Or Apollo, he seemed to have a thing for nymphs…Daphne, Chione, Melia, Acantha, and more.
I’m trying to remember at what age I learned Hylas’ death in mythology was more cruel than being crushed by Talos in Jason and The Argonauts.
Well… We really only have Herc’s word for what happened, and he was pretty clumsy with his friends and lovers.
Oh, yes. This is clearly pure stunt. Take down artwork for a day or two, film the removal, all with great fanfare, to “start a conversation.” Watch as heads explode and commenters rend their garments over censorship; comparisons to Nazi book burnings and Degenerate Art fly like bullets in a Keanu Reeves flick. Then enjoy the aftermath, as interest in the painting and the collection as a whole increases by a factor of ten.
Gotta admire it, actually.
Two different museums.
Sonia Boyce’s pretestuose stunt is based on “air” and it is embarrassing for the ART History itself.
#EpicFail
The taking down of the painting is an artistic act. It only makes sense in the context of how the gallery was titled: “In pursuit of beauty”.
This is a stupid fucking title for a gallery in which this painting was included. And a good reason to take the painting down from the gallery. Just a dumb fucking title.
That said, I’m not particularly impressed by this performance. It’s a little broad and easy.
But seriously: “In pursuit of beauty”? Really? “Nymphs’ll fuck you up” would be much better.
Also, this painting is sexy af
That’s one hell of a painting.
The culture wars are starting to look more and more like the cultural revolution.
I may have been less than clear, as you seem to have missed my point.
Of course I’m not comparing this singular act of removing a painting directly to Naziism. That would be silly and unnecessarily hyperbolic. What I’m doing, and what a lot of people in the thread were doing was to point out the end destination of the road that this small act of petty political prudishness puts us on.
Also, I accept that a really strong push back against a small incident like this may have looked a little silly, but had there not been such a strong reaction, that painting would be gone, and we’d be one more salami slice down the first paragraph of Faranheit 451. Then next time, they’ll push a little bit further.
So I don’t mind if people think I’m overreacting now, because history has taught us that if we ignore petty regressiveness like this, if we ignore baby steps on this road , and only start to complain when we reach repressive totalitarian acts, well, that’s too late to do anything about it.
So much this!
Yeah… it’s a little cheap. And, everybody in this thread are getting the point wrong, almost.
It’s not at all a bad point to try and make though.
This is all being reported badly. If you follow the various links, you find the museum’s contemporary art curator saying the painting is most probably going to be returned to its former spot. The whole thing is temporary, and being done as a piece of site-specific performance art. Yet it’s being reported in the media in terms that are just vague enough to incite FEMINISM RUN AMOK! reactions. So I’d say that the experiment that this stunt is performing is a success — in the sense that no one is being allowed to see clearly just what it is. The painting’s erasure has itself been erased.
It seems implicit in Marks post to me.
Yes, “person drowns in the river”. Must have been the nymphs.
Perhaps it should be displayed in a special room which you can only access on request after you explain yourself to a puritan elder sir or madam and sign a paper that you have no concern about the vileness of what it represents.
The museum said it banished the painting to “challenge a Victorian fantasy.”
Nipple-less breasts?
the whole episode was a stroke of genius on the part of their marketing department.
It’s obvious they were driving trollies, and since no one is capable of not feeding trollies anymore this happened.
At least the number of people who know what satyrs and nymphs are quintupled overnight.
When the Beatles’ “run for your life” came under fire, no one was suggesting we keep playing it on the radio in order to continue the conversation. Just because something is old, and/or “classic” doesn’t mean it should get top billing. If people wanted to burn this piece, I’d worry about censorship. Taking it off the wall temporarily doesn’t sound any alarm bells for me, it’s a reflection of changing taste.