It hasn't been shown he didn't, it has been shown there isn't enough evidence to say he did. For me a paedo getting minors to get naked and pose is enough for me to say nope, this shit is nasty
-
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.
Met Defends Suggestive Painting of Girl After Petition Calls for Its Removal
- Thread starter Saya
- Start date
- Status
It hasn't been shown he didn't, it has been shown there isn't enough evidence to say he did. For me a paedo getting minors to get naked and pose is enough for me to say nope, this shit is nasty
Well your book is wrong. Censorship has nothing to do with petitions, and I have no idea what you're even trying to get at there. Censorship would be if the government was forcing the Met to take the painting down or face legal penalty.
Astounding how many people have no idea what censorship is anymore. The word has been cheapened by overuse to the point that we won't know real censorship if we ever see it, and most people will dismiss real censorship as more hyperbole until it's too late.
It's probably cliche and typical, but I like the classical style, although I'm also a fan of a few impressionist paintings. My favorite is when a classical style piece is set outside, sometimes they seem to use brighter/more vivid colors.
Not to say I don't appreciate anything else, I've seen a lot of art posted online that I wouldn't normally see in person. My relationship with art online is terrible, though, since I seldom commit artist names to memory. This might also be a cop out or , but I consider what some people are doing with video games to be my favorite current art form. Things like the scenery in the last mission of the Destiny 2 campaign.
I'm not a fan of purely abstract (or non-representational) art. Of course, the only ones I've seen in person have been from the borrowed-art collections of a local art museum.
Actually your book is wrong. Censorship doesn't always involve a government. You're talking about the first amendment.
Yeah, I usually stay away from anything censorship but in this instance I agree. The Met should have a plaque that gives some context on the artist and painting and why it's controversial. Not everyone enjoys being blindsided.
I think the fact that a piece of art can create this much heated discussion on a video game forum of all places demonstrates that it shouldn't be taken down. There's nothing wrong with art that's provocative or discomforting.
HOWEVER, I agree with the authors of the petition that context should be given. The only eroticism in the painting comes from the viewer's own interpretation, and if it was Balthus' only work like this it would be fine - but it's not. Dude clearly crossed the line from "provocateur" to "probably a pedophile", and out of respect for his subjects proper context should be given to his works.
HOWEVER, I agree with the authors of the petition that context should be given. The only eroticism in the painting comes from the viewer's own interpretation, and if it was Balthus' only work like this it would be fine - but it's not. Dude clearly crossed the line from "provocateur" to "probably a pedophile", and out of respect for his subjects proper context should be given to his works.
How exactly would this prevent being blindsided? No one in the world would first read the plaque and then look at the picture.
I'm also not sure what exactly the plaque should say that can alter the comfort of the visitors. How does knowing that the picture is controversial make the situation more comfortable? (Which most can probably guess by just looking at it anyway)
I find it odd how Fire Emblem has become the go to take regarding all of this haha
So do you want to burn it? I think artists should be free to challenge norms and be as offensive as they want. That's kinda one of the reasons for art to exist in the first place.
I remember that, it was totally ridiculous. How could they even meet his demands in their own country.
I will challenge that and say, Art should blindside you to actually have an effect as any information taints the original view you would have that is solely based on your own personal views. You can see it in this very thread were some people didn't directly see anything sexual while others saw it directly. It shows that something is not inherently sexual and different persons react different to paintings.
I would always want to get blindsided and then learn more about a painting, I enjoyed that back in art class during school. Getting blindsided teaches you a lot about yourself and the views you might hold that rarely come up in daily conversation. It is a good self reflection tool in my opinion.
Having read the whole thread some people don't want to see any merits in it. They simply want to ban it because they consider it bad. I consider this subjective and not the right way to go about these topics.
Last edited:
The extra context is good.
Also, when people say "art should foster conversation" that includes negative critique, including choice of theme and the intent and subject of the piece. Hang this guy's stuff all you like but I'll absolutely say that's creepy as fuck and that I wouldn't let my kids near this artist. Art isn't about creating what you want and getting smoke blown up your ass about it.
Also, when people say "art should foster conversation" that includes negative critique, including choice of theme and the intent and subject of the piece. Hang this guy's stuff all you like but I'll absolutely say that's creepy as fuck and that I wouldn't let my kids near this artist. Art isn't about creating what you want and getting smoke blown up your ass about it.
Ah yes... the age old argument that all art has merit. Especially art that makes you feel uncomfortable!
Like the art from a man who used live underage models.
It too has a defense force...
...whose anti-censorship mantra is surely consistent across the board and not just some reactive hot take about some random painter they've never heard of until now in a conversation with a lot people eye-balling you to see if you're a patron of the arts.
Your intentions are so pure. Where would we be without you all.
On this day I am convinced that we are closer to the Shadman exhibit at the Louvre.
Like the art from a man who used live underage models.
It too has a defense force...
...whose anti-censorship mantra is surely consistent across the board and not just some reactive hot take about some random painter they've never heard of until now in a conversation with a lot people eye-balling you to see if you're a patron of the arts.
Your intentions are so pure. Where would we be without you all.
On this day I am convinced that we are closer to the Shadman exhibit at the Louvre.
I don't know guys. If the artist is a certified creep it only makes it more interesting to me. Unless you are a hack like Charles Manson that tries too hard to add to his reputation. Polanski though, certified creep that shows it shyly and it only makes his earlier work all the better.
Soldier on keyboard warrior... as the light from your wise and learned counsel gains purchase let it serve not only as the foundation of hope we need, but also as the beacon of righteousness we truly deserve.
He's diddling around children in the real world to create it, i wouldn't burn it but i would stick it in a backroom for art historians and child protection workers to study.
Oh for fucks sake, there's already a fucking plaque warning you about the contents before you enter the fucking exhibit. But sure let's put trigger warnings on paintings now, nevermind that you'd have to see the painting to even see the warning in the first place.
A bit off topic, but I really hate this whole discussion.
It's a girl sitting down naturally; not a sexually charged pose or explicite act. Literally just sitting down the same way I sit all the time. But because we can see her, suddenly it is sexual, and something to be disgusted or, for some, aroused by. A body can't just be a body. A person (more so women) can't just see their body as their own body, because the second someone sees them it becomes a sexual and taboo object. You end up having to constantly monitor and adjust yourself, adopting other's view of your body as a sexual object to make sure that's not all they see you as. That can't be a healthy way to view ourselves.
It's disgusting that most people's immediate reaction to a naked woman of any age is to see it as a sexual object, painting or otherwise. Not to say I find those people disgusting. It's the way we collectively see the human body, especially women's bodies, that bothers me.
Edit: on topic, how do you actually display or add context to this painting to make it more "appropriate?" We can say add context, but that statement doesn't really mean anything on its own. Most people's issue isn't that they don't know the purpose of the painting (a lot of people can reason it out pretty quickly), but that they were blindsided by something they never wanted to see, or that such a painting existadd is displayed in a relatively public space. Adding a blurb describing the authors intent doesn't rectify that.
It could be moved to a separate location with a warning given before the viewer can see the painting, but I would think that would just result in almost nobody seeing the painting at all. And if so, is it actually wrong to effectively bury artwork like that?
Threads like this, where the conversation become cyclical and gets stuck on a single point are kind of worthless. Once that happens there's nothing left to discussion. It usually just leads to people getting heated and banned over nothing.
It's a girl sitting down naturally; not a sexually charged pose or explicite act. Literally just sitting down the same way I sit all the time. But because we can see her, suddenly it is sexual, and something to be disgusted or, for some, aroused by. A body can't just be a body. A person (more so women) can't just see their body as their own body, because the second someone sees them it becomes a sexual and taboo object. You end up having to constantly monitor and adjust yourself, adopting other's view of your body as a sexual object to make sure that's not all they see you as. That can't be a healthy way to view ourselves.
It's disgusting that most people's immediate reaction to a naked woman of any age is to see it as a sexual object, painting or otherwise. Not to say I find those people disgusting. It's the way we collectively see the human body, especially women's bodies, that bothers me.
Edit: on topic, how do you actually display or add context to this painting to make it more "appropriate?" We can say add context, but that statement doesn't really mean anything on its own. Most people's issue isn't that they don't know the purpose of the painting (a lot of people can reason it out pretty quickly), but that they were blindsided by something they never wanted to see, or that such a painting existadd is displayed in a relatively public space. Adding a blurb describing the authors intent doesn't rectify that.
It could be moved to a separate location with a warning given before the viewer can see the painting, but I would think that would just result in almost nobody seeing the painting at all. And if so, is it actually wrong to effectively bury artwork like that?
Threads like this, where the conversation become cyclical and gets stuck on a single point are kind of worthless. Once that happens there's nothing left to discussion. It usually just leads to people getting heated and banned over nothing.
Last edited:
But you should need to know that some people find the painting wrong. Just like we need warnings that people find the artwork of Jackson Pollock or Marcel Duchamp or Piet Mondrian, to be wrong.
This piece of art was found to be controversial by my butthole.
Context matters.
Look up the artists other work, like Guitar Lesson (in your own private connection, its nsfw), then tell us if we're projecting. The painter's sexualization of young girls is a known factor. So is the fact that they used live models for his painting. The body wasn't just a body to them. They objectified it. Trying to assign innocence to it or trying to make a statement about innocence in this context is absurd.
I'd rather not look it up, but I believe you like I believed everyone else whose brought it up. Regardless, most people don't know anything about the artist or how the painting was made, yet they still view the picture as sexual by default. My point is that that default view of women extends beyond this painting/art/media, and that it stems from how we see women in daily life (hence off topic.) Most people don't seem to consider what they're feeling or why, and that's part of what makes it so insidious.
Edit: I'm also not saying people are projecting (definitely not). I don't think most people are secretly pedophiles in denial. What I described isn't necessarily related to pedophilia. I don't mean to defend the artist or condemn posters who are bothered by the painting.
Last edited:
The painting intends to draw a conversation about the immediance of sexualizing female bodies. But, it does so by sexualizing the young girl through its design elements. It is intentional... you don't need to know anything about the artist to know that it is sexual just through the painting's framing...
Except it's not sexual to me. Not on its own. Then again, most things aren't sexual to me (although I can usually recognize when they likely are to other people.) Putting it in text make me feel like my opinion might be too much of an outlier, but in my eyes, neither the pose or the framing imply anything sexual beyond highlighting a girls crotch (which shouldn't be a sexual object on its own.)
- Status