I think the idea that this piece should not be displayed is pretty puritanical. I think the questions it raises are interesting ones: if this is sexualized, why is it? Nothing she is doing is inherently sexual, but we as a viewer bring our views of sexuality when perceiving it. Does it make you feel like a voyeur, and if so, why? Why can a boy do this pose and not a girl? If we have decided as a society that this is sexual, then how sad is it that such a young girl must worry about being looked upon that way despite such a basic pose?
I agree with you here but sadly this is hard to discuss on here in my opinion. The art in itself is not sexual but rather the viewer and the surrounding society make it sexual. Outside of it she simply sits there in a specific pose that we, coming from out society view as sexual or provoking, despite this not having to be the case. Of course we have the artist saying that it was his intention to make us uncomfortable and portray it as sexual, which is important of course.
In itself the picture is not sexual, I can see the sexual aspects but at it's core it is a girl sitting on a chair in a specific pose. Simply seeing her underwear doesn't make it sexual, same as the naked body in itself is not sexual.
There really isn't any reason to have a painting of a little girl exposing her panties around. At the end of the day that is exactly what the painting is. I can see why and agree with people wanting it taken down.
Maybe have a private sector for these kinds of questionable pieces if you MUST display them.
Ignoring something doesn't make it go away and art should always be free to use its means to show us a mirror, offer critic or other important actions we normally wouldn't take.
I understand that people find it uncomfortable, but that was obviously the intention with this painting. Simply removing it from being viewed is a wrong stance to take on this issue. Rather educate your society to critical analyze something and make an intelligent decision how to view it. Even if you find it disgusting that doesn't change the value or art technique or commentary on society.
Of course I agree with a detailing plaque at the side to illustrate the intention behind the painting and providing additional information.
I didn't really see it as sexual when I first saw it, but it was very much intended to be so... you should look up more of Balthus's work...
I understand what he means, at its core it is not a sexual action that the girl takes. We as the viewer and society give it the sexual meaning we then view. Hopefully this is understandable. I consider this an important layer for a discussion to better understand other people, because everybody has different values and views and only through agreeing on a reality we actually can communicate with each other.
Of course, as you had in mind, the artist clearly wanted this painting to have a sexual undertone or intention to make people uncomfortable, to provoke dialogue, etc. .
Same goes for language by the way, depending on the value we assign specific words the meaning of a phrase changes even if at its core you are just "This book is black". If black now is valued positive or negative then the value of the book itself changes.
