Racist Countryside Art

[Roger Ramjets]

And even a field of red poppies can be just a field of red poppies

Or it might not be:-

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

At one time a field of poppies was just a field of poppies. But for Australians and New Zealanders it will never be just that. Then I remember why my grandfather went to Europe and came back with shrapnel embedded in his bones - to defend the rolling hills of Mother England, half a world away.

That's the whole point of the OP - the Fitzwilliam is reported to have expressed that view. Is it defensible or is it just a desparate attempt to be progressive.

Whitey says no, it's leftist woke nonsense. But Whitey's cultural sensitivity was always pretty low. Whitey just doesn't seem to understand that others have good reason not to share his point of view.

 

[Brainster]

Or it might not be:-

In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Check your source.

 

[Lplus]

Or it might not be:-

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

At one time a field of poppies was just a field of poppies. But for Australians and New Zealanders it will never be just that. Then I remember why my grandfather went to Europe and came back with shrapnel embedded in his bones - to defend the rolling hills of Mother England, half a world away.

Whitey says no, it's leftist woke nonsense. But Whitey's cultural sensitivity was always pretty low. Whitey just doesn't seem to understand that others have good reason not to share his point of view.

None of which is relevant to whether pictures of English landscapes really engender general feelings of dark nationalism and desire to exclude the foreigner, in the English viewer. That was the subject of the OP.
As far as I know, none of the pictures at the Fitzwillian include poppies. Poppies were Darat's somewhat loaded insertion into the discussion, for some reason. Perhaps Darat could only find a picture of poppies.

And as a by the by, I have a white skin. Calling me whitey just confirms to me the fact of my ancestry, whatever insults you feel are inherent in the word.

 

[Darat]

According to the OP, its evil.

That's not true.

 

[Darat]

None of which is relevant to whether pictures of English landscapes really engender general feelings of dark nationalism and desire to exclude the foreigner, in the English viewer. That was the subject of the OP.
As far as I know, none of the pictures at the Fitzwillian include poppies. Poppies were Darat's somewhat loaded insertion into the discussion, for some reason. Perhaps Darat could only find a picture of poppies.

And as a by the by, I have a white skin. Calling me whitey just confirms to me the fact of my ancestry, whatever insults you feel are inherent in the word.

Good to see you've come round the curator's viewpoint that some images can be "..loaded..".

And I choose that picture for no other reason than I paint very few landscapes and it's one I had uploaded here some time ago.

Sometimes a painting isn't "loaded", it's just a painting....

 

[Hercules56]

delete

 

[Lplus]

Good to see you've come round the curator's viewpoint that some images can be "..loaded..".

Of course they can - I mentioned above the likes of pictures of factory workers wielding hammers and the other sorts of politically intended art. However in this case we're talking about landscape paintings in general.

And I choose that picture for no other reason than I paint very few landscapes and it's one I had uploaded here some time ago.

It occured to me that you might have been the artist, and saw a signature, but not knowing you as anything other than "Darat" I made no comment on the basis that I might well have been wrong.

Sometimes a painting isn't "loaded", it's just a painting....

Indeed, as I also pointed out in my earlier post. It was Jack by the hedge who first mentioned heavy symbolism in a painting of poppies compared to the likes of "The hay wain"

 

[Hercules56]

That's not true.

So now white English nationalism is a GOOD thing?

Ok.

“there is a darker side” to the “nationalist feeling” evoked by images of the British countryside."

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

How is any of this "good"? You're not making sense Darat, or you're playing a game of inconsistent devils' advocate.

 

[Thermal]

So now white English nationalism is a GOOD thing?

Ok.

“there is a darker side” to the “nationalist feeling” evoked by images of the British countryside."

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

How is any of this "good"? You're not making sense Darat, or you're playing a game of inconsistent devils' advocate.

Darats said "That's not true'. He didn't say "it is the polar opposite." He could very well mean it is somewhere in between, or conditional, or no more on the Good-Evil scale than a gallon of milk.

 

[arthwollipot]

That's the most annoying thing about this whole situation and every one like it. Someone says "hey, this could be a bit problematic, let's put a sign up," and the response is "Oh, now this is evil?"

"No, it's not evil. But it is potentially problematic."

"OMG Free speech you're saying everything's racist!"

"No, we're not saying that at all."

"Oh so you're saying we're all white supremacists now?"

"What the actual **** are you talking about?"

 

[theprestige]

That's the most annoying thing about this whole situation and every one like it. Someone says "hey, this could be a bit problematic, let's put a sign up," and the response is "Oh, now this is evil?"

The correct response to the concern that something could potentially problematic is to investigate whether it actually is problematic, and then investigate which solution is likely to work best.

The incorrect response is to put up a sign announcing a priori that it is problematic.

The idea that landscape paintings might be problematic is an invention of the museum staff. They have no idea if landscape paintings actually inspire dark nationalism and xenophobia in the native born. And they don't care. What they do care about is planting that idea in your head. These signs aren't solving a problem, because there is no problem to solve. They're more likely to inspire fear, hatred, and suspicion in place of enjoyment, than they are to enlighten or elevate anyone who reads them. And that, I believe, is the actual plan.

 

[arthwollipot]

The correct response to the concern that something could potentially problematic is to investigate whether it actually is problematic, and then investigate which solution is likely to work best.

The incorrect response is to put up a sign announcing a priori that it is problematic.

How do you know they didn't go through that process before putting up that sign?

The idea that landscape paintings might be problematic is an invention of the museum staff. They have no idea if landscape paintings actually inspire dark nationalism and xenophobia in the native born. And they don't care. What they do care about is planting that idea in your head. These signs aren't solving a problem, because there is no problem to solve. They're more likely to inspire fear, hatred, and suspicion in place of enjoyment, than they are to enlighten or elevate anyone who reads them. And that, I believe, is the actual plan.

Ah, it's a nefarious conspiracy of mind control now. Yeah, that's so much better.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Of course they can - I mentioned above the likes of pictures of factory workers wielding hammers and the other sorts of politically intended art. However in this case we're talking about landscape paintings in general.

We are? That may be what some people are trying to make it be, but it's not working. Just because some people hand-wave away the racism doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact their doing so makes it worse.

"Oh no," says Whitey, "this can't be racist. If it was I would know!"

 

[Stout]

After seeing their funding cut, the museum probably panicked and brought in a diversity consultant. Someone who's totally afraid of the countryside, lives in a highly urban area and considers a 10 block trip as a journey you need a taxi for. This sign might have actually been one of the least stupid suggestions.

Hey...why don't we have a showing where White people aren't allowed? Seems to work for the theater.

 

[Lplus]

We are? That may be what some people are trying to make it be, but it's not working. Just because some people hand-wave away the racism doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact their doing so makes it worse.

"Oh no," says Whitey, "this can't be racist. If it was I would know!"

Yes, we are. The op was specifically about a show of landscape paintings. the question asked was were landscape paintings of the UK actually instilling pride in country for UK citizens and was that pride translating into nationalistic fervour.

For those who see racism in every aspect of life on this planet, the question is obviously moot. They are in a minority. Tough on them.

 

[Hercules56]

We are? That may be what some people are trying to make it be, but it's not working. Just because some people hand-wave away the racism doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact their doing so makes it worse.

"Oh no," says Whitey, "this can't be racist. If it was I would know!"

Landscape paintings of European or North American countryside are not racist.

There is no evidence to suggest they are, or somehow inspire hatred and extremism in people that leads to hate crimes or hate speech.

A tree is just a tree, a hill is just a hill, a flower is just a flower.

 

[Darat]

Landscape paintings of European or North American countryside are not racist.

...snip...

No one has claimed they are.

 

[theprestige]

How do you know they didn't go through that process before putting up that sign?

It's your scenario. You're the one who posited that they went straight from "this might be problematic" to putting up a sign saying it is problematic, as if that were some sort of reasonable thing to do.

Why do you ask? Do you think they actually did the research? Do you think there's a paper published in a scholarly journal somewhere, showing that landscapes are problematic in the way described?

Ah, it's a nefarious conspiracy of mind control now. Yeah, that's so much better.

Not mind control, just ham-fisted and half-assed attempts at propaganda. You know, bog-standard progressive sociopolitical woo.

 

[Hercules56]

No one has claimed they are.

There's no reason to be obtuse.


"paintings of the British countryside evoke dark “nationalist feelings”.

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”."



Seriously Darat, the contrarian Devil's Advocate game is getting old.

 

[Darat]

There's no reason to be obtuse.


"paintings of the British countryside evoke dark “nationalist feelings”.

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”."



Seriously Darat, the contrarian Devil's Advocate game is getting old.

Not seeing one mention of racism - which is what you claim. I think you are looking at this through the lens of a USAcentric position. The most recent uproar about immigrants - legal and illegal - in the UK has been about "white" people not born here such as Albanians.