Week 7: Controversial Subject Case
Exploitation is a neutral word. The
word itself does not dictate the actions of a person. Exploiting can mean utilizing or taking
advantage, and it all comes down to the actions of an individual. Yet, most of
the time when people are exploiting, they are taking advantage of others or a
situation where they have power over another. Over years, the act of exploiting
has been prevalent in the art. Artists have used black bodies to gain
attention. Artists have used young girls for their own sexual deviance and
stamp it with an artistic expression. This has caused spectators to call for
action and have the artist re-examined or removed for holding an exhibition.
The removing of art exhibits from museums
show the audience museums understand its responsibility to the community. Museums
must have an ethical and social awareness that benefit everyone surrounding
that museum. When museums fail to uphold their responsibility to the community,
the community has the right and the moral high ground to speak on the failures of
that establishment. The Museum of Contemporary Art Cleveland felt this out cry
when they hosted, The Breath of Empty Space. This solo exhibit done by
Shaun Leonard, came under fire when Tamir Rice’s mother denounced the artist for
exploiting her son’s image. Samaria Rice has the final say in how her black
child should be shown, especially when her son was slaughtered by the police at
age twelve. Shaun Leonardo, and the Museum of Contemporary Art Cleveland were abusing
black tragedy, “bodies of the victims of police brutality, in their last moments
– that’s literally the premise of the show. “1 The museums did not use its social
awareness and it harmed the black community in Cleveland. For the museum to regain
its standing within the community the exhibition was cancelled. Proving that some
exhibitions need to be removed.
On the other hand, museums can explicitly
ignore the public and stand by its choice. New York’s Metropolitan Museum of
Art refused to take down a Bathus’ painting, Therese Dreaming. The Met does
not have social awareness. Thousands of people asked and signed a petition for the
Met to remove the undoubtedly pedophilic art piece. No child should be posed in a sexual manner with
their underwear exposed. This piece is not for anyone else except for Bathus who
is taking advantage of the power he has over this child. And Bathus is making
the audience a witness to exploitation of a young girl. In “New York Met Stands
By ‘Overtly Sexual’ 1938 Painting That Sparked Online Petition” gave the reason
to why the Met would not take down the painting. “Museum spokesman Ken Weine
said the decision to not remove the painting provides an opportunity to reflect
on today’s culture.”2 Ken Weine’s statement does not explain the controversy of
a sexualized young girl away. The reflection of today’s climate is not allowing
young girls to be sex objects. The Met is clearly missing the point and does
not want to reflect on the social awareness or exploitation of minors. And this
art piece has the right to be looked at with disgust when it is on display.
Artist and museums should have to admit
to the public their exploitation of others is wrong. Museums and artist are
aware of triggers that have harmed and continue to harm a group of people. And to
use it as a form of artistic expression is never acceptable and should be
removed from the walls of a museum.
1.) Weber,
Jasmine. “Samaria Rice, Mother of Tamir Rice, Speaks Out About Art Depicting
Her Son After Canceled Exhibition in Cleveland.” Hyperallergic, July 16, 2020.
https://hyperallergic.com/573053/moca-cleveland-the-breath-of-empty-space/.
2.) CBS New York. “Met Stands By
'Sexual' Balthus Painting That Sparked Online Petition.” CBS New York. CBS New
York, December 6, 2017.
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/12/06/new-york-met-stands-by-overtly-sexual-1938-painting-that-sparked-online-petition/.
Interesting perspective. Perhaps the museum could make it clear in the descriptions or with the surrounding art, that the portrayal of the child is from the time. Other more obviously problematic artistic choices at the time may shed some light on why the piece is problematic, especially for younger viewers. Descriptions describing the artist or the time period could be added on top of this, as descriptions alone wont be enough. Art is a visual medium after all.
ReplyDeleteI agree that sexualization of young girls in art is an old trope that needs to change. However, I'm kind of in agreement with the Met about keeping that one picture up. I also agree with the above comment suggesting that the museum address the problematic nature of the piece. I think for art that has been out in the world for a while, addressing the problem is best for those. I think rewarding new exploitation art with attention and renown needs to stop.
DeleteI believe the best way to change the troupe of over sexualization of young girls is not to show young girls over sexualized. When the Met refused to take that painting they are saying it is okay to exploit young girl and look at them sexually. Art is a visual medium, but art doesn’t have to harm people either. Nor put the viewer in the position of being the person to look at a young girl and think of sex. Balthus piece is not of the time young girls are still being over sexualized. And it benefiting people that want to look at girls this way, not the girls. All this artwork does is say it is fine and acceptable to keep abusing young girls.
DeleteI agree with this but where do you think the line should be drawn as acceptable yet controversial? If you have any examples that would be great! I know a lot of people want to push boundaries to make an impression but there's some that shouldn't be.
ReplyDeleteI agree there are some boundaries that should not be pushed. I think the line should be drawn when it defaces other people and takes away another’s humanity. Gauguin’s art defaces the native females of the Pacific Island. Ryder Ripps’s “Art Whore” overshadows sex workers, and they are already neglected by society.
Delete