They are coming after us

This one made Huff Post today as well.

I immediately noticed what I think of as a very obvious symbolic inclusion in the work. I haven't seen anyone else comment on it.
 
Earlier this year in Moscow they closed this american photog of nude teenage girls exhibition. Due to promoting of pedophilia.
Later this year, then we drove to NYC from red South West Ontario it was Moscow village in the States. So, it is close.
Russian speaking population is huge in NYC, BTW.

I don't know which side I'm taking. I'm not the one who is looking at naked teenage girls. I prefer my wife and in lingerie. For sure.
 
NYC has so many different venues that if you look long enough anyone can find something that they feel should be shut down.

Meh

B2 (;->
 
The use of the word "sexualized" is ambiguous, and in the eye of the beholder. Do some people act badly toward "sexualized" teenage girls? Surely. But, most people don't.

This seems to be more about a moving cultural target than anything else.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
I'm not the one who is looking at naked teenage girls.
Click to expand...

The painting is of what appears to be a young woman, age unknown, in an arguably "charged" pose, depending on one's point of view. There is no nudity whatsoever. Like other artworks, it causes the viewer to react/think based on the viewer's own experiences, feelings, biases, etc.

Maybe it's me, but it seems SJW gone wild again. Maybe we should also ban the Monet ballerina paintings, or Venus sculpture, since her age is unknown, and all other works that depict any young looking person in any manner whatsoever? Anyone else see the irony in all this?
 
Do you think that if one venue makes a judgement to censor something, it automatically transmits to the whole world?
40 years ago you could walk into almost any public store and see magazines with nudity on display. Maybe not always in the front rack, but they were there. Not any more.
Does that mean nudity & porn is no longer available?
Don't worry, there will be only more art to see, suggestive & otherwise, good art & bad, not less.
 
" Balthus often depicted pubescent girls in erotic and voyeuristic poses. One of the most notorious works from his first exhibition in Paris was The Guitar Lesson (1934), which caused controversy due to its sadistic and sexually explicit imagery. It depicts a young girl arched on her back over the lap of her female teacher, whose hands are positioned on the girl as if to play her like a guitar: one hand near her exposed vagina, and the other hand grasping her hair. Other works from the same exhibition included The Street (1933), Cathy Dressing (1933) and Alice (1933)."

"Many of his paintings show young girls in an erotic context. Balthus insisted that his work was not erotic but that it recognized the discomforting facts of children's sexuality. In 2013, Balthus's paintings of adolescent girls were described by Roberta Smith in the New York Times as both "alluring and disturbing""

So Balthus felt discomforted by children's sexuality, and yet focused on his 'discomfort'.

Again, who are they coming for?
 
Well described, Huss. As soon as you put it here, it triggered my memory and I re-called seeing something at MET recently, which made me think - WTФ it is doing here?
I went by OP link and it is the picture, indeed. Kudos to NYT.
 
It's the New York Post, not the New York Times, FWIW. Quite a different newspaper.


Ko.Fe. said:
Well described, Huss. As soon as you put it here, it triggered my memory and I re-called seeing something at MET recently, which made me think - WTФ it is doing here?
I went by OP link and it is the picture, indeed. Kudos to NYT.
Click to expand...
 
Highway 61 said:
This is the NY Post not the NYT. If you browse the article, you have a reproduction of Balthus' painting on the left and a photo of Kim Kardashian on the right. Look for what is vulgar and unproper there.
Click to expand...

One is a child, one is an adult.
 
Highway 61 said:
...photo of Kim Kardashian on the right. Look for what is vulgar and unproper there.
Click to expand...

She is full grown if not slightly overgrown lady. As grown, heterosexual adult I would like to ensure you, here is nothing vulgar and unproper in her forms and actions. Some people like it inflated. It is starting with pumped toys in healthy childhood and then healthy adultery is also don't mind to play with inflatables. In some cultures skinny is not healthy...

But Huss is right again, no kids should be involved or exposed as adult play.
 
FWIW, here is a response to Balthus' art by the Countess Setsuko Klossowska de Rola, the second wife of Balthus:

"The world, however, does tend to stand in sweeping judgment. Is she offended by what is said of her husband?

"It's other people's opinion and they have a right to that stupid opinion," she replies, evenly. (If she's upset, it's masked: a personal No Drama.) Was she ever worried? "About what? Paedophilia? If it is not true, then what's wrong? Balthus totally has another vision.""

I think his subject matter is creepy, personally, but we're talking about the art world, not a Benetton ad. At least I am.

The New York Post, in my opinion as a former journalist, is a reactionary scandal rag of the lowest order. The New York Times it ain't.
 
Last edited:
Ko.Fe. said:
But Huss is right again, no kids should be involved or exposed as adult play.
Click to expand...

Sure. Then for instance you should immediatly write to the Musée du Louvre to ask them to remove "Les curieuses" by Fragonard. You know, that painting (1775 or 1780) displaying two little girls looking at people probably kissing each other or - who knows - doing something even more terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom