191
submitted 5 months ago by redfox@infosec.pub to c/world@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 15 points 5 months ago

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.

[-] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 5 months ago

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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

this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
191 points (91.0% liked)

World News

38492 readers
3229 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS