Racist Countryside Art

Clearly this landscape natural art triggers and motivates racists.

The sight of the countryside instills in them a great sense of pride and love of their country. Which in turn makes them want to do terrible violence against non-natives.

I suggest we isolate all such art into special areas where they can be properly protected from the public view, except to educate the people about how such art fuels bigotry and intolerance.

Or, we could label all such supremacist "art" with a note letting people know what they are looking at. Perhaps all landscape art should have the words "Just Understand Definitely Evil" on all such paintings, or you can just use the acronym to identify such "art". What would that acronym be?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
I have, and read beyond the articles linked to, for example the original interview. None of those show evidence for your claim.
Click to expand...

I'm simply paraphrasing the statements made by folks who want to censor/cancel these dangerous works of art.
 
Thermal said:
OK, so they are "retweeting" a story which may be of interest to their readers. I don't think that kind of "media reporting on the media" is problematic; the story itself hilites the abstract point, which many would find engaging.

Reading the museum's explanation, it doesn't say the "dark side" of countryside nationalism is about race, really. It sounds a little like that pride in cultural roots, like an aristocratic pride in having been around for centuries, ties to the land and all that. While being white kind of follows from that, maybe it's not the actual motivation, maybe more anti newcomer?

They do go on to cite that anything old has complex ties to slavery and sexism and other isms. Well, yeah, anything old will. It still seems to me that a beautiful countryside can be standalone admirable without a guilt inducing prodding. As I said earlier, I'm not clear on why the museum thinks they go hand-in-hand to the point where it should be pointed out on a placard.
Click to expand...

Lplus said:
Because the progressive mantra in the UK, particularly within the academic establishment, is to apologise for everything the UK ever did or stands for.
Click to expand...

To give a sense of the truth of LPlus' statement, or how completely ****** up the UK is becoming, Scotland is about to introduce a law that will allow anyone to be charged with a hate crime for "behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred against someone who possesses, or appears to possess, certain characteristics".


Under the new "Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act" merely stating in an internet post that a transwoman is actually a man, could get you charged with a hate crime under that new act. In effect, Scotland is criminalizing free speech. Its not a big step to go from banning free speech to banning free expression such as in art.

Appropriately, this new law comes into effect on April 1st.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
To give a sense of the truth of LPlus' statement, or how completely ****** up the UK is becoming, Scotland is about to introduce a law that will allow anyone to be charged with a hate crime for "behaviour which is intended to stir up hatred against someone who possesses, or appears to possess, certain characteristics".


Under the new "Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act" merely stating in an internet post that a transwoman is actually a man, could get you charged with a hate crime under that new act. In effect, Scotland is criminalizing free speech.

Appropriately, this new law comes into effect on April 1st.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, the legal precedents have already been set so none of the apocalypse will happen. But I am very unsure what this has to do with the topic of this thread?
 
Darat said:
I have, and read beyond the articles linked to, for example the original interview. None of those show evidence for your claim.
Click to expand...

Come on Darat. Hercules56's post was absolutely dripping with sarcasm.

I'm surprised that you, of all people here, didn't spot that.
 
Darat said:
Thankfully, the legal precedents have already been set so none of the apocalypse will happen. But I am very unsure what this has to do with the topic of this thread?
Click to expand...

Either you snipped out the relevant part, or you quoted before my edit...

"Its not a big step to go from banning free speech to banning free expression such as in art."
 
Hercules56 said:
Clearly this landscape natural art triggers and motivates racists.

The sight of the countryside instills in them a great sense of pride and love of their country. Which in turn makes them want to do terrible violence against non-natives.

I suggest we isolate all such art into special areas where they can be properly protected from the public view, except to educate the people about how such art fuels bigotry and intolerance.

Or, we could label all such supremacist "art" with a note letting people know what they are looking at. Perhaps all landscape art should have the words "Just Understand Definitely Evil" on all such paintings, or you can just use the acronym to identify such "art". What would that acronym be?
Click to expand...

This comes across rather as a slippery slope or thin end of wedge argument, that assumes the act of labeling art with its ambiguous connotations must inevitably lead to identifying it as just plain evil and/or banning it. I certainly think that one should make some effort not to allow stupid people to take everything to its most absurd conclusions, and don't doubt some will try, but I wonder how different this argument is from those used by people like DeSantis when they attack everything that might possibly be seen as "woke," or might possibly lead to some sensitive scion of the Confederacy feeling bad about what his great great grandfather was fighting about.
 
Lplus said:
Well done, but the question still stands, is the reporting correct?
Click to expand...

We’ve been through all this.

The quotes you highlighted are not full sentences or paragraphs.

The full signs might very well give good reasons for what the gallery is saying.

We don’t know exactly what the gallery is saying because all we’ve got is snippets in an inflammatory article aimed at getting people to argue about “wokism”.

Furthermore, previous exhibitions held there were about the gallery’s ties to slavery.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66633374

Thermal said:
OK, so they are "retweeting" a story which may be of interest to their readers. I don't think that kind of "media reporting on the media" is problematic; the story itself hilites the abstract point, which many would find engaging.

Reading the museum's explanation, it doesn't say the "dark side" of countryside nationalism is about race, really. It sounds a little like that pride in cultural roots, like an aristocratic pride in having been around for centuries, ties to the land and all that. While being white kind of follows from that, maybe it's not the actual motivation, maybe more anti newcomer?

They do go on to cite that anything old has complex ties to slavery and sexism and other isms. Well, yeah, anything old will. It still seems to me that a beautiful countryside can be standalone admirable without a guilt inducing prodding. As I said earlier, I'm not clear on why the museum thinks they go hand-in-hand to the point where it should be pointed out on a placard.
Click to expand...

I’m chopped liver, apparently.

Orphia Nay said:
I’ve been reading some more about the Fitzwilliam Museum.

Viscount Fitzwilliam (namesake of and donor of a large sum of money and art to the museum) was left a large part of his fortune by his grandfather, Matthew Decker.

“Decker was a prominent Dutch-born British merchant and financier who in 1700 helped to establish the South Sea Company.

“This company obtained exclusive rights to traffic African people to the Spanish colonial Americas.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66633374

“Racist countryside art”, indeed.
Click to expand...

The gallery’s funding and inventory comes largely from the profits of slavery.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I’m chopped liver, apparently.

The gallery’s funding and inventory comes largely from the profits of slavery.
Click to expand...

Right, but what does that mean? That the gallery is wearing their personal.hairshirt? My question is why the gallery thought it was was so natural to follow the "dark" associations from the simple nationalistic pride that you get from seeing majestic countryside portraits.
 
Thermal said:
Right, but what does that mean? That the gallery is wearing their personal.hairshirt? My question is why the gallery thought it was was so natural to follow the "dark" associations from the simple nationalistic pride that you get from seeing majestic countryside portraits.
Click to expand...

It’s good to see the gallery has got you thinking. :)

Eta: that sounded like a dig. It wasn’t. The whole point of exhibitions are to get people thinking.
 
Last edited:
Orphia Nay said:
We’ve been through all this.

The quotes you highlighted are not full sentences or paragraphs.

The full signs might very well give good reasons for what the gallery is saying.

We don’t know exactly what the gallery is saying because all we’ve got is snippets in an inflammatory article aimed at getting people to argue about “wokism”.

Furthermore, previous exhibitions held there were about the gallery’s ties to slavery.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66633374



I’m chopped liver, apparently.



The gallery’s funding and inventory comes largely from the profits of slavery.
Click to expand...


Every museum or gallery or whatever established in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century will have been originally funded from some activity that is presently condemned for something. Overseas trade, industry and manufacturing, land owning. Those were the activities which made money and are now seen as abominations.
 
Hercules56 said:
I'm simply paraphrasing the statements made by folks who want to censor/cancel these dangerous works of art.
Click to expand...

No one in the articles linked from here, nor anyone participating in this thread have said they want to censor nor cancel these "dangerous" works of art. The articles are all about the art being displayed! Seriously: Are you posting in the wrong thread?
 
smartcooky said:
Either you snipped out the relevant part, or you quoted before my edit...

"Its not a big step to go from banning free speech to banning free expression such as in art."
Click to expand...

I always indicate if I've snipped anything from a member's post.

But even with your edited part - there is no link to this topic of this thread. This thread is about artwork being put on display, nothing to do with artwork not being put on display or being censored in anyway - it's the total opposite.
 
Orphia Nay said:
We’ve been through all this.

The quotes you highlighted are not full sentences or paragraphs.

The full signs might very well give good reasons for what the gallery is saying.

We don’t know exactly what the gallery is saying because all we’ve got is snippets in an inflammatory article aimed at getting people to argue about “wokism”.

Furthermore, previous exhibitions held there were about the gallery’s ties to slavery.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-66633374



I’m chopped liver, apparently.



The gallery’s funding and inventory comes largely from the profits of slavery.
Click to expand...

I'm going a week next Friday, I shall report back what I see.
 
Lplus said:
Every museum or gallery or whatever established in the 18th, 19th and early 20th century will have been originally funded from some activity that is presently condemned for something. Overseas trade, industry and manufacturing, land owning. Those were the activities which made money and are now seen as abominations.
Click to expand...

Many of the ways people made money were considered "abominations" at the time, for example slavery and enclosure of the commons.
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
I've always found countryside art a bit condescending.

"Look at those simple rural people enjoying a loverely day in the sunshine looking at animals graze, none of the worries of the modern society"

Utterly ignoring the fact that farming is backbreaking work with a large attrition rate throughout most of history and still a very unsure existence where a single bad day can ruin a full years work.
Click to expand...

English rural paintings came from the same kind of privilege and with the same lack of self-awareness that lead Marie Antoinette to believe she could cosplay as a shepherdess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom