Yes, Magritte’s portrait of his wife is definitely more overtly erotic than Michelangelo's David. I think you could make that case for most of the surrealists in general!
The most obvious difference is color. White marble is "clearly" "art". Flesh-colored paint is closer to "real", so might be ambiguous if you're sensitive to that sort of thing.
Either that, or it's the lusty way she is regarding the conch shell. Hey, people are into stranger things!
I don’t think flesh colored paint is the obvious difference driving the comments for a NSFW tag or else HN would consider the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel “erotic” and equally deserving of the label. I think the obvious difference is the gender of the person whose nipples are depicted and the different standards to which women are held.
Women are indeed held to different standards. For example, a woman viewing this image at work is unlikely to get in trouble for it. A man's motivations for looking at it are more likely to be questioned and judged, which is why they have to be more careful about any content that could be considered NSFW.
The same goes for Michelangelo's David. Because there is a default assumption of heterosexuality (and gay men are not considered a threat by a protected group), David is not going to arouse suspicion, no matter who is viewing it. Female nudes are a different matter, not because nudity in art is judged differently by the subject's gender, but because the viewer is judged differently because of their gender.
Agreed: there is clearly a double-standard regarding subject torso nudity in the US, but I don't think that's the difference in the example under discussion (Olympia vs David).
For the NSFW issue (i.e. coworker glanced and reacted badly to what you were viewing), this is just a matter of realism, plus a high sensitivity to what might offend other people and women in particular.
But I also don't think it's entirely about the "different standards to which women are held", which I perceive you to mean female-as-subject. In some ways it's more about male-as-viewer:
As sibling comment points out, when a male views a nude female, it is frequently assumed to be lecherous, or at the very least have prurient motivations.
When a female views a nude male (or female), it is assumed to be incidental, art, or accident.
This is also a double-standard, but honestly it cuts both ways.
When someone quickly walks by your desk, unless they happen to be a really big surrealist connoisseur, their first thought will not be 'oh, they're looking up Magritte's Olympia, how lovely'. The first thought of a casual co-worker would be 'oh, they're looking at nudity'. Yes, you can subsequently explain the issue during your meeting with HR, at which point you'll still be told to not view things that can be misinterpreted.
Tbf, a reasonable proportion of this site's readers must be in the US. In fact, given the assumptions made to that effect that I see on here fairly often, it must be a pretty high proportion.
Truly curious, is there no concept of sexual harassment in Europe? Maybe Europeans are less pervy than Americans, like how they don’t have alcoholism or fat people?
> Truly curious, is there no concept of sexual harassment in Europe?
Even in the US, nude art is not per se sexual harassment. Most workplaces will ban (non-work-related) nude art as part of an effort to create a massive buffer space around potential liability (among other reasons that don’t rely on it necessarily being sexual harassment), in part because the US has an unusually pro-initiation-of-litigation legal system (for instance, having a very high bar beyond merely losing before the loser of litigation is ordered to pay the winners legal fees.)
(There’s a weird sort of positive feedback loop where, despite distance from the law, people subjected to sexual harassment trainings in which employers, etc., imply that everything within the wide buffer space around liability that they are trying to create is “harassment” drives, if not the law, the public understanding of harassment, leading to pressure to expand the effective workplace definition further to create a buffer space around not only actual liability but the things people are likely to understand as harassment.)
Title aside, this is an article about the theft of a famous painting and the opening contains an image of said painting.
Are many workplaces really so strict or people so embarrassed about nudity that being caught reading an article with an image of tastefully painted nudity is an issue?
This is a picture of art. Not a nude web site.
If I would be considered "a creep" for reading this, then I would consider changing employer. Or not be reading articles on the internet while working.
> Are many workplaces really so strict or people so embarrassed about nudity that being caught reading an article with an image of tastefully painted nudity is an issue?
Yes. Many are. Labeling thing with "NSFW" is a polite step we can take to make it easier for those whose workplaces DO have that concern. I have previously worked in a high school and at a bank -- both would have had this concern; for the former it would have been a serious offense.
Out of curiosity, can I ask in which part of the world these were located?
The fact that it would have been a serious concern is itself concerning in my eyes. The art of Magritte is something I would expect and hope would be showcased in school, not frowned upon.
>>for the former it would have been a serious offense
Looking at ART would be a serious offence at a high school???? Are the history/art books you use at that school also censored?
I mean, sure, someone might react to it if they only saw the painting briefly flash on the screen, but surely any sort of misundersstanding could be explaineed in a grand total of 10 seconds of conversation.
At some high schools, books with art of that type would have been strictly prohibited in the libraries.
Even at others, looking at art in a book about art, that happens to have naked ladies pictured, would be seen as completely different (and more obviously scholarly) than looking at naked ladies, whoever originally painted them, on the computer. Once it's on the computer, it's just Internet Porn.
>>At some high schools, books with art of that type would have been strictly prohibited in the libraries.
What an awful, awful place to live that must be.
>>Once it's on the computer, it's just Internet Porn.
Is that like a written rule somewhere? Surely it could be explained to a person with like, 2 functional brain cells that an article about art will have a picture of said art included.
> What an awful, awful place to live that must be.
Welcome to the fundamentalist theocratic Christian hell that is (parts of) America.
> Is that like a written rule somewhere? Surely it could be explained to a person with like, 2 functional brain cells that an article about art will have a picture of said art included.
While I have personally been fortunate enough not to fall afoul of such people, I have absolutely heard from people who had to deal with librarians or other school administrator types who, whether or not they had 2 functional brain cells in other contexts, were absolutely inflexible in their treatment of students on computers.
Naturally, this would've been back in the '90s, so having computers at all was a fairly new thing, and computers with Internet access were (for a public school library) positively bleeding edge. But students doing anything on computers other than very obviously typing papers were, at best, Goofing Around With School Resources, and, if there was anything on the screen that might remotely resemble porn....frankly, that could have been enough in many places in my youth to get a student expelled, without the possibility of appeal. Today, such a reaction would be much less common, but I would not be at all shocked if there were places in the Bible Belt where it was still totally possible.
Let me be clear: I am not claiming what others experience is not real. Simply saying that it's far enough from what I've experienced in my corner of the world, that I find it surprising.
That's when you know we are on a US centric side, for nowhere in Europe this would be an issue (more likely that you read news articles instead of working :-) ). Plenty of schools with nude statues or paintings, certainly in art and history classes; biology books will also show naked people - when I was in school even both adults and children with visible genitals, which I guess would give you a 'possession of pornographic images of a minor' charge in the US.
If it had been one of the more Magritte Magrittes the thieves could have easily pulled it off just by putting up a sign that read "This is not a heist".
Omg, this article is so long, useless and boring that I can't manage to read it to the end!
The subject in itself is interesting, and there could probably have been a story of around 50 lines to describe the case and its resolution.
But, here, the author is professionally trying to waste your time with hundreds of useless paragraph of blabla that might have been generated automatically by an AI.
For exemple who cares that the stolen art division of the Belgian police changed its name 3 times for obvious non original names? Or that the lead investigator has a wine yard and like to offer wine to his friends and colleagues...
To the persons down voting, did you manage to read the piece till the end?
Here are example of time wasted to make you stay longer on the article page or to fill empty space:
"When I arrived at his eighth-floor office, overlooking the sprawling Belgian capital, he poured himself a cup while staring down at Molenbeek, which has been called by its own mayor “a fertile ground for terrorism.”"
"Belgian police first established a Bureau of Art and Antiques in 1988. Thirteen years later, when Belgium reorganized its law enforcement agencies, the unit became part of the country’s federal police force and was renamed Section Art"
"he recalled the investigation from behind his tidy desk, next to a table piled high with old case files. He wore gray slacks, a short-sleeve button-up, and the scuffed black dress shoes favored by detectives and those who play them on TV. His face served as its own good-cop-bad-cop routine: friendly, disarming smile; penetrating blue eyes."
" When Archer and his partner delivered the recovered paintings to Lorca’s daughter in Brussels, Verhaegen surprised his FBI colleagues with a special gift. “He grows his own grapes and makes his own wine,” Archer said. “We enjoyed the bottle thoroughly.”
Yep, heaven forbid the writer actually writes instead of just spitting out a Buzzfeed listicle ("8 Famous Artists You Didn't Know Supported Terrorism")
de gustibus non est disputandum and all, but magazine writing has been ever thus, from Thoreau to Hemingway, Mailer to Wolfe.
35 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 95.1 ms ] threadAlso, contains a painting of a woman with bare breasts above-the-fold. People sometimes mark such submissions with the letters "NSFW".
I get your point. But this is yesteryear thinking, no?
And what is the risk of someone opening an article "The Theft of a Magritte" during - you know - actual work time? ;-)
Either that, or it's the lusty way she is regarding the conch shell. Hey, people are into stranger things!
The same goes for Michelangelo's David. Because there is a default assumption of heterosexuality (and gay men are not considered a threat by a protected group), David is not going to arouse suspicion, no matter who is viewing it. Female nudes are a different matter, not because nudity in art is judged differently by the subject's gender, but because the viewer is judged differently because of their gender.
For the NSFW issue (i.e. coworker glanced and reacted badly to what you were viewing), this is just a matter of realism, plus a high sensitivity to what might offend other people and women in particular.
But I also don't think it's entirely about the "different standards to which women are held", which I perceive you to mean female-as-subject. In some ways it's more about male-as-viewer:
As sibling comment points out, when a male views a nude female, it is frequently assumed to be lecherous, or at the very least have prurient motivations.
When a female views a nude male (or female), it is assumed to be incidental, art, or accident.
This is also a double-standard, but honestly it cuts both ways.
Even in the US, nude art is not per se sexual harassment. Most workplaces will ban (non-work-related) nude art as part of an effort to create a massive buffer space around potential liability (among other reasons that don’t rely on it necessarily being sexual harassment), in part because the US has an unusually pro-initiation-of-litigation legal system (for instance, having a very high bar beyond merely losing before the loser of litigation is ordered to pay the winners legal fees.)
(There’s a weird sort of positive feedback loop where, despite distance from the law, people subjected to sexual harassment trainings in which employers, etc., imply that everything within the wide buffer space around liability that they are trying to create is “harassment” drives, if not the law, the public understanding of harassment, leading to pressure to expand the effective workplace definition further to create a buffer space around not only actual liability but the things people are likely to understand as harassment.)
That being said, I'd hope we could collectively evolve away from general prudishness when it comes to nudity, especially in a context like paintings.
Are many workplaces really so strict or people so embarrassed about nudity that being caught reading an article with an image of tastefully painted nudity is an issue?
Yes. Many are. Labeling thing with "NSFW" is a polite step we can take to make it easier for those whose workplaces DO have that concern. I have previously worked in a high school and at a bank -- both would have had this concern; for the former it would have been a serious offense.
The fact that it would have been a serious concern is itself concerning in my eyes. The art of Magritte is something I would expect and hope would be showcased in school, not frowned upon.
Looking at ART would be a serious offence at a high school???? Are the history/art books you use at that school also censored?
I mean, sure, someone might react to it if they only saw the painting briefly flash on the screen, but surely any sort of misundersstanding could be explaineed in a grand total of 10 seconds of conversation.
Even at others, looking at art in a book about art, that happens to have naked ladies pictured, would be seen as completely different (and more obviously scholarly) than looking at naked ladies, whoever originally painted them, on the computer. Once it's on the computer, it's just Internet Porn.
What an awful, awful place to live that must be.
>>Once it's on the computer, it's just Internet Porn.
Is that like a written rule somewhere? Surely it could be explained to a person with like, 2 functional brain cells that an article about art will have a picture of said art included.
Welcome to the fundamentalist theocratic Christian hell that is (parts of) America.
> Is that like a written rule somewhere? Surely it could be explained to a person with like, 2 functional brain cells that an article about art will have a picture of said art included.
While I have personally been fortunate enough not to fall afoul of such people, I have absolutely heard from people who had to deal with librarians or other school administrator types who, whether or not they had 2 functional brain cells in other contexts, were absolutely inflexible in their treatment of students on computers.
Naturally, this would've been back in the '90s, so having computers at all was a fairly new thing, and computers with Internet access were (for a public school library) positively bleeding edge. But students doing anything on computers other than very obviously typing papers were, at best, Goofing Around With School Resources, and, if there was anything on the screen that might remotely resemble porn....frankly, that could have been enough in many places in my youth to get a student expelled, without the possibility of appeal. Today, such a reaction would be much less common, but I would not be at all shocked if there were places in the Bible Belt where it was still totally possible.
[edit: insert missing 'been']
The subject in itself is interesting, and there could probably have been a story of around 50 lines to describe the case and its resolution.
But, here, the author is professionally trying to waste your time with hundreds of useless paragraph of blabla that might have been generated automatically by an AI.
For exemple who cares that the stolen art division of the Belgian police changed its name 3 times for obvious non original names? Or that the lead investigator has a wine yard and like to offer wine to his friends and colleagues...
Here are example of time wasted to make you stay longer on the article page or to fill empty space:
"When I arrived at his eighth-floor office, overlooking the sprawling Belgian capital, he poured himself a cup while staring down at Molenbeek, which has been called by its own mayor “a fertile ground for terrorism.”"
"Belgian police first established a Bureau of Art and Antiques in 1988. Thirteen years later, when Belgium reorganized its law enforcement agencies, the unit became part of the country’s federal police force and was renamed Section Art"
"he recalled the investigation from behind his tidy desk, next to a table piled high with old case files. He wore gray slacks, a short-sleeve button-up, and the scuffed black dress shoes favored by detectives and those who play them on TV. His face served as its own good-cop-bad-cop routine: friendly, disarming smile; penetrating blue eyes."
" When Archer and his partner delivered the recovered paintings to Lorca’s daughter in Brussels, Verhaegen surprised his FBI colleagues with a special gift. “He grows his own grapes and makes his own wine,” Archer said. “We enjoyed the bottle thoroughly.”
de gustibus non est disputandum and all, but magazine writing has been ever thus, from Thoreau to Hemingway, Mailer to Wolfe.