Racist Countryside Art

[Darat]

The thread title really had me hoping that this was a local story.

I had hoped it was going to be a genuine discussion about what could have been an interesting topic, but sadly I was proven right, it's faux outrage by snowflakes...

 

[Lplus]

What is there to discuss? Either you think every depiction of the British countryside that doesn't graphically depict the oppression of the working class/slavery should come with a warning or you don't.


I suppose one could also question the somewhat bizarre "slavery propped up the wealth of Britain" narrative as well, though maybe that would be off topic.

 

[Hercules56]

Here is one of the supposedly "offensive" and "dangerous" paintings, that may stir English nationalism and hatred.

Seriously, these idiots need to stop searching desperately for things to be offended and scared of.

What's next, concern for the environment and wanting to preserve the land is now racist too?

Yep.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.1871

 

[Lithrael]

The tone and direction of this thread reminds me of stuff like the way "apolitical" people get into an almighty huff if a ligne claire exhibit mentions how the Tintin guy decided to keep working when the Germans took over those arms of Belgian media. Or heck what was going on when PG Wodehouse made radio aimed at pre-war America for the Germans during WWII, for that matter. "It's all just harmless fun stuff, why do you have to bring Nazis into it? They weren't Nazis, they were nice people!" But talking about the historical background and reception of media and how those are still reflected today, isn't an attack on it.

Guys is it woke to know PG Wodehouse didn't understand he was making war propaganda for Nazis

 

[Hercules56]

Henry Ford was a hateful anti-Semite. Should all Ford cars come with a disclaimer explaining this?

Volkswagen were Nazi cars. Should they also come with an apology letter?

Folks need to get a grip. Sometimes art is just pretty.

 

[angrysoba]

Here is one of the supposedly "offensive" and "dangerous" paintings, that may stir English nationalism and hatred.

Seriously, these idiots need to stop searching desperately for things to be offended and scared of.


[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1446&pictureid=13960[/qimg]

But I thought...wait for it...I thought Constable was PC!

 

[Hercules56]

But I thought...wait for it...I thought Constable was PC!

I've read two articles about this issue.

They both broaden the issue beyond one single painter. They say this is a larger issue about landscape paintings of the English countryside, and how they may inspire feelings of national pride and hatred. Cuz ONLY racists enjoy nature and its beauty.

 

[Lithrael]

What's next, concern for the environment and wanting to preserve the land is now racist too?

Yep.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.1871

That's not what that says. At all. It IS steeped in annoying jargon but all it says is that A) environmentalism is not free from the background radiation of 'stuff like this is harder to get involved in if you don't have recreational time/income, which leads to such people being less involved, which leads to their concerns and and insights going unadressed' B) it would be good to make sure conervation efforts that affect locals' access to resources, meaningfully include locals in those conservation efforts.

That kind of thing.

Guys is it woke to know that in order to create some US national parks, they kicked out the indigenous people who had been living there without a whole lot of concern for them

 

[angrysoba]

Henry Ford was a hateful anti-Semite. Should all Ford cars come with a disclaimer explaining this?

Volkswagen were Nazi cars. Should they also come with an apology letter?

Funnily enough, my A-level history teacher refused to let his garage put on Pirelli tyres during his car's MOT because of the CEO's close ties with Mussolini. He apparently yelled to the bemused mechanic, "Don't put those on! They're fascist tyres!" in his best Rik from the Young Ones impression.

Then he admitted that his car was itself a Ford, so maybe he was a bit of a hypocrite. The class had no idea why so he had to explain about how Henry Ford was a huge fan of Hitler.

He was a good teacher, actually, and was never shy about his own opinions, and was more than happy to have his opinions challenged by the class.

Folks need to get a grip. Sometimes art is just pretty.

Folks should be more Volky!

 

[jt512]

Most sensible people avoid that description because it is vague as fog and means effectively nothing. It's just the past tense of "wake".

Most sensible people know exactly what is meant by "woke." Only the woke still claim it means "just being aware of injustice."

 

[Lithrael]

Henry Ford was a hateful anti-Semite. Should all Ford cars come with a disclaimer explaining this?

Volkswagen were Nazi cars. Should they also come with an apology letter?

Folks need to get a grip. Sometimes art is just pretty.

It's an art.... EXHIBIT. Including a little background and discussion is a normal part of that kind of thing these days.

If I went to a museum exhibit of Ford or Volkswagen cars of that era, yes I would expect at least one peice of signage to mention or discuss those points.

Nobody will make you read the signs.

 

[Hercules56]

That's not what that says. At all. It IS steeped in annoying jargon but all it says is that A) environmentalism is not free from the background radiation of 'stuff like this is harder to get involved in if you don't have recreational time/income, which leads to such people being less involved, which leads to their concerns and and insights going unadressed' B) it would be good to make sure conservation efforts that affect locals' access to resources, meaningfully include locals in those conservation efforts.

That kind of thing.

Guys is it woke to know that in order to create some US national parks, they kicked out the indigenous people who had been living there without a whole lot of concern for them

There is nothing racist or white supremacist about wanting to preserve our natural landscape and environment from further industrial destruction, pollution and suburban sprawl. Its a great thing, nature is precious but powerless and it requires our care and stewardship.

 

[Hercules56]

It's an art.... EXHIBIT. Including a little background and discussion is a normal part of that kind of thing these days.

If I went to a museum exhibit of Ford or Volkswagen cars of that era, yes I would expect at least one peice of signage to mention or discuss those points.

Nobody will make you read the signs.

Do you agree that ALL landscape art is rooted in racism and white nationalism, and is perpetually tainted by this?

Maybe we should isolate all of it to special museums, and have it all closed off in a "degenerate art" section?

 

[angrysoba]

There is nothing racist or white supremacist about wanting to preserve our natural landscape and environment from further industrial destruction, pollution and suburban sprawl. Its a great thing, nature is precious but powerless and it requires our care and stewardship.

Oi! You're a Yank arencha? It's not yours! It's ours! Hands off our beautiful British hills and valleys.

 

[Lithrael]

There is nothing racist or white supremacist about wanting to preserve our natural landscape and environment from further industrial destruction, pollution and suburban sprawl. Its a great thing, nature is precious but powerless and it requires our care and stewardship.

How lucky then that the paper you cited completely agrees. It's almost like you selected it based entirely on the obnoxious jargon it uses.

 

[Lithrael]

Do you agree that ALL landscape art is rooted in racism and white nationalism, and is perpetually tainted by this?

Maybe we should isolate all of it to special museums, and have it all closed off in a "degenerate art" section?

You are seeing a lot that isn't there, quite ironic since that seems to be your main complaint against others on this subject. For instance I would not, and the people who organised the exhibit and signage IMO would not, say 'rooted in' rather than simply 'influenced by' or 'vulnerable to interpretations of' nationalism, etc. and I think it's useful and good to examine the differences and interactions between patriotism and nationalism.

As a 'for instance...'

Here is one of the supposedly "offensive" and "dangerous" paintings, that may stir English nationalism and hatred.

You put quotes there but I see no indications that anyone involved in the exhibit called these works offensive or dangerous, or mentioned hatred.

 

[Cat Not Included]

If I understand correctly:

Art museum makes artsy comment about its art that nobody really gets. This probably happens all the time but since this comment maybe has something to do with racism, suddenly people that have never paid any attention to all the other artsy comments are upset about it.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean nobody really "gets" the comment, not that nobody "gets" the art. Which also probably happens all the time but obviously isn't what this topic is about.

 

[Lplus]

If I understand correctly:

Art museum makes artsy comment about its art that nobody really gets. This probably happens all the time but since this comment maybe has something to do with racism, suddenly people that have never paid any attention to all the other artsy comments are upset about it.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean nobody really "gets" the comment, not that nobody "gets" the art. Which also probably happens all the time but obviously isn't what this topic is about.

Quote:
The Fitzwilliam Museum has suggested that paintings of the British countryside evoke dark “nationalist feelings”.

The museum, owned by the University of Cambridge, has undertaken an overhaul of its displays, in a move that its director insisted was not “woke”.

The new signage states that pictures of “rolling English hills” can stir feelings of “pride towards a homeland”.
However, in a gallery displaying a bucolic work by Constable, 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”.

What's artsy and difficult to get about that?

 

[angrysoba]

If I understand correctly:

Art museum makes artsy comment about its art that nobody really gets. This probably happens all the time but since this comment maybe has something to do with racism, suddenly people that have never paid any attention to all the other artsy comments are upset about it.

EDIT: To clarify, I mean nobody really "gets" the comment, not that nobody "gets" the art. Which also probably happens all the time but obviously isn't what this topic is about.

I think there is an interesting idea that essentially art comes down to conspicuous consumption.

In the past, art could only be obtained by the wealthy (nobles and the church). They wanted either portraits that depicted them in their best light or perhaps landscape scenes to cheer up the drafty castles in the winter. Maybe a few large canvases of battles they won.

Churches depicted devotional scenes etc…

Then, when technology allowed the easy dissemination of art such as the printing press and later the camera was invented, it became easy to mass produce these works. So abstract art was born, and over time theories had to be created to explain the art. At a later date, going to art school was itself an extravagance that few could afford and so promoting the lucky souls to high status and therefore eminently shaggable.

I think it is probably based somewhere on Evolutionary Psychology and thus should be taken with a mountain of salt.

 

[Stout]

We don’t know if Syson’s use of the word “woke” was pre-emptive. The Telegraph article didn’t include any questions asked by the interviewer.

We can be pretty sure of it. Syson was well aware that nobody wound give a rip about his rehanging format. Sure, he might get a few pats on the back and a couple of diversity cookies but to really make a splash in the "oh look at me, I'm so progressive" world, he went with the signage which he knew would piss people off.

Oh, they're just antiwoke rubes, he's saying here while fully expecting the push back he had to know was coming.

Generally, landscapes don't require an explanation.