Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'

[french frank]

They (women and girls) are not that helpless.

Girls often are. Or just not that aware.

[Lat-Literal]

I think there's a big difference between the two. Cheerleaders are generally selected for their good looks, so exploiting teenage girls in this way immediately activates the safeguarding button.

Contexts matter.

I have been thinking more about the ridiculous judges who have said on the basis that women wore certain clothing that they "asked" for what happened to them in grim circumstances. That is obviously entirely beyond the pale. However, the ones who believe that they should be able to wear what has often been termed provocative attire purely as a means of self-expression probably do require an environment in which only they exist. To expect no reaction other than a "good for you girl" is, in truth, somewhat unreal. Every father knows it. Many Muslims know it and arguably take that knowledge to extremes. And every man knows it because if he was to walk down the street or in a supermarket in a thong on the grounds of self-expression that "should not" create an emotional reaction he would soon hear otherwise. Women would not in the main be racing to grope but many would be running to get away from him in a highly emotional way. It is, of course, the case that it is men who face the greatest number of clothing orders in society. Wear your shirt there, no muddy boots in here and no men in dresses almost everywhere. Few have ever noted this phenomenon because the instinct is to quietly comply. And going back to that thong in a supermarket example for a moment, the truth of it is that men know that they are permanently groped. Psychologically groped by rules and legislation which drive it home on what is expected of them if they don't want to be physically groped and dragged to a court and a large fine. Ingrained from the youngest of ages, it is why most men never have any inclination to stand out in that way.

[Serial_Apologist]

Contexts matter.

I have been thinking more about the ridiculous judges who have said on the basis that women wore certain clothing that they "asked" for what happened to them in grim circumstances. That is obviously entirely beyond the pale. However, the ones who believe that they should be able to wear what has often been termed provocative attire purely as a means of self-expression probably do require an environment in which only they exist. To expect no reaction other than a "good for you girl" is, in truth, somewhat unreal. Every father knows it. Many Muslims know it and arguably take that knowledge to extremes. And every man knows it because if he was to walk down the street or in a supermarket in a thong on the grounds of self-expression that "should not" create an emotional reaction he would soon hear otherwise. Women would not in the main be racing to grope but many would be running to get away from him in a highly emotional way. It is, of course, the case that it is men who face the greatest number of clothing orders in society. Wear your shirt there, no muddy boots in here and no men in dresses almost everywhere. Few have ever noted this phenomenon because the instinct is to quietly comply. And going back to that thong in a supermarket example for a moment, the truth of it is that men know that they are permanently groped. Psychologically groped by rules and legislation which drive it home of what is expected of them if they don't want to be physically groped and dragged to a court and a large fine. Ingrained from the youngest of ages, it is why most men never have any inclination to stand out in that way.

Yes but men having to wear particular attire in particular contexts cannot be equated with the issue of womens clothing here, because, as was shown a few years ago when we last had Mediterranean-type summer weather in this country, it was women who were complaining about topless men frequenting supermarkets, and not (unless my understanding of feminist theory as applied to this area needs kicking into a... cocked hat) because they were becoming aroused at the sight of them. And I don't think they were singling out the beer bellies as being objectionable, such as myself.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes but men having to wear particular attire in particular contexts cannot be equated with the issue of womens clothing here, because, as was shown a few years ago when we last had Mediterranean-type summer weather in this country, it was women who were complaining about topless men frequenting supermarkets, and not (unless my understanding of feminist theory as applied to this area needs kicking into a... cocked hat) because they were becoming aroused at the sight of them. And I don't think they were singling out the beer bellies as being objectionable, such as myself.

I agree that it doesn't equate to the Crystal Palace matter but am not sure that I can agree with your other comments fully. The main point I am making is that arousal is an emotional response just as being upset or annoyed by incongruous nakedness is an emotional response. To say "I should be able to wear or not wear x and y without having any sort of response from other people or at least an emotional response I do not want" is essentially to want to be on your own planet while being surrounded by others. It's irrational and unreasonable. That is not to say there aren't reasonable expectations in terms of physical separation. Much of it springs from childhood mores. Girls are generally rewarded for parade. Boys are not.

Incidentally, the naked man - it could be men - walks the fields of Glastonbury and no one bats an eyelid. Presumably the women feel that they have safety in a crowd. He or they are the epitome of parade that is simultaneously not parade. It all blends in with the terrain to such an extent that the nudity looks just like a different form of clothing. Elsewhere, people will make a huge distinction between shorts and the shorts-like boxer shorts, not on the basis of what they look like but what they are supposed to be. We live in a very strange world.

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree that it doesn't equate to the Crystal Palace matter but am not sure that I can agree with your other comments fully. The main point I am making is that arousal is an emotional response just as being upset or annoyed by incongruous nakedness is an emotional response. To say "I should be able to wear or not wear x and y without having any sort of response from other people or at least an emotional response I do not want" is essentially to want to be on your own planet while being surrounded by others. It's irrational and unreasonable. That is not to say there aren't reasonable expectations in terms of physical separation. Much of it springs from childhood mores. Girls are generally rewarded for parade. Boys are not.

Incidentally, the naked man - it could be men - walks the fields of Glastonbury and no one bats an eyelid. Presumably the women feel that they have safety in a crowd. He or they are the epitome of parade that is simultaneously not parade. It all blends in with the terrain to such an extent that the nudity looks just like a different form of clothing. Elsewhere, people will make a huge distinction between shorts and the shorts-like boxer shorts, not on the basis of what they look like but what they are supposed to be. We live in a very strange world.

Reminds me of the joke about the woman who complains to her local authority about a nudist beach being visible from her home. The council agrees to move it. The woman then complains that she can still see naked men through her binoculars. Presumably Mary Whitehouse was uncorrupted by watching the programmes she claimed corrupted (other) people. As I understand it emotions are not a priori basic survival instincts, but, rather, responses borne of norms largely reflective of social contradictions operating at the interpersonal level: property rights among others beneficial entrenching the manipulative power relations that help perpetuate them; mutual recriminatory cycles of possessiveness and the expectations of same engroomed in the young, with human weakness designated as scapegoat. While we are ruled by a system entrenching of mutual suspicion as the highest virtue keeping all on our toes the clash between the natural, in which there is no choice but to trust, and the cultural, will feed the confected and provide subjects for novels, films and TV dramas.

[oddoneout]

I don’t think that’s quite true. I have a friend whose granddaughter practises cheer leadering(?). She is probably 12 or thereabout, goes to practise every week, gets taken to see ballet, musical and many other performances and very serious about it. I don’t think looks comes into it at all. It is a group performance as much as orchestra is. Let’s not assume that anything that involves women or girls is an exploitation. They (women and girls) are not that helpless.

But I think it is valid now to ask why it has to be females doing these activities? They may not be helpless but they can be dreadfully unaware, as can the parents.

[Lat-Literal]

Reminds me of the joke about the woman who complains to her local authority about a nudist beach being visible from her home. The council agrees to move it. The woman then complains that she can still see naked men through her binoculars. Presumably Mary Whitehouse was uncorrupted by watching the programmes she claimed corrupted (other) people. As I understand it emotions are not a priori basic survival instincts, but, rather, responses borne of norms largely reflective of social contradictions operating at the interpersonal level: property rights among others beneficial entrenching the manipulative power relations that help perpetuate them; mutual recriminatory cycles of possessiveness and the expectations of same engroomed in the young, with human weakness designated as scapegoat. While we are ruled by a system entrenching of mutual suspicion as the highest virtue keeping all on our toes the clash between the natural, in which there is no choice but to trust, and the cultural, will feed the confected and provide subjects for novels, films and TV dramas.

That's the 20th Century definition.

The 21st Century definition is "replaced by emoticons".

[Bryn]

Yes but men having to wear particular attire in particular contexts cannot be equated with the issue of womens clothing here, because, as was shown a few years ago when we last had Mediterranean-type summer weather in this country, it was women who were complaining about topless men frequenting supermarkets, and not (unless my understanding of feminist theory as applied to this area needs kicking into a... cocked hat) because they were becoming aroused at the sight of them. And I don't think they were singling out the beer bellies as being objectionable, such as myself.

See http://www.rrstar.com/article/20130130/NEWS/301309735

[Lat-Literal]

This thread appears to have diversified so that it segues with the 100 year anniversary of the Suffragettes. My main sympathies in 2018 are with women in other parts of the world who have very few choices. I find it perplexing that men in powerful positions in the UK should still appear to be attempting to block equality. A part of me feels that it is not happening to the extent that is often portrayed. And I tend to think that women here can in most respects achieve anything they want to achieve without the need for a big political movement.

I write this as one who had limited opportunities to appoint staff. When I did I was often under pressure from male managers to appoint middle class white women. My responses in times when large numbers of people were under-represented was to choose instead women or men of ethnic background and on occasion women or men of working class backgrounds. They fulfilled my expectations although it didn't do me much good. I can't recall a single time when I was under pressure from a male manager to appoint a man, even in the 1990s.

My main concern such as I have any concern today is for the white working class males who have not been fairly treated in the recent past and are unlikely to be in the future. Certainly they will not receive a pardon from Mr Corbyn or anyone else for the Dickensian conditions of their, actually our, predecessors. Would many of them be excellent in power? My gut instinct is "no". I'm also pretty sure that their preferred country would not be the one that I would want. But that is hardly the main point and I think I feel that way about all of the alternative versions of how a country should be based via identity politics. I suppose that partially stems from my own self-identity which is always person first, all other things second.

[doversoul1]

Now we know. Or do we?
[...]
It is well known that the vast majority of artworks held in public collections languish, hidden from view, in storage facilities. Space constraints are one reason, but curatorial choices also play a role. Would we call these choices “censorship”?

Did you know?
[...] The recent, temporary removal from Manchester Art Gallery of John William Waterhouse’s 1896 painting Hylas and the Nymphs, which depicts Hercules’ handsome male lover being lured to his death in a pond by seven long-haired, topless nymphs (pubescent girls),….

So they’ve got bottoms on I assume….
More to read.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/06/takedown-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-art-action-manchester-art-gallery-sonia-boyce

[Serial_Apologist]

Girls often are. Or just not that aware.

Tonight's Free Thinking on 3 at 10 pm is a discussion on Muriel Spark from 2012 centreing around The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, people might like to know.

[Serial_Apologist]

So they've got bottoms on I assume....

I rather think they took their bottons off on that occasion, dovers.

[doversoul1]

I rather think they took their bottons off on that occasion, dovers.

[oddoneout]

I rather think they took their bottons off on that occasion, dovers.

so they can disport themselves in a bottomless pit....

[french frank]

"Our removal of Waterhouse’s naked nymphs painting was art in action"

Just in case people don't click on dover's link: it's a story by artist Sonia Boyce explaining her own part in suggesting the removal of the work to involve more people in the 'curatorial process' than is usual in the displaying and removal of works of art.

"I can’t claim credit for all that has unfolded since then, nor do I want to distance myself from my role in it. After collecting the footage from the performance and appraising the varied responses, I will have to focus on creating an artwork."

IOW It seems to be advance promotion for Boyce's forthcoming exhibition at the gallery.

So they’ve got bottoms on I assume….
More to read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ry-sonia-boyce