No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Started by Bromio on Feb 1, 2018 12:32:05 AM
Manchester Art Gallery removes naked hot teen chicks

Manchester's men have descended in their thousands upon the gallery to demonstrate against what they see as a direct challenge to their human rights. One young fellow I asked who had come all the way from Bolton to voice his opposition to the removal of the Waterhouse explained, "Look, you southern git, I might not know nothing about art but I like looking at tits".

upgoerfive - 01 Feb 2018 00:46:15 (#1 of 181)

If they're holding a vase, it's not filth.

WibbleAgain - 01 Feb 2018 04:13:20 (#2 of 181)

Aaaaargh! Nonesense and bollocks.

This is an indication just how mad our society has gone. Whilst you can get all kinds of very depraved porn whether in print or on the internet, this piece of fairly innocent art is removed "to prompt conversation". The fact that this conversation is now deemed necessary shows our society has become very confused, and ignorant. It has lost all subtlety.

The nude is an essential part of European art history, all the way back to antiquity. Paintings like that are meant to among other things celebrate beauty, including beauty of the human body. To remove a painting like that is self-censorship of the most absurd and unnecessary kind, and run the risk of making the naked body shameful, wicked or sinful. It is self-harm and destructive.

Of course the idealised forms of the nudes could nowadays be said to be somewhat contributory to angst about the imperfects of one's own body. But to hide it all away will create far more pathology than displaying it. There are more modern paintings of nudes that do not idealise the human body and some even distort them into rather grotesque forms. The only way to educate the public is to allow them to view them all and decide for themselves which ones they prefer and which ones they hate, without depriving others of the ones they hate, and discuss/debate/etc. That is education and democracy of a civilised society.

The success of European culture has always required tolerance and understanding of both the light and dark sides of human nature, and the balance of the male and female principles. Art is meant to depict all of them. The painting in question is meant to depict the prettier side of life. Only a pathological mind can interpret it as something so indecent or sinister that needs putting away.

Our laws on indecency are liberal and progressive and that's how they should remain if we don't want our collective consciousness to turn into some warped and twisted kind of puritanism, or we're all going to hell in a handcart.

God help us if we're to put fig leaves back on nudes, literally or figuratively.

machiavelli - 01 Feb 2018 05:30:41 (#3 of 181)

The direction of travel has been clear for some time. A "movement" (to dignify it unduly) that insists that every word and image we see or use, and indeed every thought that crosses or minds, must be examined for the merest traces of sexism/racism/ism du jour must, if listened to seriously by any organisation, result in censorship.

Like any totalitarian mindset, there is no end to it because it is so all-encompassing and infinitely interpretable.

Bromio - 01 Feb 2018 06:50:21 (#4 of 181)

I think it is the duty of a public art gallery to periodically reappraise its approach to the presentation of art. The gallery has stated very clearly that the removal of the work is only temporary and furthermore is part of an ongoing project by the artist Silvia Boyle. There is no censorship involved and nothing remotely totalitarian behind the gallery's thinking. That's just laughable frothing, the leaping to ridiculous paranoid conclusions.

Until 26th January the painting hung with a group of other works featuring female nudes, supposedly to showcase art which features female beauty. Well, that's fine for a short term exhibition but that's not what the painting is about, what it means, what it represents. By categorising art in such a way we lose the ability to recognise and understand the deeper meaning that separates art from erotica as well as finding ourselves unable to grasp the allegorical significance of such work. I'm a firm believer in the benefits that can come from museums and galleries seeking new ways to educate, surprise and delight by linking works from their collections in different and sometimes challenging ways. By effectively dismissing the Waterhouse as little more than Victorian soft porn the gallery was doing the painting and the public a disservice.

It is to be hoped that there will be some kind of reasoned debate about all this at the gallery but the dreadfully misleading Jonathan Jones article in the Graun will do nothing to help that to happen. Instead it'll be the PC GORN MAD shriekers yet again seizing entirely the wrong end of the stick.

thisonehasalittlehat - 01 Feb 2018 06:54:26 (#5 of 181)


Cartimandua - 01 Feb 2018 06:56:27 (#6 of 181)

When Mary Whitehouse saw it in 1981 she exclaimed "this is the dirtiest thing I've ever seen!""I agree," said the Director of the gallery in 2018.

Bromio - 01 Feb 2018 06:59:50 (#7 of 181)

Oh dear. That's the trouble with public galleries; all the riff-raff come in to get out of the rain.

HouseOfLametta - 01 Feb 2018 07:02:22 (#8 of 181)

When I lived in Manchester, an “art gallery was a ripped-up porno in an air raid shelter.

Dubris - 01 Feb 2018 07:11:49 (#9 of 181)

Of course many art galleries can't display all their collection at once and rotate what they have on display. And if the curators genuinely intended to provoke a conversation then they've succeeded: I can't imagine Jonathan Jones deigning to write about Waterhouse otherwise.

darkhorse - 01 Feb 2018 07:13:04 (#10 of 181)

Reminded me a bit of that Jimi Hendrix album cover.

Bromio - 01 Feb 2018 07:19:37 (#11 of 181)

Electric Ladyland? I saw an old magazine ad for a Ford Capri yesterday that reminded me of that too.

Bromio - 01 Feb 2018 07:22:05 (#12 of 181)

I know it's not really anything like the cover but it still reminded me of it.

Gotout - 01 Feb 2018 07:27:16 (#13 of 181)

We ought to burn all these paintings in case someone is offended by any of them.

indlovubill - 01 Feb 2018 07:35:25 (#14 of 181)

Maybe have all men compulsorily castrated so they won't have inappropriate thoughts.

HouseOfLametta - 01 Feb 2018 07:56:45 (#15 of 181)

An inappropriate thought, yesterday:

indlovubill - 01 Feb 2018 07:59:04 (#16 of 181)

That could be submitted to the Up the Arse section of Viz

quartus - 01 Feb 2018 08:02:27 (#17 of 181)

about to oblige her with Air on a G string?

Shadrack22 - 01 Feb 2018 08:03:02 (#18 of 181)

Are the paintings of the disgraced Graham Ovenden still expunged from the Tate?

HouseOfLametta - 01 Feb 2018 08:21:45 (#19 of 181)

Are they sans Gill?

browserbutton - 01 Feb 2018 08:29:52 (#20 of 181)

When I go to look at FINE ART I don't want to see this sort of thing:

Check Subscriptions
Home » Arts