this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
191 points (91.0% liked)

World News

39000 readers
3330 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist's views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 108 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Makes sense. Having a ladies only exhibit that only shows women artists is a positive thing. Not allowing certain visitors into a museum because of their gender is sexist.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 20 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The museum this exhibit is at only allowed men until 1965. Today, there's a single, temporary exhibit within this museum that's only allowing women, with a stated intention to make people reflect on that previous time. That this single exhibit draws international attention speaks volumes to the reality of sexism in western society, and it's not the sexism you're talking about

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 7 months ago (4 children)

It wasn’t right in 1965, and it isn’t right today. Creating inverse discrimination to draw attention to historical discrimination is still a form of discrimination, even if it is temporary.

This was just a poorly executed concept that could have been done better.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Maybe the museum should take it up with the people still alive in 1965 who created the policy.

The guy paid to be admitted and they took his money. He gets to see all the art. If they didn't want to let him see all the art they should have charged him nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Especially with the context that Australia didn’t allow women in pubs with men until 1965 so women there were literally sent to “ladies lounges,” which were apparently always some shitty side room, that sometimes would sell them a drink (at higher prices) while they waited.

Turning that on its head as a temporary exhibit at a museum is clearly art to me. It’s not like she did it as a business concept to make money.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 14 points 7 months ago (4 children)

If it's art, it's pretty childish art. "Revenge" is not useful nor healthy.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jpreston2005@lemmy.world 38 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Kaechele’s husband, David Walsh, founded and owns the MONA.

The artist is lambasting exclusive Mens social clubs

Exclusive men’s social clubs have existed all over the world, including Canada, and particularly thrived in the 19th century. These exclusionary clubs often only accepted white members and barred women from entering the space, apart from when in service roles.

But if she was doing that truly, then it should have been only available to minority women. But she didn't. She also ignores there are a lot of women only exclusive clubs too, just ask any male victim of sexual assault looking for a support group.

This isn't some groundbreaking work, it's just sexist. The artist is tedious.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] redditsuckss@lemmy.ca 35 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (14 children)

I mean, how would people react to a male-only art exhibit?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] derf82@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended

Perhaps that is the intent of the curator, but what evidence is there this is what the artists intended. Picasso write somewhere “I only want the ladies to see this one?”

It’s a dumb approach that will not make the point the curator thinks it will make. And I bet that person would be pissed if there were a male-only exhibit.

Exclusive men’s social clubs have existed all over the world, including Canada and particularly thrived in the 19th century. These exclusionary clubs often only accepted white members and barred women from entering the space,

And those clubs didn’t deny women access after they paid for admission

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Also, how can you justify doing something that's objectively wrong just because someone else did it first?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

2 wrongs makes a right these days. Just yesterday I saw someone on this site gush and defend Rittenhouse because one of the guys he shot was a criminal

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

In his complaint, Lau argued it is discriminatory to keep artwork, like that of the Picasso painting displayed exclusively in the Ladies Lounge, away from he and other men who pay to enter the museum. (...) He’s asked for an apology from the museum and for men to either be allowed into the lounge or permitted to pay a discounted ticket price for the museum.

Kaechele and lawyers for the MONA rebutted by saying the exclusion of men is the point of the Ladies Lounge exhibit. “The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork,” Kaechele told the Guardian. “OK, they experience the artwork differently than women, but men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended.”

This is going to be much trickier than it seems based only on the headline. Both anti-discrimination laws and the freedom of art are very fundamental rights, and a decision that weighs these against each other will not be easy to reach (at least I would think so). Curious to see how this lands, although I expect that the museum will come out on top, because the disadvantage that this special exhibit poses to the man (the museum would even argue there is none) is probably not big or permanent enough to justify a restriction on the freedom of art as big as this would entail (and I guess the museum probably discussed this with their lawyer beforehand).

[–] FiniteBanjo 15 points 7 months ago

I disagree, I think it's pretty clearcut discrimination. The museum has to give men the same treatment as the women when they buy the same ticket, and if they buy different tickets then the men need to be given the option to buy a women's ticket. Only in that last circumstance could this have any chance in court against a discrimination lawsuit.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

This reminds me of the "Nathan for you" episode where he turns a bar into a "live theatrical performance" so patrons could smoke as a loop hole.

But honestly, the freedom of speech / claiming "art" stops applying when you're doing something else illegal (threats of violence, slander, csam). Why would this be any different?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] blahsay@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

Is sexist trolling art now? I prefer the toilet

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Performance art is wild, often misunderstood. The entire point is to outrage men and he took the bait lol. The artist is clearly getting off on this, staging shit in even more locations because of the lawsuit.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world 53 points 7 months ago (30 children)

So sexism is outrage performance art now?

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It is when it's against men

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Grabthar@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

All Cops Are Artists?

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] redditsuckss@lemmy.ca 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Weird. I can easily see someone doing the same thing but banning women and you wouldn't say "they took the bait" when women get mad about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

When did trolling become a profession? I am not a particularly good artist but I still enjoy making stuff for people and knowing that they are happy with what I make.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

To be fair, there's a difference between the lounge itself being the exhibit, vs restricting some of Picasso's pieces

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›