Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'

[teamsaint]

What do YOU consider to be a better "quality" of discussion?
Late night R3?
Chaps in suits on BBC4?

Yep, good old fashioned stuff.

Obviously.

( my point wasn't about me,it was about those making the decisions).

[MrGongGong]

Yep, good old fashioned stuff.

Obviously.

( my point wasn't about me,it was about those making the decisions).

I think part of the point about this whole thing is to get people to think about those kinds of questions.
It seems extraordinary to me that so many folks are outraged by something that is a very gentle act of provocation.

It's hardly on the Fluxus level

[Pianorak]

. . . to get people to think about those kinds of questions. . .

What about ballet? Can we justify watching a scantily clad 14 year old girl from a good family hurling herself at a teenage boy who should have known better than to pursue what can only be described as sexual harassment and child abuse?

Does Prokofiev's seductive music justify this carry on?

[teamsaint]

I think part of the point about this whole thing is to get people to think about those kinds of questions.
It seems extraordinary to me that so many folks are outraged by something that is a very gentle act of provocation.

It's hardly on the Fluxus level

And my point was that JUST provoking discussion is very easy to do. And there are plenty of ways to get people to think about these things.

And since you see it as an act of provocation ( albeit perhaps rather gentle) then outraged response isn't THAT surprising.

It's no big deal to me whether they act like this, or in some other way, but ,as I said, the explanations seemed rather less than rigorous , which is important because the language around these things does matter.

[MrGongGong]

What about ballet? Can we justify watching a scantily clad 14 year old girl from a good family hurling herself at a teenage boy who should have known better than to pursue what can only be described as sexual harassment and child abuse?

Does Prokofiev's seductive music justify this carry on?

Good question

And my point was that JUST provoking discussion is very easy to do. And there are plenty of ways to get people to think about these things.

And since you see it as an act of provocation ( albeit perhaps rather gentle) then outraged response isn't THAT surprising.

It's no big deal to me whether they act like this, or in some other way, but ,as I said, the explanations seemed rather less than rigorous , which is important because the language around these things does matter.

Indeed the language around these things does matter
Whilst there are plenty of ways of getting those already engaged to think and talk about these things , there aren't so many ways of getting those who wouldn't normally go to a gallery or even think about what Art is.

Art IS about "provocation" (amongst other things) but i'm surprised by the outrage, it's not exactly Nitsch is it?

[CallMePaul]

You also (unwittingly?) highlight one of the other issues around this. By using the phrase "As a Council Tax payer" you imply that with that comes entitlement.

As a Council Tax payer I do feel myself to be a stakeholder in facilities funded by my Council Tax. However, I have just seen some good news - the painting will be restored to its rightful place tomorrow (Sat): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42917974

[doversoul1]

Whilst there are plenty of ways of getting those already engaged to think and talk about these things , there aren't so many ways of getting those who wouldn't normally go to a gallery or even think about what Art is.

To see the space where the picture once was? Or do you mean this is a good way of getting people to come/go to galleries to appreciate Art they would never have done otherwise? And discover along the way of Victorian porn, some good old Kandinsky and Dali etc.? I suppose it works, once.

[MrGongGong]

To see the space where the picture once was? Or do you mean this is a good way of getting people to come/go to galleries to appreciate Art they would never have done otherwise? And discover along the way of Victorian porn, some good old Kandinsky and Dali etc.? I suppose it works, once.

I think it's a way of stimulating discussion about art.
There seem to be lot's of folks (not so much in here which is a temple of sophisticated aesthetes: ) who have been thinking about this, and some ridiculous nonsense about what it means. BUT for many folks, thinking that Art can even "mean" something is a huge step.

[MrGongGong]

As a Council Tax payer I do feel myself to be a stakeholder in facilities funded by my Council Tax. However, I have just seen some good news - the painting will be restored to its rightful place tomorrow (Sat): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42917974

I think that's a real shame
as it means that those who misintepreted this action as one of "censorship" will be seen to be "right"

To be clear, I don't find the painting "offensive" BUT I do understand that it isn't just a "pretty picture".
I don't think these things are as clear cut as many would suggest.
I'm reminded of this image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myra_(painting)

Would those who cry "lefty PC censorship" would be happy about this Art on the wall ?

[french frank]

Well, it's back on show tomorrer, for what good, bad or indifferent that it's done.

Too late - the announcement's been made!

[jayne lee wilson]

The Conversation about Challenging a Victorian Fantasy might have been better provoked by leaving the painting in situ, and announcing the creation of spaces all around the gallery for viewers' post-it comments; and why not juxtapose it with Henrietta Rae's broadly contemporaneous painting on the same theme: does it make a difference (to how you see and decode) if you know that a similar image is created by a man or a woman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Rae#/media/File:Hylas_and_the_Water_Nymphs.jpg

There's a lot going on in both paintings (both in the image and the story behind it) about gender stereotypes, the cultural presentation or imposition of male and female sexuality (in various times and places, real and mythical) and the power relations between them which we are perhaps better placed to comment on and attempt to subvert than the Pre-Raphaelites or Victorians were.

Removing a painting may seem counter-productive, unless there is a deeper context: in this case, an explicitly temporary absence in the context of the performance artwork that this particular removal seems to have been a part of. Such a gesture, and the comment provoked, can then make some sense. (Even if it were not replaced on any given date … would anyone campaign, or would it be forgotten..? )… but it seems clear from various statements that this particular act was not censorship.

Absolutely, many women and men may view the painting differently in the context of #MeToo, the appalling Presidents Club etc etc.; and the point of the removal and its announcement seems, precisely, intended to provoke people to consider the layers of meaning within, and without, and beyond, the artwork (and its genre); very likely leading to many people seeking out reproductions of the painting online, renewing both work and response.

(It could be a lot of fun, actually - a vigilante group disappearing various famous artworks to provoke reconsideration of their previously reverenced meanings and status; lending them, in their vanishing, a renewed life beyond complacent assumptions of historical "artistic importance”.)

#The Great Art Robbery!

[Ian Thumwood]

I was really interested in this article when I saw it on the news because I find the PR paintings quite intriguing. For me, they have a quality about them that chimes in exactly with architect's like Pugin insofar that they suggest a past that is in some ways perfect. I would not go as far as saying that the images are kitsch but they are heavily romanticised a almost the equivalent of the stylised posters that Athena used to sell in the 1980's. As someone who is fascinated by history, the PR school of painters offer a view which is refracted through the lens of their time just as writers like Mallory re-csdt the Romans as Medieval knights in something like Morte D'Arthur without understanding how the Romans would have dressed / behaved, etc.


The other issue for me is that the PR almost represent a technical high point in painting after which you can understand why the rule book for painting had to be reinvented in the 20th century. It is a fatal mistake to censor these pictures for something they are not. Clearly they are not titillation any more than Classical sculptures but a Romanticised vision of a Greek myth refracted through a Victorian perspective. I do not see this painting as sexualised in any extent and has simply been done for publicity to chime in with the current #Me Too movement. There is often a failing to understand the fact that you cannot look at historic issues with the mind set from today and that art especially needs to be put in to a broader context.

[Ian Thumwood]

The Conversation about Challenging a Victorian Fantasy might have been better provoked by leaving the painting in situ, and announcing the creation of spaces all around the gallery for viewers' post-it comments; and why not juxtapose it with Henrietta Rae's broadly contemporaneous painting on the same theme: does it make a difference (to how you see and decode) if you know that a similar image is created by a man or a woman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Rae#/media/File:Hylas_and_the_Water_Nymphs.jpg

There's a lot going on in both paintings (both in the image and the story behind it) about gender stereotypes, the cultural presentation or imposition of male and female sexuality (in various times and places, real and mythical) and the power relations between them which we are perhaps better placed to comment on and attempt to subvert than the Pre-Raphaelites or Victorians were.

Removing a painting may seem counter-productive, unless there is a deeper context: in this case, an explicitly temporary absence in the context of the performance artwork that this particular removal seems to have been a part of. Such a gesture, and the comment provoked, can then make some sense. (Even if it were not replaced on any given date … would anyone campaign, or would it be forgotten..? )… but it seems clear from various statements that this particular act was not censorship.

Absolutely, many women and men may view the painting differently in the context of #MeToo, the appalling Presidents Club etc etc.; and the point of the removal and its announcement seems, precisely, intended to provoke people to consider the layers of meaning within, and without, and beyond, the artwork (and its genre); very likely leading to many people seeking out reproductions of the painting online, renewing both work and response.

(It could be a lot of fun, actually - a vigilante group disappearing various famous artworks to provoke reconsideration of their previously reverenced meanings and status; lending them, in their vanishing, a renewed life beyond complacent assumptions of historical "artistic importance”.)

#The Great Art Robbery!

There are some brilliant ideas in this thread. It would be interesting to see the reaction if this painting had been done by a woman and wonder how this would have changed the perspective with which we view it.

[BBMmk2]

Heard on the news today that the gallery has to put the pictures back up, for being, "too politically correct"

[jean]

I'm not sure whether it was the gallery or the Guardian who first described the painiting as pre-Raphaelite, but of course it isn't.