• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Saya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,972
The New York Times

The Metropolitan Museum of Art will not remove a controversial painting by the French painter known as Balthus from public display.

The painting, entitled "Thérèse Dreaming" (1938), depicts a young girl in a suggestive pose that leaves her underwear visible.

An online petition containing over 8,000 signatures on Monday urged the museum to rethink its decision to include the painting in its offerings.

"Given the current climate around sexual assault and allegations that become more public each day, in showcasing this work for the masses, The Met is romanticizing voyeurism and the objectification of children," it reads.

In reference to the museum's decision, the Met's chief communications officer, Ken Weine, said, "Moments such as this provide an opportunity for conversation, and visual art is one of the most significant means we have for reflecting on both the past and the present and encouraging the continuing evolution of existing culture through informed discussion and respect for creative expression."

The petition's author, Mia Merrill, suggested that the painting be replaced by a painting by a female painter from the same time period as Balthus, who died in 2001.

Ms. Merrill also insisted she was not trying to encourage censorship. "But the blatant objectification and sexualization of a child is where I draw the line," Ms. Merrill said by phone on Friday.

"Thérèse Dreaming" is not the only painting by Balthus, born Balthasar Klossowski, that portrays girls and adolescents in a controversial manner. "Girl with Cat," which is on view at the Art Institute of Chicago, uses the same subject and pose as "Thérèse Dreaming," while his painting "Young Girl in a White Shirt" shows a teenager with her breasts exposed.

Ms. Merrill said that she was not creating petitions to remove any other paintings by Balthus nor was she planning, at the moment, to protest any other works.

Online petition

When I went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art this past weekend, I was shocked to see a painting that depicts a young girl in a sexually suggestive pose. Balthus' painting, Thérèse Dreaming, is an evocative portrait of a prepubescent girl relaxing on a chair with her legs up and underwear exposed.

It is disturbing that the Met would proudly display such an image. They are a renowned institution and one of the largest, most respected art museums in the United States. The artist of this painting, Balthus, had a noted infatuation with pubescent girls, and it can be strongly argued that this painting romanticizes the sexualization of a child.

In 2013, the Met hosted the exhibit "Balthus: Cats and Girls—Paintings and Provocations," which included more of Balthus' overtly pedophilic work. As the Guardian wrote: "The Met, not imprudently, has put a plaque at the start of the show that reads: "Some of the paintings in this exhibition may be disturbing to some visitors." If The Met had the wherewithal to reference the disturbing nature of Balthus for this exhibit, they understand the implications of displaying his art as a part of their permanent collection.

Given the current climate around sexual assault and allegations that become more public each day, in showcasing this work for the masses without providing any type of clarification, The Met is, perhaps unintentionally, supporting voyeurism and the objectification of children.

I am not asking for this painting to be censored, destroyed or never seen again. I am asking The Met to seriously consider the implications of hanging particular pieces of art on their walls, and to be more conscientious in how they contextualize those pieces to the masses. This can be accomplished by either removing the piece from that particular gallery, or providing more context in the painting's description. For example, a line as brief as, "some viewers find this piece offensive or disturbing, given Balthus' artistic infatuation with young girls."

Ultimately, this is a small ask considering how expansive the Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection is (they can easily hang up another painting), how overtly sexual the painting is (the Met's description of the piece provides no background on Balthus or his reputation), and the current news headlines highlighting a macro issue about the safety and wellbeing of women of all ages.

Please sign this petition if you agree that the Met needs to reconsider the way it is displaying Balthus' suggestive, Thérèse Dreaming. I will be sending a letter to the museum alongside these signatures.

05Balthus-superJumbo.jpg
 

Viewt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,806
Chicago, IL
Adding some extra language to the description sounds reasonable. There's nothing wrong with adding context to how we view art.
 

GenericForumName

Banned for suspected use of alt account
Banned
Nov 26, 2017
261
I shudder to think how these people would react to a typical anime. They'd probably explode.

Anyway, this Balthus dude sure was something. I suggest you don't try to google his works if you are sensitive to drawings of naked little girls.
 

Nisaba

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,942
Canada
Adding context about Balthus (and his..."fascinations") in the description for something like this, at the least, seems more than reasonable.
 

Lord Brady

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
8,392
User Warned: You're talking about an underage girl here, have more class.
Is it 'cause you can see her pussy?

Lol got a warning for making an obvious joke about the cat in the room with her. Holy shit.
 
Last edited:

jph139

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,379
Not particularly out of line when it comes to Balthus. I mean, look up Guitar Lesson sometime (but definitely not at work).

Does the Met have a room for "controversial" art that they can move it to? Something with a blanket warning in front? It's not like a disclaimer would do any good if it's in the general galleries.

Definitely raises questions, for me at least, about where the line is drawn for artistic display. When does "painting of eroticized prepubescent" cross the line into tastelessness?
 
Oct 27, 2017
6,745
Yes folks, an upskirt painting of a child is in fact suggestive.

I agree with adding additional language.

I shudder to think how these people would react to a typical anime. They'd probably explode.

Anyway, this Balthus dude sure was something. I suggest you don't try to google his works if you are sensitive to drawings of naked little girls.
Says more about anime, than anything else.
 

uzipukki

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,722
Nah, I'll allow it. Art has always had more leeway with its subject matters.
 
Oct 28, 2017
664
Considering how waifish many women look nowadays, I wouldn't view this and automatically assume it's an underage girl.
 

nemoral

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,081
Fiddler's Green
Seems like a pretty reasonable request, to further contextualize the works. The reporting on the petition has been awful, completely ignoring what it says in favor of a narrative that it's demanding the painting be removed.
 

Red Cadet 015

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,947
Yeah... He knew what he was doing. I know it's sexist, but a man can pose like this and have it not be sexual. A woman can't, especially with a skirt on.

Edit: Jesus Christ don't Google this dude. Definitely NSFW. Actually this thread itself needs to probably be NSFW.
 

Mechanized

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,442
Not all art is art. This is a pedo painting his fantasies. Who knows what kinda gross shit he was up to in his heyday.
 

Crocks

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
963
"Ms. Merrill also insisted she was not trying to encourage censorship." Yeah, they never are.

Art isn't supposed to just be things you like. A lot of fantastic artists have dubious subjects - often that's what makes them fantastic. Gauguin ran off to Tahiti and became a mad paedo artist, but his artwork is still studied because of its artistic merit.
 

clearacell

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,657
Suggestive is a stretch, if I see that picture, no context whatsoever, I would see it as a picture of a tomboy and her cat.

Adding a description for it is probably the best solution for this.
 

Palette Swap

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
11,213
Sounds reasonable tbh. It's exactly a museum's purpose to exhibit, contextualize and comment on whatever is valuable to understanding art history (or history through art). So yeah, adding a plaque makes perfect sense.

That is suggestive???

I guess it speaks more of the viewer than the art itself.
No need to be a jerk about it. It's fine that you don't see it, but don't insult people who think this is a problem worth discussing. To get some perspective, ask yourself why the Met put a plaque about this during their temporary exhibition.
 

Mr. Poolman

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
6,989
Sounds reasonable tbh. It's exactly a museum's purpose to exhibit, contextualize and comment on whatever is valuable to understanding art history (or history through art). So yeah, adding a plaque makes perfect sense.


No need to be a jerk about it. It's fine that you don't see it, but don't insult people who think this is a problem worth discussing. To get some perspective, ask yourself why the Met put a plaque about this during their temporary exhibition.
Fair enough.

My apologies.
 

nemoral

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,081
Fiddler's Green
Not all art is art. This is a pedo painting his fantasies. Who knows what kinda gross shit he was up to in his heyday.
If Balthus is to be believed, the works are not erotic, but they are intended to make you uncomfortable. One of the themes he found interesting was the discomfort we have regarding the sexuality of children. I'm kind of skeeved out about the painting personally, but I think rather than a removal, or just hanging the paintings, the museum should consider a fuller dialogue regarding Balthus, his stated intent, and what critics have said about his body of work. Whether that's done as a few lines in the plaque, or as a larger effort -- say a museum presentation regarding the controversy -- I think it's a more reasonable response than removing a painting from a museum.
 

BlackSalad

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,225
Careful if you go looking at the artists other work, jesus christ. In context with his other paintings, I can see why this painting could be questioned
 

Dude Abides

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,382
Yes, they do look waifish nowadays. Maybe not from where you are, but certainly around my way. The thin, underaged look is in.

Thin has always been in. How does someone go about looking underaged? That girl looks 12-14.

Also, as mentioned, the painting is from 1938, so even if your assertion about all the waifs in your life wasn't weird, it still wouldn't make any sense.
 

sleepInsom

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,569
Suggestive is a stretch, if I see that picture, no context whatsoever, I would see it as a picture of a tomboy and her cat.

Adding a description for it is probably the best solution for this.

Knowing nothing about him and this piece of art, it did creep me out. A painter doesn't randomly depict a little girl with her legs open like that for no reason.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,676
London
The painter has problems, I'm not sure people should be displaying his work because it's basically grot.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,538
"Ms. Merrill also insisted she was not trying to encourage censorship." Yeah, they never are.

. The old "WELL I don't want to promote censorship but _______ is over the line!" line of reasoning bugs me. It's so easy to insert whatever hot button issue into that.

"This is a small ask given how many paintings they have" is a pretty lame attempt to soften the tone of the demand too.
 

Shoeless

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,000
I'm just waiting for Roy Moore to announce that he is proud and happy and bring this painting over to an art museum in Montgomery where true God Fearing Folk can appreciate its themes and technical virtuosity.
 

Kmonk

#TeamThierry
Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,695
US
Yeah
Nah, I'll allow it. Art has always had more leeway with its subject matters.

Yeah, context is everything with art. I think I would really start to get nervous if we started removing paintings with subject matter we now view as controversial or inappropriate- slavery, misogyny, violence, sexuality...

Art is an important part of understanding these concepts, and how they have shaped society. The caveat is that the museum needs to provide background on the artists and their time periods in order to provide a complete picture.

Wasn't this the lesson we learned from the confederate statue controversy? Where and how art is presented makes all the difference in how we understand its meaning.
 

s_mirage

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,773
Birmingham, UK
"I'm not trying to encourage censorship but..." is always the line that people encouraging censorship take. I'm not a fan of Balthus's work from an aesthetic perspective, and I understand why some people could find it uncomfortable, but it's important that art can be challenging and provocative, and does not require the approval of some self appointed committee for public morals and taste.
 

Anna

Banned for suspected use of alt account
Banned
Nov 25, 2017
113
"Nude women are only Art if there's an urn in it"
 

kambaybolongo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,059
Yeah


Yeah, context is everything with art. I think I would really start to get nervous if we started removing paintings with subject matter we now view as controversial or inappropriate- slavery, misogyny, violence, sexuality...

Art is an important part of understanding these concepts, and how they have shaped society. The caveat is that the museum needs to provide background on the artists and their time periods in order to provide a complete picture.

Wasn't this the lesson we learned from the confederate statue controversy? Where and how art is presented makes all the difference in how we understand its meaning.

Confederate statues are propaganda more than art
 

Dyle

One Winged Slayer
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
29,944
Yeah Balthus did some very weird/uncomfortable paintings, nothing wrong with adding context. It isn't nearly obscene enough to justify removal, so it's good that, contrary to the headline, they're calling for context more than removal. His works are great precisely because they put you on edge and force you to confront situations which we feel socially obligated to hate so it would be a shame for visitors to miss out on such a difficult piece presented with full context
 
Oct 27, 2017
10,660
Don't display shit like this. No reason to give it a venue. It has no merit outside of the infamy of the artist. It's neither technically original, compositionally exceptional, or aesthetically important enough to be on display. What it is, is controversial, and that alone is not enough.
 

resident_UA

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,400
So we are really doing this? We are going back to censoring? Why?! Who has ever benefited from censorship? We are learning wrong lessons...
 

Bufbaf

Don't F5!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,664
Hamburg, Germany
If Balthus is to be believed, the works are not erotic, but they are intended to make you uncomfortable. One of the themes he found interesting was the discomfort we have regarding the sexuality of children. I'm kind of skeeved out about the painting personally, but I think rather than a removal, or just hanging the paintings, the museum should consider a fuller dialogue regarding Balthus, his stated intent, and what critics have said about his body of work. Whether that's done as a few lines in the plaque, or as a larger effort -- say a museum presentation regarding the controversy -- I think it's a more reasonable response than removing a painting from a museum.
I'm agreeing with this post. I do think it's a pretty cool piece of art, viewed through this lens. I'd probably even hang it on the wall if I had this. But I can totally see how it makes people uncomfortable and it probably shouldn't be shown without any context or explanation in a public gallery space between completely innocuous other pieces.
 

Hat22

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,652
Canada
Confederate statues are propaganda more than art

Propaganda is art?

So we are really doing this? We are going back to censoring? Why?! Who has ever benefited from censorship? We are learning wrong lessons...

People want things that they personally don't like to be annihilated. I've never understood that. These things can just be ignored.

I wouldn't ban it, I just wouldn't display it myself, I don't see what boundaries are being pushed as the work itself doesn't appear to be particularly impressive.

The subject matter is the boundary being pushed.
 

incogneato

Self Requested Ban
Member
Nov 8, 2017
1,119
Explicitly pedophilic and no pretentious "description" of what "feelings" this work is supposed to elicit will change it.
 

SliceSabre

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,556
I don't get it. I mean I don't see anything wrong with the painting in and of itself. Hell I didn't even know it was a little girl. I just thought it was a lady leaning back in her seat relaxing/taking a nap while her cat drank some milk. I would have never thought it was something suggestive despite that fact I feel I'm pretty good at spotting that sort of thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.