Naked nymphs removed from Manchester art gallery

ourmaninthenorth

The Pre-Raphaelites would be highly amused by this backward buffoonery...

Anyway, it's too late for me, I've seen the painting. Whom do I report to for my moral debrief? 

not_the_dj

Ridiculous.

We had a print of that up in the living room at our last house, my wife studied art at uni and loves the Pre-Raphaelites, don't know if she's seen this story but she may well have a mini rant about it later on.

strumjoughlamps

They don’t want to see Afghan Whigs ‘Congregation’ album cover, they’ll keel over on the spot..

it recently had a re issue and I was stunned it still has the original cover, it doesn’t offend or upset me or stir any sort of feelings but I am well surprised they were allowed in this current world to use it.

beed84

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Dress all wimmin up in burqas! Stab with pitchforks and burn anyone who looks remotely attractive!

FFS!!

Hear, hear!

Skipped

The curator says that she/the gallery have temporarily removed the painting to promote a debate. That seems reasonable. The painting will be back soon and, to be fair, 2018 has already given us much to discuss.

Her action seems more measured that the astonishing response of the men who run Professional Darts and F1. Supporting women by sacking women is a "strategy"  that needs a bit more work.

Legionreturns

Lots of opinions... Just out of interest; when was the last time anyone saw it in person? 

What about going to an art gallery recently? 

Donate? 

This is a stunt to get people talking and going.

It's funny how the fuss over this is completely different to the faux rage over the darts girls. 

I'm just playing devil's advocate by the way. I'm not a knob. I do quite regularly go and look around the Baltic, and there's been some very interesting exhibits / installations there.

HAL9000

axisus said:

Before you know it Artists with think they can be radical and edgy.

Exactly. The curator complained about the picture being 'unconfortable'. Isn't that the point of art? If she wants comfortable then put wallpaper on the walls instead.

(...and then listen to Penderecki's Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima and find out what uncomfortable art really is.)

jonnyburgo

Well if I can’t go and have a pocket shuffle whilst stood in front of those boobies I don’t know what the worlds coming to. 

57Deluxe

Apparently it is now illegal for a pretty girl/woman to have a job where she isn't allowed to play with the big toys and be sensibly attired. So an equality campaigning spokesperson said on the radio yesterday and that former promo F1 girls should still be employed by  F1 but perhaps with 2 or 3 of them at least driving too and others in nice business suits as Ambassadors of the sport...

AlexC

As has been said - I think this is a genuine ‘publicity stunt’ to get people talking... which is working. If the picture itself was/is deemed offensive then the BBC wouldn’t splay it across the top of that article. The zeitgeist about women’s roles (I’m summarising there!) and exploitation at the moment hasn’t really been considered in the fine art world. You can’t re-write history - for better or for worse. Something can be of its time and not gel with modern opinions. Most things probably. Oil on canvas? Not quite the same as photography or a movie, I think. Quite sure the gallery.  curators are intelligent enough to know that.

earwighoney

strumjoughlamps said:

They don’t want to see Afghan Whigs ‘Congregation’ album cover, they’ll keel over on the spot..

it recently had a re issue and I was stunned it still has the original cover, it doesn’t offend or upset me or stir any sort of feelings but I am well surprised they were allowed in this current world to use it.

The Whigs are a excellent band.

That is all.

ThePrettyDamned

webrthomson said:

ICBM said:

Ridiculous.

Yup - what has actually happened to this generation that they can't deal with anything in any way challenging to their view of the world? Did I miss a meeting or something because to me this all seems to be manufactured outrage over nothing.

I know nothing of this gallery, but is it likely the curator is in their low-mid twenties? 

snakemanStoo

And it's back according to the beeb

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42917974

ICBM

strumjoughlamps said:

They don’t want to see Afghan Whigs ‘Congregation’ album cover, they’ll keel over on the spot..

it recently had a re issue and I was stunned it still has the original cover, it doesn’t offend or upset me or stir any sort of feelings but I am well surprised they were allowed in this current world to use it.

I'm even more surprised the original Blind Faith album cover is not only still allowed, but there was a whole rack of them on full public display in HMV a year or two ago.

Or Bow Wow Wow's See Jungle! (etc), for that matter.

webrthomson

ThorpyFX said:

webrthomson said:

ICBM said:

Ridiculous.

Yup - what has actually happened to this generation that they can't deal with anything in any way challenging to their view of the world? Did I miss a meeting or something because to me this all seems to be manufactured outrage over nothing.

why do you assume its someone from this generation?

I have no idea what age curator Clare Gannaway is but the reaction seems to be a continuation of the constant need for "protection" that a certain generation seems to require - see also Oxford university Rhoads statue controversy, the need for safe spaces at university and no-platforming, or the attempt to, anything with even the suggestion of controversy (up to and including Germaine Greer ).

It seems to me that rather than be protected from these things people, especially at University, should be exposed to as many different points of view as possible so they can come to an informed decision. How can you decide something is amazing or hateful if all you are ever told is median, mediocre and blandly inoffensive? 

Contrast the Manchester Art Galleries response in which there were zero complaints to the NY Mets in which there were 8,000:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/arts/met-museum-balthus-painting-girl.html 

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

grungebob

Bonfire of the vanities part deux 

HAL9000

webrthomson said:

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

George Orwell

I hadn’t come across this quote before but it is so true. We seem to be living in a time when people are scared to cause even the slightest offence. Surely the roll of art (and satire for that matter) is to hold up a mirror to the world and show up the ridiculous, the absurd, etc for what it is. Are people really so thin-skinned that they can’t handle it?

Teetonetal

This seems to me more like a publicity exercise than anything. It was clearly stated this would be for 7 days, so all this censorship nonsense is people over reacting and not listening to what the gallery are actually saying.

The idea was to create debate on how such paintings should be displayed and considered. By removing it and allowing people to place post it notes they made the debate very visual.

So what they actually got was a lot of publicity and quite a bit of ill founded public outrage as people chose to react blindly to the removal vs thinking about the question actually being asked - and that,  if anything, is the most worrying thing about today's world.

Phil_aka_Pip

Teetonetal said:

This seems to me more like a publicity exercise than anything. It was clearly stated this would be for 7 days, so all this censorship nonsense is people over reacting and not listening to what the gallery are actually saying.

The idea was to create debate on how such paintings should be displayed and considered. By removing it and allowing people to place post it notes they made the debate very visual.

So what they actually got was a lot of publicity and quite a bit of ill founded public outrage as people chose to react blindly to the removal vs thinking about the question actually being asked - and that,  if anything, is the most worrying thing about today's world.

There is, apparently, no such thing as "bad" publicity

guitarfishbay

Teetonetal said:

This seems to me more like a publicity exercise than anything. It was clearly stated this would be for 7 days, so all this censorship nonsense is people over reacting and not listening to what the gallery are actually saying.

Where was it clearly stated it was 7 days?

I didn’t see that at the time - it was removed several days before the news went national.