MAB Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 This story in The Guardian is truly shocking, A curator with a personal dislike of Victorian artist John Waterhouse has had one of his paintings removed from Manchester Art Gallery and had postcard images of it removed from the shop. It seems that the bare breasts are what this lady objects to, so if this trend of prudery continues, we could see the galleries of Britain stripped of politically incorrect paintings. Hopefully they will go to overseas buyers that would never succumb to this infantile prudery rather than be piled on a bonfire. We are all likely to object to something, I am disturbed by violence in films and on TV which the experts tell us is harmless but which is emulated in my locality almost daily, I dislike the bad language too. Art galleries can be a sanctuary where it is possible to escape the ugliness of modern life and you don't expect them to be vandalized by politically correct morons. Btw if this lady is shocked by Waterhouse, I wonder how she'd respond if she ever saw Courbet's The Origin of the World? https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 It’s performance art by the gallery, pretty much for publicity. Not worth getting worked up over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I am sort of interested by your reaction to a picture being taken temporarily off exhibition. (Not to mention the hilarity of this comment from the article "I don’t like the replacement and removal of art and being told ‘that’s wrong and this is right’. They are using their power to veto art in a public collection." What on earth does he think curators and galleries do, have always done?) Do you see yourself as a participant in the art piece, acting out your assigned role? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 This is an iconic image in British art, I remember that back when Athena was in business it was one of their biggest sellers along with another Waterhouse called Echo & Narcissus. This is the Machesteer Art Gallery not the Louvre, it doesn't have world famous masterpieces, but it does have the hugely famous Hylas that people instantly recognize, to remove it is perverse and to even take the post cards off sale shows that something other than 'performance art' twaddle is going on. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McNulty Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 This item was featured on the BBC local news yesterday too. It’s beyond belief! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 It is beyond belief, and completely and utterly ridiculous. My Liverpudlian husband would have something witty to say about this as it's Manchester, but I dare not put it on here for fear of offending anyone or being un-pc. We aren't allowed to joke anymore. I just cannot believe that this is what we've become. What better way to learn about the past than to read literature that was written at the time, or look at art that was made at the time, or listen to the music, or......anything. The best way to learn about past periods of the 20th century is to watch TV series from those periods. Who is this silly woman to deny us the chance to observe a beautiful painting? To compare what was acceptable then and what is acceptable now (nothing, it would seem). Manchester Art Gallery, get that painting back up forthwith. Do not succumb to pc idiocy and censorship. Everything can offend someone in one way or another. You know what? Deal with it. All of us. It makes us stronger and more intellectually curious. Like MAB, I abhor all the violence and swearing to which we are subjected every day on TV. Everyone seems to think that's fine and perfectly acceptable. Show a girl's breasts and omg. I know the problem is that they are young but hey: in the time being depicted by the painting most girls were married and reproducing in their teens because they didn't live an awful lot longer than that. I wonder if all versions of The Rape of the Sabines are going to have to come down from every gallery on earth now too? Just for starters? I am so glad I'm not young in this day and age. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Did you read the article? It explicitly says it’s performance art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Of course I read the article. I would not have commented on it if I hadn't. It may be excused as performance art but it is all the comments behind it that worry me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 In fact, far from censorship, they’ve probably brought the painting in question to the attention of far more people than would otherwise have seen it unless it features in a secondary level art course or something. It’s an interesting study in provoking outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McNulty Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 It strikes me that this, "performance piece" or not, is getting dangerously close to the wilful destruction of ancient monuments and artefacts that have occurred elsewhere in the world. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 I rather think performance art may have started back in the 1960's with Yoko Ono, but frankly it's old hat now and does anyone really want to read post it notes stuck on a wall? To publicly state the following is absurd: "Waterhouse is one of the best-known pre-Raphaelites, whose Lady of Shalott is one of Tate Britain’s bestselling postcards, but some of his paintings leave people uncomfortable and he has been accused of being one step away from a pornographer" Goya's 'Saturn devouring his son' is uncomfortable, a gentle depiction of a Greek myth isn't. Hopefully this is a publicity stunt to increase attendance and nothing more. Btw Waterhouse is not strictly a Pre Raphaelite at all as he wasn't a member of the Pre Raphaelite brotherhood of 1848, you'd expect a curator to know that. The Guardian's response isn't taking this lightly either. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/hylas-and-the-nymphs-jw--waterhouse-why-have-mildly-erotic-nymphs-been-removed-from-a-manchester-gallery-is-picasso-next 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Well of course not. The tabloids have made a good living from manufactured outrage, why wouldn’t the Guardian want a slightly higher brow slice of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshirePudding Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 In an interview with the curator on the radio this morning she described the temporary removal and the leaving of the space on the gallery wall as an opportunity to provoke a conversation about the piece. She was wanting visitors to the gallery to leave a post-it on the empty wall with their thoughts on the picture, its subject matter, and its removal. As a counterpoint to that a 19th century historian responded that whilst the project has provoked a response it may not be a terribly helpful one in terms of a conversation about the objectification of women in art, media and society compared to curating the picture in a different context or provoking a conversation about its subject matter set against historical perspectives. Still... we are all talking about it and we wouldn't have been otherwise. I can't get too outraged about deliberate curatorial provocation though. Seems to me that if people engage with art as being relevant to them (even if they do so in a negative way) the curator may have achieved at least part of her objective. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 30 minutes ago, YorkshirePudding said: In an interview with the curator on the radio this morning she described the temporary removal and the leaving of the space on the gallery wall as an opportunity to provoke a conversation about the piece. She was wanting visitors to the gallery to leave a post-it on the empty wall with their thoughts on the picture, its subject matter, and its removal. How are they supposed to leave thoughts on something they aren't allowed to see? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YorkshirePudding Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 47 minutes ago, MAB said: How are they supposed to leave thoughts on something they aren't allowed to see? Well that is a very good point, and I personally think it might have been more effective to have a smaller print and explanation on the wall if they wanted a debate. However it is all over social media so I think people have accessed it in other ways, or have responded to the principle of its removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 It's back http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42917974 I'll be interested to see if visitor numbers increase. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proballetdancer Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 Another own goal scored by the insanity of third wave feminism. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus Posted February 3, 2018 Share Posted February 3, 2018 On 03/02/2018 at 01:35, YorkshirePudding said: ... She was wanting visitors to the gallery to leave a post-it on the empty wall with their thoughts on the picture, its subject matter, and its removal. ... Cringe, how very 'corporate offsite'... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scheherezade Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 On 02/02/2018 at 13:54, Sim said: Who is this silly woman to deny us the chance to observe a beautiful painting? Probably the same one who objected to Sleeping Beauty being read to children on the basis that the Prince's unilaterally initiated kiss legitimises sexual harassment. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sim Posted February 4, 2018 Share Posted February 4, 2018 7 hours ago, Scheherezade said: Probably the same one who objected to Sleeping Beauty being read to children on the basis that the Prince's unilaterally initiated kiss legitimises sexual harassment. Ah yes, because it's "non-consensual". I despair! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted February 4, 2018 Author Share Posted February 4, 2018 I'm currently incandescent with rage over the inexplicable actions of the New York Met for sacking 84 year old John Copley for a trivial remark that nevertheless offended some snot in the chorus. I feel I've stumbled into a parallel universe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trog Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Interesting article in The Guardian - Caravaggio killed a man. Should we therefore censor his art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAB Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 Without wishing to split hairs, Caravaggio was more likely to have committed manslaughter, though he was a violent man by nature. I am excessively fond of early music and I love the music of one Carlo Gesualdo, an absolute monster who murdered and mutilated his first wife and her lover and so abused his second wife that she fled the marital home. Astonishingly Gesualdo 'received no punishment whatsoever for the murders presumably because as a prince he was above the law. As bad luck would have it I actually share a birthday with this murderer. His music however is sublime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colman Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 It strikes me that there's a difference between funnelling money and acclaim to a living artist who has or quite possibly is engaged in abuse and a long dead artist who isn't going to get any benefit whatsoever from the acclaim and certainly has no use for the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now