Racist Countryside Art

[Thermal]

That line of posts was in reply to

What? No it wasn't. Click back. Your own quoted post that kicked this off was :

Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I'm thinking that is unnecessary and takes away from the experience.

which was a sarcastic summation of the hyperbolic example I had just given, regarding off the wall political posturing in placards.

so I was sharing my feelings about how I feel museum signage affects my appreciation of the works. How humble of an apology would you like, for my not discussing the content of the signage in those particular posts?

Well that's what was being discussed. If you meant to respond to an entirely different post addressed to an entirely different poster, the quote feature is a stellar way to clarify that. Mind reading can get tricky.

 

[Hercules56]

Nope.

Any chance you'll be backing up your claims?

Which claims?

 

[Lithrael]

What? No it wasn't. Click back. Your own quoted post that kicked this off was (...) a sarcastic summation of the hyperbolic example I had just given, regarding off the wall political posturing in placards.

It looked to me like you were talking about opinionated signage's effects on the gallery viewing experience. In that post, as well as the other one I quoted. That's what I was responding to. When I said 'that line of posts' I was referring to ones about 'taking away from the art viewing experience' which was what I had thought was one of your points in both of the posts we've just brought up.

But this is getting very meta which is no fun for anyone to read.

 

[Thermal]

It looked to me like you were talking about opinionated signage's effects on the gallery viewing experience. In that post, as well as the other one I quoted. That's what I was responding to.

OK, then you were responding to a different post than the one you took the extra time to snip out and quote. Fine.

But regarding your initial thought: "OK, again.. you don't have to read the signs". How the hell would you know what to think about them if you haven't read them?

I personally look at the work standalone, to see what it does for me without info. Then I read the cards, who did it and when or whatever, and consider how it changes my view. But the management's political leanings are an annoyance to that end; their opinions don't interest me in how I respond to the works. Can you see how some might find your reply confusing?

 

[Lithrael]

OK, then you were responding to a different post than the one you took the extra time to snip out and quote. Fine.

It seemed to me that they both expressed the sentiment that I have been responding to.

But regarding your initial thought: "OK, again.. you don't have to read the signs". How the hell would you know what to think about them if you haven't read them?

Yes, that was glib and unhelpful of me, and more a reaction to what felt to me like the overall thread's theme of conflating 'sign exists' with 'they are shoving obnoxious opinions down our throats' (a stroppy reaction and not a uesful one since, as you point out, the sign has been read and the throat impinged, by the time the opinions have been identified) than anything you had just said.

I did go on to say other things after that.

Can you see how some might find your reply confusing?

Honestly, no, not particularly.

 

[Thermal]

It seemed to me that they both expressed the sentiment that I have been responding to.

Yet the context was different enough to cloud your meaning.

Yes, that was glib and unhelpful of me, and more a reaction to what felt to me like the overall thread's theme of conflating 'sign exists' with 'they are shoving obnoxious opinions down our throats' (a stroppy reaction and not a uesful one since, as you point out, the sign has been read and the throat impinged, by the time the opinions have been identified) than anything you had just said.

I did go on to say other things after that.



Honestly, no, not particularly.

The "unhelpful glibness" set the tone to change the interpretation of your reply. If you see that it was unhelpful and glib, you shouldn't have a great deal of trouble understanding the confusion.

But I think we understand each other now. Truce?

 

[Orphia Nay]

I've checked and I should be able to take photos in the galleries so I will do so and paste them here so we can see what the museum has written in its labels etc.

Great!

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah, I always forget changing horses inside a post can be a problem.

But I think we understand each other now. Truce?

Sure, sounds good. *handshake*

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This may seem like nitpicking but it simply isn't factual. Constable wasn't painting idyllic landscapes while Boston was in uproar over the Tea Party as he hadn't even been born yet. None of his famous landscapes were painted until years after the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade.

I was talking about those times in general. Constable was painting landscapes from 1802 to 1837. The painting shown in the article was done in 1820.

From my link:-

Anti-slavery campaigners lobbied for twenty years to end the trade and the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act was passed in Britain on 25 March 1807. It was declared that from the 1 May 1807 ‘all manner of dealing and reading in the purchase, sale, barter, or transfer of slaves or of persons intending to be sold, transferred, used, or dealt with as slaves, practiced or carried in, at, or from any part of the coast or countries of Africa shall be abolished, prohibited and declared to be unlawful’. Slavery was abolished in 1834 but in reality for many of those enslaved it continued until at least 1838 through apprenticehip schemes.

Abolishing the slave trade in 1807 didn't make slavery disappear in Britain.

The history of British slave ownership has been buried: now its scale can be revealed

The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 formally freed 800,000 Africans who were then the legal property of Britain’s slave owners. What is less well known is that the same act contained a provision for the financial compensation of the owners of those slaves, by the British taxpayer, for the loss of their “property”. The compensation commission was the government body established to evaluate the claims of the slave owners and administer the distribution of the £20m the government had set aside to pay them off. That sum represented 40% of the total government expenditure for 1834...

The compensation of Britain’s 46,000 slave owners was the largest bailout in British history until the bailout of the banks in 2009. Not only did the slaves receive nothing, under another clause of the act they were compelled to provide 45 hours of unpaid labour each week for their former masters, for a further four years after their supposed liberation. In effect, the enslaved paid part of the bill for their own manumission.

 

[Trausti]

I was talking about those times in general. Constable was painting landscapes from 1802 to 1837. The painting shown in the article was done in 1820.

From my link:-
Abolishing the slave trade in 1807 didn't make slavery disappear in Britain.

The history of British slave ownership has been buried: now its scale can be revealed

Oh that's terrible. So what were all the other slavery states doing at that the time?

 

[arthwollipot]

Oh that's terrible. So what were all the other slavery states doing at that the time?

Which other "slavery states"?

 

[Lplus]

Which other "slavery states"?

Are you trying to say you think Britain was the only state involved with slaves?

 

[Hercules56]

-------The new signage states that pictures of “rolling English hills” can stir feelings of “pride towards a homeland”.

--------visitors are informed that “there is a darker side” to the “nationalist feeling” evoked by images of the British countryside.

--------It states that this national sentiment comes with “the implication that only those with a historical tie to the land have a right to belong”.



I wonder why anyone with an ounce of intelligence is taking such baseless, unverified claims seriously.

 

[Darat]

There is no "darker side" to "nationalist feeling"s?

 

[Hercules56]

There is no "darker side" to "nationalist feeling"s?

Where's the evidence behind this wild and baseless claim that paintings of rolling hills stirs feelings of nationalism?

Before this thread was posted, I never heard of such a thing.

 

[Hercules56]

There is no "darker side" to "nationalist feeling"s?

Ive been to many beautiful places around my country and state.

Seen many beautiful paintings of the USA.

Sensation of "I love america!! we're the greatest country in the world!! Pax Americana!!! Screw the foreigners!!!"???? Never in my life.

 

[Stout]

Ive been to many beautiful places around my country and state.

Seen many beautiful paintings of the USA.

Sensation of "I love america!! we're the greatest country in the world!! Pax Americana!!! Screw the foreigners!!!"???? Never in my life.

But somebody else might though. The go burn down a migrant hotel, or something. The gallery just thinks you should know that some people, obviously not you, might draw wrongthink inspiration from viewing a landscape. Just be wary of your fellow gallery goers, you never know who what might be thinking what. Stay safe.

So I suppose most people, like me have run across the North Face UK website as part of our journey into learning the correct way to view landscapes and, no doubt, you've all taken the free one hour diversity course offered there and earned your certificates and 20% discount.

I mean really, FREE diversity training. Who could pass that up? Then you could buy the correct corporate logo that "you're one of the good ones".

 

[Hercules56]

But somebody else might though. The go burn down a migrant hotel, or something....

With all due respect, I think that is some ridiculous speculation.

Someone may see a painting of pretty rolling hills, get pumped with nationalist extremism and go burn down a migrant shelter?

Do we really need to worry about and prepare for such psychotic insanity?

Has there ever been a case of someone committing such an atrocity after being motivated by pictures of grass and hills????

If such a thing did ever occur, I don't think it would be intelligent or rational to blame the art.

 

[Stout]

With all due respect, I think that is some ridiculous speculation.

I know eh? It could be part of a larger nationalism package and just push the viewer form seething on Twitter to doing something more drastic.

I think the whole thing is stupid. You think the whole thing is stupid so all that's left is to try and get inside the heads of people who agree that this sort of warning on a landscape is a god idea.

If it exists at all. It may be fake. The Torygraph and all.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ttack-wrecks-irish-hotel-house-asylum-seekers

However, two councillors from the ruling Fianna Fáil party said government policy had inundated Ireland with refugees and driven people to take drastic action – a view once confined to fringe far-right groups.

 

[Hercules56]

I know eh? It could be part of a larger nationalism package and just push the viewer form seething on Twitter to doing something more drastic.

I think the whole thing is stupid. You think the whole thing is stupid so all that's left is to try and get inside the heads of people who agree that this sort of warning on a landscape is a god idea.

If it exists at all. It may be fake. The Torygraph and all.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ttack-wrecks-irish-hotel-house-asylum-seekers

Man walks into museum, sees pretty painting of rolling hills in northern England, gets overwhelmed with nationalist extremism and decides to plow his truck into a Pakistani restaurant full of customers, killing 7 and injuring 15.

Clearly the art is at fault!!!!!