The naked nymph conversation

[Nearly Sane]

This feels like the 'left' does Piss Christ. Perhaps we need to get more tiny pieces of muslin?



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

[Rhiannon]

I was reading this last night. Art snobbery meets censorship pretending to be a 'conversation'. It's a concern that some art will just be hidden until it's forgotten.

The pre-raphaelites might not be fashionable but they are popular. This seems to be stopping people from choosing the art that they like and replacing it with art that experts think that they should.

[Nearly Sane]

What, though, if we were to look at them as Victorian Balthus?

[Rhiannon]

The nymphs are young women, but they aren't children.

[floo]

This feels like the 'left' does Piss Christ. Perhaps we need to get more tiny pieces of muslin?



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

Ghastly!

[Nearly Sane]

But does that mean we have to take an audit of what age we think models are, and get the story behind all pictures of eroticized naked females who are possibly too young? I can't help but think that the Balthus question has influenced here, added to the thought of Ruskin effectively being betrothed to a child and thence guilt by association.

[Rhiannon]

But nobody is linking this to the exploitation of children.

‘Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.’

It’s been linked to the #MeToo movement. If anything presumably the concern is that the adult female models have been sexually harassed or exploited.

[wigginhall]

I don't understand what they are playing at.   Saying that they want a conversation strikes me as evasive.   Are they censoring Waterhouse or not?  He has been known for ages as a master of soft porn, or as they say of Prince Albert, a marital aid, but at the same time, a master colorist.   See his 'Saint Eulalia' for a notorious picture, which combines both.   I was going to give a link to it, but my computer objected.   You can see it in Tate Britain. 

Oh, Wiki seems to be allowed.  His use of the soft brown colour is amazing here, picked up in Eulalia's clothes, the centurion, and stuff at the back.   But Eulalia is supposed to be 12 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Eulalia_(Waterhouse_painting)

[wigginhall]

No, sorry, Wiki has deleted it now, and my computer crashed again, when I tried to bring it up.   It's probably hitting against child porn filters.   This is like a police state.

[wigginhall]

What seems wacky to me, is that the gallery want a conversation about something that you can't see.  Eh?  How does that work?  I suppose if we burn a few books, we could do criticism of them as an empty space.   

[Rhiannon]

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/waterhouse-saint-eulalia-n01542

Saw it a few times in the past year. It's an incredible painting. Stops me in my tracks every time. It's not a comfortable painting but I've never felt it shouldn't exist, but then whatever it depicts, it isn't the torture and death of a twelve year old girl.

[Rhiannon]

This is on the gallery website from Clare Gannaway:

As one of the people at the gallery who’s been involved in the conversations about this, and was at the event on Friday night, I really want to express how this is not about ‘censorship’. It’s about challenging the outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays.
The area of the gallery which included Hylas and the Nymphs hasn’t changed for a VERY long time and still tells a very particular story about the bodies on display. We think that we can do better than this and the taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery, the collection and the way that artworks speak to us through the way they are interpreted and put into context.
We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption. Shouldn’t we be challenging this instead of perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist? The gallery doesn’t exist in a bubble and these things are connected, surely?
Nobody is denying those views and ideas have existed in the past; that’s not the point. And nobody is dictating which works of art people can love or not. It’s about challenging those ideas from a contemporary perspective and being critically engaged in political debates about history AND the present. Telling different, relevant stories and acknowledging that views of history change.
The comments so far have been fascinating to read. We will make changes to those gallery spaces as soon as possible, as we feel this is vitally important. But we want to be open about it and have conversation about how we do this, and that’s what the act of taking down the painting temporarily was about. There’s no book burning going on here!

Right, so this is about there Presidents Club... of course it is.

'Playful'? Really?

[wigginhall]

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/waterhouse-saint-eulalia-n01542

Saw it a few times in the past year. It's an incredible painting. Stops me in my tracks every time. It's not a comfortable painting but I've never felt it shouldn't exist, but then whatever it depicts, it isn't the torture and death of a twelve year old girl.

Yes, I think it's a Victorian masterpiece.   It doesn't really make me uncomfortable, as I don't see it as child porn.   Maybe for some Victorians it was, dunno. 

[wigginhall]

Yes, very playful, let's stop you seeing something, and then discuss how that feels, and anyway, you can see it on Wiki.  Bonkers.  The Tate actually rotate their stuff a lot, and St Eulalia is not always on show.    I also go to see their Stanhope Forbes stuff, e.g. Health of the Bride.   I daren't click on anything from the Tate now, as my computer crashes, filters must be on overdrive.  We are now at war with Eastasia.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

This feels like the 'left' does Piss Christ. Perhaps we need to get more tiny pieces of muslin?



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

Is the objection that the painting is pornographic? Or that it portrays women in a negative way? One could equally argue that it portrays women as standing (or swimming) together against male oppression, such is the subjectivity of art (the seventies Durch feminist film "A Question of Silence" seems to advocate the same thing).

But we all know that Hylas was killed by the falling Bronze Giant Talos, we know 'cos we saw it in Jason and the Argonauts (Hollywood's myth is just as valid as any other myth  )

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Is the objection that the painting is pornographic? Or that it portrays women in a negative way? One could equally argue that it portrays women as standing (or swimming) together against male oppression, such is the subjectivity of art (the seventies Durch feminist film "A Question of Silence" seems to advocate the same thing).

But we all know that Hylas was killed by the falling Bronze Giant Talos, we know 'cos we saw it in Jason and the Argonauts (Hollywood's myth is just as valid as any other myth  )

TBH I get the impression that Clare just wants the exhibition title changed, she could have just made written representations to the appropriate authorities.

[Robbie]

This feels like the 'left' does Piss Christ. Perhaps we need to get more tiny pieces of muslin?
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation

(I'd never heard of 'Piss Christ' before, googled it, found it offensive & could see no point to it; not comparable to the Waterhouse painting.)

The Waterhouse painting is really beautiful in my opinion, in a very 'pretty', decorative way, delightfully imaginative  (I love his Lady of Shalott too). 

It doesn't seem particularly erotic to me, maybe some young schoolboys would have a snigger at young womens' naked breasts while others would be embarrassed but surely not adults. There's nothing wrong with a degree of eroticism imo anyway, there's a difference between lewd, obscene and erotic art. Rodin's 'Kiss' is a fine example of erotic sculpture which I think is beautiful.

However the Manchester gallery people want to stimulate conversation about interpretations of art and I suppose it will do that. Why every trace of it, including postcards, has to be removed I do not understand.

http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/waterhouse-saint-eulalia-n01542

Saw it a few times in the past year. It's an incredible painting. Stops me in my tracks every time. It's not a comfortable painting but I've never felt it shouldn't exist, but then whatever it depicts, it isn't the torture and death of a twelve year old girl.

I find that painting a bit disturbing too in a 'heartbreaking' sort of way but, like you, don't feel it shouldn't exist.

[Nearly Sane]

Your seeing no comparison to the Waterhouse though seems related to the offence you take.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

You're seeing no comparison to the Waterhouse though seems related to the offence you take.

Sane, to whom are you replying?

[Robbie]

Well you mentioned it first, I don't want to sidetrack. Me taking mild offence is just how I feel and I wouldn't want anyone to base decisions on my feelings. I doubt I will come across that again & will forget about it.

The Waterhouse painting is not forgettable, it's a fine piece of work and shows great imagination.  A conversation piece too which is obvious.

Is the objection that the painting is pornographic? Or that it portrays women in a negative way? One could equally argue that it portrays women as standing (or swimming) together against male oppression, such is the subjectivity of art (the seventies Dutch feminist film "A Question of Silence" seems to advocate the same thing).

Yes!

(NS was responding to me)

[Nearly Sane]

Well you mentioned it first, I don't want to sidetrack. Me taking mild offence is just how I feel and I wouldn't want anyone to base decisions on my feelings. I doubt I will come across that again & will forget about it.

The Waterhouse painting is not forgettable, it's a fine piece of work and shows great imagination.  A conversation piece too which is obvious.

Yes!

(NS was responding to me)

Not sure what mentioning it 'first' mean here. How do you determine what is a 'fine piece of work' other than that you like it?

Piss Christ,  to me, has always been a beautiful challenging piece.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

How do you determine what is a 'fine piece of work' other than that you like it?

You cannot.

Few would say that a photograph of Ricky Gervais is "art", but then who is to say that it is not?

[Nearly Sane]

You cannot.

Few would say that a photograph of Ricky Gervais is "art", but then who is to say that it is not?

I was more interested in the comparative here, that use of 'fine' to distinguish it.


(Always nice to see a Jason and the Argonauts reference as you put up earlier - Hylas iirc played by a very young John Cairney)

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I was more interested in the comparative here, that use of 'fine' to distinguish it.


(Always nice to see a Jason and the Argonauts reference as you put up earlier - Hylas iirc played by a very young John Cairney)

Anorak moment. Talos is a character in the original story, but he appears towards the end, rather than near the beginning.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, I think it's a Victorian masterpiece.   It doesn't really make me uncomfortable, as I don't see it as child porn.   Maybe for some Victorians it was, dunno.

I think it’s discomforting as a dead woman is displayed in a sensuous fashion, and I’m not sure of the meaning of that - was the myth just an excuse to paint a mildly erotic depiction of a woman or is death itself seen as sensuous? And then there’s the centurion’s indifference to her - but whatever, it ain’t child porn.