In what may be another sign of a new puritanism being generated in this country, Manchester Art Gallery took the picture 'Hylas and the Nymphs' by John William Waterhouse, a pre-Raphaelite Victorian painter, down. Postcards of the painting were also removed from sale in the shop.
The painting features a number of pubescent, semi-naked water nymphs, tempting a handsome young man to his doom. The question raised was whether this erotic Victorian fantasy should be considered unsuitable and offensive in the current puritanical climate?
The reason given was that the gallery wanted “to prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. Members of the public were invited to leave Post It Notes giving their reaction to its removal. Why the gallery should even feel the need to ask this question is a little disturbing.
Waterhouse is one of the best-known of the pre-Raphaelites, who also painted the 'Lady of Shalott' which hangs in the Tate and is one of its best-selling postcards.
However some of the subjects of his other paintings such as 'Saint Eulalia', leave some critics accusing him of being barely one step away from being a pornographer. However its not for those prudes to decide this .... or it shouldn't be in a public collection ..... is the influence of a foreign culture or political correctness becoming so pervasive, that we will close down 2,000 years of Western culture? Or was it just all a publicity stunt?
Well after just seven days, in which the gallery's explanation that the 'taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery', and the 'outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays', was misinterpreted as being the dawning of the age of the barbarians, the picture was back up again.
The public and worldwide negative response to this action had surprised the gallery, but with behaviour typical of these well paid and secure bodies, they are threatening to do it again as they are planning to 'harness this strength of feeling for some further debate on these wider issues' ... so probably another picture will be censored. Whatever happened to art for arts sake?
 |
| 'Hylas and the Nymphs' by John William Waterhouse - Manchester Gallery (sometimes). |
The painting features a number of pubescent, semi-naked water nymphs, tempting a handsome young man to his doom. The question raised was whether this erotic Victorian fantasy should be considered unsuitable and offensive in the current puritanical climate?
The reason given was that the gallery wanted “to prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. Members of the public were invited to leave Post It Notes giving their reaction to its removal. Why the gallery should even feel the need to ask this question is a little disturbing.
 |
| John William Waterhouse - The Lady of Shalott (wikicommons) |
Waterhouse is one of the best-known of the pre-Raphaelites, who also painted the 'Lady of Shalott' which hangs in the Tate and is one of its best-selling postcards.
 |
| John William Waterhouse - Saint Eulalia (wikicommons) |
However some of the subjects of his other paintings such as 'Saint Eulalia', leave some critics accusing him of being barely one step away from being a pornographer. However its not for those prudes to decide this .... or it shouldn't be in a public collection ..... is the influence of a foreign culture or political correctness becoming so pervasive, that we will close down 2,000 years of Western culture? Or was it just all a publicity stunt?
Well after just seven days, in which the gallery's explanation that the 'taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery', and the 'outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays', was misinterpreted as being the dawning of the age of the barbarians, the picture was back up again.
The public and worldwide negative response to this action had surprised the gallery, but with behaviour typical of these well paid and secure bodies, they are threatening to do it again as they are planning to 'harness this strength of feeling for some further debate on these wider issues' ... so probably another picture will be censored. Whatever happened to art for arts sake?
Whatever happened to art for arts sake? As the 10cc song continues - money for gods sake! Thats the answer to your question.
ReplyDeleteThanks. If gallery's charge entrance fees these days, then maybe the publicity is worth more money to them.
Delete