I apologize, I might have missed or misunderstood it due to it being pretty late. Wasn't my intention to overlook what you said.
I wouldn't either, not my content or style.
-
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.
Met Defends Suggestive Painting of Girl After Petition Calls for Its Removal
- Thread starter Saya
- Start date
- Status
User Warning: personal attack by insinuating a users avatar in relation to CP paintings
I doubt this has anything to do with this thread. My Avatar contains nothing offensive as far as I am aware.
If I moderator wants me to change it I am always open to discussion about it and a possible change if someone has an issue with it.
Therefore I would appreciate it if you would not step down to personal attacks and rather focus on the thread and actually contribute to the discussion at hand.
There is no overreaction. I just don't like the hidden intention he displays.
If he has a problem contact me and not just quote my avatar, which adds nothing to this thread.
Sorry for the off-topic posts, wasn't my intention.
I think just using the whole umbrella of art works in general. For painting, look at jackson pollock and his type, or the ones who present a canvas that is just one solid color. Sculpture, look at things like "Peeing Policewoman" or a ton of installations like people who basically just drop off different colors of wood. I've seen so much terrible modern art. I don't remember the names, and I don't care to research them. And I'd like to say that I don't think that every artist is degenerate, so don't take it as that. I just feel like "avant garde" types and people following the example of duchamp have slowly been poisoning the art world.
Why would an artist paint, sculpt, or perform anything with the purpose of making people uncomfortable? To make me aware and uncomfortable with child sexuality? I already am uncomfortable with that. Is it to desensitize people so they accept it? I don't believe that's a very noble or worthwhile endeavor.
Edit: Are you defending art as a whole? I'm not really attacking art as a whole.
I feel like the logic being used here is akin to someone walking into a library and being shocked that its collection has "Lolita."
The subject matter in Lolita is absolutely pedophilic, the reason it's so lauded is the beauty of its prose.
I don't think you've read Lolita.
See how productive this type of posting is?
Oh, of course. I'm not saying "Lolita" and this work are the same in terms of authorial intent, I'm just saying that in places of art, you're bound to find something that feels like it crosses your personal boundaries. But, from there, your action shouldn't be asking for its removal. The complainer's other course of action, asking for a plaque or something to explain its significance in this time, also doesn't feel right, because it betrays the painter's intent. Balthus didn't paint this as a reaction to the events unfolding now nor was he likely aware of i happening in his timet. It's just an unfortunate recontextualization of a piece, but that doesn't mean the piece gets to have its entire meaning changed.
At the end of the day, it comes down to intent for me. Balthus says he didn't paint these works with pedophilic intent, rather choosing to explore an uncomfortable topic in modern society. A work that was created without this intent shouldn't be redefined as a work with it.
Removing the art? I don't support.
Expansion on the context of the artist? Absolutely. He seems creepy as hell to me. Definitely gonna investigate his intent.
Expansion on the context of the artist? Absolutely. He seems creepy as hell to me. Definitely gonna investigate his intent.
We still can consider it a success as it has started an art debate on this forum. I consider this something positive and note worthy as it enriches the life's of many users.
I never read it but even if the prose would not have been good I would never consider to simply burn a book as it symbolizes lost knowledge in the end. Eventually any book will have some use and can contribute to the cycle of knowledge in society. It's topic may be delicate and problematic but that should not push somebody away, same goes for art. We grow as we confront these issues and talk about it.
Of course, good prose is always a treat to read and insightful if analyzed.
Edit:
Edited this in because I agree and it is a very sensible post in this thread. Especially the recontextualization is important in my opinion as the artist could have no knowledge about our time. Therefore it is always important to keep the time where somebody lived in mind when analyzing a piece of art.
I feel like the problem is that Merrill put out a very provocative statement but has since walked it back so everyone's confused. If you go by the title of the petition and the contents of the New York Times article she clearly wanted the Balthus painting removed from the Met and replaced with a female contemporary. Now she just wants the Met to contextualize the piece but she can't unring the art censorship bell by editing the wording of the petition as her mind changes.
They should definitely consider retouching the painting and putting a diaper on her too.
Sounds more like you want to exchange one fetish for another...
Is there a line when it comes to art? What if this painter had depicted an explicit scene of an underaged girl and a man having coitus, would it be okay to hang in a museum? That painting looks very similar to the kind of borderline legal shit that pedophiles pass around to each other.
Saw that on Balthus' Wikipedia article and I'm struggling to see how it isn't akin to artsy painted child pornography.
Saw that on Balthus' Wikipedia article and I'm struggling to see how it isn't akin to artsy painted child pornography.
I would rather they remove it then adding an explanation from the museum. It's not the job of the museum to add context to artwork.
Yes it is. That's the central part of its job. That's the purposeful distinction that makes it a museum rather than an art gallery.
Looking at some of his other art, it reminds me of loli, except he isn't bullshitting around the fact that the subject is a child in a sexual manner, and he has some greater intent behind his work. I'm against the removal of a work, but I'd support some warnings to viewers of the work. It's subject matter is controversial as hell, and in my opinion, disturbing.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Only if you can the intellectually dishonest comparisons when discussing issues :)
My class got raided when we studied Baroque art, too many putti everywhere
Museums are happy to draw lines and offer full trigger warnings when it comes to clear obscenity, i.e. Mappelthorpe and other sexually explicit photographers, but Balthus' work, even Guitar Lesson which is by far his most explicit, would only rarely receive that kind of treatment. The Met's current label is lacking and does need to be improved, simply because their terse two sentences don't explain all that well his particular interest in forcing viewers to deal with uncomfortable images. The simple reason that it isn't artsy child porn is because no one, not the artist, not the galleries that house his paintings, or the museum visitors view it as such, if anyone genuinely was titillated by his work then perhaps it would be a different story.
How can you not see it? There's a distinct line running right down the middle of her crotch.
Tbh I can't speak to the point the artist was trying to make. It just grosses me out.
Of course they shouldn't be forced to add anything but lots of museums have blurbs next to art pieces. Audio tours as well.
There is a difference between a book and a painting though. A painting in a museum you see at once, probably without warning. A book you have to choose to pick up and read.
User Warning: insinuating people are sexually repressed for feeling disturbed at questionable art
Pretty sure it's just the crease of her shorts.
There's nothing wrong with the picture, people are just overly sensitive and sexually repressed, can't handle a girl sat in a particular pose yet consume untold amounts of questionable anime. Ridiculous.
Spoilers the people who are talking about how this is a sexualized painting of a child (which the painter has literally admitted is what he was doing with his works) aren't likely the ones who watch questionable anime... not sure why you;re making that connection.
I really don't consider it all that suggestive, it's not like she's nude or even partially nude and the panties while visible are done fairly tastefully.
it's a character study. It's not really lauded because of the "beauty of it's prose", it's about the protagonist falling in love with a girl and trying to rationalize the horrible things he does to have her be with him. The book deconstructs and condemns the protagonist's behavior
As other's have said, you've vastly misread Lolita. It's a sneering satire. And Nabokov's prose is lauded for cleverness of language, not for being purple.
User Warning: insinuating a user looking for something deviant on purpose/for a reason
I don't see it.
...
Why are you looking so closely at this girls crotch area?
EDIT the artist was probably a pedo just based off of his other work, but I don't think this painting in particular is sexually suggestive.
Looking from a European standpoint at the culture war that is currently taking place in the US, this whole thing is getting more toxic every day.
The call for banning art is and always was the first step in going full authoritarian. In my country it once was used to ban "degenerate art" because the leadership wanted to get rid of certain people.
I just hope this shitshow never reaches our shores, despite the success of American cultural imperialism.
The call for banning art is and always was the first step in going full authoritarian. In my country it once was used to ban "degenerate art" because the leadership wanted to get rid of certain people.
I just hope this shitshow never reaches our shores, despite the success of American cultural imperialism.
Adding an extra line to the description for context is reasonable.
A person could create a lot of discussion by stretching their asshole while riding the subway. The only thing that makes them is an exhibitionist and a vulgar idiot. Not that I'm equating this kind of behavior to that painting.
Attention is no indicator of value, and provoking discussion by testing boundaries isn't necessarily an achievement to take pride in.
This sentiment seems glib when the "discussion" is mostly about the painting's intentionally provocative nature. It seems a bit like patting a troll on the back for stirring the pot.
A person could create a lot of discussion by stretching their asshole while riding the subway. The only thing that makes them is an exhibitionist and a vulgar idiot. Not that I'm equating this kind of behavior to that painting.
Attention is no indicator of value, and provoking discussion by testing boundaries isn't necessarily an achievement to take pride in.
Last edited:
Banning someone for a light joke that did not break the rules is not okay. While it was a bit vulgar it was not an attack nor sexist. Can we please have a check on this?
As for the topic at hand, it seems fine to me though seeing the other arts, it does feel a bit creepy but honestly you can never tell with paintings, so I'm like whatever.
My opinion on this is if art elicits a reaction or an emotional response whether good or bad then it is successful and working as intended.
The quality of the art and artists intention can be judged and criticised but I think the only truly awful art is that which elicits no response at all.
That's reductive to oblivion. If that were true, porn and summer blockbusters would be the height of expression. We have enough of a mind to consider context and circumstance, and art should strive always to study a condition. The arts are phylosophy for the senses.
- Status