I was hoping AA just hadn’t seen those painting, but no, that’s not the case. They tweeted one of them yesterday.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh
Butterflies and Wheels
Gnu atheism, women's rights, internationalism, universalism, and gossip
I was hoping AA just hadn’t seen those painting, but no, that’s not the case. They tweeted one of them yesterday.
Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh
Also, “peek”, not “peak”. Unless they were so distracted by, um, peaks.
Women get to play the role of “class of people oppressed by religion” in the fight against religious privilege. This gives atheo-skeptics another weapon with which to beat on religion and the religious, another way to demonstrate that religion is bad. But letting women have leadership roles, to be recognized as doers and thinkers (and allowed to wear clothes in paintings), to be more than convenient weapons, or anonymous symbols that’s just too much.
It becomes more obvious all the time that even if religion were to magically vanish overnight, there would be plenty of sexist, misogynistic crap left to clean up. And that there would be plenty of atheo-skeptic apologists for it to be left as it is (after all it wouldn’t be religious sexist , mysogynistic crap).
Awful artwork, by the way.
Not just the tasteless crap with the tits, but the godawful Tyson monstrosity as well. Revolting stuff.
Women are repressed physically, intellectually and culturally by religion Therefore, depicting naked atheist women is liberating. This ‘feminism’ business is easier than I imagined.
I cannot see putting either of those painting on my walls.
I can’t wait to see the on-the-scene reports from Greta Christina and PZ Myers.
After those, “AA” will mean only the two new Assholes the organization had ripped for them in Salt Lake City…
Reading FtB gets more depressing by the day. Yikes.
Could he have found an even cheesier looking NdT pose???!!! Also, is it just me, or does the painting with the redhead sort of read that the atheist-woman (considering the venue, I’ll go ahead and assume) is watching religion burn in a gleeful, almost….’satanic’ role?
AA is sending quite the message with a tweet including that painting.
Was it at least painted on black velvet?
Silly Sili, black velvet is reserved for paintings of Elvis.
I talked to the artist. He’s horrified — he’s a feminist himself, reads B&W, and agrees with Ophelia on just about everything, and was shaken up when he saw what everyone else was seeing. This wasn’t his intent (I told him intent won’t cut any ice with anyone), and what happened was that those pictures of women were just thrown into the collection because they hadn’t sold at a previous showing ( oops, that should have told him something).
Again, I told him intent isn’t magic. He agrees: he is taking action and will be removing the objectionable paintings first thing tomorrow. And he’s very apologetic.
That’s what I call being decent: It’s not never ever fucking up. It’s not being an asshole about it.
That is a decent response; I think the images, and making them in the first place, are hugely problematic (to put it politely) – but that is a decent response to being called on it. I hope the artist will give some thought to (and do some reading about) the issues involving depictions of naked women and consider changing their approach.
Oh! Well, cool.
Thanks for the update, PZ. That is good news.
Bravo to the artist on using his conscience! It’s easy to get defensive about one’s art, and one’s intent, it sounds like he was willing to listen and learn. That’s a step forward by any definition.
I do have questions about his experience as a feminist if he hasn’t considered how those images portray woman. That’s art school history 101. If he made the art for a specific context ( “ain’t she a hot tomato’ comes to mind), and they hadn’t sold, I wouldn’t have brought them to the atheist venue. It’s work to lug heavy artwork around – a pain in the neck. Yes, you want to unload them on someone, but it’s better to target the work to an audience likely to buy. My best, charitable guess is he is not a very experienced vendor.
How incompetent is the artist if his intention was contrary to EVERYONE’S response to the pictures?
It is still a bit uncomfortable that works should be withdrawn because someone ‘took offense.’ I’m sure Boko Haram would want them taken down too.
This is another place where being on the Right Side can put you next to people you don’t want to join. I’m reminded of Hirsi Ali’s being grazed by anti-immigrant, and Xian anti-muslim crazies. It doesn’t make HER wrong.
The artist has not removed the paintings; he merely re-arranged them.
So much for that.
I don’t find it especially uncomfortable. As I mentioned yesterday, it’s part of their Code of Conduct –
It’s not about “taking offense.” It’s about the difference between being treated as equal participants versus being treated as sexual treats for the straight men. It’s about lining up a bunch of men thinking and a bunch of women bodying.
I don’t even get that “Light My Fire” painting. A topless woman standing in a burning forest next to three religious symbols (none of which she even seems to be aware of, as she’s clearly been shopped in from another source)? Wha? Is there something being said that I’m not getting?
A picture is worth a thousand words. You look to the right…all men, known for their ideas and writings, the focus is on their faces. The only photos of women are naked and seductive and of no one you know.
Martin – a naked woman NEEDS NO JUSTIFICATION.
I hope that helps.