussing its removal and nothing about the depiction of women in artwork.

That's because nobody can be bothered to read the article.

a reply to: LSU0408

I know, right? I saw some artwork once of a mythical beast brutally raping a 5 year old girl, but museums won’t put it in their gallery?!! Afraid it might “offend” somebody. I mean, it’s not like it’s real. Bunch of snowflakes...

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.

So there are no under 18's, all adults? How do you know this?

a reply to: trollz

O.K., well obviously that painting has to go..........all the people in it are white! Outrage that is! Its so.....exclusive!

Best thing to do, if that piece is typical, is to close the museum and replace the current offerings with paintings that reflect the values of diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism! /sarc

They did that on purpose and it's only temporary to make people talk about what's accepted and what's not. You are doing it. It's what they planned.

a reply to: InTheLight

Do you feel that Waterhouse, overall portrayed women in a bad light? Anyone?

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Who complained?

originally posted by: dreamingawake
a reply to: InTheLight

Do you feel that Waterhouse, overall portrayed women in a bad light? Anyone?

It has nothing to do with the artist, rather it seems it has everything to do with the depiction of women during that era as either a 'femme fatale' or in a submissive stance, of which, I expect, there would be many other paintings from which to choose.

I would rather they did not remove it, but perhaps had first put up a conceptualization of text from many different views (including views from that era), next to it to bring forth debate. However the method, the debate has begun.

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.

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?

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.

a reply to: trollz

But there’s no problem showing a likeness of Christ in a vat of piss.