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.

  • derf82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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

    • potustheplant@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Also, how can you justify doing something that’s objectively wrong just because someone else did it first?

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

        • Zahille7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.