Manchester Gallery removes painting of naked nymphs.

Syl wrote:http://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/38330/1/ny-museum-refuses-to-remove-suggestive-image-of-young-girl


"New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art is refusing to remove a controversial painting of a child that has been widely criticised for being sexually suggestive. A petition garnered thousands of signatures against the work.
The 1938 painting, ‘Therese Dreaming’ by Balthus presents a young girl sitting in a position that reveals her underwear. It’s said that the young girl was the French-Polish painter’s neighbour, aged between 12 and 13. Mia Merrill, who started the petition says, “Balthus, had a noted infatuation with pubescent girls, and it can be strongly argued that this painting romanticizes the sexualization of a child”.
The petition, that was posted on Care2, hopes the Met will reconsider their portrayal of the painting and has gained over 9,000 signatures. But the museum are refusing to remove the painting on the grounds of creative expression."


Therese Dreaming.

Syl wrote:In 2014 this painting was taken down from a leading London art gallery for being 'pornographic and disgusting'.
Apart from a little flash of pubic hair it shows far less than many of the great masters that have hung in prestigious galleries throughout the world for many decades.

What, if anything makes a painting inappropriate to be shown publicly, or even pornographic to you?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:In 2014 this painting was taken down from a leading London art gallery for being 'pornographic and disgusting'.
Apart from a little flash of pubic hair it shows far less than many of the great masters that have hung in prestigious galleries throughout the world for many decades.

What, if anything makes a painting inappropriate to be shown publicly, or even pornographic to you?

The thing about this artwork is that it's pointless.  It's just some broad flashing her minge.

Syl wrote:http://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/38330/1/ny-museum-refuses-to-remove-suggestive-image-of-young-girl


"New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art is refusing to remove a controversial painting of a child that has been widely criticised for being sexually suggestive. A petition garnered thousands of signatures against the work.
The 1938 painting, ‘Therese Dreaming’ by Balthus presents a young girl sitting in a position that reveals her underwear. It’s said that the young girl was the French-Polish painter’s neighbour, aged between 12 and 13. Mia Merrill, who started the petition says, “Balthus, had a noted infatuation with pubescent girls, and it can be strongly argued that this painting romanticizes the sexualization of a child”.
The petition, that was posted on Care2, hopes the Met will reconsider their portrayal of the painting and has gained over 9,000 signatures. But the museum are refusing to remove the painting on the grounds of creative expression."


Therese Dreaming.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

The thing about this artwork is that it's pointless.  It's just some broad flashing her minge.

People see paintings differently. Some may find her flashing her minge empowering.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

People see paintings differently. Some may find her flashing her minge empowering.

Since when does pubic hair empower?

Syl wrote:The Michealangelo's David isn't doing much either....but its a masterpiece.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Since when does pubic hair empower?

So its the peeping pubic hair that offends you?
Were she completely nude it would just be another painting of a naked woman.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:The Michealangelo's David isn't doing much either....but its a masterpiece.

It's a naked man.   If you're going to paint a nude, paint a nude.   Nothing wrong with the naked body.  But what those two paintings are doing is trying to titillate, and the one with the child is a paedo's dream.    

Syl wrote:I agree Cass.
I know a lot of the great paintings show nubile young girls frolicking about, but I don't think I have ever seen a painting in any gallery that I would consider pornographic in any way.

If the portrait of Therese had been naked, I could see the worry that it may appeal to paedophiles, but she isn't nude....just dreamy and relaxed, and the artist has captured the sullen expression of a 13 year old wonderfully.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's a naked man.   If you're going to paint a nude, paint a nude.   Nothing wrong with the naked body.  But what those two paintings are doing is trying to titillate, and the one with the child is a paedo's dream.    

Many masterpieces have half naked women, and very nubile young girls.

Paedo's find many images of youngsters erotic, I dont really think they should be the yardstick of what is considered 'proper' in regard to paintings.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It's a naked man.   If you're going to paint a nude, paint a nude.   Nothing wrong with the naked body.  But what those two paintings are doing is trying to titillate, and the one with the child is a paedo's dream.    

Many masterpieces have half naked women, and very nubile young girls.

Paedo's find many images of youngsters erotic, I dont really think they should be the yardstick of what is considered 'proper' in regard to paintings.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

So its the peeping pubic hair that offends you?
Were she completely nude it would just be another painting of a naked woman.

It doesn't offend me. I just don't like it.   I think it's pointless.  Let's face it what part of that painting of the  woman draws the eye?   The colour of her clothing?   The chiaroscuro?    

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Many masterpieces have half naked women, and very nubile young girls.

Paedo's find many images of youngsters erotic, I dont really think they should be the yardstick of what is considered 'proper' in regard to paintings.

So you think that just because something is presented as 'art' anything goes?

Vintage wrote:I agree with HT, what point is it supposed to be making, its a woman with her clothes half off. Nudes are studies in form, even with a drape here or there. This just looks as if its done to see what reaction it'll get. It's modern so does she often just stand around like that and answer the door perhaps?.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

It doesn't offend me. I just don't like it.   I think it's pointless.  Let's face it what part of that painting of the  woman draws the eye?   The colour of her clothing?   The chiaroscuro?    

After noting the pubes, I honed in on her expression...defiant, smoking a pipe, I find her rather fascinating. She looks like she could be in the 1940's but its a recent painting.
It was painted by her female friend,  titled....Portrait of Ms Ruby May standing.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So you think that just because something is presented as 'art' anything goes?

No I don't, some art is definately not fit for human viewing...but  I think paintings that are considered to be masterpieces belong in galleries.
Just because times have changed I don't think they should be taken down.

What did you think of Manchester art gallery removing Hylas and the Nymphs?

Vintage wrote:No. I don't agree. This woman with her clothes adrift is in the league of Danian Hirst and the Tracey Emen? with the rumpled bed thing bed (although I could see the idea there) mostly there's really no point. How can you appreciate art if youn don't know what it represents or means. A Rembrandt/Constable/Monet/Manet //will be appreciated for time immemorial but will a Emen/Hirst have the same appreciation without explanation?. If you have to explain an art work to the general public for them to appreciate it is it really a work of art? Most people can appreciate the beauty of Degas/Mone/Da Vinci etc without an explanation.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

No I don't, some art is definately not fit for human viewing...but  I think paintings that are considered to be masterpieces belong in galleries.
Just because times have changed I don't think they should be taken down.

What did you think of Manchester art gallery removing Hylas and the Nymphs?

I think it's silly.   There's nothing derogatory towards females in it.  

Syl wrote:Us Mancs made it clear that the decision was wrong.
They have now put it back up.

Vintage wrote:Maybe a test of 'art' is will people in the far future, maybe post apocylypse, if it survived, appreciate it without someone having to explain it?

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I think it's silly.   There's nothing derogatory towards females in it.  

I agree, but if you view one pic to be a paedo's dream why not this one?
Young beguiling girls enticing a man to join them.
Im not sure where or how you would draw the line?

Vintage wrote:True, people ie the general public, eventually appreciated the beauty of the subject. I think the proof of a piece of art is if the general (un - art- educted ) people can appreciate the beauty of it without it having to be explained to them by art experts. Conseptual art is evaluated in the eye of the beholder, for many its meaning is incomprehensible.

Syl wrote:One of the paintings is beautiful, the other is a rough drawn sketch which most people could do.
I would call the second artwork badly drawn  tat....others would disagree.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:One of the paintings is beautiful, the other is a rough drawn sketch which most people could do.
I would call the second artwork badly drawn  tat....others would disagree.

According to Tracy Emin fans, it's art that hangs in a gallery and gets thousands into the artist's bank account.

Cass wrote:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Same with art. Over the years I’ve grown to like some modern and installation art pieces. 10 years ago I would’ve said no way.

A few years ago I took one of those open access history of art courses online for free.  It was challenging but I learned a lot from it and to open myself to other expressions of what I would not have classified as art.

Vintage wrote:A lot of art work now is rubbish, although there'll always be someone who starts raving over it and as the momentum grows the experts fall over themselves to get in on the act,
saying how wonderful and avant garde and braverly experimental it is, then no one who has anything to do with the art world, unless they are extremely brave, will denounce it. I know people will say portraits, landscapes
still life etc is like taking a photo but I haven't seen much of late that compares with the old masters or the impressionists, I guess I'm one of the wowser brigade - although I wouldn't ban anything I'd just like people to be more honest and not jump on the bandwagon/gravy train.

veya_victaous wrote:Ban them and replace them all with Artwork made by Monkeys

nicko wrote:Biggest laugh I had was a Sheep sawed in half,   a pile of Bricks and the empty room.