191
submitted 7 months ago by redfox@infosec.pub to c/world@lemmy.world

Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist's views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 108 points 7 months ago

Makes sense. Having a ladies only exhibit that only shows women artists is a positive thing. Not allowing certain visitors into a museum because of their gender is sexist.

[-] protist@mander.xyz 20 points 7 months ago

The museum this exhibit is at only allowed men until 1965. Today, there's a single, temporary exhibit within this museum that's only allowing women, with a stated intention to make people reflect on that previous time. That this single exhibit draws international attention speaks volumes to the reality of sexism in western society, and it's not the sexism you're talking about

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 31 points 7 months ago

It wasn’t right in 1965, and it isn’t right today. Creating inverse discrimination to draw attention to historical discrimination is still a form of discrimination, even if it is temporary.

This was just a poorly executed concept that could have been done better.

[-] protist@mander.xyz -2 points 7 months ago

The fact that it's not right is the point. That people across the entire planet are talking about this Australian art exhibit and sexism demonstrates this exhibit was executed really well

[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 7 months ago

Agree to disagree then—we’re both entitled to an opinion, as is the way with art.

The execution left me with a negative impression of the event, and has not really broadened my awareness. I hope it had its intended impact on others so it isn’t a total wash. I’m glad you found it more inspiring than I did.

[-] person420@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 7 months ago

Probably a similar response as the women trying to enter the museum before 1965.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

When you were in kindergarten did anyone explain the difference between good attention and bad attention?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Maybe the museum should take it up with the people still alive in 1965 who created the policy.

The guy paid to be admitted and they took his money. He gets to see all the art. If they didn't want to let him see all the art they should have charged him nothing.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

Especially with the context that Australia didn’t allow women in pubs with men until 1965 so women there were literally sent to “ladies lounges,” which were apparently always some shitty side room, that sometimes would sell them a drink (at higher prices) while they waited.

Turning that on its head as a temporary exhibit at a museum is clearly art to me. It’s not like she did it as a business concept to make money.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 14 points 7 months ago

If it's art, it's pretty childish art. "Revenge" is not useful nor healthy.

[-] june@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago

I don’t see it as revenge, I see it as reflection.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 11 points 7 months ago

Reflection on what? The actions of people that are now senile or dead? And how? By discriminating people? Yeah, really positive.

[-] june@lemmy.world -3 points 7 months ago

Reflection on history. I don’t see that as an inherently negative thing even though it would ostensibly exclude me.

Do projects that drive us to consider the plights of slaves, Jews in the holocaust, or other groups that were tortured, murdered, or otherwise persecuted en masse elicit this same response to you? If not, why?

It seems to me that the art is doing what it’s intended to do, illicit a reaction. What you do with that reaction, positive or negative, is up to you.

[-] potustheplant@feddit.nl 6 points 7 months ago

No one said that reflection on any given topic is negative. Just that this particular way of doing it is antagonistic and I'd argue is even detrimental to the conversation. I mean, if you actually learned that discrimination is wrong, why do you teach that by actually doing it yourself? It's like a parent, that got beat up when he was young, beating up his kid to teach him that violence is a bad thing.

this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
191 points (91.0% liked)

World News

38970 readers
2320 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS