In suggesting that #MeToo legitimises her removal of an iconic painting from public view, Clare Gannaway insults those who contributed to that initiative in order to shed light on hidden criminal practices (Art or soft porn? Unease as gallery removes painting, 1 February). The claim that this act is “about challenging us” and “not about censorship” is unconvincing – such an aim would be better met by framing the work in an exhibition that promotes productive debate. A curator’s job is to enable the public to see works and understand the historical processes of which they form a part. Nazi curators, too, challenged us by removing art from public view because it conflicted with their political aims and puritanical taste. But few would now consider this to have been anything other than censorship.
Katrin Kohl
Professor of German, Faculty of Medieval and Modern Languages, University of Oxford
• The Manchester curators would do well to study their art history before getting themselves into such a muddle. Back in 1885, a Royal Academician called Horsley, writing indignantly to the Times under the pen name of “A British Matron”, urged that nudity in art should be banned on the grounds that it is illegal to go out in public naked, that young ladies of the higher social order are no longer shocked when contemplating such a painting in mixed company, and were at risk that any children they might as a result bear will fall under the influence of the cloven foot, prompting the artist, Whistler, to respond, “Horsley soit qui mal y pense” and Punch to satirise him as “Clothes-Horsley”.
Continue reading...from The Guardian http://ift.tt/2E82Wqq
SEO Expert in Pakistan
No comments:
Post a Comment