New Yorkers call for removal of Met painting that ‘sexualizes’ girl

New York Post ^ | December 3, 2017 | Natalie O'Neill

[sparklite2]

New Yorkers have launched a petition demanding that the Metropolitan Museum of Art remove a 1938 painting of a young woman with her underwear exposed, “given the current climate around sexual assault.”

The piece, titled “Thérèse Dreaming” by the French artist Balthus, “sexualizes” the girl, who is shown lounging in a skirt with her knee up on a chair, according to the petition, which was posted on the Web site Care 2.

Modal Trigger
“Thérèse Dreaming” by Balthus
Mia Merrill, the New Yorker who started the petition, says the painting should be yanked from the venerable institution because Balthus — an erotic realist born in 1908 — had pedophilic tendencies.

[Vendome]

The cats meow...

[TigersEye]

Well, if New Yorkers object to it ... (beam me up, Scottie!)

[Garvin]

The sick bstards need to lear
N as ometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Except for bj clintoon.

[BlueStateRightist]

I’m a bit more offended by the pussy in the painting.

[freedumb2003]

Of course Michelangelo’s “David” has to go as well as ALL nudes of Venus de Milo/Aphrodide.

Let’s let the feminists win and put ‘em all in diapers and coverlets.

It will help us with the argument that art is pretty pointless.

[D_Idaho]

Twenty years ago they were in love with Robert Mapplethorpe. How things have changed... or have they?

[unixfox]

Nothing wrong with a cross in piss though, huh NYT?

[Michael.SF.]

They will probably replace this one with one of his works.

[BenLurkin]

Perv French painter.

Figures.

[goodnesswins]

So, will they do the same when JLo and other “stars” reveal THEIR crotches in public?

[Bodega]

Did the artist have pedophilic tendencies or do the people who complain? I looked at that painting and thought it was well balanced and showed a young girl doing what we all did as youngsters and sit in a chair and day dream. I think the critics have a problem.

I have no problem with that painting.

[BenLurkin]

I would say that it is tasteless.

But there is already too much tongue imagery in it.

[Robert A Cook PE]

But submerging a crucifix in a jar of urine is “art” ... and to be praised.
Dropping elephant dung on a picture of the Virgin Mary is “art” ... and is to be praised.
Drawing a cartoon of Mohammad is “a sacristy, vile”, and a hate crime!

[deadrock]

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

TAKE IT DOWN! PUT up some Gil Elvgren paintings!

Maybe replace it with some RIGID tool paintings by George Petty of the 1950s!

[FatherofFive]

Of course Michelangelo’s “David” has to go as well as ALL nudes of Venus de Milo/Aphrodide.

Ever notice how David wasn't Jewish?

[right way right]

At least shes got clean undies.
Are we suppose to guess her age?
She looks about 25 to me.
I guess I better ask her to see her drivers license before I ask her to dance.

Wait! That is just a picture. I saw nakey paintings before. Big fat Renissance women.

The picture kind of begs the why have it in a museum quality question about it though. It's kind of a velvet Elvis tacky type of painting.

[Chad N. Freud]

“Twenty years ago they were in love with Robert Mapplethorpe. ...”

Well stated!

Be careful what you wish for, libs.

There are many who would like to wield the power of censorship over art (think of your beloved TV shows) in ways you would not like.

[RegulatorCountry]

They’re collectively turning into a bunch of prissy, controlling and judgmental Victorians on a par with Carrie Nations of Prohibition infamy.

Keep at it, you have nowhere to go but down, lefties.