Manchester Art Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'
42 replies, posted
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation[/url]
[t]https://i.imgur.com/NKtjOo0.jpg[/t]
[quote]It is a painting that shows pubescent, naked nymphs tempting a handsome young man to his doom, but is it an erotic Victorian fantasy too far, and one which, in the current climate, is unsuitable and offensive to modern audiences?
[URL="http://manchesterartgallery.org/blog/presenting-the-female-body-challenging-a-victorian-fantasy/"]Manchester Art Gallery has asked the question[/URL] after removing John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings, from its walls. Postcards of the painting will be removed from sale in the shop.
[/quote]
[quote]Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”
Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.
“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere ... we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”
Gannaway said the debates around [URL="https://www.timesupnow.com/"]Time’s Up[/URL] and [URL="https://twitter.com/hashtag/metoo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag"]#MeToo[/URL] had fed into the decision.
“We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
The removal itself is an artistic act and will feature in a solo show by the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/feb/05/the-place-is-here-review-nottingham-contemporary-1980s-britain-black-art-movement"]artist Sonia Boyce[/URL] which opens in March. People can tweet their opinion using [URL="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MAGsoniaboyce"]#MAGSoniaBoyce[/URL].
[/quote]
[quote]The [URL="http://www.nationalfootballmuseum.com/collections_detail/painting-the-art-of-the-game-michael-browne-1997"]artist Michael Browne[/URL] who attended the event where the painting was taken down said he was worried the past was being erased.
“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. We don’t know how long the painting will be off the wall – it could be days, weeks, months. Unless there are protests it might never come back.”
Browne said he feared historical paintings were being jettisoned in favour of contemporary ones.
“I know there are other works in the basement that are probably going to be deemed offensive for the same reasons and they are not going to see the light of day.”[/quote]
[quote]Waterhouse is one of the best-known pre-Raphaelites, whose [URL="http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/waterhouse-the-lady-of-shalott-n01543"]Lady of Shalott is one of Tate Britain’s bestselling postcards[/URL], but some of his paintings leave people uncomfortable and he has been accused of being one step away from a pornographer.[/quote]
prompt conversation about what? im pretty sure the context this is being drawn up against really has nothing to do with the subject of the piece or even the "attitudes" in the time it was made...
The world is going mad
I think if they add maybe another plaque near the painting, talking about the relevance of the piece in a modern context, that'd be better than removing it entirely. I can see WHY they removed it, but I don't necessarily agree that it's the best thing. If you wanna prompt discussion, then give the discussion a prompt!
the pendulum has swung so far it's managed to wrap around and we're back to being total puritans
[QUOTE=Untouch;53101630]the pendulum has swung so far it's managed to wrap around and we're back to being total puritans[/QUOTE]
Too prudish for bloody victorian art.
[media]https://twitter.com/philip_dantes/status/958965835053355008[/media]
Honestly removal isn't enough, they really gotta just destroy these misogynistic antiquated pieces all-together.
I mean look at this heap of trash:
[IMG]https://marinasps.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/venus-of-urbino-tiziano-titian-vecellio.jpg[/IMG]
It [I]Obviously[/I] objectifies women as mere objects for sexual fantasy. It in no way comments on what their society considers beautiful. Heck the woman is just a porn-star as seen as her pleasuring herself. It is not even outlining any romantic or intimate relationship between the subject and audience at all. And it is called some flowery name like [I]The Venus of Urbino[/I] just to lull you into a false sense of "artistry".
It even compares woman on the same levels as canines since they are on the same bed. Absolutely no sense of loyalty here in the painting. The pose is just a classic, sexist, nude. Hopefully one day we can purge the world of these eye sores.
/s
This is the worst timeline. Not only is the common masses totally apathetic towards science and the mutual destiny of mankind, despite having the greatest accumulative knowledge in human history right within their grasp- We've also devolved into moralistic stifling of art and self-expression in the name of condescending 'protection' from things that might arbitrarily offend us.
[QUOTE]one step away from a pornographer.[/QUOTE]
Yes because no one in the past ever had sex or a sexual thought, which were both invented in the 1950s by the [I]Patriarchy[/I].
Meanwhile:
[t]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/18/article-2161118-13AA0012000005DC-460_964x640.jpg[/t]
Honestly I think it's kinda interesting. They're not taking it down to say it's offensive, they're taking it down to spark a conversation about art being seen as offensive and how the changing times change our perception of art. They're making fun of it. That's kinda neat.
yall need to read a bit more, the curator is being a faux artsy twit trying to make a statement about modern prudes
The painting is showing back up at another show in a month and they probably had to ship it out anyways
Why are we as a society once again deciding that sex is bad?
I'm honestly fucking sick and tired of this shit, sexuality should be celebrated, not shunned. To shun it is shunning not only your literal body, but also an entire aspect of [I]being human[/I]. I can understand not wanting to see people with their junk flapping about in public, but to act like this painting is somehow not something that the public should be viewing is a travesty.
Also, simultaneously saying that taking it down is to promote discussion, while also being "embarrassed that you didn't deal with it sooner". Way to talk out of two sides of your mouth at the same time.
[QUOTE=phygon;53101726]Why are we as a society once again deciding that sex is bad?
I'm honestly fucking sick and tired of this shit, sexuality should be celebrated, not shunned. To shun it is shunning not only your literal body, but also an entire aspect of [I]being human[/I]. I can understand not wanting to see people with their junk flapping about in public, but to act like this painting is somehow not something that the public should be viewing is a travesty.
Also, simultaneously saying that taking it down is to promote discussion, while also being "embarrassed that you didn't deal with it sooner". Way to talk out of two sides of your mouth at the same time.[/QUOTE]
Considering the fact that humans exist to fuck it's really weird how certain groups can have an almost childish view on it
[editline]2nd February 2018[/editline]
The media has an absolutely absurd view of it too
where excess violence is figuratively considered wholesome and acceptable but a little slip of the taint and everyone turns into a raging moron
that's hyperbolic but it honestly feels like it
If a museum wants to temporarily take down one painting just to provoke a little bit of discussion about the power museums have to choose what is artistic canon, ie how the public is taught to value and perceive art, then I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that. The subject matter and time period of the painting makes it as good a candidate as any for that. The painting clearly has both historical and intrinsic value and they said they quite literally intend to put it back. I think the irony that a lot of people see here is an irony of curating a museum - of appearing to uphold the value of artwork but doing it completely arbitrarily and unilaterally, of just getting rich donors and collectors who control the artistic economy to let you stick in front of someone's face. It undermines the actual value of why its there and I think it's a worthy conversation.
The short version: it's not just about the nymphs and modern feminism or whatever, it's an honest conversation about how art (in museums) is valued.
[QUOTE=phygon;53101726]Why are we as a society once again deciding that sex is bad?
I'm honestly fucking sick and tired of this shit, sexuality should be celebrated, not shunned. To shun it is shunning not only your literal body, but also an entire aspect of [I]being human[/I]. I can understand not wanting to see people with their junk flapping about in public, but to act like this painting is somehow not something that the public should be viewing is a travesty.
Also, simultaneously saying that taking it down is to promote discussion, while also being "embarrassed that you didn't deal with it sooner". Way to talk out of two sides of your mouth at the same time.[/QUOTE]
We're just proactively [I]gear[/I]ing up for the extinction of humanity and robotic replacement is all.
[t]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/06/2a/6d/062a6db27c73461408de0626b8f2b676.jpg[/t]
[t]https://images.nortonsimon.org/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=F197336P.ptif/full/!400,600/0/default.jpg[/t]
[b]LOOK AT THIS BLATANT PEDOPHILIA[/b]
All I see is a blatant publicity stunt trying to capitalize on a popular trend.
[QUOTE=duckmaster;53102715]All I see is a blatant publicity stunt trying to capitalize on a popular trend.[/QUOTE]
It's still doing shitty things, even if it is with a good(???) intention.
[QUOTE=St33m;53101656]This is the worst timeline. Not only is the common masses totally apathetic towards science and the mutual destiny of mankind, despite having the greatest accumulative knowledge in human history right within their grasp- We've also devolved into moralistic stifling of art and self-expression in the name of condescending 'protection' from things that might arbitrarily offend us.[/QUOTE]
I think this statement is collectively projecting an idea that only exists as a vocal minority. We're still progressing at incredible rates in the private sector towards things that were only science fiction 10 years ago.
Alongside that this second wave of Feminism, while having its faults, is definitely more progressive towards women being allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies and themselves.
However, the media still wants us to think otherwise. We haven't gone backwards it's just [I]the old coots that held these conservative mindsets are [B]still here.[/B][/I]
The removal of historic pieces under the guise of removing objectification of women is some fucking backwards doublethink though. This gallery is baiting for sensationalism too.
There's a mix of mindsets coming through and no definitive voice. While a lot of individuals are promoting freedom of expression, freedom of the body and so forth, a lot of institutions are actively dismantling this freedom under the guise progressiveness despite doing the opposite in the process, and in this case through historical revision. "There was no objectification in the past! Look, we removed this painting of Nymphs to prove it!!" Same thing is happening in the removal of pit girls from F1. A lot of pit girls are pissed off at that but the institution surrounding it is making a blanket decision based on progressivisim.
Lot of buzzwords in this post but I can't think of a way to put it across without using them :v:
[QUOTE=MrHeadHopper;53102740]It's still doing shitty things, even if it is with a good(???) intention.[/QUOTE]
It's not getting the correct reaction in this thread.
People saying pc has gone mad have gone mad.
This isn't an act of censorship, this is to get people interested in the history and context of art and how it should be viewed under a modern lens.
[QUOTE=LaughingStock;53102863]This isn't an act of censorship, this is to get people interested in the history and context of art and how it should be viewed under a modern lens.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, you guys act like this is some political agenda but it's a pretty obvious thinly veiled publicity stunt.
[quote]some of his paintings leave people uncomfortable and he has been accused of being one step away from a pornographer.[/quote]
Why not demolish the Sistine Chapel while you're at it you iconoclastic wankers
The gallery should fire whichever retard honestly suggested this.
The problem with galleries is they end up run by these pretentious idiots with their liberals arts student tier philosophy.
[editline]2nd February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paramud;53102928]Yeah, you guys act like this is some political agenda but it's a pretty obvious thinly veiled publicity stunt.[/QUOTE]
Publicity for what? It's a publicly owned gallery, it's not exactly like they can profit from this.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;53103221]Publicity for what? It's a publicly owned gallery, it's not exactly like they can profit from this.[/QUOTE]
You say that as though they don't benefit from having more people visit the museum.
[QUOTE=Paramud;53103302]You say that as though they don't benefit from having more people visit the museum.[/QUOTE]
Well they don't if they piss people off, and thus people don't donate. These galleries don't charge for entry so they don't get any cash unless people donate. Generally annoying people with your ridiculous politics doesn't endear people towards donating.
[QUOTE=Timof2009;53101643]Honestly removal isn't enough, they really gotta just destroy these misogynistic antiquated pieces all-together.
I mean look at this heap of trash:
[IMG]https://marinasps.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/venus-of-urbino-tiziano-titian-vecellio.jpg[/IMG]
It [I]Obviously[/I] objectifies women as mere objects for sexual fantasy. It in no way comments on what their society considers beautiful. Heck the woman is just a porn-star as seen as her pleasuring herself. It is not even outlining any romantic or intimate relationship between the subject and audience at all. And it is called some flowery name like [I]The Venus of Urbino[/I] just to lull you into a false sense of "artistry".
It even compares woman on the same levels as canines since they are on the same bed. Absolutely no sense of loyalty here in the painting. The pose is just a classic, sexist, nude. Hopefully one day we can purge the world of these eye sores.
/s[/QUOTE]
Is that bitch in the back ground puking in that trunk?
All the hot cam girls of the time had puke trunks.
Conversation?
Conversation about what, the fact that you're promoting censorship?
Whats with the english and gigantic fear of anything remotely sex related? First the porn-registry thing and now this? Why not have a discussion by inviting people to discuss it, instead of just removing it? This picture is also really tame, even in historical context.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
