If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

I hope Deron removes that post so we can forge a discussion about it.

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.

This is also exactly why some on the left have created the term 'corporatist-progressive' because here you have Ein saying that if people are really bothered by an art gallery which is publicly funded censoring a piece of art they can just Google it.

Right, let's all lay our fundamental freedoms of speech and expression of which all other freedoms follow in the hands of multinational corporations. Great idea, great defense of freedom. Never mind that it also alienates anybody who is too poor to even afford an Internet connection, let alone one that is powerful enough to load a painting scan of that size and quality, how typical of the neo-aristocracy.

There really needs to be a new word for people like that (corp-prog isn't catchy enough tbh) because that isn't left-wing in any sense I understand.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm trying to figure out the best way to address your points because your perspective is so drastically different than mine.

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point about censorship doesn't need Orwell's context and in some ways you and Gibson are correct; Orwell's context is outdated and in many ways this is why the American left often sneer at people who bring up Orwell, because your entire concept of censorship is not based on principle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

I have an issue with this because censorship historically refers to the suppression and prohibition of works--not to their perpetual discussion in the absence of a museum exhibition (which, in case you didn't realize, is always temporary; museums exchange works, they sell them, they loan them, etc.).

This isn't censorship in any sense of the word, since the very topic of discussion is the exhibition of this work in a museum setting. The concern isn't to suppress the work or prohibit people from seeing it; it's to ask what are the politics of exhibition.

Part of me thinks I'm simply of a different opinion than you are. I see this as an active and engaged intervention into aesthetic discourse and the display of artworks in a public setting. It's not asking people to flush the painting down the memory hole, as it were (to invoke Orwell), but to perpetually recall the piece, and to consider it.

So once again, it's not censorship in any sense of the word, even in principle.

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.

They didn't use the word "censorship." That's your word. Do you see how that's a disingenuous on your part? You're imposing the word censorship and then saying "that's doublespeak!"

This is also exactly why some on the left have created the term 'corporatist-progressive' because here you have Ein saying that if people are really bothered by an art gallery which is publicly funded censoring a piece of art they can just Google it.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the image itself is still widely available. It hasn't been hunted down and snuffed out, sites that display it haven't been shut down, it isn't prohibited for anyone to own a print of it. I'm sorry if you think I'm being a "corporatist-progressive," but I'm just not compelled at all by how you're defining "censorship."

The original artwork carries nothing more than a signature of creation, which is what people go to a museum to see. None of its content or subject matter is being suppressed. The museum is evincing an interest in its role as a mediator and curator of what we deem to be of aesthetic value and how we display it. I do not see any censorship in this act.

 

[CiG]

I have an issue with this because censorship historically refers to the suppression and prohibition of works--not to their perpetual discussion in the absence of a museum exhibition (which, in case you didn't realize, is always temporary; museums exchange works, they sell them, they loan them, etc.).

You keep trying to make the point that museums put up and take down new pieces all the time as if I'm saying the piece in question should be displayed for eternity, which is clearly not what I'm saying but rather the manner in which they removed just one piece (as well as removed the postcards with the piece on it) is not standard practice or part of some managerial process of refreshing the display walls with new stuff.

You're being completely disingenuous with that line of argument imo.

This isn't censorship in any sense of the word, since the very topic of discussion is the exhibition of this work in a museum setting. The concern isn't to suppress the work or prohibit people from seeing it; it's to ask what are the politics of exhibition.

While at the same time not allowing those who are being urged to comment on exhibition to even be able to see the art.

They didn't use the word "censorship." That's your word. Do you see how that's a disingenuous on your part? You're imposing the word censorship and then saying "that's doublespeak!"

Removing a piece of potentially offensive art is censorship, I simply circumvented the euphemism in this case. Of course I'm not saying that they think what they're doing is censorship, though it should be of note that they immediately made sure people knew they weren't censoring anything so in a sense they did use that term in so much as they didn't want it to be applied to their actions.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Somebody better not-censor that not-censored image used to display an example of censorship.

 

[Dak]

The US isn't engaged in war in the Middle East. It's merely engaging in kinetic operations to foster discussion about geopolitics in the region.

 

[Einherjar86]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

You don't wanna go a few more rounds?

I think you're right though, my position prevents me from uncritically viewing this as censorship.

I do take HBB's point though, there are valences to prohibitive behavior that might be called censorship without being entirely suppressive. I still hesitate to classify what Manchester did as censorship though, if only because they're asking people to actively consider the very content they're supposedly censoring. At most I'd say it's ambiguous territory and not easily identifiable as censorship.

In other words, removing the painting altogether has overtones of censorship, but the museum's intervention in the vacancy itself, and its attention to the content being "censored," complicates the matter. In other words, they're not simply removing the painting and saying they find it "in poor taste" or "offensive," or slapping black tape over nipples and vaginas, but asking audiences to reflect on the image. I understand that the image isn't actually there, but the museum isn't just brushing it aside or unequivocally blanking out parts of it, which is what would happen in a more straightforward censorship scenario.

 

[CiG]

You don't wanna go a few more rounds?

I mean, sure.

I still hesitate to classify what Manchester did as censorship though, if only because they're asking people to actively consider the very content they're supposedly censoring.

I understand that the image isn't actually there, but the museum isn't just brushing it aside or unequivocally blanking out parts of it, which is what would happen in a more straightforward censorship scenario.

At most I'd say it's ambiguous territory and not easily identifiable as censorship.

How can they consider it if they cannot see it? Yes, they can Google the piece but surely the museum don't expect people to do so when they could just keep it on the wall and form the discussion around something directly in people's faces.

I've not said this is straightforward censorship either btw, just so we're clear. I've said this is a very cowardly indirect attempt to gauge the public's reaction to offensive art being removed from its walls. I think they're playing a censorious game, pressured by recent scandals related to women and men, but lets give them the benefit of doubt for a minute and suppose this is all just an art project, I also think they've done it in such a hamfisted way that they've ruined any chance this project will ever be about anything other than censorship and setting a dangerous precedent etc.

It actually doesn't make much sense even. To foster discussion by removing a piece that nobody who is expected to engage in the discussion can any longer see and we also shouldn't forget the context in which the project was conceptualized:

The work usually hangs in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty, which contains late 19th century paintings showing lots of female flesh.

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.

“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere ... we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”

 

[Dak]

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.

They should just complete the squaring of the circle and hang a printout of this:

 

[Einherjar86]

It actually doesn't make much sense even. To foster discussion by removing a piece that nobody who is expected to engage in the discussion can any longer see and we also shouldn't forget the context in which the project was conceptualized

I was being sarcastic about the "few more rounds" thing, I also think we'll just agree to disagree.

I would, however, be willing to agree that it might not be the most effective method for stimulating discussion about the topic they want to discuss (if only because the act itself is too distracting). I just don't think that it adds up, ultimately, to censorship.

 

[CiG]

I'll be keeping an eye on this regardless to see how it ends.

 

[Dak]

CNN in full damage control about the memo still. "Democrats say important info left out, big nothing burger". Ironically, even if everyone important was informed of the details of the origin of the intel or was ignorant of the funding source, the bottom line is best case the DNC corrupted justice in pursuit of an election they still didn't win - and went broke doing so.

 

[Dazed and Brutal]

CNN in full damage control about the memo still. "Democrats say important info left out, big nothing burger". Ironically, even if everyone important was informed of the details of the origin of the intel or was ignorant of the funding source, the bottom line is best case the DNC corrupted justice in pursuit of an election they still didn't win - and went broke doing so.

That memo was so lackluster though. I don't understand how I can put my faith in a memo from a dude with an agenda rebuffing a farcical dossier compiled by another dude with an agenda. If they really wanted to win people over, they should have just published source documents to dismiss any gas-lighting especially in the case of a gross miscarriage of justice.

 

[Einherjar86]

DNC fucked shit up. GOP is currently fucking shit up and Trump is most likely complicit in some kind of shadiness. I'm waiting for Mueller. The point of the memo is to discredit the FBI. If we're tearing down our institutions, then this is mayhem and I can say "fuck Trump, fuck Trump, fuck Trump" without any concern for consequence. That doesn't seem, to me, to be a practical position. So I'll await Mueller's decision. If he says Trump's in the clear, then I'll believe he's in the clear.

 

[Dak]

DNC fucked shit up. GOP is currently fucking shit up and Trump is most likely complicit in some kind of shadiness.

This is more or less all accurate. Even if Mueller says Trump is "shady", I don't know what that is supposed to imply.

 

[Einherjar86]

If all they say is that Trump is "shady," there's nothing we can do with that. They need to come up with substantive evidence.

That won't stop me from criticizing the president, but it will clear up some uncertainty.

 

[Dak]

If all they say is that Trump is "shady," there's nothing we can do with that. They need to come up with substantive evidence.

That won't stop me from criticizing the president, but it will clear up some uncertainty.

I'm interested in seeing what happens in 2020. The DNC is broke and in debt. Trump and Bernie are the two strongest currently visible respective candidates and both old as shit. Politically things are getting stupid. I've got political reservations about going back in the military but I've basically already committed. Gonna be commissioning this year. Hope some retard doesn't put another Maybus or Rumsfeld back in charge of things.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Assuming the Trump presidency doesn't take a major downturn (in which case the DNC doesn't need much funding), I think Gabbard could run on a Sanders-lite platform with his endorsement and win. If Cory Booker is still black in 2020 he could potentially swing Michigan and Pennsylvania back. And I really hope Zuckerberg runs, that would be hilarious.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Sanity prevails (for the time being), Victorian nymphs painting back on display after censorship row

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The gallery is now planning a series of public events "to encourage further debate".

Trolling: the greatest form of marketing.

 

[CiG]

Probably pure coincidence that before they did this, two women (sisters) petitioned for the removal of another fleshy painting of nude females.