The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child." - Hallo friendsINFO TODAY, In the article you read this time with the title The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child.", We have prepared this article for you to read and retrieve information therein. Hopefully the contents of postings Article economy, Article health, Article hobby, Article News, Article politics, Article sports, We write this you can understand. Alright, good read.

Title : The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child."
link : The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child."

The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child."

The painting, by Balthus, is “Thérèse Dreaming." The NY Post has the article, showing the painting (which shows a young girl posed so we get a good look at her underpants).

From the petition: "I am simply asking The Met to more carefully vet the art on its walls, and understand what this painting insinuates. Ultimately, it’s a small ask in consideration of how expansive their art collection is… how overtly sexual the painting is, and the current news headlines highlighting a macro issue about the public health and safety of women."

The NY Post informs us not only that Bono sang at Malthus's funeral, but that Elle Macpherson was also in attendance. Does that vouch for him somehow or is it just a way to nudge us idiots to understand that Balthus was famous? (Not famous enough for my spellchecker to lay off changing his name to Malthus.)

Anyway, the museum's spokesperson shows no empathy for the feelings of our era — The Reckoning  — but loftily informs us that its "mission is to collect, study, conserve, and present significant works of art across all times and cultures in order to connect people to creativity, knowledge, and ideas." And "Moments such as this provide an opportunity for conversation, and visual art is one of the most significant means we have for reflecting on both the past and the present."

So here's the painting:



Let's have the conversation.

I'll just start by saying that I saw the John Mapplethorpe exhibit in Boston in 1990, and one of the photographs showed a young girl — younger than "Thérèse" — and she was posed so that we could look up her skirt and there were no underpants. I remember that the elite media portrayed those who said this was wrong as unsophisticated. The photograph conveyed the charming innocence of a child, we were told.

Ah, yes, here's a NYT article, from 1996, "PHOTOGRAPHY VIEW; The Child, the Adult Within and the Blur Between," by Vicki Goldberg, talking a bit about that photograph, "Rosie."

The fact that, though clothed, [4-year-old Rosie] unwittingly displays her genitals puts the spectator in a slightly uneasy position; besides, her expression could be read as wariness.

Mapplethorpe had an agenda: "Children are sexual beings," he said, "but it's an area that makes most people feel uncomfortable."...

[In the 19th century, c]hildren were not yet considered sexual beings, which is why Lewis Carroll could get away with taking nude shots of little girls, at least for a while, and why Freud would later encounter such resistance to his theories of infantile sexuality....

Speaking of Lewis Carroll, here's an excellent New Yorker article, "Go Ask Alice/
What really went on in Wonderland," by Anthony Lane Excerpt (beginning with a letter from Carroll:

I have a little friend here, Lily Gray, child of Dr. Gray, and one of my chief beach friends at Sandown this year. She is 5, a graceful and pretty child, and one of the sweetest children I know (nearly as sweet as Gertrude)—and she is so perfectly simple and unconscious that it is a matter of entire indifference to her whether she is taken in full dress or nothing. My question is, are you going to allow Gertrude (who I think is also perfectly simple and unconscious) to be done in the same way?

It is impossible to read this now without horror. The politesse, the pointing up of sweetness, and the ascribing of “entire indifference” to the child evoke the classic stratagems of the pedophile, planning his campaign and convincing others (and, more important, himself) that he is doing no wrong—that there is no victim but merely a willing collaborator....

Thus Article The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child."

That's an article The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child." This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.

You are now reading the article The Metropolitan Museum of Art declines to remove a painting that is — according to a petition — "undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child." with the link address https://infotodays1.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-metropolitan-museum-of-art-declines.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: