Remove this painting?

[Robbie]

Wot Rhi said.

[Owlswing]

Manga - printed cartoons in books/magazines

Anime - animation, films

Hentai - lets not go there

Subtle as always!

My daughter has a friend who is, if anything, a little more dyslexic that she is, and an accomplished 2D animator and has been coaching Natasha for about four or five years now and her slowly, slowly catchee monkey programme has worked wonders.

She has also met Sonia Leong who has published Manga versions of Shakespeare, among other things, amd has been really kind in her assistance to Tash.

Hentai - if you are not au fait with Japanese attitudes to certain things it can come as a shock to the system! 

[Harrowby Hall]

Hentai is not alone. The content of some bandes dessines can be ... err ... arresting!

I love anime and the prospect of Studio Ghibli closing down now that Hayao Miyazaki has retired saddens me. The possibility that When Marnie was There may be its last production, I suppose, does mean that Ghibli ends on a high note.

Back to Balthus. The Met is completely correct to continue to exhibit the painting - there are too many people in the world who believe that their right not to be offended pre-empts the rights of everybody else. Balthus was as good a painter of cats as anyone.

[Rhiannon]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/dec/07/arguing-over-art-is-right-but-trying-to-ban-it-is-the-work-of-fascists

And an excellent article here.

https://tinyurl.com/y9fhck3r

To be clear, the issue isn't the content but that someone wanted to paint the content, a man in a position of power. I think it is important that in this debate there is no suggestion that the girl shouldn't have been doing what she was - of course she should, she is at the age of awakening and it is important that both girls and boys feel empowered to explore their sexuality as they grow and not repress it. But she should have been free to do so in private, and this is where the exploitation becomes hideous. And out is important that the exploitation is discussed and not swept away into a museum store cupboard.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/dec/07/arguing-over-art-is-right-but-trying-to-ban-it-is-the-work-of-fascists

The problem then is the question of what is art. The writer is, I presume, happy to have some things banned, hate speech, shouting fire in a crowded building, someone telling a 5 year old what they would like to do to them sexually. Is any or all of that allowed if someone says it's art?  The use of the term fascist is almost Vladdist.

[Rhiannon]

The problem then is the question of what is art. The writer is, I presume, happy to have some things banned, hate speech, shouting fire in a crowded building, someone telling a 5 year old what they would like to do to them sexually. Is any or all of that allowed if someone says it's art?  The use of the term fascist is almost Vladdist.

Yes, there is very much an idea that if something is skilfully executed it transcends to a different level from your average sexting screenshot.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, there is very much an idea that if something is skilfully executed it transcends to a different level from your average sexting screenshot.

  And then there is the problem that 'art'  covers Duchamp's Readymades. No exhaustive skill involved.

[Rhiannon]

  And then there is the problem that 'art'  covers Duchamp's Readymades. No exhaustive skill involved.

Is this conversation evolving into a What Is Art discussion?

[Nearly Sane]

Is this conversation evolving into a What Is Art discussion?

I thought it always was that? Combined with the questio  of if we regard something as art, what does that mean. What privileges do we give to the art/artist that we might not otherwise?

[Rhiannon]

I thought it always was that? Combined with the questio  of if we regard something as art, what does that mean. What privileges do we give to the art/artist that we might not otherwise?

I think that the second part of that is probably what were have been discussing. And I'm wondering how this would be if it were a photograph taken on an iPhone and not a skilfully executed painting.

[Rhiannon]

I added this to my earlier post but it might get lost now so I'm reposting.

Of course it just might not be very interesting. 

https://tinyurl.com/y9fhck3r

To be clear, the issue isn't the content but that someone wanted to paint the content, a man in a position of power. I think it is important that in this debate there is no suggestion that the girl shouldn't have been doing what she was - of course she should, she is at the age of awakening and it is important that both girls and boys feel empowered to explore their sexuality as they grow and not repress it. But she should have been free to do so in private, and this is where the exploitation becomes hideous. And out is important that the exploitation is discussed and not swept away into a museum store cupboard.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that the second part of that is probably what were have been discussing. And I'm wondering how this would be if it were a photograph taken on an iPhone and not a skilfully executed painting.

Surely the first question is directly implied by the question of what privileges we give art? If we can't say what it is, anx your iPhone question seems to fo directly to what is art, then saying what privileges we offer it is secondary, though absolutely relevant to the subject.

[Rhiannon]

Surely the first question is directly implied by the question of what privileges we give art? If we can't say what it is, anx your iPhone question seems to fo directly to what is art, then saying what privileges we offer it is secondary, though absolutely relevant to the subject.

I think it inevitable that we'd end up with 'what is art', certainly. But given that the discussion on this before has turned to whether clouds can be art, or whether there has to be a mind of an artist to see something as art, we could end up getting way off where we started.

I saw the Paul Nash exhibition three times when it was on at the Tate (bit of a fangirl) and he is so interesting on the concept of found art.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it inevitable that we'd end up with 'what is art', certainly. But given that the discussion on this before has turned to whether clouds can be art, or whether there has to be a mind of an artist to see something as art, we could end up getting way off where we started.

I saw the Paul Nash exhibition three times when it was on at the Tate (bit of a fangirl) and he is so interesting on the concept of found art.

Agreed that it could all becone a bit theoretical but it seems to me that if we eant to say that something is acceptable because it is ' ART' then inevitably we end up at the issue of what do we call art. There are lots of photographs in art galleries, and as you noted, if this was a photograph would it feel the same? Mapplethorpe's photographs caused controversy but were at least in theory voluntary by those capable of giving consent. Would this pucture be ok if it was actually an imaginary sitter?


(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )

[Rhiannon]

Agreed that it could all becone a bit theoretical but it seems to me that if we eant to say that something is acceptable because it is ' ART' then inevitably we end up at the issue of what do we call art. There are lots of photographs in art galleries, and as you noted, if this was a photograph would it feel the same? Mapplethorpe's photographs caused controversy but were at least in theory voluntary by those capable of giving consent. Would this pucture be ok if it was actually an imaginary sitter?


(Note I don't know what the answers are here so 'm not arguing for a particular view. )

But are we saying that this is acceptable because it is art, because it is skilfully executed or whatever? Maybe that is the argument of some; for me it is the fact that it opens up debate about the fact that it isn't acceptable that is key.

I think the fact that this is a painting removes us a step from the subject. And if you think about that, Therese, presumably, would have been required to assume that pose several times, for long periods of time, in a way that a photograph doesn't require. Do we become so blind to the skill of the artist that we ignore that?

Is it really enough to say that this painting is important now because of what it says about male power, as so many works of art do? Is there something to take from it and apply to the world of the people viewing it today?

[Nearly Sane]

But are we saying that this is acceptable because it is art, because it is skilfully executed or whatever? Maybe that is the argument of some; for me it is the fact that it opens up debate about the fact that it isn't acceptable that is key.

I think the fact that this is a painting removes us a step from the subject. And if you think about that, Therese, presumably, would have been required to assume that pose several times, for long periods of time, in a way that a photograph doesn't require. Doing we becomes so blind to the skill of the artist that we ignore that?

Is it really enough to say that this painting is important now because of what it says about male power, as so many works of art do? Is there something to take from it and apply to the world of the people viewing it today?

Agree that it is the argument about what is acceptable that is key but we do give free passes to art that we wouldn't elsewhere. The oft made discussion point about Page 3 versus the Rokeby Venus highlights that. And indeed the Rokeby Venus as a painting slashed by a suffragette underlines that this isn't a new question.

Your point about the sitter posing for the painting is quite disturbing. Does the the distance we have in it being a painting mean we consider the sitter less important?


To link to an earlier comment,I think that works of art such as those by Caravaggio or Wagner created by people with objectionable views or having committed dreadful acts are not the same question as works of art that in themselves are problematic. I am uncomfortable with censorship but I don't like the ideathatsimoly because something is a challenge that it gets value.


(And a further note, I like this type of discussion where there seem to be more questions than answers, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDTvLldOgZs, for those taking part)

[Rhiannon]

I don't know if it is that we consider the sitter less important, so much as less real.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know if it is that we consider the sitter less important, so much as less real.

Interesting point, again I'm drawn back to the idea that theycoukd actually be completely imaginary, and we couldn't from looking at the painting tell if there was a sitter.

[Udayana]

Don't see why it makes a difference if there was a sitter or not. Plenty of people pose for long periods in much more awkward arrangements.

 - Unless being seen in your underwear is somehow an assault?

[Nearly Sane]

Don't see why it makes a difference if there was a sitter or not. Plenty of people pose for long periods in much more awkward arrangements.

 - Unless being seen in your underwear is somehow an assault?

It relates back to the idea that some paintings might be seen as less acceptable as photographs. For a sitter under the age of consent, surely there is a question of what they can consent to as a sitter? 

[Rhiannon]

Interesting point, again I'm drawn back to the idea that theycoukd actually be completely imaginary, and we couldn't from looking at the painting tell if there was a sitter.

Yeah, absolutely, is she a character from a fairy tale?

I wonder too if there is something in the possibility that subconsciously painting is the medium of the past and photography the present, and that is distancing too? Like it happened a long time ago, even if it didn't, and wouldn't be relevant if it had...is that making sense?

[Rhiannon]

It relates back to the idea that some paintings might be seen as less acceptable as photographs. For a sitter under the age of consent, surely there is a question of what they can consent to as a sitter?

Yes, how aware is she of what she is being asked to do? And even if she was ok with it at the time (and this is what grooming is about, remember) what effect did it have on her and how did she feel about it later?

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah, absolutely, is she a character from a fairy tale?

I wonder too if there is something in the possibility that subconsciously painting is the medium of the past and photography the present, and that is distancing too? Like it happened a long time ago, even if it didn't, and wouldn't be relevant if it had...is that making sense?

There are echoes here of McLuhan's hot and cold media, which tbh I don't think I have ever properly understood, but I think he would have said photography was hot and painting was cold (I may be wrong).  I'm not sure if it's about the past/present thing as painting has always had a freer rein that most arts. It seems to me an almost an
'If I could have imagined it, then it's imaginary' take. And what if the painting was taken from a photo of the person? Would it matter if they had given consent? Or were too young to give consent? There is a pretty good episode of The Good Wife about an artist who shows photos of her children naked and their rights to object after they have grown up that relates to this. I also just realised that in shortening photographs/photography to photos, I caused a little shift in how I viewed the seriousness of the art. Humanity is just weird.

[Udayana]

Parents could consent if the model is under-age. Here the model was a neighbour who posed for a number of paintings.

If that's what it was, I don't think there is a problem. If grooming or actual abuse/assault is involved, that is a different matter. The reason photographs of naked children are regarded as illegal porn is not that there is anything wrong with the images themselves, but that it encourages and supports, or is directly the cause of, child exploitation and abuse.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Parents could consent if the model is under-age. Here the model was a neighbour who posed for a number of paintings.

If that's what it was, I don't think there is a problem. If grooming or actual abuse/assault is involved, that is a different matter. The reason photographs of naked children are regarded as illegal porn is not that there is anything wrong with the images themselves, but that it encourages and supports, or is directly the cause of, child exploitation and abuse.

Why would photographs be different to paintings in that regard though?