Sorry not sorry art world, you need to deal with your issues, too.
Sorry not sorry art world, you need to deal with your issues, too. And yes, issues of exploitation are real. Also, it's stupid to refuse to provide extensive context for a piece of art. Museums do it all the time. In fact, without it, much of art at least loses complexity, at most becomes meaningless.
This article references the WaPo article on the same topic. Having read that article, as well, I will say that it gives lots of context and it completely misses the point, coming across to me as defending a pedophile because art. We absolutely need to reconsider the display and context of abusive and exploitative art. And just because it got labeled art doesn't mean it wasn't abusive or exploitative.
Just for added association not causation fun, I have to wonder if the notable difference in tone and approach of the NYT vs WaPo articles have anything to do with the fact that a woman wrote the one in the Times while a man wrote the other one.
For the record, I see nothing to suggest that there's a redeeming value to this guy's obsession with underage girls in sexually suggestive or explicit poses. If people were sharing photos of girls this age in these situations, they'd be legitimately questioned about child pornography. Just because it's painted doesn't make it somehow better. And the question of consent is highly valid, here, as noted by one of the women who put up the petition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/we-need-to-talk-about-balthus.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/we-need-to-talk-about-balthus.html
This article references the WaPo article on the same topic. Having read that article, as well, I will say that it gives lots of context and it completely misses the point, coming across to me as defending a pedophile because art. We absolutely need to reconsider the display and context of abusive and exploitative art. And just because it got labeled art doesn't mean it wasn't abusive or exploitative.
Just for added association not causation fun, I have to wonder if the notable difference in tone and approach of the NYT vs WaPo articles have anything to do with the fact that a woman wrote the one in the Times while a man wrote the other one.
For the record, I see nothing to suggest that there's a redeeming value to this guy's obsession with underage girls in sexually suggestive or explicit poses. If people were sharing photos of girls this age in these situations, they'd be legitimately questioned about child pornography. Just because it's painted doesn't make it somehow better. And the question of consent is highly valid, here, as noted by one of the women who put up the petition.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/we-need-to-talk-about-balthus.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/nyregion/we-need-to-talk-about-balthus.html
Comments
Post a Comment