I'm not well educated on art. I go to some galleries with my actual artist girlfriend. But this piece, whilst provocative, illicit more of a response than the gash at most 'modern' art galleries deserve. This painting has at least redeeming qualities. In that it's a 'good' painting. Not a load of week old banana's staple-gunned to an old sofa or whatever.
I know it's not. What I'm saying is that I'd prefer to look and, then discuss this piece in a gallery, as opposed to a Damien Hirst installation.
No one's blaming you for having a preference. As an amateur artist, my emotions always seep into my canvas. Like I said in a previous post, context and circumstance. Some who does things for reactions is simply an exhibitionist. Personally, I don't this piece was done in good faith. But if you feel some merit in it's discussion, shouldn't it be due notice to provide preamble to this piece?
Why do you think that he is being celebrated rather than simply remembered or understood?
Replace it with one of his less pedo works. I recommend this
I don't think it should be taken down, nor a special note added to give context. The picture itself is slightly provocative, but hardly risque. Standing alone, outside the news, I wouldn't give it a second look among other works of art. Balthus was likely a pedophile, but special treatment explaining the shittyness of the maker is a slippery slope.
Caravaggio was a murderer. Should his work have disclaimers? Should Alice in Wonderland have a forward explaining the author took nude photos of young girls and was very likely wanting to marry an 11 year old named Alice? Should a DJ read a statement before playing Michael Jackson?
The creator of this statue abused his daughters (Gill).
My point isn't to defend shitty artists, and I fully respect the arguments being made against the painting. However, I rather like the Met's response:
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.
? What slippery slope? Are you forgetting that the very subject of the painting is the issue here? If Caravaggio painted the people we murdered fuck yes, id expect a damn note explaining that context. It literally would be essential to understand the piece. I nean, it would be literallt the basis the work was founded upon.I don't think it should be taken down, nor a special note added to give context. The picture itself is slightly provocative, but hardly risque. Standing alone, outside the news, I wouldn't give it a second look among other works of art. Balthus was likely a pedophile, but special treatment explaining the shittyness of the maker is a slippery slope.
Caravaggio was a murderer. Should his work have disclaimers? Should Alice in Wonderland have a forward explaining the author took nude photos of young girls and was very likely wanting to marry an 11 year old named Alice? Should a DJ read a statement before playing Michael Jackson?
The creator of this statue abused his daughters (Gill).
My point isn't to defend shitty artists, and I fully respect the arguments being made against the painting. However, I rather like the Met's response:
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.
What you are suggesting is the same line of logic as someone saying Danny Brown should have his music banned due to the advocation of drugs during an opioid epidemic.
This is in bad faith. The contention has nothing to do with Hollywood harrasment, and there's no clear history that previous efforts weren't made. Sexualized images of children are a controlled media by law, and if it comes to jurisdiction to label a product against the moral and behavioural grain of society, so be it. To compare To Kill a Mockingbird is a fallacy, it is a proven social stance to say that racial persecution is bad for society. A lot of you are mistaking exhibition for art.
Yeah, don't get at all how the added line would change anything.
The petition that kicked this discussion off specifically mentions the recent events regarding harassment
lol Indeed it has been, "unfortunately recontextualized and subsequently maligned" - by you.
They draw a clear connection between the work and the harassment relevations. It's the reason why they want to have the display altered now. You can't just dismiss that as arguing in bad faith as it's clearly an argument the petition makes.
So you suggest this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Not the other sketch-ass pieces he's done.
Painting pre-pubescent children being molested/sexually abused makes you a pedophile. See post #257 if you do not know what I am referring to. Though you'll probably attempt to argue it isn't a painting of a child being molested, even though it just flat out is.
Yea, his painting where the 10 year old is getting fingered? Better not show that or we will have to tread back on our BS false narratives.
