My question was not unrealistic nor ridiculous. The reasons I'm supportive of the Met does not amount to "glorifying" child sex.
Met Defends Suggestive Painting of Girl After Petition Calls for Its Removal
- Thread starter Saya
- Start date
- Status
My question was not unrealistic nor ridiculous. The reasons I'm supportive of the Met does not amount to "glorifying" child sex.
No, its not shock art. Its a love letter to child sex. The guy was a full blown pedo.
Right... it has been over 15 years since my art history class at this point but wasn't the point of a lot of balthus's work to provoke uncomfort and a discussion? His work was hugely influential and while I wouldn't hang Guitar Lesson in my house i think his contribution and influence on art is notable.
have any links on that? I remember he was married twice but I am pretty sure they were adults?
I don't think his is really a constructive conversation. And he was hardly the only influence among his cohort.
Here's what could be a hot take:
https://www.villagevoice.com/2013/10/16/ol-dirty-master-the-discomforts-of-balthus/
Might be I see it as a shadow or clothing fold of her underwear. How does a "camel-toe" even work without skintight clothing and/or pulling the fabric?
I slightly agree with you here. Especially if you know Nazi history, etc. . Banning art in any form is never a good look. Adding context and information is what I prefer.
I slightly agree here, but it is a difficult topic. I can understand why others have a problem with it being displayed, yet I would not advocate for an outright ban.
Of course, adding a text next to his paintings is totally fine. Explaining context, intention of the author, interpretation of experts, life of the artist, etc. . I would like to know all this if I view or analyze a painting.
It will remain questionable how the artist was and if we should ban it if he was in fact a pedophile.
I would be honestly interested, where do we stop if an artist did something horrible, repulsive, disgusting, etc.? When do we start banning art of an artist and who gets to decide that?
What people want is additional details about the authors work by experts, details about his life and what we know so people better understand a painting.
Of course a painting should be viewed first and then you read about it. Seeing it without any information gives you a better reaction and impression of it. If you already know information about it then your view becomes biased and taints the painting.
We did unfiltered viewing of paintings in art class in school, therefore I very much support it. Of course we learned all the information afterwards and viewed it in the context of it.
Not sure someone that is easily offended should visit an art museum though, you can and should but be prepared. Art generally can be offending depending on multiple factors. Being offended also depends a lot on subjective viewpoints and is hard to avoid outside of general society outlines we have established.
Basic example could be: I might be offended by male genitalia and should prepare myself if I visit an exhibit about male models in art, because for sure naked males will show up in some form.
His reasoning makes sense, sounds well articulated and sound. Still, does this small article not prove there actually is something to learn from these paintings, weather it be technical details or how information is transmitted in different mediums (underlying, out in the open, around the back, etc.). Now I would like more opinions and analysis from different persons with different views.
Would prefer if it was an actual paper though and not some small article on a website without any good sources. But that is just me being a student again.
Still, article reminds me of exams I had in art class back in school, always interesting to write about a painting and analyze it.
I can't say, it just doesn't at all, the thought didn't enter my mind once until I read the article. How old do you think they're supposed to be?
I support Ken Weine in this case. Dislike it and express your opinion about that topic but somehow whitewashing the work of a famous and influencial artist like Balthus is the wrong way to do anything.
Definitely not then, 14-15 at a stretch but no way 10. If you compare the girl in the painting with actual 10 year olds you can see she looks much older: https://www.famousbirthdays.com/age/10.html
Err, you asked me a question and I answered it, it's called having a conversation? But for some reason you seem to be getting hostile towards me so lets just drop it, I won't reply to you again.
"With closed eyes, Balthus's pubescent model is lost in thought. Thérèse Blanchard, who was about twelve or thirteen at the time this picture was made, and her brother Hubert were neighbors of Balthus in Paris. She appears alone, with her cat, or with her brother in a series of eleven paintings done between 1936 and 1939."
Definitely a child. And this painting was in 1938, so he was doing paintings of her when she was 10 - 11.
...Married men can't be pedophiles or child molesters?
Yeah. She's undeniably a child on the painting anyway.
Fact is she's under age and tracking down a collage of 10 year olds to argue about it weirds me out.
There's a great article on a Balthus Met show in the New Yorker: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/07/in-the-head
I just find most layman art criticism to be too vague or lazy. What's exactly the matter with Jackson Pollack? Who are "his type"? What solid-color paintings are you talking about? Mark Rothko? Barnett Newman? The Color Field movement is 70 years old! At the time, it was a bold new direction, and it was a very interesting period, but like any, ran its course. Frank Stella once tagged along behind a tour group at a museum show. A woman complained that his paintings were boring. Stella said, "Lady, you think they're boring to look at, you should try painting them." Duchamp's urinal was literally 100 years ago. How slow is this poison working? The Petra statue doesn't impress or shock me; it feels incomplete and its purpose unsure. An artist wants a reaction from the viewer, oftentimes a negative one. I don't care what people dislike, but I think lumping everything they don't as "modern art/avant garde," dismissing visionary or difficult work, or not properly considering the atmosphere it was created in or its cultural impact does a disservice to the work and cheats oneself of knowledge.
Of course they can.... but since we have interviews with his models who say he never molested them i'd like to see someone link to actual abuse if he actually was a molester.
A museum should be free to display whatever the curator demands. What's next, we stop Alien from being shown in theater or we close down the Giger museum because of the "rapy" undertones of the movie and its art?
Reminds me of something that happened in my county, Italy, a year ago, when naked classical statues were covered when the Iranian president visited the Musei Capitolini. Clearly it was done because it was thought that the statues would be perceived as offensive. I'm confident that many people in here would disagree about their being offensive. What is deemed offensive varies from culture to culture, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of art which in itself does not imply anything. If we were to chase what society or a group of people deems offensive we would be covering and uncovering different paintings, statues and so on every day.
Reminds me of something that happened in my county, Italy, a year ago, when naked classical statues were covered when the Iranian president visited the Musei Capitolini. Clearly it was done because it was thought that the statues would be perceived as offensive. I'm confident that many people in here would disagree about their being offensive. What is deemed offensive varies from culture to culture, but at the end of the day it's just a piece of art which in itself does not imply anything. If we were to chase what society or a group of people deems offensive we would be covering and uncovering different paintings, statues and so on every day.
Last edited:
You're free to feel that I'm a lazy layman. Your opinion of my stance doesn't much affect how I feel. As for Jackson Pollock, I'll never see value in someone who dumps, splatters, and splashed paint and calls it a work of art. Artist of solid color paintings- take your pick. If you present a square canvas that looks like a paint swatch at Lowe's, then I see no value or purpose. I certainly don't think that it should be sold for any substantial amount of money. I bring up Duchamp because it's the same attitude. Giving me a piece of ready made art (like a urinal), or an empty room (presented as an installation), or a painting that is essentially a paint swatch and calling it art or saying that it has a purpose? That's absurd.
I don't lump everything in as avant garde or modern art, so you're mistaken, there. I don't like the attitude or mindset of them, that if you don't understand it or find value in it, that there must be something wrong with your perspective. That attitude is why I brought up avant garde and "modern art," because I believe this is also an artist trying to invent some artificial purpose to his paintings. Looking at his body of work, I don't believe him. It seems like he just wants to paint little girls in compromising positions.
If you disagree, that's fine. It's obvious that neither of us are going to change our minds about this.
You're right. That was juvenile and shitty. My bad.
Still, despite being about a pedophile I'd say calling it a pedophile book a little reductive.
Balthus was definitely a pedophile. If he ever went as far as to commit a crime on his perversion is unknown (AFAIK), but in his own words, he had no interest in teenaged and older girls. According to him, adolescence ruined their natural, angelic innocence.
The artistic merits of his work are a different topic. But he definitely felt an attraction towards very young girls.
The artistic merits of his work are a different topic. But he definitely felt an attraction towards very young girls.
Last edited:
After googling his work seems to me that the man was a pedo, a talented one but still a pedo. It's not just paintings of innocent scenes involving underage girls, there are some that suggest prostitution or at least old men involved in some sexual activities with them.
OP
OP
I don't like the implication, and that's not what I was doing at all, I even put an end to the pointless conversation when I saw where it was headed. All I said was when looking at the painting without context I never would have thought it was a child model, nothing more, but people love to twist other peoples words, apparently.
Nabokov wrote Lolita so he could contrast beautiful language with horrifically taboo subject matter. Further, I'm aware of both of these, but it doesn't change Humbert's pinings for an underaged girl and his subsequent intercourse with her. This directly means it deals with pedophilic subject matter. I never said the book promotes pedophilia. :/
From the same article:
Here's the picture in question:
So... no, clearly the artist was a pedophile. But with that said, the MET made the right choice, artistic expression should not be censured.
Image hidden by a moderator.
Here's the picture in question:
So... no, clearly the artist was a pedophile. But with that said, the MET made the right choice, artistic expression should not be censured.
Image hidden by a moderator.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I'll always advocate for the portrayal of difficult art or subjects. Pretty sure most people know that the museum displaying this painting doesn't constitute and endorsement any more than WWII photography romanticizes genocide.
Having these things in a place where people are exposed to them prompts discussion, and that might be more important now than ever.
Having these things in a place where people are exposed to them prompts discussion, and that might be more important now than ever.
Lets not pretend that painting that is in the cannon of western art has the same intention as things made solely for the purpose of making money through entertaining.
People often jump to the fallacy that because everything is art, all art is epistemologically equal as a matter of an individual opinion regardless of the experience and knowledge of that individual. This is a gross fallacy that only appears to have so much weight because of it is massively reinforced through through prohibitively expensive advertising. Entertainments sole purpose is to reinforce the values of it demographic it panders to while art challenges it.
I'm seeing that the vast majority of people in this thread it would appear through the things being said are coming from a place where the vast majority of constructed images they've been introduced to are there to make them feel good. this feels right to them. It feels proper and the way it should be. When confronted with an image that in no way is meant to make them feel that way, and in fact makes them feel gross they blame the image. An image cannot make you feel gross, you brought that to the image. It is challenging you to question why and not only are you not interested, you think it shouldn't be made to question it. This painting and artist is coming from a place where that's line of questioning is bullshit and you're view will always be diametrically opposed. Ban it, hide it, destroy it, you won't forget about it even if you reject it's question.
People often jump to the fallacy that because everything is art, all art is epistemologically equal as a matter of an individual opinion regardless of the experience and knowledge of that individual. This is a gross fallacy that only appears to have so much weight because of it is massively reinforced through through prohibitively expensive advertising. Entertainments sole purpose is to reinforce the values of it demographic it panders to while art challenges it.
I'm seeing that the vast majority of people in this thread it would appear through the things being said are coming from a place where the vast majority of constructed images they've been introduced to are there to make them feel good. this feels right to them. It feels proper and the way it should be. When confronted with an image that in no way is meant to make them feel that way, and in fact makes them feel gross they blame the image. An image cannot make you feel gross, you brought that to the image. It is challenging you to question why and not only are you not interested, you think it shouldn't be made to question it. This painting and artist is coming from a place where that's line of questioning is bullshit and you're view will always be diametrically opposed. Ban it, hide it, destroy it, you won't forget about it even if you reject it's question.
Last edited:
How does that picture clearly show that? Cos it doesn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you seeing the same painting as me? Cus that painting looks dodgy as fuck
----------------------------
Also not everything should be deemed as art. Even more so when it seems the guy was a paedo
Oh sorry, I was not aware it was supposed to be an autoportrait, that changes EVERYTHING.
I mean, the dude might have been a pedo and there are much better arguments for that earlier in the thread, but a picture suggesting rape does not equal condoning the act. But sure, let's ban everything.
It's suggesting sexual act going on right? Dude in just a gown. Young girl with her clothes falling off. Any sexual act with a underage girl is rape.
You then add all the other paintings he did. It doesn't take much to think that this dude is a sick fuck
So it's suggesting a sex act. So fucking what.
I don't get the question.
I don't think that's a self-portrait. None of the photos of the artist match that guy.
I was being sarcastic, sorry if it wasn't clear. I don't like using /s
Sure. This is not sarcasm btw. I truly dgaf. I would mind if he abused the models, but it has been shown he hasn't.
The cat is omnipresent in Balthus' work. The loss of a cat inspired his first art. It's kind of ironic that you are seeing a sexual aspect of the painting that isn't there because of your own cultural knowledge. There's no "camel toe," either.
Most definitely. I think we can look at his work with a modern understanding and see that, and we can discard his more overt paintings as trash, and still find merit in others.
Again, you're seeing things that aren't there. She's not getting "fingered." There's plenty of legitimate criticism to make of that painting without misrepresenting it.
Dismissing Jackson Pollock or Frank Stella as you do, I wonder if you've actually seen their work in person? It's easy to misunderstand work seen as a 2-inch picture in a book. Pollock's paintings are huge! You're not looking at a picture of something in a moment in time, you're seeing the process of painting itself. Pollock used common housepaint, a new medium to the art world. How he painted was just as important, standing over the canvas, using gravity. Look at Stella's "blank" paintings and you see careful and precise brush strokes creating paintings within the painting. You've had a lifetime to see a century's worth of "modern artists" works in books and call it all boring and without value or purpose, but at the time it was revolutionary. What art/artists do you like?
- Status