This is lazy curation : giving context, explaining the why and the how of this world famous artwork would have been much more interesting.
By removing the artwork, and refusing the effort of giving those tools, the curator is forbidding the viewer to make his own opinion.
But, hey, that’s just my opinion.
perhaps it could be displayed with a collection of the fig leaves the Victorians used to cover genitalia of various classical & renaissance statuary along with some of the chippings from the penises that the Victorians had removed/mutilated from other statues.
Possibly sourcing some rubble from the Buddhas of Bamiyan as well for some more context…
I would be happy to take the painting off their hands. Please let them know and if they need help with shipping costs, I’d be happy to chip in £5.
But just imagine what might happen if patrons of the arts had some naughty thoughts! Anarchy!
“Femme Fatale”? WTF? Are they going after Judith and Holofernes next?
Fixed that for you. 
This work or action is the same as making people plug in a token in order to view the painting. Your objection to the action is also essentially the same as the action itself.
I thought the painting was about murder, not sex. Or are they at least going to give him one last hurrah before drowning him?
ETA - I guess he just “disappeared” with the Nymphs. Though I though nymphs usually lured people to their death.
Not mutually exclusive!
I always loved that painting because it’s a reminder that you do. not. fuck. with nymphs.
Of course. People.
That was actually my thought while I was reading through the article: having the piece on display challenges Victorian notions of prudishness. I would’ve been very interested to see that in a museum with the date it had rather than it being earlier (Victorian sensibilities, as I understand it, came about as a reaction to the rampant mad freewheeling spirit of the Georges and Louises.)
Seems like people are making a lot of assumptions about the gender identity of both Hylas and the Nymphs.
As for whether the popular painting will return, Gannaway said, “We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
Based on goat, and hence an earlier comment about goats being horrible barn yard animals.
I have to wonder if Disney would have had to make some tweaks to Danny DeVito’s character in Hercules if the movie had been produced in the post-MeToo era.
Maybe they can take this and other offending pictures and present them separately to the jeering public? It seems like a reasonable and non-problematic thing to do.
Hey! Let’s burn some books!
