Artists & Preservationists Debate the Rush to Topple Statues

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Artists & Preservationists Debate the Rush to Topple Sta

Postby Cordelia » Thu Sep 14, 2017 12:58 pm

On Tuesday, "roughly 100 students, faculty and community members" shrouded a statue of Thomas Jefferson on the main UVA campus.

Image

UVA President Teresa Sullivan was angry.

Image


Protesters desecrated sacred ground by shrouding Jefferson statue


To University of Virginia students, President Teresa A. Sullivan said she “strongly disagrees” with the roughly 100 students, faculty and community members who shrouded the Thomas Jefferson statue that stands on the north side of the Rotunda during a protest Tuesday night.

She told alumni, however, that protesters were “desecrating ground that many of us consider sacred.”


In her first email, sent to the UVa community, Sullivan said she “[recognizes] the rights of those present at the protest to express their emotions and opinions regarding the recent horrific events that occurred on our Grounds and in Charlottesville,” she said. “Our community continues to heal, and we must remain respectful of one another if substantive progress can be made on addressing the many challenges and opportunities that we all face.

More...
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/local ... 13844.html


Update: The Shroud has been removed

Image

Edit to add:

Sullivan said that university personnel removed the shroud and that one person was arrested Tuesday night on a charge of public intoxication.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/u ... 9ecc1.html

Only one person was publicly intoxicated on a university campus? :shock2:
The greatest sin is to be unconscious. ~ Carl Jung

We may not choose the parameters of our destiny. But we give it its content. ~ Dag Hammarskjold 'Waymarks'
User avatar
Cordelia
 
Posts: 3697
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:07 pm
Location: USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Artists & Preservationists Debate the Rush to Topple Sta

Postby American Dream » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:01 pm

Resist!

September 25, 2017
by Keith ‘Bomani’ LaMar


Truth: When the Constitution of the United States was drawn up and ratified into law, ‘‘We the People’’ did not mean all white people – then, as now, it meant white men with money, those who owned property (read: slaves). History also tells us that America was inhabited by indigenous people long before Christopher Columbus ‘‘discovered’’ it – and that it was through the genocidal spilling of their BLOOD that this SOIL was ultimately confiscated and colonized by Europeans. This is the ‘‘horrific heritage’’ that our innocent brothers claim to be so proud of – a history of rape, murder and theft.

But if being in prison has taught me anything, it has taught me that just because you take something doesn’t necessarily mean it’s yours.

In truth, this country has never, in reality, belonged to any single set of individuals, a fact that indigenous people well knew and understood. In “A People’s History of the United States,” Howard Zinn tells us that when the Arawak Indians ran out to greet Christopher Columbus, they came bearing food, water and gifts – not weapons.

And how did Columbus respond to this expression of a shared humanity? He saw it as weakness. ‘‘They would make fine servants,’’ he wrote in his diary. “With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.’’

Sadly, it is this fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a human being that has caused so much pain and unnecessary suffering in the world. The reduction of human beings to THINGS – to be used, sold and subdued – has forced us all to live degraded lives, lives devoid of any real meaning or value.

Somehow, at some point, we have to move away from this sordid history, towards a future that revolves around a more emergent – as opposed to divergent – narrative of what it means to be alive in the 21st century.

When I mentioned at the outset that I disagreed with ‘‘most’’ everything Donald Trump says, I was leaving room for the rare occasion when he says something that actually makes sense. For instance, in comments shortly after the Charlottesville tragedy, Trump, responding to whether or not we should be removing statues, asked: “What’s next? Are we going to remove the statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln?”

Here, of course, he was speaking in rhetorical terms, arguing for, not against, white supremacy; nevertheless, he made a valid point. If it is an evil tree we seek to cut down, shouldn’t we also see to its roots? I mean, as Trump so self-righteously pointed out, most of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and supported a system that was – and remains­­ – reliant on the exploitation of a permanent underclass, White and Black! Shouldn’t we seek to dismantle this as well?

For any of this to mean anything, we have to move beyond symbolism; taking down a few statues does not change the fact that the wealthiest 10 percent own 89 percent of all the wealth and resources. It also does not change the reality that the burning of fossil fuels, which is the main driver of capitalism, has brought us to the brink of our existence!

And this is the real crux of the problem, isn’t it, the part of the story that Donald Trump and his cronies don’t want to acknowledge: Capitalism is destroying the planet.

When confronted with evidence that climate change is causing irreparable harm, Trump claims it’s all a hoax, an elaborate conspiracy perpetrated by the Left to redistribute wealth. Does he really believe this? I doubt it.

But even if he does, it only proves that Upton Sinclair was right when he said, “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.’’ This, in psychological terms, is what is referred to as cultural cognition, the act of seeing only what you need to see, regardless of what is there.

But we all saw the damage that Hurricane Harvey caused, and the general consensus is that it’s the warming of the planet that is increasing the frequency and intensity of these kind of weather events. So maybe what is meant by ‘‘redistribution of wealth’’ is the outpouring of donations from the rich to aid the poor and stranded. Pretty soon, according to climate scientists, we’ll all be stranded.

In light of these very real and present dangers, it seems silly to still be talking about – let alone dying about – the removal of this or that statue. I mean, at the end of the day, who really gives a damn about Stonewall Jackson or Robert E. Lee – or Martin Luther King Jr. even? They’re all dead, and it doesn’t really matter if we believe they stood on the right or wrong side of history; what matters now is where WE stand.

Current crises are calling us to create new heroes, people who, as Heather Heyer did, have the courage of their convictions, and who are not afraid to stand up to speak truth to power or the powerless.


http://sfbayview.com/2017/09/resist/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Artists & Preservationists Debate the Rush to Topple Sta

Postby liminalOyster » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:24 am

NYC Met Museum Refuses To Remove Painting That Petition Says ‘Sexualizes’ Girl
“Therese Dreaming” is “evocative” and disturbing, petition says.
By Mary Papenfuss

The Metropolitan Museum of Art will not remove a painting that an online petition claims “sexualizes” the image of a girl, said a museum official.

Apparently inspired in part by the atmosphere of complaints about sexual harassment, New York City entrepreneur Mia Merrill launched the petition calling for the museum to remove the work, “Thérèse Dreaming,” because it presents the girl in a “sexually suggestive pose.”

The 1938 painting by French artist Balthus shows a girl of 12 or 13 sitting in what seems to be a bedroom with her eyed closed and hands on her head. One of her legs is bent at the knee, with her foot resting on the chair. Her skirt has fallen open and her underwear is exposed.

“‘Thérèse Dreaming’ is an evocative portrait of a prepubescent girl relaxing on a chair with her legs up and underwear exposed,” Mia Merrill wrote on the petition posted on the Care2 website on Thursday. “It is disturbing that the Met would proudly display such an image.”

Given the “current climate around sexual assault and allegations that become more public each day, in showcasing this work for the masses, the Met is romanticizing voyeurism and the objectification of children,” Merrill added. The petition had more than 8,000 signatures Monday night.

I put together a petition asking the Met to take down a piece of art that is undeniably romanticizing the sexualization of a child. If you are a part of the #metoo movement or ever think about the implications of art on life, please support this effort. http://bit.ly/2BzSEvg

I was shocked to see a painting that depicts a young girl in a sexually suggestive pose. (25 signatures on petition)
thepetitionsite.com
32 32 Replies 1 1 Retweet 6 6 likes


Museum spokesman Kenneth Weine said the Met would not remove the work and told the New York Post that “moments such as this provide an opportunity for conversation.”

He added that the Met’s “mission is to collect, study, conserve, and present significant works of art across all times and cultures in order to connect people to creativity, knowledge and ideas.”

The National Coalition Against Censorship issued a statement Monday supporting the museum’s decision.

“Recent cases of censorship, including the threats of violence that forced the Guggenheim Museum in New York to remove several exhibits, reveal a disturbing trend of attempts to stifle art that engages difficult subjects,” said the NCAC statement. ” Art can often offer insights into difficult realities and, as such, merits vigorous defense.”

Anne-Marie
@AnneSwisss
Over 7500 New Yorkers have petitioned the #Met to remove this painting. The reason given was the “current climate around sexual assault.”

The society has gone insane.This is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard in my life. A huge fan of his art. #Balthus #Art #NewYork
1:22 PM - Dec 4, 2017
5 5 Replies 8 8 Retweets 18 18 likes


Merrill said in the petition that Balthus had a “noted infatuation with pubescent girls” and called his work “pedophilic.” The painting features Thérèse Blanchard, a Paris neighbor of Balthus.

In an update to her petition Monday, Merrill said she would also consider her petition a success if the Met included a message with the painting “as brief as: “Some viewers find this piece offensive or disturbing, given Balthus’ artistic infatuation with young girls.”

It’s not the first time viewers have been disturbed by Balthus’ paintings. A review in The Guardian of an exhibit of Balthus’ works in 2013 at the Met, which included “Thérèse Dreaming,” noted the artist had an “inordinate fixation on girls who’d just hit puberty” and that the paintings had an “unsettling undertone” because of the “erotic images of children.” A sign at the start of the exhibit at the Met that year warned that “some of the paintings in this exhibition may be disturbing to some visitors.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/th ... f0203ec645
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests