If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

So basically Disney is a terrible corporation. I can get behind that.

 

[Einherjar86]

Native American costumes are one of the worst examples though, not all claims of "cultural appropriation" are of things so cartoonish and so blatantly a misrepresentation of the people who belong to the culture apparently being appropriated.

So basically Disney is a terrible corporation. I can get behind that.

I actually agree with both of these comments.

 

[CiG]

I think most people can agree that pop culture (informed by actually a pretty negative history) has not been very kind to Native Americans, to say the least and you don't even have to agree that "cultural appropriation" is a big deal to realise that.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Nobody’s Victim: An Interview with Samantha Geimer

I was not taught that sex is damaging or that it would diminish me. I understood that far worse things happen to people all the time. I was taught to be strong and confident, to be a survivor and to realize that those who would victimize me were the ones who were weak. Bad things happen in life. We must deal with what comes our way and not just roll over and die.

...

[Rape] is the only crime in which victims are discouraged from being okay. If you are beaten up or your house gets robbed, that can also be traumatic, but at least no-one says you must never get over this or you will insult other victims. I think it is sexist and a way of reinforcing negative sexual stereotypes about women and sex.

 

[CiG]

Feminism (specifically 2nd wave) fought against paternalistic views about women, being too fragile to truly experience the world. Pretty sad how contemporary mainstream feminism has simply repackaged Mary Whitehouse and sold it as self-empowerment.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Gallery removes naked nymphs painting to 'prompt conversation'

If you're feeling extra activisty you can sign this to try and get it back on the wall.

 

[CiG]

Philistinism.

 

[Einherjar86]

Seriously, philistinism? If the decision was about censorship, then they wouldn't be asking for audience feedback; they'd be suppressing all reference to the work.

I see nothing wrong with this because I don't think museums are passive institutions. I know this may not be a popular opinion here, but part of aesthetic discourse has to do with issues of exhibition and presentation. The best works of visual art (in my opinion) challenge the parameters of the museum. This is inevitably modern art, since art prior to the nineteenth century was never intended for exhibition; it was paid for by private patrons.

Those genuinely interested in the work as a piece of art will be drawn to the discussion. Those interested in it purely for its craftsmanship and as a piece of visual stimulation can search for it on Google. If anything, this is an attempt by a museum to extend intellectual discussion beyond the boundaries of the university. Good for them.

 

[CiG]

I love this idea that censoring something is just a way to create discussion lmao.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

I love this idea that censoring something is just a way to create discussion lmao.

for real. this is going to attract all the worst kinds of commentary. I don't know anything about the piece they removed, but I can't imagine the OG artist being down with some phony ass controversy.

 

[CiG]

But don't worry, a) it's being censored as a part of an art project so actually censorship is art now and b) the censors said it's not about censorship and as we know censors always self-identify as censors so it can't be censorship.



If art isn't allowed to offend other artists and the art establishment, what's the point?

 

[CiG]

If anything, this is an attempt by a museum to extend intellectual discussion beyond the boundaries of the university. Good for them.

By removing the art itself and asking people to give their opinions on its removal, all they're really doing is gauging public support for censoring a piece that is deemed sexist by today's contemporary feminist standards (as part of a larger plan to remove the fleshy female body section of the gallery lol).

So actually it's censorship and cowardice, why can't they foster a discussion while the piece remains hanging? They even removed all postcards from the gallery's store that featured the art in question.

The article also says that this project (censorship) is related to and in some way a reaction to the #MeToo movement (or whatever one would call it) and I have trouble separating the removal of the piece from the hysterical culture surrounding #MeToo-esque things. A kind of bourgeois paternalism which implies that depicting women as passive decorative art or a femme fatale will somehow impact the mental health of women as a collective; nonsense.

What next, censor Henrietta R. Rae's paintings as a way to foster discussion on internalized misogyny? The art community are so up their own ass it isn't even funny anymore.

 

[Einherjar86]

So actually it's censorship and cowardice, why can't they foster a discussion while the piece remains hanging?

Because actually removing it inspires precisely the kind of frustration that you're showing. Without the passion, where's the impetus for discussion?

I could just as easily argue that it's cowardice to raise such questions while leaving the painting up. If they really wanted to make a point, they'd take it down.

Ultimately, this is a disagreement over what the museum is there for. You think it's there to provide uninhibited exposure. I think it's there to mediate exposure. In other words, the museum participates in the artistic process.

 

[CiG]

Because actually removing it inspires precisely the kind of frustration that you're showing. Without the passion, where's the impetus for discussion?

My frustration is with censorship, regardless of what art is taken down, so it doesn't really foster discussion of art, not really. Take an example of something I would stereotypically hate like say, a modern feminist artist who created a piece that was just "kill all men" written in fake period blood or something stupid, that should not be taken down in order to foster discussion about male/female relations or something, it should be kept up and used as the centerpiece for the topic.

Censoring something to create discussion is a hilariously Orwellian concept. What's next, give a criminal the electric chair to foster discussion about the death penalty?

I could just as easily argue that it's cowardice to raise such questions while leaving the painting up. If they really wanted to make a point, they'd take it down.

Well no because then they have to contend with the perception that they're questioning underlying potentially sexist themes whilst endorsing them by leaving it up. The pearl-clutching activists literally make the exact same point in regards to no-platforming.

It's not enough to let a speaker speak and be challenged, they need to be censored in order to a) avoid being seen as endorsing the speaker's views but also b) foster discussion around the speaker without actually challenging the speaker head on.

Ultimately, this is a disagreement over what the museum is there for. You think it's there to provide uninhibited exposure. I think it's there to mediate exposure. In other words, the museum participates in the artistic process.

I fundamentally disagree with your (and their) conflation of censorship with the artistic process so the point doesn't really carry with me tbh. Manchester Art Gallery is publicly owned and funded to boot.

 

[Einherjar86]

My frustration is with censorship, regardless of what art is taken down, so it doesn't really foster discussion of art, not really. Take an example of something I would stereotypically hate like say, a modern feminist artist who created a piece that was just "kill all men" written in fake period blood or something stupid, that should not be taken down in order to foster discussion about male/female relations or something, it should be kept up and used as the centerpiece for the topic.

It does create a discussion of art though. You just have a restricted definition of "art."

Censoring something to create discussion is a hilariously Orwellian concept. What's next, give a criminal the electric chair to foster discussion about the death penalty?

That's a terrible misuse of "Orwellian." In Orwell's nightmare, you can't mention The Theory and Practice of Olgarchical Collectivism at all...

Well no because then they have to contend with the perception that they're questioning underlying potentially sexist themes whilst endorsing them by leaving it up. The pearl-clutching activists literally make the exact same point in regards to no-platforming.

You assume that it would be more controversial for them to leave it up while raising this question, and yet you and numerous others are raising your fists because they've taken it down... So I would contend that they've taken a risk in removing it.

 

[CiG]

It does create a discussion of art though. You just have a restricted definition of "art."

The posted stickies left in the piece's empty space in the gallery (as well as general online reaction) just proves my point that, by censoring the piece they have morphed the entire discussion which was intended to be about art and underlying potentially sexist themes contained in pieces like the one removed into a discussion of censorship.

They've made it almost impossible for people who take great interest in the issues of gender representation to react in any way other than to defend the principle of anti-censorship. It's a stupid mess of the type only fart-sniffing Twitterati types could create in the pursuit of some pseudo-intellectual goal.

That's a terrible misuse of "Orwellian."

No it's not. Censoring art to create discussion (and therein redefining censorship as a form of progress) is exactly the kind of double-speak nonsense Orwell warned society about. It's simply a smaller scale version of when governments call warfare "peace-keeping efforts."

You assume that it would be more controversial for them to leave it up while raising this question, and yet you and numerous others are raising your fists because they've taken it down... So I would contend that they've taken a risk in removing it.

All actions have risk, that's irrelevant to what I've said so far. Either action is controversial to some people, what would be the most controversial while on balance beneficial would be to leave it up and forge a discussion series around the art, putting it directly into the spotlight rather than removing the piece from the spotlight and then asking people to tell them how they feel about what isn't in the spotlight anymore.

 

[Einherjar86]

The posted stickies left in the piece's empty space in the gallery (as well as general online reaction) just proves my point that, by censoring the piece they have morphed the entire discussion which was intended to be about art and underlying potentially sexist themes contained in pieces like the one removed into a discussion of censorship.

They've made it almost impossible for people who take great interest in the issues of gender representation to react in any way other than to defend the principle of anti-censorship. It's a stupid mess of the type only fart-sniffing Twitterati types could create in the pursuit of some pseudo-intellectual goal.

It hasn't proved your point. It's demonstrated that people are different and react in different ways. Some turn the discussion into a reflection on censorship. Some acknowledge the discrepancy between gender relations today and those in the past.

No it's not. Censoring art to create discussion (and therein redefining censorship as a form of progress) is exactly the kind of double-speak nonsense Orwell warned society about. It's simply a smaller scale version of when governments call warfare "peace-keeping efforts."

I don't think you're correct because they've emphasized, more than once, that the purpose isn't to censor; and in today's information-free society, it can hardly be argued to be censorship. You can Google the image if you want to so badly. Orwell didn't live in the age of ubiquitous information that we do. You're equating two entirely different contextual situations.

William Gibson writes:

Orwell's projections come from the era of information broadcasting, and are not applicable to our own. Had Orwell been able to equip Big Brother with all the tools of artificial intelligence, he would still have been writing from an older paradigm, and the result could never have described our situation today, nor suggested where we might be heading.

This is, in my opinion, a crucial position on Orwell's political relevance.

All actions have risk, that's irrelevant to what I've said so far. Either action is controversial to some people, what would be the most controversial while on balance beneficial would be to leave it up and forge a discussion series around the art, putting it directly into the spotlight rather than removing the piece from the spotlight and then asking people to tell them how they feel about what isn't in the spotlight anymore.

You're assuming that it would be more controversial to leave it up. Based on the responses they've gotten, I think you're wrong.

 

[CiG]

It hasn't proved your point. It's demonstrated that people are different and react in different ways. Some turn the discussion into a reflection on censorship. Some acknowledge the discrepancy between gender relations today and those in the past.

Seems to me from looking around that actually it is most vs. the rest rather than some vs. some.

I don't think you're correct because they've emphasized, more than once, that the purpose isn't to censor; and in today's information-free society, it can hardly be argued to be censorship. You can Google the image if you want to so badly. Orwell didn't live in the information age that we do. You're equating two entirely different contextual situations.

As I said, censors never self-identify as a censor. An easily dismissed point you've made tbh.

Furthermore my point about censorship doesn't need Orwell's context and in some ways you and Gibson are correct; Orwell's context is outdated and in many ways this is why the American left often sneer at people who bring up Orwell, because your entire concept of censorship is not based on principle but rather law, legality, the bill of rights; the first amendment.

It allows people to say "I'm a first amendment absolutist" while simultaneously siding with non-state censorship. Non-Americans tend to argue against censorship more strongly because they (we, I) don't have a first amendment to fall back on when we don't feel like being principled. In that way I think Americans (especially on the "left" now) are some of the very worst defenders of freedom of speech, expression and in general anti-censorship.

However my only point regarding Orwell was in how "censorship to foster discussion" was an internally contradictory form of double-speak and so in that sense I don't need to live in a context that Orwell relates to because I'm only drawing parallels with speech now which resembles Party talk.

You're assume that it would be more controversial to leave it up. That's the assumption you're making. Based on the responses they've gotten, I think you're wrong.

No, I'm suggesting that we would have gotten controversy and on balance a beneficial discussion about something we as a society don't perhaps talk about enough. It has simply turned into a discussion on censorship; something which we basically know what society thinks.

Though I'm happy to have it obviously, any excuse to kick a censor about is fine by me.

 

[CiG]

Manchester Art Gallery: We have left a temporary space in Gallery 10 in place of Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse to prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection.



"left a temporary space" - sheer cloudy vagueness? Check
"to prompt conversation" - question-begging? Check.
"how we display and interpret artworks" - euphemism for the act of censorship? Check.



Perhaps my personal favourite part of their statement is this: We have left a temporary space in Gallery 10 in place of.

I've been working in the building industry for a decade and I've never heard the act of tearing down and removing a building as leaving a temporary space where the building used to be lmao. No you removed the building.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No dude you just don't get it, read Derrida and Foucault

The sheer statement and discussion is overwhelming my every sense