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.
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.
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.
If it’s art, it’s pretty childish art. “Revenge” is not useful nor healthy.
I don’t see it as revenge, I see it as reflection.
Reflection on what? The actions of people that are now senile or dead? And how? By discriminating people? Yeah, really positive.
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.
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.
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
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.
The fact that it’s not right is the point. That people across the entire planet are talking about this Australian art exhibit and sexism demonstrates this exhibit was executed really well
Agree to disagree then—we’re both entitled to an opinion, as is the way with art.
The execution left me with a negative impression of the event, and has not really broadened my awareness. I hope it had its intended impact on others so it isn’t a total wash. I’m glad you found it more inspiring than I did.
Probably a similar response as the women trying to enter the museum before 1965.
When you were in kindergarten did anyone explain the difference between good attention and bad attention?
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.
deleted by creator
So you feel like you are beeing treated sexist because of your gender.
Wonderful. Now take that feeling. Feel the rage it brings with it, the exclusion, the pure UNFAIRNESS of it.
And now think how often women experience this. Not on the context of “you may not enter” any more, but in hunders of other ways. You can’t be good at math, you’re a woman. Why wouldn’t you want to stay with the kid for a year or so, you’re a woman?!
This is, so I belive, why the artist says the feeling of exclusion is the experience for male visitors she is intending. It gives you the possibility to think about how it feels beeing female in a world that is still very much male dominated (tough in a slightly more subtle way than in 1965).
I’m not feeling anything personally because I didn’t go to the art exhibit—I’m just a person reading news stories on Lemmy.
I have been discriminated against for my gender, race, and sexual orientation before. It’s humiliating. I imagine I would also feel a bit humiliated at being turned away from a museum due to my gender.
In general, making people feel like shit for who they are has no positive function in any public space, and I’d prefer it if we simply left those behaviors in the past entirely.
In general, making people feel like shit for who they are has no positive function in any public space, and I’d prefer it if we simply left those behaviors in the past entirely.
I agree with you in general, but after understanding the idea behind it I think, in the context of said art project, it is a useful tool to get some people to think about discrimination.
As this thread shows, it also enraged people and makes them scream “feminist are sexist and want males to suffer”, but hey, you can’t reach everybody.
Thanks for proving my point that modern feminists don’t want equality or even equity; they want superiority.
They think it’s “their turn” to be the abusers and that the world owes it to them.
Well, if this is what you took out of what I wrote then I am sorry, but you came here with that opinion and are trying realy hard to have it justified by realy just anything.
Because, if you’d take the time to understand what I wrote, there’d be no rational conclusion leading to your point. None.
Did this ticket holder consent to this? Yes or no?
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.
So sexism is outrage performance art now?
It is when it’s against men
Remember, the only standard is a double-standard when dealing with modern feminists.
They do not want equality. They do not want equity. They want superiority.
Men like this always deliberately misunderstand because they are addicted to outrage and misogyny.
Then explain why exactly is this not sexist? A good litmus test for such things is to replace the group in question with Jews. If it sounds antisemitic, you might have an *ism going on.
So let’s do that “Jew sued art gallery for being denied entry in a non-jew only exhibition”. Sounds pretty antisemitic, right?
It is sexist. That’s the point of the exhibit. The exclusion is the point.
I believe the artist explained it in court by saying that it allows men to feel the exclusion that women feel regularly. Many professions, clubs, and networking spaces were closed to women until very recently.
If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.
And no you can’t just replace a word with “jew” as a good litmus test. If I replace “hamburgers” in the sentence “put some hamburgers on the barbecue”, it would sound insane. But it’s actually a normal sentence.
Actually, you could make a good copy of this exhibition by making it “Jewish people only”. Then everyone else would understand that exclusion.
The key difference is that a) the sexism criticized by the artist is already illegal and b) (this might be a revelation for some people) hamburgers are not people, Jews are people.
Even if you did a Jews only club, that would be illegal - and rightly so.
Sexism exists whether or not it’s illegal. The US House of Representatives is 29% women. The Senate is 25% women. There has never been a female US President.
Australia, where the exhibit happened has had one female PM for 3 years relatively recently. They have a greater percentage of female Representatives and Senators, just recently.
Also, it is legal in the English speaking world: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/mar/18/garrick-club-men-only-members-list-roll-call-british-establishment
Equallity of outcome does not equal equallity of oppertunity.
If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.
2 things:
-
Because men totally never feel left out or others in their lives, this is the only place they’ll ever feel that. Fucking garbage excuse for sexism.
-
It’s not just the artists art she’s locking behind this sexist wall, which is the exact dick move that she’s butthurt about from checks notes 60 years ago at this museum. If she was depriving men of her own art that’s one thing, but the article clearly states original Picasso’s are in the room.
It’s incredibly fucking dickheaded to hide another, frankly more popular and actually cared about, artists work from people due to something they can’t control. I get that’s the point she’s making, but it doesn’t teach men something they don’t already know: it just makes her the asshole, big-time. It almost certainly will convince more people online who hear about this that her point is total bullshit and she’s some “stupid man hating count” or something, too, which is nice
I initially had some of these thoughts, reflection changed my mind a bit. I’m not trying to change yours, but I think some people will benefit from this.
I am not much into art and most of it is lost on me, but the more I considered the feeling I had thinking about the restriction, the more I appreciated the fact that she can cause affects across without boundaries just by the stunt.
This would probably be less cool if it wasn’t intended to be about a civil rights awareness thing. There’s a limit for me on how far you can go before the justification isn’t enough for the negative affects of the action, but I don’t think anyone will really be hurt by this exhibit.
Yes, I believe that’s the point. This other guy is acting like she walked up to him and kicked him square in the nuts. He’s pissed about an exhibit he will never visit, in a country he has probably never been to.
Art is a visual, audio, or performance medium that is intended to make you feel an emotion. This art works really well at eliciting the correct emotions: anger and exclusion because of sexism. Lots of people actually have their bodies forcing the emotion on them.
This reminds me of another piece of art: a crank that you turn on a machine so pennies pop out. It’s tuned so that it releases pennies at the rate of minimum wage (one penny every 5 seconds). You can keep the pennies.
When people first encounter it, they experience a little bit of joy at the free money. They crank out a few pennies. Then they experience dissatisfaction when they realize how long you have to crank it to get any real money. It’s a great way to teach people who have never worked for minimum wage how crappy it is.
-
Removed by mod
A good litmus test says you think sexism doesn’t exist and are, therefore, a dumbasshole.
So, if I say that sexism is not good, even in art, then I say sexism doesn’t exist and am therefore an asshole? Well, in that case I propose that whatever group you feel attached to should be denied access to any healthcare, and if you think that’s any form of *ism than I say you’re stupid. That does look very weird, does it?
You fundamentally don’t understand the issue here. You have your gut feeling of “sexism against women bad, art good”, which is not even wrong in principle, but you take that to the extreme by saying “every art roughly aiming in the general direction of sexism is good” - and that’s bad. Even worse is, that you accuse everyone who disagrees of being the most vile sexist ever.
What does healthcare have to do with it? Denying healthcare is never art, in my opinion.
It’s art to me. Are you the authority on art now?
So, if I say that sexism is not good, even in art, then I say sexism doesn’t exist and am therefore an asshole?
What?
“Women like this always deliberately misunderstand because they are addicted to outrage and misandry.”
Men like this implying me? God you really are incapable of thinking for yourself. I am not addicted to outragw or misogyny in fact i despise both i very strongly beleive in equallity and cant see how calling objective inequallity what it is is outrage or mysogyny. Please explain how its mysogynous to hate hate ineguallity?
Removed by mod
All Cops Are Artists?
You’re the artist’s target, and you’re literally performing in her exhibit right now
Yep very clever looks like u’ve just discovered the problem with outrage art. If you are successfull it means you are a right old cunt who people hate. It performs far better as mockery of the concept itself than what i think the artist intended. The sueing of them was either a masterpiece 4d chess by the artist themselves or a lesson in irony.
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.
Then you’d miss the entire point
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.
Art has bordered on what you’d call “trolling” for a while. Someone else in the comments referenced Duchamp’s Fountains
I used the appropriate word to describe this.
I hope the court room shenanigans don’t actually distract from the validity. People tend to get distracted easily from thinking about something challenging.
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.
Isn’t that the art piece? That it’s being sexist in a way that’s impacted women… But in a way that’s obvious to men? Yeah it’s clearly sexist. That’s messed up. That’s the point.
True that it doesn’t mention the sexiest things that affect men and other women. But not every art piece has to capture every element of the human experience. This was focused on one point.
I mean, how would people react to a male-only art exhibit?
Probably the same way that they do for all of the gentlemen clubs around the world. They wouldn’t care because society is hypocritical. It’s fine for men to do it but the second they are excluded from something it’s not acceptable.
To clarify my standing I think they are both sexist and dumb. If you are going to criticize one then you need to be critical of the other.
What gentlemen’s club takes money from women and then denies them entry?
Therein lies the problem. They want a woman-only exhibit, then they need to deny men admission from the museum in entirety. But that would probably be detrimental to the museum’s bottom line. But you can’t take money from men and then deny equal access, nor can you do it to women.
There is a difference between a social club and art exhibition. If this was a social group that organised their own internal art exhibition than more power to them.
Nah. It’s discrimination based on sex period. Doesn’t matter what story you tell yourself.
Well in that case then we should not have any womens sport teams, they can compete against the men and 90% of them will lose their careers.
Yes it is sex nased discrimination but that is what clubs and societites are for - finding people withnaimilar interests it is why you will not find many straight people in an LGBT book club, or Muslims living among franciscan monk orders.
So if a group of women want to organise a women’s trip every year and have meetings once a month to discuss logistics and decide on plans then I do not think it is sexist of them to want to keep it to women only.
Didn’t a couple of people mention that was all of it before a certain year?
I also had no idea museums might have had gender restrictions.
Didn’t a couple of people mention that was all of it before a certain year?
I don’t know, did they? Also, why would that matter?
Protesting something that no longer exists by copying it. Brilliant.
https://mander.xyz/comment/9083214.
I’ll edit this, I can’t read the other stuff on the mobile version while responding.
Edit, I mentioned that because the whole place was male only until '65. I don’t think there was that much outcry? (It didn’t look it up, I assume that poster did).
It would be now in 2024 though.
Ok so you’re saying that women used to be discriminated and that (thankfully) is no longer the case. Why would it be ok for the opposite to happen? Both things are wrong and that “eye for an eye” mentality benefits no one.
I do agree both things are wrong. Meaning discrimination.
I think one person’s art in this case might be described as another person’s stunt.
Edit, as for whether it’s beneficial, not sure. I guess we’ll see.
That’s a very naive equivalence
I’m guessing you support double-standards?
Maybe, but I think what you said is very naive. Like, “They let a doctor cut people open, but when I do it, it’s a crime” tier.
ITT: some angry ass men who have missed the point. Lol.
Weird how sexism is okay if it’s against men.
Would you have the same reaction if women got mad about being banned from an art exhibit?
Not if it was an exhibit about misogyny…
You are so eager to be a victim you have deliberately missed the point. Poor men.
Not if it was an exhibit about misogyny…
I don’t believe you, but ok.
You are so eager to be a victim you have deliberately missed the point.
Lol. That’s ironic coming from you.
Poor men.
Imagine if I said the same thing about women. Would probably get my comment removed, haha.
You don’t believe the entire artwork was about misogyny? Talk about woosh
The art clearly worked well, since you’re outraged
I don’t believe that he wouldn’t be upset.
Talk about woosh
Jeez, more irony from ya’ll.
since you’re outraged
Lol. Any criticism is ‘outrage’ in your mind.
You made an alt account to comment on this thread bud, someone here pissed you off and I believe it was that guy
You could say the same for Nazi cartoons then.
Art, uh?
Oh boy, comparing feminism to nazis. We’ve gone full reddit
Or you know, calling out sexism and racism for what they are. You are welcome to consume the “art” of these groups if you think so, apparently being outraged by it is a good indicator that the “artist” did a good job
Sad troll.
It is a stupid point, and hardly art, but even you should be able to understand it by now if you read the other comments come on
What’s the point?
To be sexist.
Some people feel others need to be sexually discriminated against because apparently this will achieve something useful?
it’s paragraph 3 in the article.
I wasn’t asking for myself.
can you put the person you were asking for on? I would like to repeat the 110 year old argument now considered mostly solved about “what is art” because I hate myself
What’s weird is that this comment was well upvoted yesterday. I think this thread is being brigaded. At least one account was made just to comment on this thread
I’m glad there’s so many chuds going to so much effort to prove the artist correct, lol.
Some guy made an alt to respond to your comments. Account was made like 12 hours ago lol
Votes changes all the time.
This happened very regularly on Reddit. A new comment that was up voted was downvoted after a few hours or the opposite.
Eh, not such a significant swing on Lemmy in my experience.
What was the vote count yesterday/earlier today?
Fuck the point.
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
Also, how can you justify doing something that’s objectively wrong just because someone else did it first?
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
I understand that one of the guys Shittenhouse shot was not a good guy, but that doesn’t excuse the situation at all.
I’ve had diarrhea more attractive than that little fucking stain.
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).
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.
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?
“The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork,” Kaechele told the Guardian.
This is so interesting. I interpret this to mean that having a man sue them for discrimination could also be considered part of the experience of the artwork. It is very clever and very modern, and also good media exposure. It reminds me of when Banksy sold a piece of art at auction and the frame was a disguised paper shredder that shredded the artwork immediately after it was bought. I hope the media continues to cover this story to see if the artist/museum reveals that being sued for discrimination was their intention all along.
Is sexist trolling art now? I prefer the toilet
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.
Thanks you for saying so and spending time thinking about this. The way I see things, the point here is to take a glance at how systemic sexism works through an art exhibit. That is, if you dare.
Other examples that would illustrate what I mean in relation to systemic sexism, would be:
- It is not sexism if a dude is not allowed in a lesbian bar. They are a minority group, and just want to do their thing.
- It is sexism when a woman is refused to apply for a grandmaster chess tournament because of tradition/culture/etc.
We live in a world that women are still not allowed participate in these tournaments.
[edit: the strikethrough, cause apparently it’s not the case. There are women tournaments (only for women) and open ones (open to all). I think the example still stands, as an illustration to what I meant]
Women aren’t barred from joining chess tournaments. They have their own tournaments where men are not allowed. They don’t join “grandmaster level tournaments” whatever that means because they don’t have a high enough rating to compete. Reasons for this are complicated and largely unknown, with the main possible reason being they probably get less support worldwide for pursuing chess. Also there are titles that require less ELO points to qualify for, made for women, like “woman master”.
Why are men and women playing chess in different leagues? Chess isn’t atheltic, nobody is going to have an advantage over another player because of gender or sex.
Historic systemic sexism means women are under represented in the game. Different leagues aim to bring more women and girls into play because for example, a young girl can see women playing and want to get involved. It is much less likely if all they see is a boy’s club.
Anyone can enter the ‘mens’ league, so whenever a woman is good enough to complete they can (and do).
Anyone can enter the ‘mens’ league
Not if you are a woman that wants to go for the Grand Master title. In that case you have to join the Woman Grandmaster (WGM).
Incorrect, would you like to check FIDE?
Edit to add a list of 41 females who have achieved the title of grandmaster. Not to be confused with the title of WGM.
@ricdeh and @Luvs2Spuj, it looks like you are both correct since:
1978: Nona Gaprindashvili became the first female Grandmaster
deleted by creator
That’s just plain misinformation
Because historically it’s been shown that they are weaker players. At the top, the grandmaster title, only 41 women have it, out of like 2000 overall titles. So they created the women’s tournaments to encourage more of them to play chess. There are only two types of tournaments, open, where everyone can play, and women’s only, where only women play. A lot of female players play opens as well as women’s
Because historically
it’s been shown that they are weaker playersthey were excluded, creating the illusion that they were weaker playersThey weren’t excluded. Since early 1900 they played chess in chess clubs. Since 1920s women competed in high level tournaments. There isn’t many women in chess, so the chances of a higher rated player are lower amongst women. It doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, or that women are weaker players. There is simply less of them.
The fact that there are only 41, is due to under representation not ability. That under representation is cause by many factors, including ignorant and damaging comments such as yours. You should be ashamed.
In our life time it is entirely possible to see a female world champion and even the removal of the WGM (and other W titles) due to progress in repairing the damage caused by sexism.
I said in other posts, that women aren’t worse at chess - there is less of them, so higher ranked players aren’t as common. But keep your outrage.
Agreed. I’m not a chess player, but I view it as an intellectual sport or challenge. There’s no reason not to eliminate all gender specific separation IMO.
I think it’s fun to see people in competition and achievements where we don’t have to care about the person’s physical attributes.
Reasons for this are complicated and largely unknown
Really?
Well, systemic sexism is complicated, no doubt. You have to decide tho. Complicated or unknown? Cause it can’t be both.It absolutely can be both. You don’t know that sexism in chess makes it so no women play chess at all. It is a factor, but you don’t know its impact.
When I first read it, the thought that came to mind was how stupid it is in this age to do anything that is restricted by gender when the rest of the world is trying to eliminate that.
Once I read the part about the feelings, emotion, and experience the restriction brought was the actual art and not just the paintings, that’s when I thought it was clever. The definition of art seems to be ambiguous now, but I understand what she’s trying to to do and it’s still a clever in that it illicits an effect whether you wanted to visit the museum or not.
I think people say they understand or empathize, but don’t really know what it means in a specific context until they experience it IMO.
To be fair, there’s a difference between the lounge itself being the exhibit, vs restricting some of Picasso’s pieces
Once I read that the lounge and reaction to it is supposed to be the art itself, it kinda made sense. In a weird way, but it still kinda makes sense.
Why? Woman habe been restriced from artwork (and jobs, voting rights,…) for generations.
If the point is to give male persons the possibility to feal this exclusion, then it makes sense to exclude something from them that they actually would like to see.
I’ve got a great idea for an exhibit to teach men about rape.
Die in a fire.
Oh I’m sorry, are you not in favour of forcing people to experience things they know are wrong because how else would they know it’s wrong unless we inflict it on them?
If you agree with the gallery and artists intentions, surely you must agree with me applying the same logic to other social issues.
