Februari 2, 2018
Is vrijheid in de
kunst verleden tijd?
Vandaag kwam ik onderstaand
artikel tegen waar de Manchester Art Gallery een schilderij genaamd
Hylas And The Nymphs, van de hand van Victoriaanse artiest J.
W. Waterhouse, weggehaald heeft waar meerdere jonge meisjes naakt
op staan. Dit om discussies te vermijden of boze personen zich
op de hals te halen.
Maar juist nu moeten
we boos zijn want, zoals je verder in het stuk hier beneden kan
lezen, zijn er vele schilderijen die dan op de nominatie staan
om deze achter slot en grendel te zetten en de kunstenaar de stempel
te geven dat hij een mogelijke pedofiel is.
In de 18de - 19de -
20ste eeuw was het uitbeelden van jong naakt een zeer gewone vorm
van schilderen en vastleggen. We zien dan ook in zeer veel kerken
en historische oude gebouwen vele afbeeldingen van naakte baby's,
kinderen, jonge vrouwen. Gaan we deze allemaal overschilderen
en kleren aangeven?
Wat zal men gaan doen
met alle kunst uit de gouden eeuw? Een eeuw waar nog moeilijk
te zien was wie een mannetje of vrouwtje was en waar letterlijk
en figuurlijk iedereen met elkaar in bed lag en fokte als beesten.
In die eeuwen was het uitbeelden van jonge kinderen en gave lichamen
een normale manier van expressie.
Hoever gaat men om
zaken in het uiterste door te trekken en waar is nog de vrijheid
van creëren en vrije expressie? Als kunstenaar is het dus
nagenoeg onmogelijk nog naakt vast te leggen zeker als het te
jong er uit ziet. De wereld is werkelijk doorgeslagen en het is
duidelijk dat enkele zieke geesten zaken zoals de discussies over
de slaven wereld en joden vervolging uitspelen. De beurt is nu
blijkbaar gevallen op de kunstenaars die te jonge mensen geschilderd
of vastgelegd hebben.
Dan de geheel andere
Waarom is Hugh Hefner (Playboy) niet aangepakt toen hij op de
voorpagina van Playboy een geheel naakte Brooke Shields, 10 jaar
oud zette (Zie watamula October 03 at 05:00am 'Pedophile' Hugh
Hefner Was Murdered)? Was dat kunst die wel mocht en in die tijd
door meerdere "kunstenaars" denkende aan Warholl, Picasso
enz. gehanteerd en gebruikt werden?
Hoe ver gaan we?
Persoonlijk vind ik
dat de vrijheid van kunst, door deze galerie actie, sterk wordt
aangetast. Als men alles wat geschilderd/getekend is en waar naakt
op voorkomt van baby's tot jonge vrouwen, gaat opruimen, verbergen
en zelfs vernietigen is de vraag; hoever trek je dat nog verder
door? Het kan niet zo zijn dat door het compleet doorslaan van
enkele groepen, die nu alles zetten onder pedofilie en onder onzedelijk,
de vrijheid van een kunstenaar ingebonden wordt.
Een kunstenaar creëert,
verlegt grenzen en beeldt uit wat hij naar buiten wil brengen.
Zaken die dan bij hem spelen, zaken die hem pakken. Creëren
gaat verder, is tijdloos en dat mag niet tegengehouden worden
door welke gedachtegang, groep, wet of regel dan ook. Door naakt
te schilderen/tekenen wil niet zeggen dat er automatisch een seksuele
verbintenis of daad aan gekoppeld is en ook niet dat deze persoon
een pedofiel moet zijn. Tijden veranderen maar slaan we niet te
Laat een kunstenaar
creëren en zie nog steeds de schoonheid van wat er je voorgehouden
John H Baselmans-Oracle
Het bewuste stuk
How long until the
New Puritans stop us seeing all these treasures, asks A.N. WILSON
as Manchester Art Gallery removes a pre-Raphaelite picture of
The heavy hand of political
correctness has struck at one of the countrys most important
art collections in these unsettling times following the Harvey
The Manchester Art
Gallery has removed from its walls one of its best known and most
popular paintings, Hylas And The Nymphs, by Victorian artist J.
W. Waterhouse, which features naked pubescent girls enticing a
handsome young man into a water pool. Postcards of the picture
will no longer be sold in the gallerys shop.
The gallery insists
it is not banning the picture, painted in 1896, but simply wants
to provoke debate to prompt conversations about how
we display and interpret artworks and how to make them relevant
in the 21st century.
Clare Gannaway, the
gallerys curator of contemporary art, said the room where
it was hung entitled In Pursuit Of Beauty perpetuated
outdated and damaging stories that women are
either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption.
- Falling foul of modern
mores: J.W.Waterhour's Hylas and The Nymphs has been taken down
for perpetuating 'damaging stories' of women +8
So all too predictably
in todays intolerant world, this conversation
turns out to be dogmatic and one-sided. We are being told by earnest
New Puritans that we should be ashamed of ourselves for even looking
at this picture. You may not know the painting, but as soon as
you see it you will recognize it for what it is, a harmless bit
of kitsch often reproduced on posters and postcards.
No one has ever supposed
it a great work of art. But like many Victorian paintings in the
pre-Raphaelite style Sir John Everett Millaiss painting
of Hamlets drowned Ophelia with her red hair floating in
the water behind her, is another example Hylas And The
Nymphs feels comfortingly familiar. It is, I would argue, rather
Yet because it depicts
naked teenage girls, we will be told in this Manchester gallerys
conversation that far from being a harmless
bit of titillation for Victorian businessmen, as was intended
the picture is appalling evidence of how women have been
exploited throughout the ages.
- Underage: One of
Paul Gauguin's depictions of a young Polynesian girl with whom
he slept +8
For a start, modern
feminist taste is almost certain to consider the Greek myth on
which the painting is based to be highly offensive.
Hylas, a beautiful
youth who some believed to be the gay lover of Hercules, was a
sailor searching for the Golden Fleece which would allow the captain
of his ship, the Argo, to be confirmed as king. He was seduced
from his life as an Argonaut by the nymphs who drew him into the
water for their gratification.
This, the feminists
will point out, is every mans sick fantasy that women
are nymph-omaniacs just waiting to seduce us.
In addition, we will
be told, the models used by Waterhouse for the picture were exploited
they were the Victorian equivalents of those skimpily clad
waitresses and prostitutes at the Presidents Club, the men-only
charity event at the Dorchester Hotel in London that shocked so
many modern sensibilities after claims they had been pawed and
Many Victorian painters
like painters throughout European history chose
poor, young working-class girls simply for their looks as models.
These women were street-wise and commonly worked as actresses
or barmaids, but they also found employment in seedier walks of
life and were often forced into prostitution.
Waterhouse, so the
conversation will go, exploited these women and should be on the
#MeToo blacklist, while those men who enjoy his pictures are no
Once the gallerys
conversation takes hold, why should it stop at Hylas
And The Nymphs? Next month, Tate Britain will hold a major exhibition
of Picasso, arguably the most interesting, certainly one of the
most arresting, painters of the 20th century a giant, whatever
you think of him.
- Erotically charged:
Corregio's Leda and the Swan graphically depicts the seduction
of a young girl by Zeus, king of the gods in the form of a swan
One of the greatest
works of modern art a painting which changed the entire
direction in which 20th-century painting would go is Picassos
Les Demoiselles dAvignon, which hangs in the Museum of Modern
Art in New York. It depicts a group of prostitutes, shamelessly
disporting themselves rather like the nymphs of classical myth
but far more aggressively.
to women was as politically incorrect as that of the Presidents
Club, only much, much kinkier. As he got into his stride, his
portraits of those he seduced and there were hundreds
suggest a view of women which was often downright nasty.
- Landmark: Picasso's
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon shockingly depicts prostitutes, but
changed the course of modern art +8
or their genitalia in his pictures are often jagged like the claws
of lobsters. He saw women as exploitative, manipulative, destructive,
just as many of us today would see his idea of women as depraved.
But this does not stop the pictures being great works of art.
I can see the argument
leading to the point where the vociferous politically correct
minority insist no painting can objectify women, let
alone depict abuse by men.
depiction of Tarquin And Lucretia on display in the Fitzwilliam
Museum in Cambridge (one of the greatest works of Western Art)
would be banned.
Painted by great Renaissance
master in his 80s in 1571, it depicts the violent moment Tarquin,
son of the last king of Rome, raped Lucretia after threatening
to kill her if she rejected his advances. The next day she exposed
him and committed suicide, prompting the Romans to revolt and
overthrow Tarquins father and establish the Roman Republic.
- Violent: Titan depicts
a brutal sexual assault in Tarquin and Lucretia, on display in
No longer would we
be allowed to see the white-breasted form of Venus in Bronzinos
Allegory With Venus And Cupid in the National Gallery in London,
or the naked sculptures of homoerotic (under-age) male teenagers
depicted in the stunning Greek sculpture galleries in the British
Museum. All because the taste police would tut-tut with disapproval.
Youd have to
cover your eyes in Paris in case you had the misfortune to see
Edouard Manets celebrated Le Dejeuner Sur lHerbe:
what could be more depraved and kinky than a fully clothed young
man eating a picnic with a totally naked young woman. Presumably,
Manet was a member of the Presidents Club? Almost certainly a
friend of Harvey Weinstein.
of underage Polynesian girls with whom he had slept; Correggios
erotically charged Leda And The Swan; these would be beyond the
I can see modern puritanism
reaching the point where it demands the removal of all naked human
forms in our art galleries and museums.
- Naked beauty: Bronzino's
Allegory with Venus and Cupid in the National Gallery +8
At my Oxford college,
we used to smile at the puritanism of our Victorian forebears.
In the 18th century, Sir Joshua Reynolds, the greatest painter
of his day, executed some wonderful windows for the chapel. A
hundred years later, the Victorian Head of College ordered that
the naked figure of Adam be clothed like Tarzan in a leopard-skin.
But the truth is that
we are now far more puritanical than that Victorian don. Because
in our generation, we do not simply object to depictions of nakedness.
We take a high moral tone towards our ancestors and think our
attitude is always morally superior to theirs.
We should resist this
philistinism with every ounce of energy we possess. The history
of Western Art began in fifth and fourth-century BC Athens, when
sculptors began to depict the naked human form.
The fifth century depiction
of Athene by the greatest sculptor of antiquity, Phidias, was
much more than just a moment in the history of art. By studying
and depicting the human body, the Greeks made humanity itself
central to their society. From this sprang the study of philosophy,
medicine, and politics theirs is the cradle of all we believe
to be civilised.
- 'Depraved and kinky'...but
great art: Manet's masterpiece Le Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe shows fully
clothed men picnicking with naked women +8
Of course there always
have been unpleasant artists who exploited women and had perverse
sexual tastes. Eric Gill, the great sculptor whose statue of Shakespeares
Prospero and Ariel adorns the entry to the BBC, in Portland Place,
London, was revealed 30 years ago to be a libidinous sex pest
who even slept with two of his own daughters.
But if we ban all works
the politically correct brigade consider offensive, we will end
up with the equivalent of Oliver Cromwells Puritans smashing
stained glass windows in Westminster Abbey or the Taliban blowing
up Buddhist statues because they are idolatrous.
We should recognise
that we are in the middle of a desperate cultural clash. On the
one hand, there is the civilised majority which looks back, ultimately,
to the Ancient Greeks for our view of politics, democracy and
intellectual freedom a story that began with the celebration
of the human nude.
- Naked beauty: Bronzino's
Allegory With Venus and Cupid in the National Gallery
On the other hand are
the philistine minority, who come in all sorts of politically
correct disguises, but who fundamentally wish to restrict freedom
of thought, coerce us and rewrite our history.
Yesterday, many expressed
their anger at the gallerys decision. In a post on its website,
self-proclaimed feminist Annas Eskander was outraged, saying:
Do we not live in a liberal and civilised society where
the job of the curator is to enlighten, not to impose their own
beliefs on others?
Our conversation with
Manchester Art Gallery should be a short one. Waterhouse
was a not very good, but quite charming, painter. His Hylas And
The Nymphs has many fans. Please put it back.
Bron : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/