Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'

[Lat-Literal]

This was the original article

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation

Jan 31st

Fair enough then. They did say In January that the removal was a part of the art itself. I don't recall it being mentioned when they spoke with Martha Kearney. I do apologise, though, for being unintentionally misleading. But I really don't buy it for all the reasons I have outlined and now I have read the article in full I have a lot of other issues. The figures are not necessarily pubescent. It isn't a Victorian fantasy. "In Pursuit of Beauty" is undeniably here about the female form but the emphasis is on the beauty of art. The crassness about overt sexuality and gender depiction is in the heads of these 20th/21st Century people who either don't have the inclination or the intellect to appreciate the conceptual subtleties involved. Whatever are we going to hear next? That Michelangelo's David is a CEO at a charity fundraiser and proof of what the hostesses there had to put up with when they all got drunk?

[Barbirollians]

Fair enough then. They did say In January that the removal was a part of the art itself. I don't recall it being mentioned when they spoke with Martha Kearney. I do apologise, though, for being unintentionally misleading. But I really don't buy it for all the reasons I have outlined and now I have read the article in full I have a lot of other issues. The figures are not necessarily pubescent. It isn't a Victorian fantasy. "In Pursuit of Beauty" is undeniably here about the female form but the emphasis is on the beauty of art. The crassness about overt sexuality and gender depiction is in the heads of these 20th/21st Century people who either don't have the inclination or the intellect to appreciate the conceptual subtleties involved. Whatever are we going to hear next? That Michelangelo's David is a CEO at a charity fundraiser and proof of what the hostesses there had to put up with when they all got drunk?

Would it be a work of art I wonder if a composer granted a commission to compose a work for the proms said as part of his or her commission he or she had decided to remove all the works of a particular composer from the season I wonder would it be treated as justifying that act ?

[MrGongGong]

Would it be a work of art I wonder if a composer granted a commission to compose a work for the proms said as part of his or her commission decided removing all the works of a particular composer from the season would be treated as justifying that act ?

It could be considered (IMV) to be a varation on this Artwork

[Lat-Literal]

Would it be a work of art I wonder if a composer granted a commission to compose a work for the proms said as part of his or her commission decided removing all the works of a particular composer from the season would be treated as justifying that act ?

What a great question.

To my mind, it would be more of a political act, perhaps especially if she gave detailed reasons. Let us say that it was to be no Wagner because of notions of anti-semitism. Presumably as with the gallery, discussion would purportedly be welcomed. Some would say "it's about time". Others would immediately be speaking about censorship. To expect otherwise is to be extremely naïve and what it would all amount to is a political discourse. Mr GG cites the humourist of the KLF.* I would argue that he has always provided a strong steer towards the absurd. There is an implication of a darker angle but he's pretty harmless. In contrast, the KKK burns books that are not Christian and some who claim to be Islamists ban all music. On the surface, it's the ultimate shutting up of everyone else. Deeper down, each stance is based on awareness that there could hardly not be opinion against it. I doubt there is much difference between them and the example in your question which, like the gallery, is the provocative game of authoritarians parading as listeners while steadfastly refusing to hear.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Drummond

[greenilex]

To go back to the painting, if I may...would we feel differently about it if it was a photograph? There were plenty of soft porn late Victorian examples. I have no idea what H and the Ns was painted from.

[french frank]

It could be considered (IMV) to be a varation on this Artwork

Yes, and to be fair, you did say earlier, "of course, whether her work will be any good or not is another matter entirely", but it does seem a case of "If the artist says it's an artwork, it's an artwork." Apart from that declaration, how else would one ever know it was an artwork, and how does anyone judge whether, as an artwork, it's 'any good or not'?

What are the criteria?

[Richard Barrett]

What are the criteria?

That old chestnut!

I wonder why so many people find it necessary to attempt to apply stringent definitions as to what is and isn't an artwork, when such attempts must always fail? People were having these exact same arguments over Marcel Duchamp a hundred years ago! Has there been no evolution or broadening of people's thinking in the meantime?

[Sir Velo]

To go back to the painting, if I may...would we feel differently about it if it was a photograph? There were plenty of soft porn late Victorian examples. I have no idea what H and the Ns was painted from.

I certainly would. For me the painting is a technical tour de force which enables it to rise above the genre. Photography, pace exponents such as Julia Margaret Cameron rarely transcends the medium.

[french frank]

That old chestnut!

I wonder why so many people find it necessary to attempt to apply stringent definitions as to what is and isn't an artwork, when such attempts must always fail? People were having these exact same arguments over Marcel Duchamp a hundred years ago! Has there been no evolution or broadening of people's thinking in the meantime?

Why should there be any 'evolution'? You give no answer that an ordinary, 'non-artist' can find satisfactory. But, I suppose, as an artist, that isn't your job? The mystery remains for many, for others there's no mystery. Permit those for whom there is a mystery to continue asking. And others may continue to dismiss the question, if they have no answer.

Btw, who asked for 'stringency'?

Add: Also, the criteria I asked for referred to whether an artwork was 'any good or not' - an idea introduced by your confrère, Mr GongGong.

[Richard Barrett]

Why should there be any 'evolution'?

Because, as I said, these arguments have been had a hundred years ago, art and society of course have continued to evolve in the meantime, and at some point surely it might be thought appropriate to move on and concentrate on more important questions... as in Gilbert's (and/or George's) "You want them to stand in front of a picture and say, 'What the sh*tting hell does this mean to me?"

It isn't a matter of "dismissing the question, if they have no answer". There is no universally applicable answer. That much should be obvious in the 21st century.

[ahinton]

That old chestnut!

I wonder why so many people find it necessary to attempt to apply stringent definitions as to what is and isn't an artwork, when such attempts must always fail? People were having these exact same arguments over Marcel Duchamp a hundred years ago! Has there been no evolution or broadening of people's thinking in the meantime?

I think that there has, but it's very far from universal!

[oddoneout]

I wonder why so many people find it necessary to attempt to apply stringent definitions as to what is and isn't an artwork, when such attempts must always fail?

A cynical answer would be 'to give those without the ability/knowledge/courage/gumption to make their own opinions of what they are viewing an indication of what they should say or think'.

[french frank]

Well, once you've cherry-picked the issue for the demolition job, what about the question I was asking - about Mr GongGong's comment about 'whether it is any good or not', referring specifically (I thought) to this particular contemporary artwork?

Do we, individually, consider the work and think, instinctively: That's good or, I don't think that's any good? In which case, isn't that the same, for most people, as the somewhat disparaged: "I don't know much about art but I know what I like?" Or, are there, as you appear to be denying, criteria, of some sort, since criticism is usually considered to involve more than subjective individual reaction (except for press critics). As long as I understand why I feel as I do, that's what defines whether a work 'is any good or not': i.e. it's axiomatic that the words 'I think/feel' are included before my judgement is pronounced. Because that wasn't how I read what Mr GongGong was saying.

Because, as I said, these arguments have been had a hundred years ago, art and society of course have continued to evolve in the meantime, and at some point surely it might be thought appropriate to move on and concentrate on more important questions... as in Gilbert's (and/or George's) "You want them to stand in front of a picture and say, 'What the sh*tting hell does this mean to me?"

It isn't a matter of "dismissing the question, if they have no answer". There is no universally applicable answer. That much should be obvious in the 21st century.

[Lat-Literal]

Because, as I said, these arguments have been had a hundred years ago, art and society of course have continued to evolve in the meantime, and at some point surely it might be thought appropriate to move on and concentrate on more important questions... as in Gilbert's (and/or George's) "You want them to stand in front of a picture and say, 'What the sh*tting hell does this mean to me?"

It isn't a matter of "dismissing the question, if they have no answer". There is no universally applicable answer. That much should be obvious in the 21st century.

But some sort of definition is needed to ensure that, say, the leader of a country responsible for genocide can't persuasively describe that genocide as art.

[jean]

People were having these exact same arguments over Marcel Duchamp a hundred years ago!

And even earlier...