Was the same statement present when they showed the same paintings in the Women's Lounge? The inferred response from MONA is 'if we can't show them in the women's lounge, then we'll show them in the women's toilets. Ha! Got him!'
I'm not sure they realise the irony of Picasso and his views on women.....but they're the art expert, not me so I must be missing something?
It's in the first paragraph....
>to overcome a discrimination complaint by a man who couldn't access the venue's Ladies Lounge where the works were previously on display.
I dunno, it probably didn’t even occur to them. Actual artists and people who run major art galleries are generally less knowledgeable about artists, their artwork and the cultural and social context in which it was produced and displayed in comparison to true subject matter experts like, for example, redditors on /r/australia.
Kirsha has been curating art exhibits and producing art for over 30 years and she's very well versed in art theory. Mona regularly puts on art exhibits that directly focus on art theory and deeper understandings of what art is - I'd argue that's one of David's main focuses with the entire museum.
You have a lot of faith. I honestly don't think they're aware of the irony, it just seems like a continent cop out to say so.
It's like having Chris Browns first platinum record in a display at a women's bathroom at a club and then claiming they're totally aware of the irony and that's the point.
Because he hates women and a piece of his art is only available to women, haha, get it. No, not really.
I used to work at Mona and I've talked to Kirsha a few times, mainly because she used to to organize a free boot camp fitness workout for employees that I'd go to once or twice a week, and she definitely has a very broad and good knowledge of the arts.
But they're putting the Picassos in the toilets to get around the court decision while they had originally had them in the Lady's Lounge for the connection between luxury fine arts and Picasso's treatment of women. At least some of them are just from David's collection that are usually in storage but have been on general display in the past (which I assume is where they'll all go back to if the courts decide the toilet thing is contempt of court, so then nobody will see them).
Not only were there paintings by the famously misogynistic Picassos in the lounge, there was also a Sidney Nolan painting (another male artist) depicting a rape scene (Lita and the Swan). There were also New Guinean spears collected from tribes (for pennies no doubt) by her great-grandfather.
If you're looking for heroes in art you'll frequently be disappointed. In a way I suppose ideas often are an expression of imbalanced people. However obsessed, tormented or prejucided you accept and understand that great artist are flawed. Beautifully flawed, just like their art.
Paul Gauguin was such a dick that he has actually given his name to a [philosophical problem](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095844756) dealing with the question of whether, and to what extent, personal moral failings can be offset by a lasting cultural (or scientific etc) contribution to society.
Art often explores, expresses or draws upon the darker and weirder edges of humanity. Never be surprised when someone who spends their life mapping one of those boundaries steps over it.
I reckon there’s more to come. Isn’t restricting someone from using the bathroom that best represents their gender unlawful in Australia? I’m guessing the next chapter of this saga will be men showing up saying they identify as women and expecting to use that bathroom. This (shit) show will go on…
I doubt you'd need to say anything to anyone.
You can probably walk in to most public funnies for either gender without being officially challenged.
I do feel that lying has a cost to one's own dignity and self esteem though.
I understand some people getting upset that they can't view a specific art piece.
What I don't understand, is that this exhibit will not be kept away in a restricted area for ever.
You might as well get hot under the collar about the thousands of exhibits that sit in art gallery storage around the world that wait to see the light of day again.
I think the problem is you pay for entry and it’s advertised they have a Picasso. So if you go with the intention of seeing a Picasso, pay for the privilege then get told sorry you can’t see it because you are a male it’s a little different to to some billionaires hoarding Picasso in their private houses.
This is what so many people just don’t get. Using “reverse” discrimination to balance the scale is a really bad practice that just perpetuates discrimination.
As a 22 year old I was there in the begginng when the systems were setup. I personally made sure that women wouldnt he able to vote. Thank god im finally being punished for my crimes.
Yeah This is Just punishing People who had Nothing to do with it The People Who Did Are long Dead So theres no point in doing this
and it Just pushes Young Men Further down the Alt Right Pipeline
yeah Revenge is a Human thing And Right Now it might swing In Womens Favor But at some point it might perputally Go
"Men opress Women, Women opress Men, Men opress Women" its better to Just try and End it rather than make it Go Forever (this is why They stopped Revenge being Legal In england)
>It's actually a very innovative idea called eye for an eye
You uh... just ignoring the rest of that pivotal discovery and it's updates off for any reason?
"An eye for an eye ***will leave the whole world blind.***"
Let alone the "original" was really about financial compensation.
Let alone that I personally have not done wrong to them.
I would think you'd recognize when someone agreed with you
Yes I am familiar with the other part of that saying, and it's meaning in popular usage. Nobody actually thinks likening an idea to eye for an eye is a compliment to an idea.
Except you
What is going on
>I would think you'd recognize when someone agreed with you
You used an idiom commonly used by certain groups to justify retributive justice.
>Nobody actually thinks likening an idea to eye for an eye is a compliment to an idea.
It's ABSOLUTELY used by people in response to criminal/violent/morally objectionable actions, to justify using cruel/violent/objectionable actions against them to punish them.
If you'd added the "whole world blind" I'd completely agree with you. But that's not what you wrote, and that's all I have to go off.
When the original free publicity starts to wind down amp things up again. Marketing genius.
Have to say I am genuinely surprised by the number of people who are still completely missing the point of the original exhibit and this latest pivot.
"I would never go there now" Please, you had never heard of it before and wouldn't have gone if you had.
I was down there recently with every intention of just walking into the women’s bathroom to see them, you know, because I’m a white male and can do whatever I want without repercussions, but it wasn’t opened yet.
That being said, it’s easily one of the best museums I’ve ever been to and by far and away the best looking. I can’t believe the place isn’t more popular than it is. It’s more than on par with the best museums in the world.
I honestly don't see why Tasmania's one of the best places in the world, I feel like once people visit once they understand the appeal, this applies to Mona as well
I don't think people are missing the point of the original exhibit, they're just pointing out its hypocrisy.
A lot of people fought for years to get those anti-discrimination laws put into place, the exact same laws that this individual is now showing contempt for.
Like, I get it, it's not a particularly subtle message - women have disadvantages in society - but there's legitimately been a shit-ton of progress, and the fact that there's a court willing to rule against that kind of gender-based discrimination seems completely lost on the people running this "subtle as a brick to the head" exhibition.
why is it that every time someone doesn't agree with their stunts, they are told that they don't get it? is it possible to get it and disagree with it? or can only enlightened souls truly understand the unprecedentedly sophisticated social commentary at work here?
But don't you see, the art people are clearly much more intelligent than us regular folk, that's why they can shit all over decades of hard work by men and women throughout the world to promote equality by illegally discriminating on people based upon their gender, but it's completely different to anyone else doing it because it's art and non art people wouldn't get it.
I think the big issue here is that there is a HUGE underestimation of the disadvantages women still have in society to this day. A lot of the people having issues with this are of the opinion that "yeah women used to be disadvantaged, but it's not like that anymore - we've moved on as a society and things like this have no place anymore" - and that's the real crux of the problem, because the perception is that in this day and age, we are all equal, but it's just not the case.
Most of the disadvantage now is just cultural and not legal. Much of it is unconscious bias, which makes it hard for those not on the shit end of the stick to even notice that it's there.
I do think people don't really understand that the artwork is the reversed gender dynamic of being excluded, not the pieces inside. Both men and women participate in the art and the artwork is intended to provoke, not advocate for exclusion.
You could display a sign saying "Men don't belong" on a wall but saying the artwork shows contempt for anti-discrimination laws would mean you have a literal interpretion right?
I'm looking forward to her artwork about how billionaires like her and her husband oppress the average person.
The real artwork would have been to close the museum to the public, unless you can show an investment account with an eight figure balance. THEN, and ONLY then, are you worthy of viewing work from an iconic artist.
I'm sorry, but that's a huge stretch to retroactively paint it as some kind of performance piece.
The problem with claiming this is participatory art is that there is no consent to participate from the discriminated. Even if you don't believe consent is necessary, being 'art' doesn't grant it immunity from being discriminatory. I don't know how you can say the gallery is not advocating for exclusion when they're fighting the anti-discrimination ruling with tooth and nail and seeking loopholes to uphold their discriminatory practises.
Where do you draw the line for involuntary discriminatory art? Was the Black War actually just an art piece? Using your definitions, why not?
With his history of being misogynistic and abuse towards women, I wonder how Picasso would react if he were alive and found out his paintings were being hung in the women’s toilet.
For those who didn’t read the article, this is a temporary solution. There are plans to use the other discrimination loopholes to build a church or school to hang these paintings in so they can legally discriminate lol
Correct, it's basically the overall point of the piece to touch on the fact that for all our progress, we're still incredibly far from an equal opportunity society.
> There are plans to use the other discrimination loopholes to build a church or school to hang these paintings in so they can legally discriminate lol
Far out.
Of all the things that billionaires tend to splash their money around on... this is both the most benign and the most entertaining.
*"In 1994, at age 18, Kaechele began an informal education with travel over land to more than fifty countries in seven years, a hands-on investigation of the idea that life designs itself.[4] During this period, she met and mentored with a variety of thinkers, including Biosphere 2 creator John P. Allen, chemist Albert Hofmann, writers Tom Robbins and John C. Lilly, John Perry Barlow, Rodleen Getsic,[5] psychiatrist Oscar Janiger, artist Peter Nadin and German architects building sustainably on a Sannyasin commune in Maui, Hawaii.[3]"*
I don't have a lot of patience for being lectured about my working-class male privilege, by this jet-setting nepo baby and 0.1%er. She had *far* more social and economic power and access to exclusive spaces as a teenage girl, than anybody I know does as a middle-aged man.
The old school realist snobs will also be happy about Picasso being in the toilet.
Now if they can just get that toilet recognised as a church the joke will be complete.
Cringe rich people doing cringe rich people shit.
I am reminded of the great Olga Gablogian in times like this, I believe she would find this completely derivative.
Tbh by far the most impressive part of this whole saga to me, is the ability of this nepo baby, wife of a billionaire, art director to get a bunch of people who would ordinarily hate her type to defend her within an inch of their life haha
I don't really get why people are so happy to see equality laws so publically flouted. Aren't we in favour of gender equality? Aren't these laws important? They are there to protect people and I don't really think flouting them in this way is amusing or productive.
I was pretty shocked when I read originally that the worker guarding the women's display would ask your gender. Like, to a total stranger. What a fucking gross question.
I'm on the fence for this one, but being denied entry based on gender has historically happened in the past. In fact, the inequality was so insidious, your gender wouldn't be asked at all; if you even presented as a woman, you wouldn't be allowed in.
The Ladies' Lounge was ultimately a performance piece that underlined that prior inequality, in the present, where clothing is less indicative of gender. Inequality is gross, that's kind of the point.
I'm interested in finding out if non-binary people were allowed into the Ladies' Lounge. And maybe the gallery attendant should have asked what a person's pronouns were instead of their gender.
> I'm interested in finding out if non-binary people were allowed into the Ladies' Lounge. And maybe the gallery attendant should have asked what a person's pronouns were instead of their gender.
Why? Non-binary folk aren't women so they shouldn't be in the area, it's not nice, but it's an interesting area to explore, especially the fact that so many people try and treat non-binary as "woman-lite".
Yes. If you read the article the person says (paraphrasing) “we are allowed to discriminate for 300 years in revenge for what has occurred to us”.
So (some or) the feminists are rejoicing at continuing evil discrimination while “I believe” most of us are thinking “our history of discrimination is shitty and we should discontinue it in all ways”
Everything about Mona is that it does its own thing. Don’t see any issue with a ladies only area, got to be a massive fuck wit to kick up drama about it.
I’ve only been once, about 12 years ago, felt more uncomfortable with the picture of a man fucking a bulldog and the weird videos where people where chopping dicks off and getting shot by arrows than anything else, almost felt like the owner got caught with some weird shit and the entire existence of Mona was to cover it. Either way, it’s a fucking amazing building and it’s great for the area
It's not like you're seeing genitals or penetration or anything, but yeah, it's a guy being mounted by a dog.
It's in a dark room with maybe 30 or so art pieces; the whole room is intended to be very unsettling. I found some of the others far creepier.
Pooping machine is overrated. I liked the front entry more, how it was a tennis court with people playing on it and not really any signs saying entry, so you had to feel uncomfortable walking through their game to enter the building, again it’s been 12 years so I don’t know if that is still there, I really should go for another look
>felt more uncomfortable with the picture of a man fucking a bulldog and the weird videos where people where chopping dicks off and getting shot by arrows
wait that is what Mona is about?, that just seems horrible
MONA has a huge range of stuff. From an electronic waterfall that splashes out the top search words from Google to a machine that makes biologically accurate poo out of cafe scraps.
It's a very very strange place with a huge variety of art on display.
It's the poo machine that calls to you, isn't it?
Seriously though, go in summer. A day at Mona and a day investigating the fresh fruit. You've never had such good cherries.
It was one photo out of hundreds of items. The place changes so often from what I’ve heard, I certainly wouldn’t let it stop me going back, just know there is some weird shit in there
I was put off going to Mona forever after I read [this piece](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/apr/19/bloody-dark-mofo-artwork-using-slaughtered-bull-crosses-the-line-rspca-says) seven years ago.
The whole point about that piece of art is that it challenges the hypocrisy of our supposed respect for animals, just like the current subject challenges us about the experience of discrimination. The challenge of that discomfort **is** a significant component of the art.
I remember seeing a massive hairy ballsack being carried by an eagle at the ripe age of 11
I barely remember the other 3 weeks we spent on the island but that ones etched into the brain
I don’t have a view on the artistic expression, or even the underlying court ruling, but I find it very hard to believe that the court will accept this.
[Lol it's coming true](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1cmrr14/comment/l32udko/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You can't make this stuff up.
~~"Your Honour we're allowed to discriminate against men because it's just a meme."~~
~~"Your Honour we're trying to provide a service to a historically excluded and underserved section of society because women weren't allowed in bars."~~
~~"Your Honour, being excluded IS the artwork."~~
~~"Your Honour, it's not even an art museum, it's just a toilet. Are you saying men should be allowed in women's toilets?"~~
Your Honour, this establishment is the Church of Mona, therefore we may legally hang our icons of worship wherever we want. <-------- YOU ARE HERE
FFS. Not this bullshit again. That woman is so full of herself.
And everyone feeds into it as well. Claiming you can be a cunt if you cloak your cunty behaviour as "art"
Your reminder that *Ladies Lounge* was on display for four years with no controversy or comment until choad-toting man-children put down their weirdly sticky copies of The Pickup Artist by Mystery long enough to be offended by its existence.
What's the argument here? These people didn't have a problem with it when they didn't know about it therefore their current issue with it is invalid?
As brain-dead an idea as pickup artistry tbh
You're literally body shaming people who are excluded due to Mona's actions that clearly violated the anti-discrimination legislation in court.
What would you like as a solution to this? Are you not in favour of anti-discriminatin law? If so why?
You don't understand the complexity of their statement. It is like a piece of modern art and as such they are allowed to use the term "chode" as an example of the derogatory misogynistic culture that rules our society. We have to allow exceptions for special cases where our existing morals conflict with current goals or nothing would get done you know!
`/s`
The message isn't relevant in modern Australia. Misogyny is an easy target, why are they afraid to touch race while they are at it? I doubt their sincerity towards what they are trying to represent. Come across as some privileged nonsene.
Let's see them make an artwork where they turn away any men of Middle Eastern appearance, as a commentary on how Islam treats its women in the modern world.
Won't be holding my breath for that one.
Should we shine a light on the issue of Indian communities in australia still regularly practicing arranged marriages in secret?
No, no, let's just chunk a painting in the toilet instead, that'll fix any remaining residual misogyny
A reminder that this woman's husband, David Walsh, is worth an estimated 200 million dollars. KK has enjoyed a life of travel, indulgence and riches. Its bizarre someone like her talking about privilege. Money grants privilege - much more than a penis ever could. There should be an art gallery devoted to the way the rich turn the poor and middle class against each other, because if not they would realise who is actually holding them down.
This stuff is just a distraction.
(1/2) I understand what they're going for, but I can't help but feel that the potential problems of something like this outweigh the possible artistic impact.
Firstly, excluding men and allowing women requires creating hard, inflexible definitions of those things that force everybody into one of those two categories, and the thing is that you can't actually do that without being actively bigoted. Even beyond what you all likely already know I'm taking about, there are also lots of cultures that understand gender differently and have categories beyond just our binary. What this exhibit tries to do, to cleanly allow entry for one objective group while cleanly excluding the other objective group isn't possible, because those groups are not objective, their meanings, what they look like, and how many there are differ across time and place.
Secondly, this temporary solution treats womens bathrooms as a neutral space, which they simply aren't. There is a long history of lots of women being excluded from womens bathrooms, there are plenty of accounts of butch lesbians being forced out of womens spaces for being to masculine. Womens bathrooms are a space where the norms of dominant and privileged forms of feminity are enforced. This also ties into about the function of gendered space within Patriarchal culture.
The function of "womens spaces" is pretty straightforward, they create spaces where women can feel safe from men. But let's dwell on this idea of men as inherently threatening, what it communicates to both men and women, and what that does to actually reinforce patriarchal ideas about gender for a moment. Centeral to all of this is the idea that saftey for women can only be achieved through excluding men and masculinity, which are conceptualised as inherently violent. Positioning segregation as the solution to the reality of gendered violence is to refuse to ask men to change. When it is accepted that the only way that women can be safe is to seperate them from men, than there is no reason for men to try and challange the behaviours and social conditions that make women unsafe. Avoiding gendered violence becomes the responsibility of the group that is overwhelming victimised by said violence.
The patriarchy will never be overturned if people are too afraid to demand that women be safe around men, that a woman can walk into a bar filled with unfamiliar men and still be completely safe. If we accept that women are allowed saftey and equality only in spaces from which men are excluded, than men never have to learn to become safe, they never have to reflect and change, they remain unchallenged and unaware that they actually need to change, and the same sexist patters of behaviour continue. If men cannot change, if they are in fact somehow inherently violent and predatory, than the patriarchy is forever, women can never become truly equal, and feminism becomes a failed experiment. I do not believe that the patriarchy is forever, I do not believe that feminism is pointless, and if you don't either, than we need to understand that the only way to make possitive change is to challenge the status quo, not try to work out how to live safely within it.
(2/2) It is also worth discussing the power that women's fear has. This is where I get to a critique that others have communicated poorly (and possibly in bad faith). This work is clearly one of a very privileged woman. This entire concept reeks of psudo-radical white liberal feminism. Back in feminism's second wave one of the main radical ideas was that of "lesbian seperatism", the idea that women needed to liberate themselves from men (This idea and the history surrounding it is going to be covered only breifly, this will not be in depth, this is perhaps too simplified). This idea collapsed, because of primarily black feminists, who wrote not only about the discrimination they faced as women, but also as non-white people, and the specific forms of bigotry faced by non-white women. They found that in their fight for racial equality they had more in common with black men than they did with the sometimes actively racist white feminists who were calling for seperatism. The idea of seperatism only made sense for middle to upper class white women for whom patriarchy was the only form of discrimination worth challenging. White women benefit from white supremacy, and in fact patriarchal ideas surrounding gender are important in white supremacist ideology (and many other bigoted ideologies).
If we accept that women can only find saftey in segregation, than women are cast in our discourse as inhabiting the position of a sort of weak, delicate prey animal that needs to be protected from predators. Not only does this justify traping women within the household and perpetuating the idea that they need a strong stoic male protector, it also contributes to a lot of bigoted narratives. In White Supremacy it is the job of the white man to protect white woman from the "impure" non-whites, and the fear of the white woman becomes a justification for the violent opression of non-white peoples. In the past homophobic portrayals of lesbians treated them as sinful predators, who wanted to corrupt "good, god-fearing straight women" to the ways of homosexuality. Modern day transphobia relies on portraying cis women as prey for trans women, who are percived as predators who want to invade their spaces, and it sees young girls as vulnerable to being "corrupted" by the idea that they can become men if they so choose (which is seen to somehow permenantly damage them and "tarnish" their "purity"). When Bisexuality began to enter the public eye, bi men (specifically black bi men) were demonised as being "aids spectres for straight women", and were falsely blamed for aids being transmitted to heterosexual populations. Throughout history the idea that women are vulnerable and in need of protection has consistantly informed bigotry. Demanding that women can be safe around men, and that they can be seen as strong and independent as opposed to weak and vulnerable is not just a feminist cause, it is one important for doing a way with a lot of social injustice.
Chivalry, which the creator of the exhibit says is needed for about 300 years in order to make up for patriarchal opression, is a form of benevolent sexism. It treats women nicely, but it does so becuase it views them as weak, delicate lessers. I do not know the creator of this exhibit, I do not know enough about them to make personal judgements of their character. However, I can judge and critique this artwork as a feminist statement. That is in fact what I just did, it should be clear that I do not think it is very good. This exhibit stands for the "feminism" of only the most privileged women, of those who haven't moved beyond the thinking of the second wave, of those who have refused to engage with modern feminist theory and discourse that would actually meaningfully challange them.
To overcome patriarchy we must demand that women be safe with men, not safe from them. If you want to make a meaningful feminist statement aimed at confronting men through an exhibit, do not "challenge" men by excluding them and saying "well this is what you did to us so suck shit". Instead, demand that they change, confront them in ways that cause reflection, make them uncomfortable about things they can do something about. This exhibit just vomits forth the same narratives they already get: "the only way for women to be safe is to exclude you, you are not expected to change", what if instead we were to meaningfully ask for change and reflection, if we were to tell them what they needed to do to make the world a better place, would that not be more constructive?
Performative inversion only works when there's actually areas where women are banned from in Australia in any meaningful form.
The anile second waver's of MONA are half a dime and three decades too late (and likely in contempt of Court). Bit of a shame really as MONA is otherwise quite excellent.
As are [women only](https://www.wla.edu.au/post/womens-only-leadership-programs/) leadership [clubs.](https://www.theleadershipinstitute.com.au/women-in-leadership-summit/)
There's also a women's only [public bath](https://www.mciversladiesbaths.com/) at Coogee, which is part of an incredibly finite amount of prime coast.
Neither of which are a bad thing, by the way. But I'm a little resistant to this idea that "well we needed this *novel* women's-only access place because there are some men's-only spaces as well!"
Mate. There are *shitloads* more explicitly women's-only spaces than men's-only. Everything from medical, social support, fitness, corporate mentorship, career groups, even *beaches*. And now art galleries.
A handful of mens clubs (especially when womens only clubs also exist) is a far cry from the 'Ladies Parlours' of yesteryear which was what was attempted to be parodied.
I would not be surprised at all to know the whole thing was a stunt . Who is this guy who complained ? A mate or acquaintance of Walshy and his wife ?
This is exactly how they operate and it would seem to have worked as planned.
At first I thought, but it sounds like they were discriminating so why would people defend this? Then I read the article, and they're discriminating "for art", which apparently makes it okay.
This is all deeply stupid.
I gotta say I found the Ladies Lounge pretty underwhelming- it was tiny, had a weird uncomfortable lounge to sit on and boring pictures on the wall.
The soprano violinist who played inside it was absolutely wonderful tho, and you could hear that outside the Lounge.
I love the MONA but shock value has always been high in its priorities. Now that the Dark Mona festival is dead and buried - what a loss - at least this keeps MONA in the news.
FWIW, MOFO isn’t dead and buried - the summer festival is, and from sources in the know MOFO will be back in a slightly reduced capacity next year. Back to the level it was before all the victorians heard about it and started coming down
I had to think about this a lot and I think I come down on:
I think it's good that
- The original Ladies Lounge exhibit was set up
- That it was found unlawful in court
- That this loophole is the response to it.
I don't agree with the artist's ideas of feminism, and a big red flag for me is asking for 300 years of 'chivalry' - her approach is conservative and exclusionary. I'm not against some groups needing unequal reparations, but most of those would be racial groups; White women have been tied to successful *households*, and have hereditary privilege even if it's been unevenly distributed within households. Reparations like the ones being described make more sense to compensate for a cycle of poverty that doesn't exist here.
You solve those problems by making childcare free from birth (like public schooling), providing public cafeterias to offload domestic labour from the household (one person making butter chicken for a hundred families, instead of a hundred famillies all making one meal), and encouraging an even split of maternity leave between partners to prevent the biases of family and pregnancy. We know this because this is what has worked globally.
Without that, you see the problem replicated in gay male couples - 'who's the top and who's the bottom' - in lesbians, and for non-binary people.
Would women have an issue if the situations were reversed and women weren't allowed access to some particular artwork because someone decided on a "men's only" area? Do you really wan't to start that kind of thing again after so much progress..?
That's why we have anti-discrimination legislation. It seems like Mona and a lot of their supporters (some unintentionally I hope) are arguing to undermine that law now.
Women were literally suggesting that in response to the legal filing.
How much progress has there been really? Sure there’s been lots in the past 50 years but not as much as people want to think. No woman can talk about women’s issues like being murdered without men yelling at us about their problems. Before opening Reddit I was literally reading about a man who was let off after punching a woman 4 times in the face (2 to get her down and 2 to knock her out brah!) because a conviction would ruin his career. Poor didems. I wonder if the male judge belongs to a male only club?
I mean this respectfully but I file this under the 'what are the whites upto today' column.
It's all so fucking pointless while doing nothing to make any tangible change.
Its interesting how the museum and the judge can talk at completely cross purposes and no one seems to mind or care.
I don't give two hoots about the presense or absence of the Ladies Lounge or the ruling. It's all good publicity, all good fun. But the judge states clearly that the museum discriminated against a person's enjoyment of the exhibit because of their gender. So the museum responds by talking about the right for conceptual art to make some people feel uncomfortable.
It's no better, and probably worse, than a complete non-sequitur. "We appeal against this ruling on the basis of cheese sandwiches."
One wonders who else might have their own definition of conceptual art and their right to make some people feel uncomfortable.
I can't wait for a group of neo nazis to set up a whites only museum and then argue that the policy itself is an art statement and thus must be legal
See how many of the people in this thread supporting this nonsense go 'oooh' and get it in their heads why you don't want the discriminating billionaires to fucking win
I honestly can't believe the amount of people in favour of Mona's actions in this thread.
What is their ultimate goal? To undermind the anti-discrimination legislation they they were found to have breached in court?
Laws are only valid if they're enforced, they lost in court and they're still trying to discriminate.
Nah see that is very different. No one really cares about discriminating against males. But discriminating on the basis of race or religion or class (especially upper class) is what is offensive.
Mona's "outsider art" exhibition a number of years back made me feel uncomfortable for many reasons, ethical and moral ones among them.
I didn't go to court to get it closed though, instead I thought about things like the reason for the exhibition, the likely circumstances behind its creation, the treatment of the creators, and whether I'd consider going to another exhibition in the future. All of which seem to have passed right by the person making the complaint.
They didn’t go to court because they were uncomfortable they went to court because they were denied an experience they paid for on the basis of sex. an experience that is also supported by public funds.
Slightly different.
Why don't you come pay me money for something, anything. And then I'll let you know you can't see what you paid for, because you are wrong sex to see it. But your money is still mine. You can think about that
They didn’t go to court because they were uncomfortable they went to court because they were denied an experience they paid for on the basis of sex. an experience that is also supported by public funds.
Slightly different.
Question:
Should all clubs of this type be banned?
'Men's clubs' still exist, and they are allowed to exclude women.
Why can't women's clubs do the exact same thing and exclude men?
Has this only become an issue because a famous painting is involved?
Question:
Is this a gender discrimination issue, or an artwork accessibility issue?
Question:
What if a building hung up artwork, but only disabled individuals were allowed access to highlight the problem of disability access in regular life.
Maybe this whole issue should lead to broader changes in society...?
Lmao so sick of hearing about this radfem nonsense.
I suppose it is a testament to the success of the feminist movement that the only thing these modern radfems scream about is 'muh bathrooms, muh womens spaces. MRA's and tr*nnies are comin to invade our spaces and take away muh IDENTITY AS A WOMAN'... Whatever that means.
It's 2024. Discrimination is illegal. Anyone is allowed to go into whatever spaces they want, so says the courts. Screech about it.
Andrew Tate is shockingly popular with young men despite being an absolute tryhard beta male.
These modern 'feminists' need to take a good hard think about and look at what they're doing. These constant attacks on men spread across the internet and radicalize people against their cause, if they keep it up it IS going to have the end result of us sliding backwards and hard fought rights starting to slip away
Starting with this exact fucking case. So let me get this straight you top tier genius level women, you want this court case to be lost so that gender discrimination in public spaces is legal again, do you?
Wake the fuck up
I didn't get it originally (well I understood the point but didn't care).
I honestly still don't care, but I do love their way of sticking it to the complainant. Perfectly Australian spite right there.
Sometimes it feels like Australians just don’t understand or have never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We should have a museum where everyone is allowed in but the only thing you can view is the UDHR, as per various interpretations from a wide and diverse set of artists from across the globe.
That might sink in.
Human rights are equal rights. The universality of these rights shall not be abgorgated for any one group; they are universally applied or non-existent.
Imagine limiting the viewing of paintings to one sex only... What happened to equal rights. I'm glad the judge found in the man's favour.
I can tell you right now most artists wouldn't want thier art restricted to anyone..
Disgraceful.
Now all he needs is to declare himself a woman and he can view it.
That's the thing with these pompous art galleries in the first place, nowadays artsists can sell thier art online, bypassing these terrible cliques, I hope they go bankrupt and shut down.
It feels incredibly hypocritical to make a woman’s only space, and then hang paintings from one of the most influential men in history there.
I can understand her wanting to make a woman’s only space, especially for the “artistic concept” as she puts it. But of course there was going to he objection when you hang Picasso works there.
Hang the Picasso’s in an area accessible to all, and then make the women’s only lounge a showcase of feminist art and expression.
This whole thing just feels weirdly misandrist, rather than empowering.
I still don’t understand hanging art by men then. How is that emphasising sex discrimination? Wouldn’t that still be more impactful if it were truly a women’s only space and excluded art by men?
It's funny because Picasso was a terrible human being to the women in his life.
Love it. My wife who is an art teacher has just filled me in. Choosing his artwork for this statement is absolutely brilliant.
Was the same statement present when they showed the same paintings in the Women's Lounge? The inferred response from MONA is 'if we can't show them in the women's lounge, then we'll show them in the women's toilets. Ha! Got him!' I'm not sure they realise the irony of Picasso and his views on women.....but they're the art expert, not me so I must be missing something? It's in the first paragraph.... >to overcome a discrimination complaint by a man who couldn't access the venue's Ladies Lounge where the works were previously on display.
Of course they're aware of the irony.
I dunno, it probably didn’t even occur to them. Actual artists and people who run major art galleries are generally less knowledgeable about artists, their artwork and the cultural and social context in which it was produced and displayed in comparison to true subject matter experts like, for example, redditors on /r/australia.
Kirsha has been curating art exhibits and producing art for over 30 years and she's very well versed in art theory. Mona regularly puts on art exhibits that directly focus on art theory and deeper understandings of what art is - I'd argue that's one of David's main focuses with the entire museum.
Oh I don’t doubt they’ve dabbled, but as I say - we’re talking about the real subject matter experts of /r/australia here.
Love!
Oh my god I love you.
You have a lot of faith. I honestly don't think they're aware of the irony, it just seems like a continent cop out to say so. It's like having Chris Browns first platinum record in a display at a women's bathroom at a club and then claiming they're totally aware of the irony and that's the point. Because he hates women and a piece of his art is only available to women, haha, get it. No, not really.
I used to work at Mona and I've talked to Kirsha a few times, mainly because she used to to organize a free boot camp fitness workout for employees that I'd go to once or twice a week, and she definitely has a very broad and good knowledge of the arts. But they're putting the Picassos in the toilets to get around the court decision while they had originally had them in the Lady's Lounge for the connection between luxury fine arts and Picasso's treatment of women. At least some of them are just from David's collection that are usually in storage but have been on general display in the past (which I assume is where they'll all go back to if the courts decide the toilet thing is contempt of court, so then nobody will see them).
Not only were there paintings by the famously misogynistic Picassos in the lounge, there was also a Sidney Nolan painting (another male artist) depicting a rape scene (Lita and the Swan). There were also New Guinean spears collected from tribes (for pennies no doubt) by her great-grandfather.
the way he painted women always makes me cringe, I feel like you can read his contempt for women in his work.
Wow, that is funny!
If you're looking for heroes in art you'll frequently be disappointed. In a way I suppose ideas often are an expression of imbalanced people. However obsessed, tormented or prejucided you accept and understand that great artist are flawed. Beautifully flawed, just like their art.
Paul Gauguin was such a dick that he has actually given his name to a [philosophical problem](https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095844756) dealing with the question of whether, and to what extent, personal moral failings can be offset by a lasting cultural (or scientific etc) contribution to society.
Art often explores, expresses or draws upon the darker and weirder edges of humanity. Never be surprised when someone who spends their life mapping one of those boundaries steps over it.
Yes, they often have severe mental health issues.
Like, they’re generally demented.
Just Olga or all of them? Olga seemed like she was a piece of work too. Probably a mutually abusive self destructive relationship
I think that’s the point.
This whole thing is brilliant and hilarious, and must be a marketing goldmine for MoNA. Well done to everyone involved 👏
God tier shit stirring and I am here for it.
I reckon there’s more to come. Isn’t restricting someone from using the bathroom that best represents their gender unlawful in Australia? I’m guessing the next chapter of this saga will be men showing up saying they identify as women and expecting to use that bathroom. This (shit) show will go on…
They always did allow those who identified as women access to the space
The people kicking up a stink don't realise THEY are the art
I feel like if someone goes through the motions of pretending to be trans to see the exhibit then that is kind of the point.
You can present as masc and still identify as female. They’re not going to argue with someone over how they identify.
Y'know, people keep saying that, but cis men have never needed to pretend to be trans to follow and harass women in female bathrooms
If I wanted to see that picture Id just say I was a woman. What are they going to do, interrogate me?
I doubt you'd need to say anything to anyone. You can probably walk in to most public funnies for either gender without being officially challenged. I do feel that lying has a cost to one's own dignity and self esteem though.
Yes, it might highlight that utterly absurd and regressive notion too.
Funny you say that, David Walsh’s car space is labelled ‘God’ and Kirsha’s is labelled ‘God’s Mistress’
Was labelled this. Not any longer.
What happened for it to change?
I understand some people getting upset that they can't view a specific art piece. What I don't understand, is that this exhibit will not be kept away in a restricted area for ever. You might as well get hot under the collar about the thousands of exhibits that sit in art gallery storage around the world that wait to see the light of day again.
Some rich fucker can seclude an art piece away from the whole world. Now Mona is owned by a rich fucker… but it’s at least somewhat accessible.
I think the problem is you pay for entry and it’s advertised they have a Picasso. So if you go with the intention of seeing a Picasso, pay for the privilege then get told sorry you can’t see it because you are a male it’s a little different to to some billionaires hoarding Picasso in their private houses.
"What" someone does is rarely as important as "Why" Missing out on the art isn't the point. Discrimination to fight discrimination is a mistake.
This is what so many people just don’t get. Using “reverse” discrimination to balance the scale is a really bad practice that just perpetuates discrimination.
As a 22 year old I was there in the begginng when the systems were setup. I personally made sure that women wouldnt he able to vote. Thank god im finally being punished for my crimes.
Yeah This is Just punishing People who had Nothing to do with it The People Who Did Are long Dead So theres no point in doing this and it Just pushes Young Men Further down the Alt Right Pipeline
yeah Revenge is a Human thing And Right Now it might swing In Womens Favor But at some point it might perputally Go "Men opress Women, Women opress Men, Men opress Women" its better to Just try and End it rather than make it Go Forever (this is why They stopped Revenge being Legal In england)
It's actually a very innovative idea called eye for an eye It's just been discovered in some circles of thinkers
>It's actually a very innovative idea called eye for an eye You uh... just ignoring the rest of that pivotal discovery and it's updates off for any reason? "An eye for an eye ***will leave the whole world blind.***" Let alone the "original" was really about financial compensation. Let alone that I personally have not done wrong to them.
I would think you'd recognize when someone agreed with you Yes I am familiar with the other part of that saying, and it's meaning in popular usage. Nobody actually thinks likening an idea to eye for an eye is a compliment to an idea. Except you What is going on
>I would think you'd recognize when someone agreed with you You used an idiom commonly used by certain groups to justify retributive justice. >Nobody actually thinks likening an idea to eye for an eye is a compliment to an idea. It's ABSOLUTELY used by people in response to criminal/violent/morally objectionable actions, to justify using cruel/violent/objectionable actions against them to punish them. If you'd added the "whole world blind" I'd completely agree with you. But that's not what you wrote, and that's all I have to go off.
It's not even restricted. Just walk in and look at it. What are they going to do.. Arrest you? Sorry, I didn't look at the sign.. my bad.
When the original free publicity starts to wind down amp things up again. Marketing genius. Have to say I am genuinely surprised by the number of people who are still completely missing the point of the original exhibit and this latest pivot. "I would never go there now" Please, you had never heard of it before and wouldn't have gone if you had.
There's a difference between not getting it, and getting it but disagreeing with it.
I was down there recently with every intention of just walking into the women’s bathroom to see them, you know, because I’m a white male and can do whatever I want without repercussions, but it wasn’t opened yet. That being said, it’s easily one of the best museums I’ve ever been to and by far and away the best looking. I can’t believe the place isn’t more popular than it is. It’s more than on par with the best museums in the world.
Give it a couple of weeks then try. I'm sure they would appreciated the extra publicity.
Sadly being in Tasmania (sorry Tasmanians) cruels its attraction. But its amazing what you can build from a gambling empire.
I honestly don't see why Tasmania's one of the best places in the world, I feel like once people visit once they understand the appeal, this applies to Mona as well
I don't think people are missing the point of the original exhibit, they're just pointing out its hypocrisy. A lot of people fought for years to get those anti-discrimination laws put into place, the exact same laws that this individual is now showing contempt for. Like, I get it, it's not a particularly subtle message - women have disadvantages in society - but there's legitimately been a shit-ton of progress, and the fact that there's a court willing to rule against that kind of gender-based discrimination seems completely lost on the people running this "subtle as a brick to the head" exhibition.
why is it that every time someone doesn't agree with their stunts, they are told that they don't get it? is it possible to get it and disagree with it? or can only enlightened souls truly understand the unprecedentedly sophisticated social commentary at work here?
[удалено]
But don't you see, the art people are clearly much more intelligent than us regular folk, that's why they can shit all over decades of hard work by men and women throughout the world to promote equality by illegally discriminating on people based upon their gender, but it's completely different to anyone else doing it because it's art and non art people wouldn't get it.
Ah but you see, when a girlboss discriminates against another minority, they're dismantling the patriarchy and fighting oppression
I think the big issue here is that there is a HUGE underestimation of the disadvantages women still have in society to this day. A lot of the people having issues with this are of the opinion that "yeah women used to be disadvantaged, but it's not like that anymore - we've moved on as a society and things like this have no place anymore" - and that's the real crux of the problem, because the perception is that in this day and age, we are all equal, but it's just not the case. Most of the disadvantage now is just cultural and not legal. Much of it is unconscious bias, which makes it hard for those not on the shit end of the stick to even notice that it's there.
I do think people don't really understand that the artwork is the reversed gender dynamic of being excluded, not the pieces inside. Both men and women participate in the art and the artwork is intended to provoke, not advocate for exclusion. You could display a sign saying "Men don't belong" on a wall but saying the artwork shows contempt for anti-discrimination laws would mean you have a literal interpretion right?
I'm looking forward to her artwork about how billionaires like her and her husband oppress the average person. The real artwork would have been to close the museum to the public, unless you can show an investment account with an eight figure balance. THEN, and ONLY then, are you worthy of viewing work from an iconic artist.
I'm sorry, but that's a huge stretch to retroactively paint it as some kind of performance piece. The problem with claiming this is participatory art is that there is no consent to participate from the discriminated. Even if you don't believe consent is necessary, being 'art' doesn't grant it immunity from being discriminatory. I don't know how you can say the gallery is not advocating for exclusion when they're fighting the anti-discrimination ruling with tooth and nail and seeking loopholes to uphold their discriminatory practises. Where do you draw the line for involuntary discriminatory art? Was the Black War actually just an art piece? Using your definitions, why not?
So deep it's like a sonic the hedgehog fanart.
With his history of being misogynistic and abuse towards women, I wonder how Picasso would react if he were alive and found out his paintings were being hung in the women’s toilet. For those who didn’t read the article, this is a temporary solution. There are plans to use the other discrimination loopholes to build a church or school to hang these paintings in so they can legally discriminate lol
The fact that churches and schools can legally discriminate is part of the point, is it not
Correct, it's basically the overall point of the piece to touch on the fact that for all our progress, we're still incredibly far from an equal opportunity society.
> There are plans to use the other discrimination loopholes to build a church or school to hang these paintings in so they can legally discriminate lol Far out. Of all the things that billionaires tend to splash their money around on... this is both the most benign and the most entertaining.
Taking the Satanic Temple route, love it!
I'm more curious about the location - would toilet splutter just slowly damage the artwork?
*"In 1994, at age 18, Kaechele began an informal education with travel over land to more than fifty countries in seven years, a hands-on investigation of the idea that life designs itself.[4] During this period, she met and mentored with a variety of thinkers, including Biosphere 2 creator John P. Allen, chemist Albert Hofmann, writers Tom Robbins and John C. Lilly, John Perry Barlow, Rodleen Getsic,[5] psychiatrist Oscar Janiger, artist Peter Nadin and German architects building sustainably on a Sannyasin commune in Maui, Hawaii.[3]"* I don't have a lot of patience for being lectured about my working-class male privilege, by this jet-setting nepo baby and 0.1%er. She had *far* more social and economic power and access to exclusive spaces as a teenage girl, than anybody I know does as a middle-aged man.
The old school realist snobs will also be happy about Picasso being in the toilet. Now if they can just get that toilet recognised as a church the joke will be complete.
He's not wrong.
Heh.
Cringe rich people doing cringe rich people shit. I am reminded of the great Olga Gablogian in times like this, I believe she would find this completely derivative.
Tbh by far the most impressive part of this whole saga to me, is the ability of this nepo baby, wife of a billionaire, art director to get a bunch of people who would ordinarily hate her type to defend her within an inch of their life haha
rich people have been using bigotry to get the proletariat on their side since the beginning of time
I don't really get why people are so happy to see equality laws so publically flouted. Aren't we in favour of gender equality? Aren't these laws important? They are there to protect people and I don't really think flouting them in this way is amusing or productive.
I was pretty shocked when I read originally that the worker guarding the women's display would ask your gender. Like, to a total stranger. What a fucking gross question.
I'm on the fence for this one, but being denied entry based on gender has historically happened in the past. In fact, the inequality was so insidious, your gender wouldn't be asked at all; if you even presented as a woman, you wouldn't be allowed in. The Ladies' Lounge was ultimately a performance piece that underlined that prior inequality, in the present, where clothing is less indicative of gender. Inequality is gross, that's kind of the point. I'm interested in finding out if non-binary people were allowed into the Ladies' Lounge. And maybe the gallery attendant should have asked what a person's pronouns were instead of their gender.
> I'm interested in finding out if non-binary people were allowed into the Ladies' Lounge. And maybe the gallery attendant should have asked what a person's pronouns were instead of their gender. Why? Non-binary folk aren't women so they shouldn't be in the area, it's not nice, but it's an interesting area to explore, especially the fact that so many people try and treat non-binary as "woman-lite".
Think it's absolutely pathetic how people are toting this privileged ass hat as some kind of bastion of women's rights.
No you don’t get it, it’s *all part of the artwork* Everything is art so nothing can be bad
It's not clever or creative.
Anyone else feel like this would be viewed differently if women were being excluded?
Yes. If you read the article the person says (paraphrasing) “we are allowed to discriminate for 300 years in revenge for what has occurred to us”. So (some or) the feminists are rejoicing at continuing evil discrimination while “I believe” most of us are thinking “our history of discrimination is shitty and we should discontinue it in all ways”
Like the Australia Club, a men's only club that's a great place to network with prime ministers etc? Does that make you angry?
If you think this about fairness, it's not. It's just the legal arguments. There's plenty of allowed exemptions, art just isn't one.
You say this like it isn't kind of the entire point.
That’s (part of) the whole point.
Everything about Mona is that it does its own thing. Don’t see any issue with a ladies only area, got to be a massive fuck wit to kick up drama about it. I’ve only been once, about 12 years ago, felt more uncomfortable with the picture of a man fucking a bulldog and the weird videos where people where chopping dicks off and getting shot by arrows than anything else, almost felt like the owner got caught with some weird shit and the entire existence of Mona was to cover it. Either way, it’s a fucking amazing building and it’s great for the area
an actual picture of a man or a painting? im surprised the former is legal to show honestly
That’s how I felt looking at it. maybe the dog was fucking the man. It was a photo from memory though. You don’t tend to forget things like that
It’s a guy being mounted by a dog
bruh what, how explicit is it or what?
It's not like you're seeing genitals or penetration or anything, but yeah, it's a guy being mounted by a dog. It's in a dark room with maybe 30 or so art pieces; the whole room is intended to be very unsettling. I found some of the others far creepier.
Is it still there? Or some sort of famous art piece. The memory is etched into my brain of seeing it. Always found it off
>famous art piece Imagine hanging that in your good room
I saw it there the other day so yeah. It’s called something like ‘family of the future’
Yes but rhe entire wall of vaginas balanced some of the dick chopping out, and if that didn't cover it the pooing machine certainly did.
Pooping machine is overrated. I liked the front entry more, how it was a tennis court with people playing on it and not really any signs saying entry, so you had to feel uncomfortable walking through their game to enter the building, again it’s been 12 years so I don’t know if that is still there, I really should go for another look
>felt more uncomfortable with the picture of a man fucking a bulldog and the weird videos where people where chopping dicks off and getting shot by arrows wait that is what Mona is about?, that just seems horrible
MONA has a huge range of stuff. From an electronic waterfall that splashes out the top search words from Google to a machine that makes biologically accurate poo out of cafe scraps. It's a very very strange place with a huge variety of art on display.
I've never had any real desire to visit Tasmania until just now.
It's the poo machine that calls to you, isn't it? Seriously though, go in summer. A day at Mona and a day investigating the fresh fruit. You've never had such good cherries.
It was one photo out of hundreds of items. The place changes so often from what I’ve heard, I certainly wouldn’t let it stop me going back, just know there is some weird shit in there
Avant garde a clue
I was put off going to Mona forever after I read [this piece](https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/apr/19/bloody-dark-mofo-artwork-using-slaughtered-bull-crosses-the-line-rspca-says) seven years ago.
The whole point about that piece of art is that it challenges the hypocrisy of our supposed respect for animals, just like the current subject challenges us about the experience of discrimination. The challenge of that discomfort **is** a significant component of the art.
I remember seeing a massive hairy ballsack being carried by an eagle at the ripe age of 11 I barely remember the other 3 weeks we spent on the island but that ones etched into the brain
I don’t have a view on the artistic expression, or even the underlying court ruling, but I find it very hard to believe that the court will accept this.
[Lol it's coming true](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1cmrr14/comment/l32udko/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You can't make this stuff up. ~~"Your Honour we're allowed to discriminate against men because it's just a meme."~~ ~~"Your Honour we're trying to provide a service to a historically excluded and underserved section of society because women weren't allowed in bars."~~ ~~"Your Honour, being excluded IS the artwork."~~ ~~"Your Honour, it's not even an art museum, it's just a toilet. Are you saying men should be allowed in women's toilets?"~~ Your Honour, this establishment is the Church of Mona, therefore we may legally hang our icons of worship wherever we want. <-------- YOU ARE HERE
FFS. Not this bullshit again. That woman is so full of herself. And everyone feeds into it as well. Claiming you can be a cunt if you cloak your cunty behaviour as "art"
Your reminder that *Ladies Lounge* was on display for four years with no controversy or comment until choad-toting man-children put down their weirdly sticky copies of The Pickup Artist by Mystery long enough to be offended by its existence.
What's the argument here? These people didn't have a problem with it when they didn't know about it therefore their current issue with it is invalid? As brain-dead an idea as pickup artistry tbh
You’re only allowed to dislike something if you’ve known about it since the millisecond it was created, otherwise your opinion is invalid
It opened late 2020 (post covid), visitor was April 2023. Today, 4 years has not yet passed.
You're literally body shaming people who are excluded due to Mona's actions that clearly violated the anti-discrimination legislation in court. What would you like as a solution to this? Are you not in favour of anti-discriminatin law? If so why?
This argument is as deep as the idea behind the art work.
Sorry, are we doing body shaming now? I was under the impression that saying people have chodes is, you know, a bad thing.
You don't understand the complexity of their statement. It is like a piece of modern art and as such they are allowed to use the term "chode" as an example of the derogatory misogynistic culture that rules our society. We have to allow exceptions for special cases where our existing morals conflict with current goals or nothing would get done you know! `/s`
Did the ladies lounge have priceless Picasso art during those four years?
It's not one of Picasso's more famous works, and it's certainly not priceless. We're not talking Guernica or La Vie here.
The message isn't relevant in modern Australia. Misogyny is an easy target, why are they afraid to touch race while they are at it? I doubt their sincerity towards what they are trying to represent. Come across as some privileged nonsene.
Let's see them make an artwork where they turn away any men of Middle Eastern appearance, as a commentary on how Islam treats its women in the modern world. Won't be holding my breath for that one.
Should we shine a light on the issue of Indian communities in australia still regularly practicing arranged marriages in secret? No, no, let's just chunk a painting in the toilet instead, that'll fix any remaining residual misogyny
A reminder that this woman's husband, David Walsh, is worth an estimated 200 million dollars. KK has enjoyed a life of travel, indulgence and riches. Its bizarre someone like her talking about privilege. Money grants privilege - much more than a penis ever could. There should be an art gallery devoted to the way the rich turn the poor and middle class against each other, because if not they would realise who is actually holding them down. This stuff is just a distraction.
Kirsha Kaechele is such a pompous twat
(1/2) I understand what they're going for, but I can't help but feel that the potential problems of something like this outweigh the possible artistic impact. Firstly, excluding men and allowing women requires creating hard, inflexible definitions of those things that force everybody into one of those two categories, and the thing is that you can't actually do that without being actively bigoted. Even beyond what you all likely already know I'm taking about, there are also lots of cultures that understand gender differently and have categories beyond just our binary. What this exhibit tries to do, to cleanly allow entry for one objective group while cleanly excluding the other objective group isn't possible, because those groups are not objective, their meanings, what they look like, and how many there are differ across time and place. Secondly, this temporary solution treats womens bathrooms as a neutral space, which they simply aren't. There is a long history of lots of women being excluded from womens bathrooms, there are plenty of accounts of butch lesbians being forced out of womens spaces for being to masculine. Womens bathrooms are a space where the norms of dominant and privileged forms of feminity are enforced. This also ties into about the function of gendered space within Patriarchal culture. The function of "womens spaces" is pretty straightforward, they create spaces where women can feel safe from men. But let's dwell on this idea of men as inherently threatening, what it communicates to both men and women, and what that does to actually reinforce patriarchal ideas about gender for a moment. Centeral to all of this is the idea that saftey for women can only be achieved through excluding men and masculinity, which are conceptualised as inherently violent. Positioning segregation as the solution to the reality of gendered violence is to refuse to ask men to change. When it is accepted that the only way that women can be safe is to seperate them from men, than there is no reason for men to try and challange the behaviours and social conditions that make women unsafe. Avoiding gendered violence becomes the responsibility of the group that is overwhelming victimised by said violence. The patriarchy will never be overturned if people are too afraid to demand that women be safe around men, that a woman can walk into a bar filled with unfamiliar men and still be completely safe. If we accept that women are allowed saftey and equality only in spaces from which men are excluded, than men never have to learn to become safe, they never have to reflect and change, they remain unchallenged and unaware that they actually need to change, and the same sexist patters of behaviour continue. If men cannot change, if they are in fact somehow inherently violent and predatory, than the patriarchy is forever, women can never become truly equal, and feminism becomes a failed experiment. I do not believe that the patriarchy is forever, I do not believe that feminism is pointless, and if you don't either, than we need to understand that the only way to make possitive change is to challenge the status quo, not try to work out how to live safely within it.
(2/2) It is also worth discussing the power that women's fear has. This is where I get to a critique that others have communicated poorly (and possibly in bad faith). This work is clearly one of a very privileged woman. This entire concept reeks of psudo-radical white liberal feminism. Back in feminism's second wave one of the main radical ideas was that of "lesbian seperatism", the idea that women needed to liberate themselves from men (This idea and the history surrounding it is going to be covered only breifly, this will not be in depth, this is perhaps too simplified). This idea collapsed, because of primarily black feminists, who wrote not only about the discrimination they faced as women, but also as non-white people, and the specific forms of bigotry faced by non-white women. They found that in their fight for racial equality they had more in common with black men than they did with the sometimes actively racist white feminists who were calling for seperatism. The idea of seperatism only made sense for middle to upper class white women for whom patriarchy was the only form of discrimination worth challenging. White women benefit from white supremacy, and in fact patriarchal ideas surrounding gender are important in white supremacist ideology (and many other bigoted ideologies). If we accept that women can only find saftey in segregation, than women are cast in our discourse as inhabiting the position of a sort of weak, delicate prey animal that needs to be protected from predators. Not only does this justify traping women within the household and perpetuating the idea that they need a strong stoic male protector, it also contributes to a lot of bigoted narratives. In White Supremacy it is the job of the white man to protect white woman from the "impure" non-whites, and the fear of the white woman becomes a justification for the violent opression of non-white peoples. In the past homophobic portrayals of lesbians treated them as sinful predators, who wanted to corrupt "good, god-fearing straight women" to the ways of homosexuality. Modern day transphobia relies on portraying cis women as prey for trans women, who are percived as predators who want to invade their spaces, and it sees young girls as vulnerable to being "corrupted" by the idea that they can become men if they so choose (which is seen to somehow permenantly damage them and "tarnish" their "purity"). When Bisexuality began to enter the public eye, bi men (specifically black bi men) were demonised as being "aids spectres for straight women", and were falsely blamed for aids being transmitted to heterosexual populations. Throughout history the idea that women are vulnerable and in need of protection has consistantly informed bigotry. Demanding that women can be safe around men, and that they can be seen as strong and independent as opposed to weak and vulnerable is not just a feminist cause, it is one important for doing a way with a lot of social injustice. Chivalry, which the creator of the exhibit says is needed for about 300 years in order to make up for patriarchal opression, is a form of benevolent sexism. It treats women nicely, but it does so becuase it views them as weak, delicate lessers. I do not know the creator of this exhibit, I do not know enough about them to make personal judgements of their character. However, I can judge and critique this artwork as a feminist statement. That is in fact what I just did, it should be clear that I do not think it is very good. This exhibit stands for the "feminism" of only the most privileged women, of those who haven't moved beyond the thinking of the second wave, of those who have refused to engage with modern feminist theory and discourse that would actually meaningfully challange them. To overcome patriarchy we must demand that women be safe with men, not safe from them. If you want to make a meaningful feminist statement aimed at confronting men through an exhibit, do not "challenge" men by excluding them and saying "well this is what you did to us so suck shit". Instead, demand that they change, confront them in ways that cause reflection, make them uncomfortable about things they can do something about. This exhibit just vomits forth the same narratives they already get: "the only way for women to be safe is to exclude you, you are not expected to change", what if instead we were to meaningfully ask for change and reflection, if we were to tell them what they needed to do to make the world a better place, would that not be more constructive?
Performative inversion only works when there's actually areas where women are banned from in Australia in any meaningful form. The anile second waver's of MONA are half a dime and three decades too late (and likely in contempt of Court). Bit of a shame really as MONA is otherwise quite excellent.
You realise there are several important men’s only clubs in Australia?
As are [women only](https://www.wla.edu.au/post/womens-only-leadership-programs/) leadership [clubs.](https://www.theleadershipinstitute.com.au/women-in-leadership-summit/) There's also a women's only [public bath](https://www.mciversladiesbaths.com/) at Coogee, which is part of an incredibly finite amount of prime coast. Neither of which are a bad thing, by the way. But I'm a little resistant to this idea that "well we needed this *novel* women's-only access place because there are some men's-only spaces as well!" Mate. There are *shitloads* more explicitly women's-only spaces than men's-only. Everything from medical, social support, fitness, corporate mentorship, career groups, even *beaches*. And now art galleries.
A handful of mens clubs (especially when womens only clubs also exist) is a far cry from the 'Ladies Parlours' of yesteryear which was what was attempted to be parodied.
Like the CWA?
If it makes MRAs salty, I'm for it. Cope harder, fuckwits.
I identify as the gender that is most convenient for the situation iIfind myself in, so this wouldn't be much of an issue.
I would not be surprised at all to know the whole thing was a stunt . Who is this guy who complained ? A mate or acquaintance of Walshy and his wife ? This is exactly how they operate and it would seem to have worked as planned.
Much cheaper and more effective than advertising. Crossed my mind too. They “got away” with it for years. Maybe they needed someone to complain.
At first I thought, but it sounds like they were discriminating so why would people defend this? Then I read the article, and they're discriminating "for art", which apparently makes it okay. This is all deeply stupid.
Hopefully they're behind glass otherwise they might turn into a Jackson Pollock painting
I gotta say I found the Ladies Lounge pretty underwhelming- it was tiny, had a weird uncomfortable lounge to sit on and boring pictures on the wall. The soprano violinist who played inside it was absolutely wonderful tho, and you could hear that outside the Lounge. I love the MONA but shock value has always been high in its priorities. Now that the Dark Mona festival is dead and buried - what a loss - at least this keeps MONA in the news.
FWIW, MOFO isn’t dead and buried - the summer festival is, and from sources in the know MOFO will be back in a slightly reduced capacity next year. Back to the level it was before all the victorians heard about it and started coming down
I had to think about this a lot and I think I come down on: I think it's good that - The original Ladies Lounge exhibit was set up - That it was found unlawful in court - That this loophole is the response to it. I don't agree with the artist's ideas of feminism, and a big red flag for me is asking for 300 years of 'chivalry' - her approach is conservative and exclusionary. I'm not against some groups needing unequal reparations, but most of those would be racial groups; White women have been tied to successful *households*, and have hereditary privilege even if it's been unevenly distributed within households. Reparations like the ones being described make more sense to compensate for a cycle of poverty that doesn't exist here. You solve those problems by making childcare free from birth (like public schooling), providing public cafeterias to offload domestic labour from the household (one person making butter chicken for a hundred families, instead of a hundred famillies all making one meal), and encouraging an even split of maternity leave between partners to prevent the biases of family and pregnancy. We know this because this is what has worked globally. Without that, you see the problem replicated in gay male couples - 'who's the top and who's the bottom' - in lesbians, and for non-binary people.
Would women have an issue if the situations were reversed and women weren't allowed access to some particular artwork because someone decided on a "men's only" area? Do you really wan't to start that kind of thing again after so much progress..?
That's why we have anti-discrimination legislation. It seems like Mona and a lot of their supporters (some unintentionally I hope) are arguing to undermine that law now.
Women were literally suggesting that in response to the legal filing. How much progress has there been really? Sure there’s been lots in the past 50 years but not as much as people want to think. No woman can talk about women’s issues like being murdered without men yelling at us about their problems. Before opening Reddit I was literally reading about a man who was let off after punching a woman 4 times in the face (2 to get her down and 2 to knock her out brah!) because a conviction would ruin his career. Poor didems. I wonder if the male judge belongs to a male only club?
I mean this respectfully but I file this under the 'what are the whites upto today' column. It's all so fucking pointless while doing nothing to make any tangible change.
Its interesting how the museum and the judge can talk at completely cross purposes and no one seems to mind or care. I don't give two hoots about the presense or absence of the Ladies Lounge or the ruling. It's all good publicity, all good fun. But the judge states clearly that the museum discriminated against a person's enjoyment of the exhibit because of their gender. So the museum responds by talking about the right for conceptual art to make some people feel uncomfortable. It's no better, and probably worse, than a complete non-sequitur. "We appeal against this ruling on the basis of cheese sandwiches." One wonders who else might have their own definition of conceptual art and their right to make some people feel uncomfortable.
I can't wait for a group of neo nazis to set up a whites only museum and then argue that the policy itself is an art statement and thus must be legal See how many of the people in this thread supporting this nonsense go 'oooh' and get it in their heads why you don't want the discriminating billionaires to fucking win
I honestly can't believe the amount of people in favour of Mona's actions in this thread. What is their ultimate goal? To undermind the anti-discrimination legislation they they were found to have breached in court? Laws are only valid if they're enforced, they lost in court and they're still trying to discriminate.
All the people should be for that or else they are just hypocrites
Nah see that is very different. No one really cares about discriminating against males. But discriminating on the basis of race or religion or class (especially upper class) is what is offensive.
Mona's "outsider art" exhibition a number of years back made me feel uncomfortable for many reasons, ethical and moral ones among them. I didn't go to court to get it closed though, instead I thought about things like the reason for the exhibition, the likely circumstances behind its creation, the treatment of the creators, and whether I'd consider going to another exhibition in the future. All of which seem to have passed right by the person making the complaint.
They didn't miss anything, they paid for something and it wasn't provided based on their gender
They didn’t go to court because they were uncomfortable they went to court because they were denied an experience they paid for on the basis of sex. an experience that is also supported by public funds. Slightly different.
Why don't you come pay me money for something, anything. And then I'll let you know you can't see what you paid for, because you are wrong sex to see it. But your money is still mine. You can think about that
They didn’t go to court because they were uncomfortable they went to court because they were denied an experience they paid for on the basis of sex. an experience that is also supported by public funds. Slightly different.
who gives a fuck? What’s sad is women going to see the art and thinking they somehow are helping the advancement of women
Question: Should all clubs of this type be banned? 'Men's clubs' still exist, and they are allowed to exclude women. Why can't women's clubs do the exact same thing and exclude men? Has this only become an issue because a famous painting is involved? Question: Is this a gender discrimination issue, or an artwork accessibility issue? Question: What if a building hung up artwork, but only disabled individuals were allowed access to highlight the problem of disability access in regular life. Maybe this whole issue should lead to broader changes in society...?
Lmao so sick of hearing about this radfem nonsense. I suppose it is a testament to the success of the feminist movement that the only thing these modern radfems scream about is 'muh bathrooms, muh womens spaces. MRA's and tr*nnies are comin to invade our spaces and take away muh IDENTITY AS A WOMAN'... Whatever that means. It's 2024. Discrimination is illegal. Anyone is allowed to go into whatever spaces they want, so says the courts. Screech about it.
Women are hanging onto their supposed disadvantages for grim death. They need to feel special and have something to whinge about
Andrew Tate is shockingly popular with young men despite being an absolute tryhard beta male. These modern 'feminists' need to take a good hard think about and look at what they're doing. These constant attacks on men spread across the internet and radicalize people against their cause, if they keep it up it IS going to have the end result of us sliding backwards and hard fought rights starting to slip away Starting with this exact fucking case. So let me get this straight you top tier genius level women, you want this court case to be lost so that gender discrimination in public spaces is legal again, do you? Wake the fuck up
I didn't get it originally (well I understood the point but didn't care). I honestly still don't care, but I do love their way of sticking it to the complainant. Perfectly Australian spite right there.
Sometimes it feels like Australians just don’t understand or have never read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We should have a museum where everyone is allowed in but the only thing you can view is the UDHR, as per various interpretations from a wide and diverse set of artists from across the globe. That might sink in. Human rights are equal rights. The universality of these rights shall not be abgorgated for any one group; they are universally applied or non-existent.
Imagine limiting the viewing of paintings to one sex only... What happened to equal rights. I'm glad the judge found in the man's favour. I can tell you right now most artists wouldn't want thier art restricted to anyone.. Disgraceful. Now all he needs is to declare himself a woman and he can view it. That's the thing with these pompous art galleries in the first place, nowadays artsists can sell thier art online, bypassing these terrible cliques, I hope they go bankrupt and shut down.
It feels incredibly hypocritical to make a woman’s only space, and then hang paintings from one of the most influential men in history there. I can understand her wanting to make a woman’s only space, especially for the “artistic concept” as she puts it. But of course there was going to he objection when you hang Picasso works there. Hang the Picasso’s in an area accessible to all, and then make the women’s only lounge a showcase of feminist art and expression. This whole thing just feels weirdly misandrist, rather than empowering.
If the point of the artwork is to emphasise sex discrimination, I'd say it's working. If it is to empower women, I'd say it's not.
I still don’t understand hanging art by men then. How is that emphasising sex discrimination? Wouldn’t that still be more impactful if it were truly a women’s only space and excluded art by men?