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.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    8 months ago

    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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          Reflection on what? The actions of people that are now senile or dead? And how? By discriminating people? Yeah, really positive.

          • june@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            8 months ago

            Reflection on history. I don’t see that as an inherently negative thing even though it would ostensibly exclude me.

            Do projects that drive us to consider the plights of slaves, Jews in the holocaust, or other groups that were tortured, murdered, or otherwise persecuted en masse elicit this same response to you? If not, why?

            It seems to me that the art is doing what it’s intended to do, illicit a reaction. What you do with that reaction, positive or negative, is up to you.

            • potustheplant@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              No one said that reflection on any given topic is negative. Just that this particular way of doing it is antagonistic and I’d argue is even detrimental to the conversation. I mean, if you actually learned that discrimination is wrong, why do you teach that by actually doing it yourself? It’s like a parent, that got beat up when he was young, beating up his kid to teach him that violence is a bad thing.