New York art museum refuses to remove painting of girl after 'voyeurism' complaint

The Guardian - AP ^ | 12/5/2017

[Borges]

New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art has refused to remove a 1938 painting by the artist known as Balthus that depicts a young girl in what some are saying is a sexually suggestive pose.

The painting , entitled Thérèse Dreaming, shows the girl sitting on a chair leaning back with her underwear visible. The late Polish-French artist, born Balthasar Klossowski, is known for his erotically-charged images of pubescent girls.

[miss marmelstein]

Thank God.

[Liz]

[Flick Lives]

The petition’s author, Mia Merrill, suggested that the painting be replaced by one created by a female artist of the same period.

Oh brother.

[CGASMIA68]

Nice pussy

[dfwgator]

Nice pussy............................cat.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I don’t think his work is all that good really.

[beergarden]

Meow

[Steely Tom]

They’ll arrange a discrete sale to someone, and that’ll be the end of it.

I’m not sure Harvey Weinstein has the money for such baubles anymore, so he’s probably off the list.

[henkster]

So it’s basically soft child pornography.

[rlmorel]

You just cannot make this stuff up.

[BBB333]

Johnny Carson: “Can I pet your pussy?”

Zsa Zsa Gabor: “Sure.”

Johnny Carson: “Move your cat...”

[C19fan]

I never seen that painting and I have been to the MET a couple of times. That painting is in the “Modern and Contemporary Art” gallery. The Met is so big and has so many works I never get to that area.

[ZULU]

I like Remington thanks.

[Ouderkirk]

This is not art. It's not particularly good art, and the subject matter is not exactly something that I cannot find in the pages of the UK Daily Mail on a regular basis. This is an unskilled attempt to be avant garde or something other than skilled art.

[a fool in paradise]

But protest the use taxpayer funds to put it a crucifix in a jar of urine and give it a profane title and the Left will call you a zealous censoring prudish puritan.

[rlmorel]

Agreed. I think it is a lousy painting, but what do I know?

But the whole concept is becoming idiotic.

There were periods in this country up to the 20th century where older men would marry girls who were thirteen. The girls would have two kids and die in childbirth.

The guy would marry another young girl and have more kids.

And the guy would eventually die at the age of 42.

What are we going to do, go back and comb the lists of people who had young brides and make them an Orwellian non-person because they had different social mores back then than we, who are so advanced (/s) have today?

I suppose if it means that western society will make Muhammed a non-person because he married a little kid, I might go along with it if they would be consistent, but...they won’t be consistent.

[sparklite2]

You mean like naked little cherubs in religious paintings?

[bigbob]

Guess they’ve never seen the Sears catalog in NYC.

[sparklite2]

It’s infinitely more ‘art’ than anything Jackson Pollock ever did.