Originally published at: Art gallery removes film that rated 5,000 women from "prettiest to ugliest" | Boing Boing
…
3 Likes
Seems like the right call to me.
If you have trouble telling when you are being an asshole, if you say something like this, you are almost definitely being an asshole.
13 Likes
“I think I have the right to tell the truth.”
Nobody has to listen to your personal, subjective truth.
In any case, beauty doesn’t mean that much. My high school crush, who is still a very beautiful woman, is a monster. Just a total asshole. Meanwhile, I’ve had the life experience of being completely bowled over, and fallen hard for someone who was conventionally unattractive.
20 Likes
And Mr. Song will surely be a model of masculine beauty when we see him on the promotional tour for his seven-hour film Incel: The Movie. I’d hope the punishment for this is personally listening to 5000 women rate his inadequacy.
28 Likes
The ugliest person in this film was behind the camera the entire time.
44 Likes
Art is supposed to be provocative, I guess, but it would have been more interesting it the women had been shown in a random order, labelled pretty or ugly regardless of their appearance, illustrating how subjective beauty is.
5 Likes
Somebody gave it away, they hate women.
13 Likes
Came to say this, he should be the last image in the film.
“I think I have the right to tell the truth.”
Me, too.
16 Likes
He defended the work saying: “I think I have the right to tell the truth.”
Beyond everything else, if that’s his defense of his work, then that ain’t art. It’s some dude being a pig and hoping that by contextualizing it within an art gallery, it would become art. You could absolutely defend it as art - just being grotesque doesn’t disqualify it. (One could even put a “deliberately grotesque” feminist spin on it.) But since the maker is essentially framing it with, “I’m just rating some chicks,” that definitely isn’t placing the work in an art context. One could argue against giving undue weight to the intentions of the maker, but he’s made that (non-art) interpretation unavoidable.
17 Likes
it disrespected women, and the way it was shot has copyright infringement issues
"We don’t give a shit about the former, but we don’t want to get sued by Warner Brothers for the 40 seconds of a Coldplay song playing in the background.
5 Likes
Says optimistic artist in China
10 Likes
In case you ever wanted to know how up-its-own-ass the art world is, this dude had the idea for this project, hired people to help him do it, probably has an agent and associated business-side people involved, and the gallery has similarly a number or people who were involved in securing the deal with this artist, setting up the display, etc etc etc
And still somehow not enough people said “Hey, this is an unbelievably terrible idea” to keep it from being shown.
7 Likes
“Copyright infringement” might be a mis-translation. The legal problems probably relate to filming and showing identifiable individuals without their permission.
12 Likes
Y’all have a looooong way to go.
Here’s some advice for the future. If some one applies for an exhibit called “naked pictures of my shitty ex who definitely deserves it” that’s a red flag too.
Maybe also steer clear of: “My anthology of upskirt photos” and “You won’t believe what these drunk teens do!” as well.
Just keep it classy and focus on a curated collection of penis pumps.
14 Likes
Madison Ave art directors shrug and go back to leafing through stacks of headshots.
4 Likes
How about “NO!” ?
10 Likes
He could have had 5000 self-portraits and ranked them. He could have done lots of things without being demeaning.
3 Likes
Yep. Kind of just sounds like a dick. Was waiting to read that this was some sort of (problematic) statement on society’s beauty standards, or men claiming women as property etc…, but no, just sounds like this guy is a dick, and spent a lot of time being a weirdo rating women in public.
5 Likes
