Two Comments on Art

Polanski has made some great films (Repulsion is a corker), rape is a crime and should be punished, the reasons for his apprehension are murky, possibly a corporate studio got annoyed at some deal with him that went bad and reached out to the DA, but he should pay for his crime whether that is community service, reparations, incarceration & therapy, that’s for a jury.

This is censorship, artworks in a gallery context are not identical to pornography, the Met clearly lack the theoretical grounding to understand this, the Tate is cowardly, galleries are formal spaces where discourse must be free in order to be of any cultural use.

That is all.

11 Responses to “Two Comments on Art”

  1. earwicga Says:

    Yes, but if you look at the Gary Gross series they are clearly inappropriate, and Brooke Shields herself has tried to stop the pictures of her ten year old body being displayed. She failed because of a contract, not because the photos are appropriate.

  2. earwicga Says:

    I think you are a little confused: “the reasons for his apprehension are murky”

    The reason for his apprehension is because he drugged and raped a child, orally, vaginally and anally, admitted to it eventually, then left the country before sentencing.

    Perhaps you meant the reason for apprehension now? I have read that the substantial publicity around the event at which he was to be lauded was a contributing factor.

  3. RickB Says:

    Yes the reason for apprehension now. As distinct from the reason for the warrant being out.
    The artworks are not Garry Gross’s they comment upon them and the phenomena of their existence, the principle is do you want the Met deciding what is to be displayed in galleries being as 1. they are the police.
    2. they kill people and hide evidence.

    • earwicga Says:

      The original is Gross’ though, Prince’s work is based on copying other’s work.

      I would rather the model’s wishes were taken into account and the pictures were withdrawn. At the age of ten it was not possible for her to give consent to sexually provocative photographs being taken of her. I would rather that womens and girls bodies weren’t subject to the male commercial world. I could go on, but what’s the point!

      • RickB Says:

        And that is part of the discourse of the artwork, yes it is provocative to display a copy of Gross’s work and I would not go that way if it were me, but Gross did what you object too not Prince or the gallery, part of the context is how her mother was party to the original so it is not simply ‘male commercial world’ that is being contemplated, it is far more complex and perhaps disturbing than a purely gendered or legal dialectic, I mean the role of Playboy is something that needs to be confronted especially as it is mainstreaming a certain standard of porn.

        • earwicga Says:

          Prince bought the photo from Prince. I object to the photo. It is an example of paedophilia, as is the whole series. I also object to the gallery showing it. It’s not provocative, its wrong. Don’t tell me what it is that I object to or not.

  4. libhomo Says:

    I can not imagine how a ten year old could genuinely consent to a nude photo which is pornographic in nature. I’m glad it was taken down.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: