Remove this painting?

[Udayana]

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?

I don't have an exact position or rule on any of these questions, nor do I need one.

In practice, there are no infallible answers: We have a general framework in which all these questions are decidable for any specific harassment or abuse case, or acceptability of any particular artwork for display or publication, by judges, juries, editors and museum or gallery curators and directors.

Rather surprised that you think abuse could be justifiable.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't have an exact position or rule on any of these questions, nor do I need one.

In practice, there are no infallible answers: We have a general framework in which all these questions are decidable for any specific harassment or abuse case, or acceptability of any particular artwork for display or publication, by judges, juries, editors and museum or gallery curators and directors.

Rather surprised that you think abuse could be justifiable.

Where do I suggest that it is justifiable? And I didn't ask you for infallible answers - indeed I would suggest that I've been saying that they don't exist.

[Udayana]

You said: "... won't lead to a justification of abuse?" -which implies that you think there is that possibility.

Are you saying that these questions are un-decidable then? Or just leaving it up to someone else to sort out?

[Nearly Sane]

You said: "... won't lead to a justification of abuse?" -which implies that you think there is that possibility.

Are you saying that these questions are un-decidable then? Or just leaving it up to someone else to sort out?

You seem to think that it's acceptable to show the picture even though there might be abuse, so I was asking a question of what you think is acceptable here.

So if you say there are no infallible answers that's ok but if I say it I am leaving it to others to 'sort  out'?  Odd approach.

[Udayana]

You seem to think that it's acceptable to show the picture even though there might be abuse, so I was asking a question of what you think is acceptable here.

So if you say there are no infallible answers that's ok but if I say it I am leaving it to others to 'sort  out'?  Odd approach.

I do think it is acceptable to show the picture.

We don't know if there was abuse or not, though my inclination is that there was not. But even if there was abuse or harassment say, the picture is not a justification of it - in that case it would be preferable that there were no abuse and that the picture did not exist.

I'm saying that there are no infallible answers in that, given that information is missing and judgements on probabilities of outcomes is needed, we can't be fully certain of any answer. However, on the basis of rational discussion by people with appropriate expertise working on the objective facts of each case, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know".

[Nearly Sane]

I do think it is acceptable to show the picture.

We don't know if there was abuse or not, though my inclination is that there was not. But even if there was abuse or harassment say, the picture is not a justification of it - in that case it would be preferable that there were no abuse and that the picture did not exist.

I'm saying that there are no infallible answers in that, given that information is missing and judgements on probabilities of outcomes is needed, we can't be fully certain of any answer. However, on the basis of rational discussion by people with appropriate expertise working on the objective facts of each case, a reasonable conclusion can be reached.

But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know".

So where are the objective facts here, and how do you move from an ought to an is? Who are the experts in this?  You seem to be assertions and then have nothing to back them up but your further assertions.  You seem to need to personalise this.

[Udayana]

So where are the objective facts here,

To get to my conclusion on this case I'm just using the info in the original link and wikipedia and some guesswork.

and how do you move from an ought to an is?

I moved from an ought to an is?

Who are the experts in this? 

In general, there are experts in history, art, psychology, law, and juries to make decisions - but not used in this case - as the decision is the responsibility of the museum.

You seem to be assertions and then have nothing to back them up but your further assertions. 

I can attempt to back up any unsupported assertion if not obvious.

You seem to need to personalise this.

Not me. You keep accusing me of making logical flaws so I try to answer those, but you seem not to want to come to a conclusion.
 

[Nearly Sane]

To get to my conclusion on this case I'm just using the info in the original link and wikipedia and some guesswork.I moved from an ought to an is?In general, there are experts in history, art, psychology, law, and juries to make decisions - but not used in this case - as the decision is the responsibility of the museum. I can attempt to back up any unsupported assertion if not obvious.Not me. You keep accusing me of making logical flaws so I try to answer those, but you seem not to want to come to a conclusion.

Stating that I see your position as flawed is not personalising, stating 'But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know"' is.

You are too intelligent a poster to not see that, so I'm bemused.

[Udayana]

Stating that I see your position as flawed is not personalising, stating 'But you seem to be just holding your head in your hands complaining that you "don't know"' is.

You are too intelligent a poster to not see that, so I'm bemused.

OK, I retract that comment.

I've tried to put together the chain of thoughts that get me to an answer, though it is very rough with many unjustified assumptions and jumps. I'd better stop here!
 

[Nearly Sane]

OK, I retract that comment.

I've tried to put together the chain of thoughts that get me to an answer, though it is very rough with many unjustified assumptions and jumps. I'd better stop here!

Thank you. I'm fine with that - that's all I've been trying to do as well. Perhaps there is a value in the painting being shown in a context of the questions it raises.

[jeremyp]

I thought it was pretty obvious.

Yes, it is obvious that that was not the question you asked. You didn't restrict your question to members of the forum, so why should I infer that is what you meant?

[Rhiannon]

Yes, it is obvious that that was not the question you asked. You didn't restrict your question to members of the forum, so why should I infer that is what you meant?

Because I'm not discussing the painting with people that aren't here. I'm discussing it with people that are here.

[jeremyp]

Because I'm not discussing the painting with people that aren't here. I'm discussing it with people that are here.

Your question was a challenge to a post that I wrote which made a claim about people in general, not people on this forum. The context of your question is therefore - reasonably - the context of my post.

[Rhiannon]

Excuse me, I need to wash out the salad drawer in my fridge.

[jeremyp]

Excuse me, I need to wash out the salad drawer in my fridge.

You concede the point then.

[Rhiannon]

You concede the point then.

No, the wilted lettuce and squished cherry tomatoes are more interesting.

[jeremyp]

No, the wilted lettuce and squished cherry tomatoes are more interesting.

You concede the point, but you're not prepared to admit it. Fine.

[Shaker]

You concede the point, but you're not prepared to admit it. Fine.

I could have sworn she said no to that.

[jeremyp]

I could have sworn she said no to that.

Saying no is not the same as not conceding the point.

[Shaker]

Saying no is not the same as not conceding the point.

It is when the "No" is preceded by the question: "So you concede the point then."

[Owlswing]

You concede the point, but you're not prepared to admit it. Fine.

Over the years Rhi has shown a far greater propensity for admiting defeat than you ever have!

So NO - Rhi has conceded nothing except that she has lost interest in your line of argument.

As have others - me included.

[Harrowby Hall]

I came across this on the following site:  http://www.sexualintelligence.org/

It contains the following sentence:

I'm tired of some people seeing sex everywhere, feeling threatened, and wanting to protect themselves (and everyone else) by stripping away and dumbing down the world's art, fashion, words, products, and, ultimately, eroticism itself.

Which applies equally to the Manchester Waterhouse in another thread.



Underpants In a Painting—Always About Sex?


New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art is now displaying a painting that some people don't like. In fact, some 10,000 people have signed a petition to do SOMETHING about the damn picture.

It's the 1938 painting Therese Dreaming by Polish-French artist Balthus. It shows a 12-year-old girl relaxing in a simple rustic room, eyes closed, looking away from us. One leg is propped higher than the other in a common, comfortable posture. Since she's wearing a long peasant-style skirt, the viewer can see her underpants between her thighs.

As a consumer, I'm not a fan of painting. I prefer Bach to da Vinci, Shakespeare to Van Gogh, and Hepburn to Warhol.

But I know the demonization of art when I see it. That demonization is almost always about sex. And frequently about protecting children.

Mia Merrill's complaint is a familiar one, tarted up with today's politics. The painting is "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child. If you are a part of the #metoo movement or ever think about the implications of art on life, please support this effort."

"Shocked" to see the painting depicting a young girl "in a sexually suggestive pose," she notes that "Given the current climate around sexual assault and allegations…in showcasing this work for the masses without providing any type of clarification, the Met is, perhaps unintentionally, supporting voyeurism and the objectification of children."

Merrill says she doesn't demand the painting be destroyed (how too too tolerant of her), she just wants it removed from view or paired with editorial comment. She'd be satisfied "if the Met included a message as brief as, 'Some viewers find this piece offensive or disturbing, given Balthus's artistic infatuation with young girls.'"

So to summarize:

•   The picture needs "clarification." Viewers must be told about the picture, rather than being allowed to consume it unaided.

•   Displaying it supports "voyeurism" ("perhaps unintentionally"!). It's wrong if art creates the wrong kind of response in consumers.

•   The painting should be "removed from view" or paired with a message that "some viewers find this piece offensive." So consumers shouldn't have the chance to think about it or discuss it with others, coming to their own conclusions about its merit, meaning, or any larger issues.

Merrill's worst statement is describing the subject in a "sexually suggestive pose." Most people would just see a girl on a chair daydreaming next to her cat. Some would see interesting colors, lighting, shadows and textures. Apparently Merrill is one of those people who sees sex everywhere. Censors always do.

Where you or I might see casual affection between two male friends walking down the street, some see sex, and feel assaulted. Where you might ignore a tampon commercial, those uncomfortable with sex feel assaulted. Where you might be bored with a fart joke on late night TV, they feel assaulted. That's a lot of feeling assaulted.

If you're not obsessed with sex, you wouldn't even consider these three things part of a single thread. You might casually observe "friendly people + health product + dumb joke." But they perceive "sex + sex + sex." And for them, it never stops; people who obsessively construct erotic imagery (which they claim they dislike) never have a nice day.

Like kids in a candy store or at a scary movie, people obsessed with erotic imagery are simply not emotionally equipped to ignore what they see. These people deserve sympathy, but they don't get mine because they deal with their upset in such an aggressive way. They want to cleanse the public sphere of sexuality—and they imagine the public sphere as practically the whole world. It includes Greek statues in City Hall, radio ads for birth control, string bikinis on the beach, vanity license plates, lube in the drugstore—the list is almost endless.

Most of us want to end violence and exploitation, especially around sexuality. It's difficult to know exactly how to do that, and so we sometimes reach out in odd, unproductive places. Like Merrill, we can resemble the drunk guy looking for his car keys at midnight under a streetlight. Is that where he dropped them? No, he dropped them over there in the dark, but the light's much better here under the streetlight.

I'm tired of some people seeing sex everywhere, feeling threatened, and wanting to protect themselves (and everyone else) by stripping away and dumbing down the world's art, fashion, words, products, and, ultimately, eroticism itself.

I'm also tired of people simplistically claiming that practically everything can lead to sexual violence, "the patriarchy," or "rape culture." In our attempt to be insightful about sexism and clearly against actual violence (both great steps forward), we're speeding toward a Stalinist suspicion of almost everything: anything connected with gender, beauty, yearning, childhood, playfulness, courtship, pleasure, underwear, and yes, sexuality itself.

We can strip the world of The Wizard of Oz and Philip Roth, the Marx Brothers and casual Fridays, Taylor Swift and Janis Joplin, Princess Leia and Princess Diana—but the world would be far poorer than it is now.

More importantly, it would be no safer.

[Rhiannon]

No, it doesn't apply equally to the Waterhouse painting debate. Not in the slightest.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it doesn't apply equally to the Waterhouse painting debate. Not in the slightest.

Yes, I am not seeing that the cases are the same. I also think that the points made in the article ignore the context of the painting and what we know about Balthus. It's one of those attempts at Olympian disdain which is undermined by it thinking that art is somehow deserving of a special pass because the little people don't understand it.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I am not seeing that the cases are the same. I also think that the points made in the article ignore the context of the painting and what we know about Balthus. It's one of those attempts at Olympian disdain which is undermined by it thinking that art is somehow deserving of a special pass because the little people don't understand it.

Very much agree with this.