Museum removes 19th century painting in ridiculous gender protest

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?

originally posted by: M5xaz

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.

Again, tiresome having to spoon feed people like you.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: trollz

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

So true, so thank goodness it was not removed by fear or anger.

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

The thing is this has actually had the opposite effect.

This work has now been exposed to even more people than it otherwise would have been. The irony.


Answer to the question is it fit for display? Yes because it's art and some art is meant to be challenging and even offensive. Not that I'd put this piece in that category at all.
Nudes are a big part of art and the history of art, if an ignoramus doesn't like it then don't go to an art gallery or look at an art book.

You missed the key point, is it fit for display in the era of #MeToo and Time'sUP era? Not whether or not it was fit for display in past eras where the depiction and exploitation of women through art was not challenged.

Additionally, this is what some critics are saying about this particular painting.

The painting of a scene from Greek mythology, by John William Waterhouse in 1896, had hung in Manchester Art Gallery until last Friday – but critics say his work glorifies paedophilia and is akin to porn.

I have a question for everyone here. At what age would you put those naked nymphs?

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

Yes.
Why do I say that?

Because it is art. Art is meant to evoke emotion in people. It is meant to open a dialogue on its merit, its symbolism, it's mere existence. In that vein, this piece does all of that when on display. It does not evoke emotion not be appreciated in any way if hidden from sight (other than sadness for the censorship).

Art has a way of making some feel joy, some feel comfort, some feel uncomfortable, some feel anger. I may not like an artistic piece that involves trashing of a national flag, but I refuse to ask for its removal. Without the freedom to express ones artistic message, we are all doomed to live in darkness eventually. After all, what one person finds offensive, another finds exhilarating and freeing. The decision is in the eye of the viewer....not in the mind of the venue.

a reply to: InTheLight

It is fit for display in any "era" because it is art, a point which you miss... To say or imply it is not fit for display is akin to banning and censorship which has never really worked for long because people want to see what they are not supposed to.
#metoo era, I don't think I'd quite call it an era... twitter campaign, yes.

Enjoy some modern art lol. Now this piece is meant to be offensive to some and challenging but it's fine cos Trump...
www.lincmagazine.it...

a reply to: Krakatoa

At what age to you put those naked nymphs?

originally posted by: InTheLight
Additionally, this is what some critics are saying about this particular painting.

The painting of a scene from Greek mythology, by John William Waterhouse in 1896, had hung in Manchester Art Gallery until last Friday – but critics say his work glorifies paedophilia and is akin to porn.

I have a question for everyone here. At what age would you put those naked nymphs?

Are they human?
Are they representations of an idea and non-human in nature?

If they are not human, then they could be thousands of years old.....right?
Who are we to decide definitively what they are?
Many paintings of cherubs (which are not human) are depicted in the nude.

And, what is so bad about the human body?

Are we now entering a second Victorian era where you need to feel shame for a natural thing like being in the nude?

These are all serious questions.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: M5xaz

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.

Again, tiresome having to spoon feed people like you.

Projection issues: you are the one that needs to be spoon fed facts.

You tire at thinking it would seem

a reply to: Krakatoa

What do they depict to you? If the human form at what age do you suppose? I hope you won't avoid these questions.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: M5xaz

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.

Again, tiresome having to spoon feed people like you.

Projection issues: you are the one that needs to be spoon fed facts.

You tire at thinking it would seem

Reread the thread from the beginning then hopefully we can have a discussion.

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.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Krakatoa

What do they depict to you?

They depict a physical manifestation of temptation in the mind of the tempted. In this case, it is the man in the painting. Could it be the man in the painting has pedophilia tendencies? I don't know....perhaps the artist did?

To me, the entire piece speaks to me as a warning against being tempted by that which you find as an obsession. That temptation leads to your downfall. IT does NOT glorify that temptation to me, just the opposite.

What do they represent to you?

And why?

That answer speaks more about your own internal thoughts and fears. Doesn't it?

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.

That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.

The let's ban all the movies with nudity and violence, or when woman kill men or all the rape moves and all the crime books and tales and all the statues of nudity.



What’s the point?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Krakatoa

What do they depict to you?

They depict a physical manifestation of temptation in the mind of the tempted. In this case, it is the man in the painting. Could it be the man in the painting has pedophilia tendencies? I don't know....perhaps the artist did?

To me, the entire piece speaks to me as a warning against being tempted by that which you find as an obsession. That temptation leads to your downfall. IT does NOT glorify that temptation to me, just the opposite.

What do they represent to you?

And why?

That answer speaks more about your own internal thoughts and fears. Doesn't it?

I gave no answer from which you could deduce my internal thoughts. Assume much?

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.

What does a 1000 year old sprite water nymph look like? Do you know definitively, with evidence to back up your claim?