Sign in to follow this  
Blott

Not for you to see!!

6 posts in this topic

I heard today the curator of Manchester Art Gallery's contemporary art has had a painting by J W Waterhouse removed to 'provoke debate' on how art and it's subject matter is displayed to 'the masses'.

The curator goes on to espouse a theory of how the gallery had 'forgotten' to think about such art of late and it was time to remember it again.

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/jan/31/manchester-art-gallery-removes-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-painting-prompt-conversation

My first thought upon hearing of this today on the radio news.

What was the name of the last group to remove art from the public domain as a result of their own ideals? 

The answer I came up with, The Nazi Party.

Now i don't for one minute think the piece by Waterhouse has been removed for the same reasons the Nazis took down paintings and later went on to hoard art for some dreamed of Hitler museum. But, removing works of art, or books or other material in the public domain has sinister connotations from the past.

Now it's not unknown lately for people of a certain mind set to make a 'grand statement' otherwise known as 'look at me', which in some cases furthers their career or level of interest from the media.

However it played out i'm wary of items which have been deemed acceptable for a long time to be withdrawn from view by a small minority, who think they know better than the masses.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Blott said:

 

Now it's not unknown lately for people of a certain mind set to make a 'grand statement' otherwise known as 'look at me', which in some cases furthers their career or level of interest from the media.

 

 

I think you have hit the nail firmly on the head with the above comment.

Said curator then went on to say 

“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.”

I think quite a lot of what we might  charitably call "Art Bollocks" is probably spouted by said curator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exuberated by his own verbosity, wanting to be a legend in his own mind or just a prissy poseur with delusions of grandeur. Total prat.

John B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, bratman said:

Exuberated by his own verbosity, wanting to be a legend in his own mind or just a prissy poseur with delusions of grandeur. Total prat.

John B.

If I read the article correctly, he is a she :58674be0c2f40_EmojiSmiley-06: with her own agenda no doubt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whomsoever the curator is, the BBC reports that, following allegations of censorship the painting has been replaced.  If memory serves the reason given for its removal was to generate discussion. Wholly believable, not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this