How do you feel about galleries getting rid of problematic art?

The problem with this art is showing boneskinny girls for pedofiles

>she attended the University of Sussex, where she gained an MA in Critical Theory (1992), followed by a DPhil in African American Visual and Literary Culture (1996)
This is who runs the gallery.

Why are women so insecure nowadays that they can't stand look at pretty fictional girls without going into triggered mode? Is that just a billion old female biological mechanism expressing itself through 21th century identity politics? Doubt anyone there argued for the removal of countless art depicting ideal men as desired by women.

21st century women fucking suck.

90% of women aren't like that. It's the 10% who have too much influence over the media that ruin everything.

Basically feminists.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokeby_Venus#Vandalism,_1914

>On 10 March 1914, the suffragette Mary Richardson walked into the National Gallery and attacked Velázquez's canvas with a meat cleaver. Her action was ostensibly provoked by the arrest of fellow suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst the previous day,[62] although there had been earlier warnings of a planned suffragette attack on the collection. Richardson left seven slashes on the painting, particularly causing damage to the area between the figure's shoulders.[17][

>[64] In a statement to the Women's Social and Political Union shortly afterwards, Richardson explained, "I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government for destroying Mrs. Pankhurst, who is the most beautiful character in modern history."[63][65] She added in a 1952 interview that she didn't like "the way men visitors gaped at it all day long".[66]

Feminist criticism of women's representation in art dates well before 21st century social justice.

Her name doesn't appear on the staff contact page?

women were a mistake

Only women that can talk.

Women really can be sad envious creatures.

>a British art gallery removing Pre-Raphaelite work from display

It'll be back in a few months when visitor numbers and revenue is down.

Any sort of statement that they make is overshadowed by the fact that the museum is only doing this to denigrate values that conflict with contemporary ones. In a way it's a bit similar to how nude or offensive Greek artwork was hidden from view or mutilated during the Age of Enlightenment. Their refusal to take this art as is shows a fear of its influence.
In my opinion, one of the greatest things black Americans contributed to western culture was the fact that they helped to replace traditional Western feminine beauty ideals that favored these anorexic infantile women like the ones we see in the painting.

Feminism in general is an expression of the feelings of inferiority that women feel as a result of their relative powerlessness when compared to men.

>museum

Amerimutt detected

They have always been this way, but now social media makes it possible to see their pettiness in all its glory

Canadian actually

That explains the fetishistic love of black people.

Faggot.

I think its just a fat chick that is happy someone is complimenting her.

How are the women on the picture anorexic exactly. You can not see their ribs nor vascularity on their arms.

>Man in OPs pic is normal, healthy weight
>Nymphs in OPs pic are also normal, healthy weight
>People ITT say they're skinny

Stop being fat holy shit.

My wife loves black people.

Par

People have forgotten how women looked before McDonalds, birth control pills, estrogen food and oily make-up.

>defending degenerate and vulgar art just because it's old

Stop larping as /pol/ tumblr

Charles Dickens plz go.

He's used to obese women.

Femininity scares the non-feminine females. It has been that since the dawn of sexes. For what greater pain is it for a woman than another woman who still has youth and beauty on her side and the attention of countless men?

>2018
>visiting UK, a country tearing itself apart
>impossible to get a cup of coffee
>finally.jpg
>you doesn't throw away the plastic spoon when you leave the café, but wrap it in a paper napkin
>walk one block
>get busted for carrying unlicensed drug paraphanelia

>Peraonally I agree with the museum.
>The female nipple is a shameful thing that must be hidden away at all times.
Has totally nothing in similar with something else...

>Mary Raleigh Richardson (1882/3 – 7 November 1961) was a Canadian suffragette active in the women's suffrage movement in the United Kingdom, an arsonist and later the head of the women's section of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Sir Oswald Mosley.

Why are Anglos such prudes?

I really can't hunderstand why left wingers loose their shit at the sight of the naked body faster than any conservative person, I noticed that in french TV to, the show hosts are now dressed like they where from a hardline christian family from the 70's

This is just real life clickbait.

>objectify women
>I don't understand!

In Finland they're comfortable with nudity but even there the feminazis managed to get the female statue in their parliament turned around because of its bare breasts. The male statues however remained as they were facing the MPs showing full monty.

>females shouldn't face the crowd

>Ass > Tits
Finns have good taste.

...

>Feminists: REEE STOP SLUTSHAMING ME RESPECT WHAT I WEAR
>Also Feminists: Nude art is degrading to women.

Pick one already.

The fuck does "objectifying" even means, its a piece of art representing an idealized form of both men and woman, thats it, of course its better than real life, thats the fucking point, if you dont persue beauty in art you may as well just take pictures in 8k of you grandma's butthole, now you have something thats more grounded in reality.....

Whats the message there, females are all cowards and can't face a debate ? Because symbolism is strong with this 1

Dat ass

>They took the portrait down to spark discussion, not censorship
They are using censorship to "spark discussion" which is repressive and ignorant however you look at it.

>Why aren't there more paintings of kitchen tiles?
I know. There's such a critical lack of them. But no dirty tiles, I'm not a degenerate.

If that means that we can also stop displaying edgy performance art and other shit that's only notable for being controversial, I'm all for it.

...

They really are the modern day religious prudes

>muh women need to weight at LEAST 300 lbs and or they're auschwitz mode
Get a hold of yourself, man

The art we value through time can change, but I'm always fundamentally bothered by moralism spiraling of any sort.

>They took the portrait down to spark discussion, not censorship
Can't you see why that's a horseshit kind of thing to say? It's so uninvitedly maternal and condescending.
>no honey, I just put your warhammer minis in the garage to spark a conversation about whether or not you should spend so much time playing with them.
That would make me want to knock someone's teeth out. (Don't know where that example came from, as I don't play warhammer)

That's going into my Responsible - clean and washed folder.

mmmm, a bunch of victorian hotties

As long as they only take it down, who cares. It's the Zeitgeist, deal with it, you fossil. There's an endless number of paintings that all look basically the same for you to look at.

The ideology these demented nags ascribe to is pretty stupid, but like all fashions it will pass. In thirty years you will be living under Sharia and feel nostalgic about what upset you so much today.

>They took the portrait down to spark discussion, not censorship
Hahaha holy fucking shit.

Can't wait for Islam to take over. I will be first in line to convert.

>... it's strange how you're ignoring that the article states they took it down because they are re-conceptualizing the gallery they called "In Pursuit of Beauty," which was filled almost exclusively with male artist's depicting female nudes.

>My 16th century puritanism is OKAY because I have a justification from intersectionality and critical theory!!!!!!!!

Fuck OFF.