Remove this painting?

[Rhiannon]

He's an adult, and yes, the sitter was a pubescent neighbour.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/489977

[jeremyp]

He's an adult, and yes, the sitter was a pubescent neighbour.

And the second part of my post?

[Rhiannon]

And the second part of my post?

Who has suggested that?

Are you aware of some of his other art?

A few years ago the Gagosian Gallery in New York held a show of some of the Polaroids Balthus had taken at the end of his life, of a young girl named Anna Wahli, who was usually semi-dressed when he photographed her. She sat for him one afternoon a week from the time she was 8 until she was a teenager. After the sessions, they would watch the soap opera “The Bold and The Beautiful.” A German museum had canceled an exhibition of the images previously, with a newspaper calling them documents of pedophilic greed.

From

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/we-need-to-talk-about-balthus.html

[Harrowby Hall]

By assiduously covering particular parts of the body we draw attention to them. By preventing those parts from being seen we fetishise them and ascribe special value to the garments involved.

I recall a conversation with my mother-in-law in which she told (with some pride) of her mother's habit of, when hanging out washing, of hiding "unmentionables" inside other garments so that people seeing the washing drying on the line would be able to see any undergarments. My response was to suggest that the first thought of casual observers would have been that no-one in that house wore knickers.

Like jeremyp, I see no sexual overtones in the painting.

Balthus was very good at painting cats.

[Rhiannon]

By assiduously covering particular parts of the body we draw attention to them. By preventing those parts from being seen we fetishise them and ascribe special value to the garments involved.

I recall a conversation with my mother-in-law in which she told (with some pride) of her mother's habit of, when hanging out washing, of hiding "unmentionables" inside other garments so that people seeing the washing drying on the line would be able to see any undergarments. My response was to suggest that the first thought of casual observers would have been that no-one in that house wore knickers.

Like jeremyp, I see no sexual overtones in the painting.

Balthus was very good at painting cats.

Does it mater to you when you see it in the context of his other work?

[Harrowby Hall]

Does it mater to you when you see it in the context of his other work?

Guilt by association?

[Rhiannon]

Guilt by association?

Erm, how does that work? Association with himself?

Note, I'm like NS, I don't have the answers here, I didn't initially have a strong reaction to the painting but on stopping and thinking about it, there are questions that lead to other questions, memories, ideas. I guess our response to art is often formed from personal experience. And that doesn't make something ok just because It Is Art.

[jeremyp]

Who has suggested that?

Lots of people have.

Everybody, in effect, who has said this paining should be banned because of sexual stuff. I don't see anything sexual in the painting at all. Maybe the artist didn't, maybe the subject didn't.

Some people (bizarrely imo) see sexual connotations in women breast feeding in public. Are they right?

[Rhiannon]

Lots of people have.

Everybody, in effect, who has said this paining should be banned because of sexual stuff. I don't see anything sexual in the painting at all. Maybe the artist didn't, maybe the subject didn't.

Some people (bizarrely imo) see sexual connotations in women breast feeding in public. Are they right?

Who *here* has said either?

[jeremyp]

Who *here* has said either?

That's not the question you asked.

[Rhiannon]

That's not the question you asked.

I thought it was pretty obvious.

[Udayana]

Erm, how does that work? Association with himself?

Note, I'm like NS, I don't have the answers here, I didn't initially have a strong reaction to the painting but on stopping and thinking about it, there are questions that lead to other questions, memories, ideas. I guess our response to art is often formed from personal experience. And that doesn't make something ok just because It Is Art.

Yes, you are describing a subjective interaction with the art, which is what art is mostly about - here it doesn't matter what the subject or content of the art is, it could be beautiful or utterly vile. OK or not, when deciding whether it should be available for viewing or destroyed, it is the objective, real life, evidence and consequences of distribution that must be considered - not how it makes any individual feel.

"The Ring" is a great or horrible film depending on whether you like to be horrified or not, as such it is shown in cinemas, distributed on video and generally available to consenting adults. However, if someone was actually in possession of the video within the film, that kills whoever watches it, it would, obviously, be best to destroy it asap.

[Udayana]

...
Like jeremyp, I see no sexual overtones in the painting.

Balthus was very good at painting cats.

Whether something, apart from actual sex, is sexual or not is a subjective matter. But if you agreed that there were sexual overtones in the painting - does that make a difference in how the issue is resolved? Does something being sexual make it a special case?
 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, you are describing a subjective interaction with the art, which is what art is mostly about - here it doesn't matter what the subject or content of the art is, it could be beautiful or utterly vile. OK or not, when deciding whether it should be available for viewing or destroyed, it is the objective, real life, evidence and consequences of distribution that must be considered - not how it makes any individual feel.

"The Ring" is a great or horrible film depending on whether you like to be horrified or not, as such it is shown in cinemas, distributed on video and generally available to consenting adults. However, if someone was actually in possession of the video within the film, that kills whoever watches it, it would, obviously, be best to destroy it asap.

I think a better analogy here might be a 'snuff' film? What is someone claims it is art?  The question seems to be about what is 'real' and I don't think that is necessarily as easy a question as it might feel. That's why we have been having the discussion about whether films/photos are in some way different, does it matter if there is an actual sitter, etc. Surely real life evidence also involves how it makes people feel?

[Udayana]

If it makes people go out and kill or maim people it does or involve harm (ie. assault, violence or death) to the people depicted it is clearly unacceptable. No-one could claim that an ISIS propaganda film could be "art". However, there are a thousand and one Hollywood films where scores are gunned down with never a second thought.

So, for the Therese painting, if this is an "ad" to recruit pedophiles then it should be destroyed, but I don't think that that has been shown.

[Nearly Sane]

If it makes people go out and kill or maim people it does or involve harm (ie. assault, violence or death) to the people depicted it is clearly unacceptable. No-one could claim that an ISIS propaganda film could be "art". However, there are a thousand and one Hollywood films where scores are gunned down with never a second thought.

So, for the Therese painting, if this is an "ad" to recruit pedophiles then it should be destroyed, but I don't think that that has been shown.

And I don't think anyone, even those who started the petition, have argued that it should be destroyed. Further again many of the issues are about whether it itself is effectively the record of what might be regarded as some form of sexual harassment because it involves a live sitter or not, and whether had it been a film or photo that makes a difference - note as already covered by Rhiannon there seems to have been a difference in the reaction to the proposed photographic exhibition.

As was raised earlier in the thread, we could go down the route of what is art, but the question is does it make any difference to call something art?

[Nearly Sane]

Lots of people have.

Everybody, in effect, who has said this paining should be banned because of sexual stuff. I don't see anything sexual in the painting at all. Maybe the artist didn't, maybe the subject didn't.

Some people (bizarrely imo) see sexual connotations in women breast feeding in public. Are they right?

No, the original petition says nothing and implies nothing about banning painters, (and again is there something different because it's a painting and not a photo?) from painting pubescent girls. It's about displaying it as part of the collection.

[Udayana]

And I don't think anyone, even those who started the petition, have argued that it should be destroyed. Further again many of the issues are about whether it itself is effectively the record of what might be regarded as some form of sexual harassment because it involves a live sitter or not, and whether had it been a film or photo that makes a difference - note as already covered by Rhiannon there seems to have been a difference in the reaction to the proposed photographic exhibition.

As was raised earlier in the thread, we could go down the route of what is art, but the question is does it make any difference to call something art?

Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether something is called art or not. Anything could be called art at some point and probably has. Also, I don't regard art as something sacrosanct to be collected or preserved for eternity. I would not value, say, the Mona Lisa, above a good copy of it. All this stuff is just part of transient life experience.

Balthus seems obsessed, maybe sexually, by girls, but is there enough actual evidence to convict him for sexual harassment of his models? I doubt it, and in my view, the picture itself does not provide good evidence.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Personally I don't think it makes a difference whether something is called art or not. Anything could be called art at some point and probably has. Also, I don't regard art as something sacrosanct to be collected or preserved for eternity. I would not value, say, the Mona Lisa, above a good copy of it. All this stuff is just part of transient life experience.

Balthus seems obsessed, maybe sexually, by girls, but is there enough actual evidence to convict him for sexual harassment of his models? I doubt it, and in my view, the picture itself does not provide good evidence.

Then the question of whether someone calls an IS film art is irrelevant. Your second point seems to indicate that   there is a boundary about whether it is good evidence to convict someone of sexual harassment. Do you think the photographs in the exhibition are good evidence for this? Is the need to show that such a thing would need to be good evidence of harassment to lead to destruction of the piece which I haven't seen suggested other than by jeremyp and you, or to prevent it being shown by a major art gallery?

[Udayana]

Haven't seen any photographs from the exhibition. Even with a photograph how can you tell what actually occurred or what was posed or made up?

All this was in the 1930's - so now is relevant only to the extent that accessibility to the material increases the likelihood of current or future abuse - it does not in my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

Haven't seen any photographs from the exhibition. Even with a photograph how can you tell what actually occurred or what was posed or made up?

All this was in the 1930's - so now is relevant only to the extent that accessibility to the material increases the likelihood of current or future abuse - it does not in my opinion.

In answer to your firsr, don't know but surely that is part of the issue. If you have an adult filming pubescents in a state of undress that you don't know any informed cobsent has been given, isn't there a problem there too ?

For your second paragraph, you seem to state a value judgement as a fact i.e. that the only relevance is future abuse. Then take it as a fact that it is the only consideration and then make an assertion based on that.

[Udayana]

In answer to your firsr, don't know but surely that is part of the issue. If you have an adult filming pubescents in a state of undress that you don't know any informed cobsent has been given, isn't there a problem there too ?

Of-course, but surely this is covered by current legislation?

For your second paragraph, you seem to state a value judgement as a fact i.e. that the only relevance is future abuse. Then take it as a fact that it is the only consideration and then make an assertion based on that.

If you think there is another consideration you could put it up?

[Nearly Sane]

Of-course, but surely this is covered by current legislation?
If you think there is another consideration you could put it up?

Not sure what the point about current legislation is? Surely it's a question of what evidence might be conclusive and that no evidence on your take here to fulfil your stated criteria is sufficient?

Novel use of the argument from ignorance, I suppose. It's also a bit odd given there have been questions about whether showing 'art' that may be the result of sexual harassment of a minor but isn't sufficient evidence of it is ethical. Indeed in that sense your second paragraph appears to completely ignore the point that you make in your first paragraph.

[Udayana]

Not sure what the point about current legislation is? Surely it's a question of what evidence might be conclusive and that no evidence on your take here to fulfil your stated criteria is sufficient?

Novel use of the argument from ignorance, I suppose. It's also a bit odd given there have been questions about whether showing 'art' that may be the result of sexual harassment of a minor but isn't sufficient evidence of it is ethical. Indeed in that sense your second paragraph appears to completely ignore the point that you make in your first paragraph.

But these points were covered earlier.

We have legislation that covers child porn, in particular photographs or film, even historic, that involves or could lead to abuse and exploitation of minors.

And, imo, for paintings, it is ethical unless it is likely to increase likelihood of further abuse.
 
Also, if we could not see the picture, we could not indulge in this discussion of it.

[Nearly Sane]

But these points were covered earlier.

We have legislation that covers child porn, in particular photographs or film, even historic, that involves or could lead to abuse and exploitation of minors.

And, imo, for paintings, it is ethical unless it is likely to increase likelihood of further abuse.
 
Also, if we could not see the picture, we could not indulge in this discussion of it.

I think we have touched on them, but I don't think I have any clear idea about what your position on them is, or why you take them. Are you saying that one possible objection you would allow is if it could be good evidence of harassment, rather than assault? Is it important when that harassment might have happened? Is it significant if no harassment has been claimed? Is it important that no harassment has been alleged in the courts? Is it important that a case could be brought forward on the basis of it or not?

How would you evaluate likelihood of abuse? How do you evaluate the possibility that something that could form the basis of a case of harassment won't lead to a justification of abuse? How do you evaluate the issue of it being displayed by a major museum and how that won't affect what is acceptable? If you know that it came form a sitter who was pubescent by and adult, what would be acceptable or not, given the position of power?