Racist Countryside Art

[Gulliver Foyle]

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

Yes we do, just like sensible people unsderstood the euphamisms the likes of Julius Streicher made about jews.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Well, yeah, but it's usually the art itself that is supposed to get you thinking (feeling is what art usually does for me). The big here is the distracting sideshow about the gallery itself and it's apparent positions on itself. This is taking away from appreciation of the works, IMHO.

 

[Lithrael]

I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that anyone who has gone to the museum to view the exhibition has had their enjoyment or appreciation of the work impaired by the signage.

It's literally a bunch of people baiting and clicking on the internet. Even here someone's quoted the 'these people are saying I suck if feel like I belong more than a more recent arrival, and what they really want is to abolish belonging' screed from some webzine bellyacher.

 

[theprestige]

I have, and read beyond the articles linked to, for example the original interview. None of those show evidence for your claim.

Yeah, because it's a beat-up premise.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Disingenuous. The point of this was to tell you what to think. At best, it's flogging a bad faith premise to create controversy, which is not how exhibitions are supposed to get people thinking. Getting attention by doing bad things is not good.

 

[theprestige]

I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that anyone who has gone to the museum to view the exhibition has had their enjoyment or appreciation of the work impaired by the signage.

That would be even worse, if everyone was just happily going along with the premise.

 

[ahhell]

There needs to be a law to the effect of if you say, "nobody believes......." there is always someone. So, I am not surprised that someone thinks bucolic paintings of the countryside are bad in a way other than just being bland and saccharine and I'm not surprised that there is someone else making hay of that rather silly opinion.

 

[Lithrael]

"Even worse," if people read that sign and don't take it as an attack on culture itself or that it's a dogwhistle that really means that the exhibit organizer's objective is to argue that it's Correct to think such works should be restricted, hidden or destroyed? Or even that it's Bad to enjoy them? Which the sign. Does not say.

Other options include 'not noticing/reading that sign' and 'reading the sign and casually disagreeing without getting into an almighty culture war strop over it'

 

[Stout]

This guy doesn't seem too impressed.

https://twitter.com/grumpyart/status/1769041936680120743

I think I found the problem though.

Too many White people going to The Fitz.

For the past three years, the University of Cambridge Museums group has received £1.2m. This year, in one of the most reviled funding rounds in the history of the ACE, it was announced that the group would receive just over £600,000. According to the most recent annual report publicly available (2019– 20), ACE contributed 12 per cent of the museum’s income. For an institution of the Fitzwilliam’s size, this reduction in income is crippling. Reading between the lines, there are hints in the same report that ACE was concerned that the Fitzwilliam hadn’t fulfilled its targets of diversifying the audience. Cutting its money won’t help it achieve this.

Syson is clearly in shock when we discuss this. At the time of our interview, he still hadn’t had an explanation. It ‘was announced on Friday [4 November] and we didn’t have any warning that we were going to be cut to that degree. Obviously, we’re extremely disappointed,’ he says. It is a decision that seems particularly odd in light of the fact that the work the outreach and education teams did during lockdown resulted in the Fitzwilliam being ‘consulted by legislators to find out what best practice in this in this area looked like.’

Link

 

[Thermal]

"Even worse," if people read that sign and don't take it as an attack on culture itself or that it's a dogwhistle that really means that the exhibit organizer's objective is to argue that it's Correct to think such works should be restricted, hidden or destroyed? Or even that it's Bad to enjoy them? Which the sign. Does not say.

Other options include 'not noticing/reading that sign' and 'reading the sign and casually disagreeing without getting into an almighty culture war strop over it'

Ok then. Stipulated; this museum, it's placards, and the artwork are irrelevant. They mean nothing at all.

The point brought up is the same, and the only interesting part: is this type of thinking valid? Is it common? Or, as some of us are inclined to think, it is a really weird position to hold, like, by anybody anywhere?

 

[Darat]

Are people unaware that museums and galleries have always added commentary to exhibits to be read and considered?

 

[Thermal]

Sure. It usually has to do with the exhibit or artist, not the museum managements opinion on how ****** up the general populace thinks.

 

[Darat]

Sure. It usually has to do with the exhibit or artist, not the museum managements opinion on how ****** up the general populace thinks.

I disagree, galleries especially have always told a narrative that those in power have decided on.

 

[theprestige]

Are people unaware that museums and galleries have always added commentary to exhibits to be read and considered?

I disagree, galleries especially have always told a narrative that those in power have decided on.

Which is a bad thing that often results in anti-social nonsense being promulgated in the name of "art" and "making people think". Exhibit A: This incident.

 

[Stout]

I disagree, galleries especially have always told a narrative that those in power have decided on.

Do they usually try to suggest that that a gallerygoer liking a work for innocuous reasons might be a fascist?

 

[Darat]

Do they usually try to suggest that that a gallerygoer liking a work for innocuous reasons might be a fascist?

I've read a wide range of stuff over the years. As I said it's nothing new, it just seems some snowflakes are triggered by saying that perhaps the world wasn't as perfect as some pictures portrayed it.

 

[Thermal]

I disagree, galleries especially have always told a narrative that those in power have decided on.

My oldest kid went to Greece a couple years ago, and sent us back pics of placards from a Greek museum which explained that museums all over the world had stolen their artifacts and named the current location of each, describing their efforts to reclaim them. My wife and I went to the Louvre last year and got to see some of the stolen pieces, with their placards stating that they were a generous gift from the people of Greece.

So yeah, narratives. A fun sideshow perhaps, but not doing much for the artwork or it's appreciation. You don't want to get absorbed in beauty or poignancy without throwing a little shade on someone.

Eta: a placard at the Sistine Chapel: "While Michelangelo is considered one of the greatest artists of all time, some people think he might have been a little light in the loafers, and we at the Vatican don't play that ****, you feel us?"

I'm thinking that is unnecessary and takes away from the experience.

 

[ahhell]

I've read a wide range of stuff over the years. As I said it's nothing new, it just seems some snowflakes are triggered by saying that perhaps the world wasn't as perfect as some pictures portrayed it.

This seems to go a bit beyond that doesn't it? Basically claiming a more or less boring picture of the country side encourages fascism?

My oldest kid went to Greece a couple years ago, and sent us back pics of placards from a Greek museum which explained that museums all over the world had stolen their artifacts and named the current location of each, describing their efforts to reclaim them. My wife and I went to the Louvre last year and got to see some of the stolen pieces, with their placards stating that they were a generous gift from the people of Greece.

So yeah, narratives. A fun sideshow perhaps, but not doing much for the artwork or it's appreciation. You don't want to get absorbed in beauty or poignancy without throwing a little shade on someone.

Wouldn't it be a bit odd and noteworthy if the sign in the louvre said something like, "And we stole these from the Greeks!"

 

[Stout]

I've read a wide range of stuff over the years. As I said it's nothing new, it just seems some snowflakes are triggered by saying that perhaps the world wasn't as perfect as some pictures portrayed it.

It's pretty much a given that everybody knows that life in ole timey Britain sucked by today's standards. I may go to Thornton to visit the Brontë house knowing full well that at the time she lived there the town was a disease ridden, rat and cockroach infested hell hole. Doubtful I'd be much impressed by some wanker suggesting I'm visiting the location because she was a White author.

 

[Thermal]

Wouldn't it be a bit odd and noteworthy if the sign in the louvre said something like, "And we stole these from the Greeks!"

Some would say that the French would have no qualms about saying just that, perhaps with a "because ****-ez them" thrown in.