Racist Countryside Art

[Hercules56]

Not up to me to disprove your claim, it’s up to you to prove your own claims.

The museum makes baseless, unproven claims about landscape paintings of the English countryside motivating and inspiring British racists, yet you accept it without question.

Why the double standard?

 

[Thermal]

Cuz Hitler painted it. Not reason enough?

I mean, I'm kidding of course. We have to separate the art from the artist.

But isn't that what they're saying essentially? That paintings of landscapes are inherently bad because of who painted them?

I was getting that they are saying that the observers are bad, not the works or the artist, because... you know... they're a bunch of bigots at heart, which apparently goes without question.

 

[Hercules56]

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

.......pictures of “rolling English hills” can stir feelings of “pride towards a homeland”.

.......“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”.



Why are these claims accepted, without any evidence?

 

[Elaedith]

I think this painting is kinda racist, what do you all think?

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Adolf_Hitler_-_Fruhlingsstrauss_im_Fenster_%281914%29.jpg/624px-Adolf_Hitler_-_Fruhlingsstrauss_im_Fenster_%281914%29.jpg[/qimg]

It's so racist, it's almost like Hitler painted it!

 

[theprestige]

But isn't that what they're saying essentially? That paintings of landscapes are inherently bad because of who painted them?

It's more nuanced than that. They're saying these landscapes are inherently bad because they inspire dark nationalistic and xenophobic attitudes in the people who live on or adjacent to the land depicted in them.

 

[theprestige]

I was getting that they are saying that the observers are bad, not the works or the artist, because... you know... they're a bunch of bigots at heart, which apparently goes without question.

By extension, the painters are also bigots.

 

[Lplus]

It's more nuanced than that. They're saying these landscapes are inherently bad because they inspire dark nationalistic and xenophobic attitudes in the people who live on or adjacent to the land depicted in them.

Correct, it isn't the artist, it's the subject matter itself that is being criticised as being "inflamatory"

 

[Darat]

From the articles what are people who are objecting/complaining objecting/complaining about?

 

[Darat]

Cuz Hitler painted it. Not reason enough?

I mean, I'm kidding of course. We have to separate the art from the artist.

Do we? I don’t think we have to, I think that’s one of those things that there isn’t a simple, one rule fits-all answer.

But isn't that what they're saying essentially? That paintings of landscapes are inherently bad because of who painted them?

That’s not what I get from what we’ve seen quoted in the various articles. Not seen anyone saying that Constable’s art is bad because of who he was (mind you as in one of the articles mentioned his contemporaries didn’t think much of his work). Not seen anything that indicates that we should think his art is bad in the slightest, which is probably why he forms a prominent part of the new collection on display.

I am ever more looking forward to visiting a week Friday.

 

[Darat]

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

.......pictures of “rolling English hills” can stir feelings of “pride towards a homeland”.

.......“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”.



Why are these claims accepted, without any evidence?

1) Who has accepted them?
2) It’s unlikely the curator is a member here to support their claims.
3) Seems deflection from having to support your own claims.

 

[Darat]

No, their comments seem to be about ALL landscape paintings of the British countryside, not just those painted by racists.

Evidence?

What would be good if they wouldn’t hide these paintings away, not letting anyone see them ever again, if only the terrible paintings could be seen somewhere for the public to make up their own minds!

 

[Darat]

The museum makes baseless, unproven claims about landscape paintings of the English countryside motivating and inspiring British racists, yet you accept it without question.

Why the double standard?

Which double standard?

 

[Darat]

Some of their claims I do agree with. For example I do think that such paintings can and do for some people (as I’m one of them) inspire a “pride towards a homeland”. We have a wealth of art by British artists, I mean OK we don’t have a Rembrandt, but we have many, many artists that have created stirring works of British life. I’m not that keen on the Constables’ I’ve seen in real life, he’s no Turner, but his art is pretty.

 

[theprestige]

From the articles what are people who are objecting/complaining objecting/complaining about?

The nonsense premise that English landscapes make native Englishmen feel darkly nationalistic and xenophobic, and that this "problem" needs to be called out. Presumably to shame native Englishmen and remind foreigners that the natives are easily prone to hating them.

 

[theprestige]

Some of their claims I do agree with. For example I do think that such paintings can and do for some people (as I’m one of them) inspire a “pride towards a homeland”. We have a wealth of art by British artists, I mean OK we don’t have a Rembrandt, but we have many, many artists that have created stirring works of British life. I’m not that keen on the Constables’ I’ve seen in real life, he’s no Turner, but his art is pretty.

You need to stop denying the feelings of dark nationalism and xenophobia that Constable and Turner inspire in you.

---

Also, congratulations on never again being able to innocently enjoy a landscape just for itself. There will now always be a corner of your mind that is wondering about whether you're harboring xenophobia in your heart, for liking this thing. Which I'm sure is part of the point.

 

[Hercules56]

Which double standard?

You accept the claims by the museum without question or evidence.

 

[Darat]

You accept the claims by the museum without question or evidence.

Evidence?

 

[Orphia Nay]

You accept the claims by the museum without question or evidence.

No, this is about you accepting the Torygraph’s biased version of what the museum’s claims are.

 

[Hercules56]

Evidence?

Do you accept the museum's claims about British landscape art?

 

[smartcooky]

Seems a really appropriate time to post this. I snipped it out of an issue of The RAF Magazine in 1987.....