Presenting the female body: Challenging a Victorian fantasy
A barometer of public taste
8 February 2018
Following a fantastic response to its seven day absence – both at the gallery itself and on-line – Waterhouse’s masterpiece Hylas and the Nymphs returned to public display at Manchester Art Gallery over the weekend.
The painting – part of the gallery’s highly prized collection of Pre-Raphaelite works – was temporarily removed from display as part of a project the gallery is working on with the artist Sonia Boyce, in the build-up to a solo exhibition of her work at the gallery opening on 23 March 2018. Boyce’s work is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens. The painting’s short term removal from public view was the result of a ‘take-over’ of some of the gallery’s public spaces by a wide range of gallery users and artists on Friday January 26th.
The event was conceived by Boyce to bring different meanings and interpretations of paintings from the gallery’s collection into focus, and into life. The evening included a series of performances, all filmed by Boyce’s team, addressing issues of race, gender, and sexuality, culminating in the careful, temporary removal of the Waterhouse painting. In its place, notices were put up inviting responses to this action that would inform how the painting would be shown and contextualized when it was rehung. In the course of this last week the space where the painting was has become filled with post-it notes from individuals wanting to contribute to the discussion.
Hylas was chosen because the painting has been a barometer of public taste since it was painted in 1896 and continues to be so.
Since its removal, the painting and its temporary absence from the gallery has captured the attention of thousands of people not just in Manchester but everywhere, and in so doing has opened up a wider global debate about representation in art and how works of art are interpreted and displayed.
There has been an incredible response over the last week – it’s encouraging to see that so many people care so much about our historic collection, and about Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs in particular, and we want to thank people for taking the time to respond.
Given the sheer volume and breadth of discussion that has been sparked by the act of removing the painting, the gallery is now planning a series of public and live streamed events to encourage further debate about these wider issues, and is looking forward to welcoming people to these, and hearing what they have to say.
The first of these events will be a chaired panel debate, inviting speakers with a broad spectrum of opinions to discuss the issues raised. More details about this event will be released shortly. To register your interest in attending the debate please contact us here: manchesterartgallery@manchester.gov.uk
Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece back on public display after its temporary removal
3 February 2018
Well, there’s no denying it’s been an interesting week. We anticipated a heated debate but were amazed by the huge response to the temporary removal of Waterhouse’s Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece. As of this morning, following seven days in our art store, this important painting is back on display.
The comments section on this post has received well over 700 posts, we’re working through them and all aside from the merely abusive will be published. Please feel free to continue the debate here, we genuinely value your input.
Thank you.
The full press release is copied below.
Press release
Following a fantastic response to its temporary removal – both at the gallery itself and on-line – Waterhouse’s Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece Hylas and the Nymphs will be back on public display at Manchester Art Gallery from tomorrow, Saturday 3 February.
The painting – part of the gallery’s highly prized collection of Pre-Raphaelite paintings – was temporarily removed from display as part of a project the gallery is working on with the contemporary artist Sonia Boyce, in the build-up to a solo exhibition of her work at the gallery opening on 23 March 2018.
Boyce’s artwork is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens. The painting’s short term removal from public view was the result of a ‘take-over’ of some of the gallery’s public spaces by gallery users and performance artists last Friday January 26th.
Since its filmed removal as part of the Boyce project a week ago, the painting and its temporary absence from the gallery has captured the attention of people everywhere, and in so doing has opened up a wider global debate about representation in art and how works of art are interpreted and displayed.
Given the sheer volume and breadth of discussion that has been sparked by the act of removing the painting, the gallery is now planning a series of public events to encourage further debate about these wider issues.
Amanda Wallace, Interim Director Manchester Art Gallery, said: “We’ve been inundated with responses to our temporary removal of Hylas and the Nymphs as part of the forthcoming Sonia Boyce exhibition, and it’s been amazing to see the depth and range of feelings expressed.
“The painting is rightly acknowledged as one of the highlights of our Pre-Raphaelite collection, and over the years has been enjoyed by millions of visitors to the gallery.
“We were hoping the experiment would stimulate discussion, and it’s fair to say we’ve had that in spades – and not just from local people but from art-lovers around the world.
“Throughout the painting’s seven day absence, it’s been clear that many people feel very strongly about the issues raised, and we now plan to harness this strength of feeling for some further debate on these wider issues.”
We have left a temporary space in Gallery 10 in place of Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse to prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection.
How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?
Here are some of the ideas we have been talking about so far. What do you think?
This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!
The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?
What other stories could these artworks and their characters tell? What other themes would be interesting to explore in the gallery?
The act of taking down this painting was part of a group gallery takeover that took place during the evening of 26 January 2018. People from the gallery team and people associated with the gallery took part. The takeover was filmed and is part of an exhibition by Sonia Boyce, 23 March to 2 September 2018.
To be continued…
Get involved in the conversation
Add your thoughts using #MAGSoniaBoyce.
I accept there are more works in the collection than space to display. I am worried we don’t start to only display “acceptable”.
A dangerous precedent is set for other artworks. The emergence of P.C. censorship, blurred into Law. Deciding what history to hide, and what people should know, and what artist’s can create. Even games have rules, of exclusion and inclusion.
Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse is a fascinating work, with depth. It promotes questions among a modern audience, not least of which is how it was viewed by its contemporary audience, and even who were its contemporary audiences. Were galleries welcoming to women? Could women be seen to be viewing these images and what was their effect on women artists and women in general? The parallels between the presentation of young almost identical women with idealised bodies and today’s debate about catwalk models and the impact on self-image are clear too. But I’ve discussed these issues in the past, prompted in part by viewing this particular painting. I’m hoping we’ll get a chance to debate this off-line, at an open event.
The role of art is most definitely NOT to ‘ encourage debate ‘. The role of art is to BE there for all to see and wonder at. It is the human expression of finding meaning in the world at it’s finest and most powerful. It may cause debate or it may not , it really does’nt matter.
The idea that a work of art can just BE, is an appealing one. That somehow whatever the age, background, education, religion or class of the viewer, all that could ever be said about the work would be self evident in the very thing itself, borne free through the ether from the material self of the work to the mind of the viewer who apprehends it in ‘wonder’. But that is not how it happens. No art exists outside of context, the context of its production, of its acquisition, of its history of display and of where it is displayed now, at the moment of apprehension by the viewer. And each of these contexts can be further examined – who was the curator who oversaw the purchase, what was their relationship to the artist, what had they bought before and what else would they eventually buy, where did the money come from, how was payment made, were there any conditions that the artist insisted upon. And each of these could be further examined, and so on. Is all of this evidenced in the very thing itself, as it stands or hangs in front of the viewer?
And, as is the case in the work discussed here, that apprehension occurs in a gallery. You think that the very order of what you see in a gallery hasn’t already, to some extent been pre-censored for you? Of all the countless choices that could be made, the curators made these ones. And they made them in a building expressly designed to show you those choices, this building, with this history, with this collection, not that one. Choices. The idea that these works just arrive, as if by magic onto walls in some kind of meaningful order is a mistake. Curation is, by necessity, an ongoing work of making choices which inevitably mean that this gets shown, that does not. If everything was hauled from the stores and piled high on the walls would you be as happy with the result?
The idea that meaning is somehow just ‘there’ for the viewer to find is questionable. Since 1933 Eric Gill’s statue of Prospero and Ariel has stood high over the entrance to New Broadcasting House, the home of the BBC. Charming and touching, it catches the moment when Prospero sends Ariel, the spirit of the air, out into the world. Countless people have looked up and enjoyed this work. In 1989, Fiona McCarthy published her biography of Gill in which she revealed the dark side to his character, including his incestuous relationship with his daughters. Is this fact evident in the work? Does knowing it change how one views the work? Is there one answer to this?
If I look at a painting and enjoy it as a thing in itself, as a piece of canvas around a stretcher in a frame on a wall, onto which at some time in the past an artist pushed paint around either in the presence of what was being painted or responded to or in its absence, is my enjoyment hindered or enhanced by a label which tells me that this work depicts a mythological scene in which a gay lover of Heracles, sent to fetch water, is confronted by nymphs whose intention is to draw him into the deep? And if I read this and disagree, or agree, isn’t that the start of debate? Might there be yet more to know of this thing, this picture?
This entire action by the gallery has been hijacked, there is no other word for it, by a contemporary sensibility which is seemingly incapable of negotiated thought. Easily offended by anything that does not fit their world view, a whole species of humanity is developing that thinks it has the right to cry ‘I am offended’, ‘This thing that was done is censorship’, ‘You are cretins/morons/stupid/nazis/taliban/lefty/feminazi… And that is the end of it. What I say is true.’ ‘Look, there are thousands of us saying this, it must be true.’ Having had the time to look at the reactions here and elsewhere, I can say that the gallery looked to have lost control of the message, and that this was a shame. They did not manage to communicate their real love and guardianship of an extraordinary and fine collection and of their wish to continue to present it meaningfully to a contemporary audience. Perhaps it all could have been done differently and they will learn from this.
But what they did is not censorship. Debate, conversation, negotiation, listening to other ideas and adapting in the light of what can be learned has always been the bedfellow of artistic practice. The actions of the ‘permanently offended’ are more censorious. By cutting out all hope of discourse, they censor reality to suit their world view. If there’s one thing we all need to learn from this, listening is as important as looking.
By ‘permanently offended’ did you include Ms Gannaway? Also which ever way you cut it, the removal of the painting was censorship, end of argument. You can come up with as many clever arguments as you like, censorship is censorship, is censorship. History has shown this always ends in tears.
Fully agree! There is no excuse for censorship. And provoking discussion through this is just dangerous.
I know this move is to promote discussion, but if we impose censorship in the arts, I would find that world truly terrifying. The role of art is to encourage debate.
We agree, censorship is not the answer. Think of this move as a provocation, let’s see what new thinking we can generate through it. The questions Joan raises above need further exploration if we are to deeply understand what a work like this means, or does, in 2018.
Everyone who has ever censored an artistic work has a completely rational reason for doing so. If you want to talk about the piece, do what we do in western democracies: keep it up, invite the public to a talk, make your case.
Most people of course won’t show up, because most people don’t think in such a black and white way as these activists masquerading as “artists”. So, they know that in order to get people to engage in their “conversation”, they need to start an unnecessary controversy.
We’re not as divided and confused as you think we are.
The “takeover” or whatever other euphemism for censorship you prefer is indeed provocative. It provokes the vast number of people who are not activist feminists to say “This has really gone too far now.”
Unless you are about to unveil some remarkably clever “ta-dah” moment that shows you are not po-faced identity politicians being led by the nose by the more hysterical Guardian opinion writers, you risk a backlash against not only this silly censorship, but also against the underlying cause of respect for women.
Apologise, reverse this now, and think of a better way to attract attention.
I agree 100% with your comment!
Provocation through censorship. These are water nymphs – not human women. Let’s seek to educate rather than cater to ignorance under the guise of “starting a conversation.”
“New thinking”… why does it have to be new. Why are you so patronizing to the intelligence of those who stand in front of these paintings, the hint is in the title the word “nymphs” which in itself implies that these are not “real” and as a 67 year old humanist I suggest you jump off the current bandwagon. Such paintings were always explained to my children as “romantics” i.e. not real. Every day is hard for most people in the UK and now you are going to remove romanticism from your museum bit by bit to boost your footfall. Shame on you.
I think this is a really poor argument! You are playing with censorship just to appease immediatley – and make censorship more acceptable this way. Alt right strategy! Sorry, I’m done with feminism from now on.
Well it is indeed a provocation. An unnecessary one. You could have solicited public comments without removing this excellent art work. The fact that you have removed it indicates that you are fine with censorship. That you are fine with deciding what others may or may not see. As always the answer for those who do not approve of a public display of any kind (be it book, art, music, theater, whatever) is to not read, walk away, do not view, do not attend. Who has the right and the exquisitely good taste to make such decisions for all the rest of us? Not you sir, in my opinion.
Remember that Beethoven was highly criticised by many in his own time. If the critics had had their way we’d have none of his great work to enjoy in our own time when his music is so highly esteemed.
Finally; how many complaints did you actually receive about this, or any other work of art? A piffling minority of self-important prudes? Is that all it takes to start the censorship ball rolling. For shame. Put the work back on display and tell those who don’t like it not to look at it.
And I thought po-faced, politically-correct virtue-signalling had exhausted itself by the 1990s. Sure, those paintings represent long-outmoded ways of seeing, but one would have thought that was pretty obvious to anyone looking now, and a good reason to keep them as a lesson from history. Trite PC gestures are an insult to the intelligence of your audience, but more worryingly, this is born out of the same impulse as book burning.
I’ve been a member of various photography groups on Facebook where every other image is of a mostly naked woman provocatively posed. I also believe our society can be too ‘old fashioned’ regarding nakedness and it’s unhealthy for us not to see normal body’s whilst we are drip fed images of models, often enhanced using image software. I believe art work like the painting removed from the gallery temporarily tended to show women’s body more naturally and I always felt this was a positive thing compared to a lot of modern images of women.
[…] 2018. Presenting the female body: Challenging a Victorian fantasy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://manchesterartgallery.org/blog/presenting-the-female-body-challenging-a-victorian-fantasy/. [Accessed 28 January […]
Or maybe just leave it to the people to look at what they want to look and form their own opinions?
Instead of trying to ignore history, why not focus on positive portrayal of women (and men) relative to our modern values. Why not use such artists as Sylvia Sleigh (“At the Turkish Baths”) to present an counter-offering?
What a fantastic response to this disgusting act of censorship!
How could the directors of the Manchester Art Gallery allow the removal of one of their most popular paintings just to placate the sensitivities of a small, but highly vocal, minority?
The only thing that should be removed from the gallery are those responsible for this absurd decision.
In my opinion, the problem is that the managers of this museum have a gender perspective that prevents them to work in a professional way. Probably, all them should quit the museum and dedicate to what they are prepared for: the censorship. A museum shouldn’t be managed by people that despise art.
Having an art and design background and a career in the fashion industry spanning two decades, I have always had a love for art. From Robert Mapplethorpe at the Hayward Gallery to Yayoi Kusama at the National Gallery in Singapore, I have visited numerous exhibitions around the world where censorship has never been an issue. There have been exhibitions I have liked and some that were questionable.
Art, at its essence, can be controversial, exposing us to all kinds of debatable questions. It opens us up to new perspectives and enlightens us, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. It is a history lesson to remind us of where we were in terms of thought and how far we have come. Ever since I was introduced to the Pre-Raphaelites, John William Waterhouse has been a favourite of mine. Having lost my husband four years ago to brain cancer, I found solace in three of his works, “Boreas”, “The Lady of Shallot” and “Hylas and the Nymphs”. Waterhouse’s paintings not only express an incredible artistic temperament, but he is a master at emotional storytelling within an ethereal world.
For years, I have been living in London and thinking how much I would love to see “Hylas and the Nymphs” at least once in my lifetime. Well, I finally got the opportunity to go to the Manchester Art Gallery only to be told the painting was removed on Friday 26th January as some part of feminist installation relating to the representation of the female body. I cannot express how devastated I am, not only to miss out on seeing the painting but to be told that it may never be exhibited again.
Correct me if I am wrong but do we not live in a liberal and civilised society where the job of the curator is to enlighten, not to impose their own personal beliefs on others and censor art at their will? Why would you impose your own beliefs on others? To morally dictate to others what we can or cannot see? Censorship like this puts you in league with restrictive regimes, both current and historical. Shall we start destroying everything that offends us and end up living in “Fahrenheit 451” or “The Handmaid’s Tale”? We ridicule the past for banning “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” and the future will ridicule us for the amount of disrespect we have demonstrated for our history and heritage.
The removal of “Hylas and the Nymphs” from the Manchester Art Gallery is feminist extremism at its worst and I am truly ashamed to call myself a feminist. I want to ask all of those who supported this reprehensible act of censorship: are we so weak minded as women or insecure about our own femininity to be so easily offended by freedom of artistic expression? It is a cheap gimmick and a publicity stunt at best, by an unknown artist who truly has not experienced what it is to live in a country that restricts your rights because of your gender.
To quote “The Handmaid’s Tale” for all the Serena Joy’s of this world; the very women who misguidedly impose their own beliefs on others and manufacture a whole new form of oppression… “A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze.”
Please sign the petition to return Hylas and the Nymphs on public display at the Manchester Art Gallery: https://www.causes.com/profiles/189447564/campaigns
I agree 100% with your views: your appreciation of a beautiful painting and its powerful narrative. I also think it beyond bizarre to remove the painting from view by the Style Polizei. Sadly, I cannot sign your petition because it is on Facebook, to which I am implacably opposed. Vive la Resistance!
Anna’s Eskander… very well said!
On Facebook I was informed that it was the Evangelicals that were responsible for this trend… but we all know that is not the truth! There is a true disconnect with reality among those that don’t use their own critical thinking and events and history to put life into perspective…
What a fantastic response to this disgusting act of censorship!
How could the directors of the Manchester Art Gallery allow the removal of one of their most popular paintings just to placate the sensitivities of a small, but highly vocal, minority?
The only thing that should be removed from the gallery are those responsible for this absurd decision.
Instead of enlisting Gallery staff and people ‘connected with the Gallery’ why not invite an eclectic and representative group from the public to ‘remove’ a selection from the gallery, ask they why and then throw this out for discussion.But if you want relevance in the 21st century, surely relevance to Galleries and Museums is what brings people in or, more importantly, what keeps them out?
As one of the people at the gallery who’s been involved in the conversations about this, and was at the event on Friday night, I really want to express how this is not about ‘censorship’. It’s about challenging the outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays.
The area of the gallery which included Hylas and the Nymphs hasn’t changed for a VERY long time and still tells a very particular story about the bodies on display. We think that we can do better than this and the taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery, the collection and the way that artworks speak to us through the way they are interpreted and put into context.
We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption. Shouldn’t we be challenging this instead of perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist? The gallery doesn’t exist in a bubble and these things are connected, surely?
Nobody is denying those views and ideas have existed in the past; that’s not the point. And nobody is dictating which works of art people can love or not. It’s about challenging those ideas from a contemporary perspective and being critically engaged in political debates about history AND the present. Telling different, relevant stories and acknowledging that views of history change.
The comments so far have been fascinating to read. We will make changes to those gallery spaces as soon as possible, as we feel this is vitally important. But we want to be open about it and have conversation about how we do this, and that’s what the act of taking down the painting temporarily was about. There’s no book burning going on here!
So you agree this was a managerial decision and not a takeover by the people of a publicly owned gallery. As for your cheap shot connection to the Presidents Club, jumping and bandwagon spring to mind. Is the ‘temporary space’ to be filled with another painting? Is Hylas and the Nymphs a temporary or permanent removal?
I wrote a thesis on the representation of women in James Bond films… What makes the 21st century so self-righteous over the Victorians? How about we look at how pornography has evolved… I don’t think the Victorians will take to kindly to the demise of our moral values. There’s nothing playful about taking the painting down. That would imply there was something “fun” about it. FYI I’m not having fun. Having this pointless conversation with someone who already has a forgone conclusion isn’t fun… What’s to discuss if all we’re staring at is a blank wall with post its illustrating the sparking of a frenzied witch hunt… How about we castrate every heterosexual man for having a sexual fantasy about a woman… maybe that would be fun!
The explanation provided by the Manchester Art Gallery is heavily sugar-coated. It’s easy to say: “We have done that to promote debate”. Promoting debate entails to show MORE, not less.
The curators of an art gallery are the custodians of the art pieces, not their owners. Removing an artwork from the public’s gaze in favour of another one (which I have to say is quite lame) under the pretext of promoting debate is a very dangerous path to walk.
I’m surprised how the gallery’s curators fail to see this, and just go along with the “promoting debate” narrative by hiding/removing a piece of art that some self-righteous minds consider culturally outdated.
With respect Clare, I don’t find the removing of the painting ‘playful’. Trying to link a work of art to the President Club is, at best, a daft stunt. This is censorship pure and simple. Removing a painting for little more than a naive and ill advised attempt to appear edgy has not opened up debate, merely annoyed loyal patrons who love your gallery and the works of art within.
Let me guess…. The next discussion by the curators to be what colour the restoration department should choose to paint swimming costumes over each of the nymphs….
Clare,
1. The ‘nymphs’ of classical mythology are neither passive nor wanton. That is your misunderstanding. The nymphs are nature spirits governed by the fiercely independent Artemis/Diana. Remember the story of the hunter Actaeon turned into a stage and ripped apart by Artemis’s hounds?
2. You ignore the place of the idealised body in classical thought. Usually it is the male body and indeed, a proper understanding of the era would include the romanticised nudes of the young Hylas.
3. It is your job to understand art history and to explain it to the public.
But can you explain why you have chosen to remove a painting which – for all its titillating depiction of the female form – is actually of a scene which REVERSES conventional narratives of desire (and, inescapably, assault)? The nymphs may be portrayed for the viewer’s gaze, but the point of the myth is that they themselves desire Hylas. Is this part of the conversation you would like to stimulate? If not, why didn’t you choose one of any number of paintings which reproduce conventional narratives of power and gender?
Never have i heard such pretentious, insulting twaddle. This is third wave feminism dressed up as ‘debate’. Has it ever crossed what passes for your mind that people may have come a long way to see this beautiful painting? political correctness is a cancer that is infecting all walks of life. This reeks of 1984 and the Thought Police. You should be ashamed. Look at the comments for god’s sake. But then again your type have no interest in the views of others just your own pc version of reality. You make me sick.
“We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018 . . .” Excellent. Please sell the painting to a different museum so it can be displayed properly, and display whatever you please in its stead. I am a university lecturer who actually teaches the art and literature of this period, including in the context of the New Woman and the suffrage movement. I teach this painting in historical context. I see nothing educational in your approach, which substitutes a gimmick for genuine aesthetic or historical understanding.
“It’s about challenging the outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays.”
You mean you want to re-write history? There’s not much in the Victorian mindset that would hold up to scrutiny these days Clare, but I can’t see how removing this picture enlightens anybody. Might it perhaps be a better idea to pair it with press cuttings of the Presidents Club furore and allow people to come to their own conclusions about the male gaze?
As it is, taking it down can be construed as censorship – even it’s not intended that way – and that weakens your reasoning. We’re big boys and girls, we can think for ourselves.
Take all the paintings down- close the gallery. Perfectly good ones at the Whitworth and now Home. Re-invest the money in services for some of the poorest in the city who sleep on the streets. Well you wanted to provoke didn’t you? Maybe the debate should go even further
Total nonsense.
How is an honest, fully informed conversation to be had about something that has been removed from view???
Are we to have this discussion as we stand in the empty space of the original whilst considering images of the painting on our iPhones and laptops?
Rubbish
You say this was intended to start a discussion, not as censorship, and I accept that that was the intent. But how could you think it was a good idea to start that discussion by doing something so very similar to censorship? The same act by which you’ve started the discussion has poisoned the discussion too, by inviting comparisons with those groups, universally condemned by history, who have attempted to prohibit “immoral” art.
If your issue is with the painting’s contextualization, advocate for it to be recontextualized. Give the gallery new signage, or juxtapose these paintings with ones that portray the female form differently, or some such thing. It sounds like you may be trying to do that, with the somewhat vague reference to “changes to those gallery spaces.” But removing the painting from display is the opposite of recontextualization–there’s no context, and no painting either!
I also object to the characterization of this move as “playful.” Playful would be hanging the painting next to a modern painting that creates a surprising contrast. This is only playful in the sense that a tiresome prank, funny to no one but the prankster, is playful.
As the curator responsible for contemporary art at MAG it is regrettable that you have been permitted to so profoundly influence the interpretation of the more historic works of art in your care and to effectively censor this key work in a public collection. Your account of the decision making process really sounds a little desperate. It smacks of elitism and exclusion. This decision has nothing to do with making historic work relevant to 2018. You are trying to force an issue that is being better discussed in other realms. It is a lousy publicity stunt and is a sign of a much loved and respected institution loosing its confidence and pandering to lazy curatorial thinking. The people of Manchester deserve better from their institutions.
No. There is nothing “playful” about you removing this masterpiece from display. You are making a political statement against beautiful art. This is the sort of thing I’d expect in a communist country.
MGA get a bloody grip for God sake and stop trying to get aa name for your self. history is history and if you don’t like it don’t look at it . Well the plan worked on getting free advertising hasn’t it.
Of course is censorship. Is just a beautiful painting about an ancient tale, ninfas are not real, the argonauts are not real. You sound like a character from the book 1984.
Be honest. You have zero intentions of ever putting this beautiful piece back where it belongs – where people can see it. Give it to another gallery who *will* display it. What gives you the right to decide that it’s too immoral for people to see? This is censorship.
Your censorship is not “playful”, and your attempts to frame it as such are deeply disturbing.
How are we to have a debate about the merits of a work of art that the gallery has decided we are no longer allowed to even see?
How can you possibly be arguing that removing art from a gallery because you think it’s immoral is not censorship? It’s TEXTBOOK censorship.
i totally support this idea!
Miss Gannawy,
What you are doing is not a “playful” way of inviting discourse and possible changing the status quo. I am a feminist, and have never had an issue with this masterpiece. It’s all about context. You need another degree or two before you get to make decisions on how the world should appreciate art. Oh… wait… that should never be your job. That’s tyranny.
I find this justification by Clare Gannaway to be insufferably condescending. Surely the public is able to bring its own understanding of history, sexism, etc. to an experience with the art. And Ms. Gannaway’s presentation of Victorian stereotypes about women is itself a facile stereotype that does not recognize the wide range of images, points of view, aspirations, etc. about women that were current in a highly complex era. I can see where the discussion she wants to stimulate could have been better situated in a special exhibition–and one with more depth thesis than she has so far presented.
“I really want to express how this is not about ‘censorship’.”
When people say “It’s not about the money”, you know it’s about the money.
Clare, this is about censorship. Duc de Sully’s description of James I aptly applies to you and your faux intellectual gibberish.
Do you really think anybody is buying this mendacious hogwash? We all see what’s going on in our society right now, with this burgeoning culture of censorious neo-puritanism. You’re not burning books… yet. You’re just burying them out of sight and out of mind, while you dictate what “story” people are allowed to experience. The irony of bemoaning “Victorian” attitudes, while concealing works of art as if they’ve fallen foul of Victorian obscenity laws, is simply laughable.
How can you challenge something if you don’t see it? Are you going to look at an empty wall and discuss the painting that used to hang there? Makes me think of Chomeini issuing a death sentence for Rushdie without having read the Satanic Verses (not that reading the book would have justified his fatwa, but that’s not my point).
For all its professed good intentions, such a move to challenge the ‘damaging stories’ has a quite disturbing resemblance in the interwar period’s removal from galleries of ‘entartete Kunst’—also with professed good intentions. And as we know: The road to Hell is paved with such…..
“I really want to express how this is not about ‘censorship” – sorry but removing a painting so people can’t see it is censorship, I think that is clear to everyone. As a provocation it’s obviously effective in stimulating in a conversation, but I see most of the responses here are negative so it’s probably a counter-productive tactic – you’re just offending and annoying people rather than recruiting them to your cause. Also this painting seems a bizarre choice to support current concerns about harassment of women/MeToo etc since it is Hylas who is abducted by the nymphs – ie he is the victim here.
Hello Clare. Please stop this nonsense and put the painting back. If you want to start a conversation, a well written introduction to the gallery, visible when you walk in, or a postscript as you leave can do this. A blank wall filled with post it notes is just a sure fire way to anger most free thinking people and involve those who simply want a new excuse to rail against the ‘liberal elite’. Is this the conversation you want? You have made a mistake in removing the painting, please return it and let this all die down. There are far better ways to help with the Me Too campaign than blatant censorship.
I do not think that removing a work of art and its reproductions is the most fruitful way of provoking a discussion of what it shows – it just demonstrates censorship. A discussion can only be had with the evidence in front of you. As an art historian/museum professional, I feel that this was the wrong way in which to stimulate this discussion. The ‘playful’ way in which Sonia Boyce interacted with this work does not seem to have translated into the discussion on this page, or in the wider media/social media, which has been very angry. Nor should a ‘playful’ approach be taken towards the debates surrounding #metoo which must form a backdrop to this, the exposure of the consequences of patriarchal power. Removal of the painting reduces and closes down discussion, rather than opening it up to a consideration of art in its historical context.
In my view, this not be considered “censorship”. However, what the strategy does is bends the conversation before it has begun. It is based on the premise that this painting generates only outmoded views. Conversation is valid and necessary. But believe that this method of facilitation results in entrenchment of already-held views.
As this is a publicly owned work of art in a publically owned gallery who are these people who have decided to remove this beautiful and popular painting? As an adult I find its removal condescending as if I am not fit to decide what I may look at. There is much talk in society about the patriarchy and how it holds people back, there is also a similar system, the matriarchy, that seeks to control what we look at and how we run our lives. It’s alive and well in Manchester Art Gallery at the moment it seems. People will not be properly free until the patriarchy and matriarchy have been dismantled and consigned to the dustbin of history. On a lighter note, stop messing about and put it back in its rightful place. Did you choose ‘Hylas and the Nymphs’ because it was considerably easier to move than the voluptuous sirens in ‘The Sirens and Ulysses’ a few rooms along?
Clare, when you imply that the painting is somehow partly responsible for sexual exploitation and harassment (“President’s Club”), you wade into crass demagogy. What is next: mentioning Sandusky while rationalizing the removal of Michelangelo’s David?
So what is wrong with the age-old ‘pursuit of beauty’? The alternative is the acceptance of mediocrity. It is a natural instinct in healthy humanity to find attractive partners, pro-create and produce healthy, attractive offspring .. thus humanity would logically evolve healthier and more attractive characteristics. Beauty is beauty is beauty and will always appeal against any amount of political suppression, and will always be an aspiration to be achieved by self-discipline and effort. Much art is a celebration of human beauty, not all of it identical in perception, but identical in its admiration of, and delight in, the heights to which humanity can strive. To strive is good, to achieve is good, to succeed is good … nothing to be ashamed of, or to be ‘questioned’ as if it were some form of societal deviance, which needs to be brought to heel. For those who wish to wallow in mediocrity because others set higher standards, let them have their spaces, but not at the expense of those who have set and achieved their goals.
Sorry Clare, but this is censorship and frankly, there is nothing “playful” about it. I first thought I was reading about some Yahoo museum, library or school district in the deep south of the US enforcing their odd little views, but no, England, really? For shame….perhaps you and your cohorts should take a few moments out of your day and watch some of those book burning films from the Third Reich. Maybe then you would understand you have absolutely no right to tell any individual what to think, what to view, how they should interpret what they are viewing, etc…
I have not the time to read every response on this page but I am yet to find anyone whatsoever who agrees that the removal of this beautiful painting was ever a good idea, and certainly not a ‘playful’ way of engaging debate. Most people are enraged!
The only good thing that seems to have come out of it is that so many people love this painting and want to see it reinstated.
I have not visited the Manchester Art Gallery before as I do not live in the area. Perhaps this curated room, Gallery 10, is seen as ‘old fashioned’ in the way female beauty is portrayed but are you trying to CHANGE or ERASE history? Surely it is better to display works of art as they were produced historically and then in another gallery space offer alternative depictions of both male and female forms.
I have loved the work of JW Waterhouse since I hired a library book about the artist at about the age of 14 years old. I saw the way he depicted females as romantic and beautiful at that age. I longed to look like a JW Waterhouse nymph with their beautiful red hair! I thought these women looked both real and ethereal. It made a nice contrast at the time to many 90s pop idols. I am now a 38 year old art teacher (and a female!). I wouldn’t consider his work negative and have never hesitated to share it with my students.
Well, here we have it…a debate has been sparked and the best way I can see it being resolved is to print out and display the dozens of responses you’ve had to this ‘debate’ on the gallery wall in the space left by removing Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse. Leave them there for a few weeks for people to read and then get Hylas and the Nymphs back on public display where it belongs.
First off, if you think a work of art like this can be reduced to “bodies on display’, our ways part right there.
But let me address some of the more objectionable aspects of this “challenge to a victorian fantasy” anyway, enjoying for a minute or two the illusion of engaging in a real conversation about these matters.
The text written by the “gallery takeover” group (how lame to have an official, sanctioned, and possibly paid-for “takeover”, by the way!) is loaded with ideological assumptions and so many questions are begged that it makes the head spin.
“How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?”
This assumes that the collection was not talked about in a “relevant” way before this intervention. Isn’t it the intervention’s responsibility to argue for its own (greater) relevance, first?
“This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!”
This statement about the way women are depicted comes with no supporting arguments, fallaciously suggests that there are only two possible interpretations of what the galley was showing, assumes that what is shown can be reduced to a “presentation” of “the female body” and finally, blatantly, instead of leaving some room for discussion, pronounces the verdict that we’re dealing with a “Victorian fantasy” and proceeds to call on the audience to “challenge” this fantasy, exclamation mark. I have visions of Red Guards.
“The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?”
The first sentence is, to begin with, wide off the mark in that it talks about ‘race’ (a fictional category), and apart from that it’s gratuitous and redundant. Everything that exists exists in “a world full of intertwined issues”. Tell us something new? Then, again, in an implicit but therefor no less glaring non sequitur, and instead of leaving the tiniest bit of space for the audience’s own appreciation of the art works in question, we are asked how these might be somehow made to serve the takeover group’s ideological agenda (because that is, clearly, what is meant by “more contemporary, relevant”, even though that’s a practically content-free phrase).
“What other stories could these artworks and their characters tell? What other themes would be interesting to explore in the gallery?”
Repeating the sins of the preceding paragraph, the audience is once more told how to think about the works of art in question. Not a sliver of actual art history is offered to the readers, for their consideration. Instead, Waterhouse’s beautiful nymphs are condemned as mere bodies presented to serve a fantasy, much like sex workers are often condemned as accomplices of the patriarchy and what-not. In the end, this kind of feminist agitation reduces women to their bodies and presents them as speechless sexual beings and helpless victims of the male gaze much like the typical utterance of actual, ideological sexism does.
Let’s not have a replay of the cultural revolution, please. Let’s not lose our heads.
Wow… how trite… look at the story behind the painting as I fear that it is lost on you… If you had for example Sir Isumbras at the ford (Lady Lever) would you remove that as it celebrated a knight in his old age who tried to Christianise the Muslims in the Holy Land… art is there to learn from not go into denial about… if you remove the art you are guilty of feeding the divide not educating… remember the Met in New York refused to take a painting down?
The “playful” event was far from playful but a pernicious attempt at censorship… almost an act of wanton vandalism. Having spent yesterday reading the volume of comments the gallery has received largely in favour of the painting remaining I only see what you and your colleagues have done as one of the worse “own goals” in memory. A shameful act – some have said a cheap stunt, I actually think it is an expensive stunt and one that MAG could live to regret. I sincerely hope that you rise from this “bloody nose” you have received and look at the collection with fresh eyes and rejoice in what you have. IF you truly want to engage with the viewing public – engage don’t alienate… art is there to be viewed, considered and pondered on… it’s removal however, temporary does remove choice… that is censorship! By far and away the cheapest shot ever was likening it to The President’s Club.
I would ask you to look at the mosaic in Musée of Saint-Romain-en-Gal where there is a 3BC Roman interpretation of Hylas and the nymphs, it’s not that far off the Waterhouse… is that still relevant for 2018… sadly I think you have both mismanaged and misinterpreted art.
So you removed the painting because you think it represents damaging ideals about women and you think you should “tell a different story”… and you don’t think this is censorship.
Can I send you a dictionary?
Ms Gannaway —
I find your supposed justification for this move completely unconvincing: it smacks only of a publicity stunt to promote a future exhibition rather than any kind of “debate” about Victorian attitudes to women.
I also see from the Gallery’s website that it owns four works by Allen Jones. All are unillustrated on the site, but from the descriptions and from web research I see that three of them feature women either nude or in states of undress, which might be considered just as exploitative as Waterhouse’s nymphs by some viewers. Since you’re the contemporary art curator these works fall squarely within your area of responsibility. Have you therefore considered either pillorying them in public or possibly removing them from the collection completely? If not, why not?
If it’s “temporary”, this implies that it will be going back up on a given date. If not, then it is misleading and arguably disingenuous to use that word.
The ways of seeing represented in this painting and others like it have been challenged already, for the last forty plus years, by many well known and not so well known artists. Unless you suffer from amnesia or live under a stone the argument has already been made, accepted and disseminated. This piece of banal gesture politics looks like the efforts of an excitable undergraduate, who’s just seen Schneeman, Wilke and the rest for the first time and thinks all this is radical and new. I thought the contemporary perspective was an informed and grown-up one, and that we were in a pluralist era in which we can see paintings like this for what they are. It really does not need some vacuous gesture to make the issues this painting throws up visible to any thinking person, and the condescension that says WE have found it necessary to remove this from YOUR sight to teach you something is breathtaking.
Clare Gannaway says “We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption. Shouldn’t we be challenging this instead of perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist? ”
It’s MAG that chose to to name a Gallery ‘ Pursuit of Beauty’ and place the painting there, rather than the Pre-Raphaelite Gallery 7, so perhaps it’s MAG’s gallery themes which could be discussed.
Additionally I’m unconvinced by the blog statement ‘The act of taking down this painting was part of a group gallery takeover that took place during the evening of 26 January 2018. People from the gallery team and people associated with the gallery took part.’ If the group was the gallery team and associates how was this a ‘takeover’ as opposed to a managerial decision? I’m wondering whether the language has been chosen to give the event an edge which isn’t truly justified.
Joan, I completely agree with you that the gallery’s themes need addressing and challenging. That’s kind of the point and it’s amazing it hasn’t been done sooner, really.
The painting was done to depict a classical myth tale and as such is part of history as is the original poem/story. Leaving the painting in your “historical art section” does not mean you cannot show other works. If you do not want to show such paintings then let other galleries who do understand their place in history have them.
…and this was when the Manchester Art Gallery became a circus.
An original intention… Can have far more ‘unintentionall’, multiple far-reaching effects and consequences, than you realise.
Negative ‘public’ actions will automatically generate negative public responses. Your in danger of dividing and reducing the demographics of your visitors, instead of increasing them.
You have to take a holistic approach instead of an overall ‘replacement’ approach. Vetting of ‘any’ artistic integrity is wrong. Whether is a man who wishes to pose as a fine work of art, or a man who wished to paint a woman as/within a fine work of art.
All tastes within the law have equal validity. And within this, the public will remind you that ‘quality/virtuosity’ is regarded very highly.
It’s noticeable that the wall space for historical art is steadily shrinking year by year. And the historic gallery is turning into a ‘Tate Modern’. One at the expense of the other!
Create public themed + counter-themed events/shows, but don’t remove popular history from its own territory.
The public challenges you to produce more imaginative, integrated, themes, instead of removing widely popular artworks.
Play fair 🙂
A painting like Hylas and the Nymphs teaches people the Greek Myths. Your interpretation of the painting could encourage people to read the Greek Myths and learn for themselves. They would find that Hylas was gay, in a relationship with Heracles, and the nymphs, far from just being passively beautiful, were in fact abducting him for their own ends. It is far from a stuffy, prudish story!
They are fools for ideology. They only see the bodies of victims and the only context is political power. No story or history or beauty. Next it will be ‚whose history?‘. This is post 1980s university education on the loose in the workplace which is as irritating as fu€k.
I hope they transport it to Australia where English culture still exists and where it will be adored.
So true, makes a nonsense of the reasons it was removed.Maybe the group that removed it could do with a little educating before pontificating about “playful discussion”.
I will not be going back to Manchester Art Gallery until this nonsense stops.
I have flown across the ocean to visit this beautiful painting. Have never, ever, viewed it as “bodies”.
How very disappointing that the museum, known for its rich collection of PreRaphaelite art, chooses to politicize it.
And if you must do so, why not pick on de Kooning’s women instead?
There is a simple solution.
If the Manchester Art Gallery wish to take part in a social experiment perhaps they should just lend John William Waterhouse’s masterpiece to another gallery, for example the Walker in Liverpool.
That would mean that those of us who wish to view it could do so at our leisure, and those who don’t, don’t have to.
It would be interesting to know who actually owns the painting and on what terms it was entrusted to its current home. Is the gallery now in breach of contract?
Do what you like with your social experiments but don’t inflict your narrow views on those who wish to see this beautiful painting, and who may have limited time in which to view it.
This is quite outrageous and heavy handed in my opinion, and shows an extreme amount of arrogance, particularly when those responsible try to justify their actions.
The political correctness’ madness has reached out to the domain of the arts, starting to censor masterpieces that some gallery curators deem not in line with today’s range of acceptable discourse.
Let’s do ourselves (and the generations to come) a favour by promoting freedom of expression in the arts and in public speech by signing this petition.
https://www.causes.com/campaigns/117267-petition-the-return-of-hylas-and-the-nymphs-by-waterhouse
Another example of historical (hysterical) revisionism by those who seem only able to see the prurient in works of art to the exclusion of the beauty.
What do I think? I think the move is outrageous, and in Manchester where I thought there was quite a good art gallery. In fact it makes me so angry I can’t think straight enough just now to explain why (although it should be obvious when looking at such a harmless painting). Anyone can see it online anyway.
All i want to know is what will happen to paintings like this if other galleries in the U.K decide to follow this trend? if your planing on putting in storage forever i suggest to give it/ sell it to someone who will put it on public display.
Art can offend anyone, if you go down this path you’ll end up with an empty gallery.
The Feminist Marxists behind this disgusting act need to be removed from their jobs.
What’s next?
Destroying statues with pick axes like Islamic State ?
Are you trying to appease the rabid feminists or the Moslems ?
This country is circling the drain thanks to political correctness and cultural Marxism.
Art is not for conforming to the mode of the day. It is for challenging the conventions of said mode.
This is quite definitely censorship. Also a reinterpretation of the painting to fit with the zeitgeist. Does every naked female depicted in art now get considered for a politically correct cover-up? Perhaps Christo can be asked to wrap-up all nudity in art as a new proposal?
Jump on a bandwagon, why not? Or better still why?
This is an unreflected act of violent homophobia, as a young man growing up gay in a once hostile Manchester it was a way out of the straight world. Was it in the Queens Park collection? If so was that not a bequest with terms?
May I suggest another section to your web site – “What’s Not On” – then maybe people can plan their visits around these publicity stunts and actually see the paintings? Sigh.
People come to art galleries to see the paintings – not to see the remains of a ‘takeover’. Please do this via another forum that doesn’t impact the visiting public.
Removal of this painting is not quite on a par with the wholesale destruction of ancient monuments in the Middle East by religious extremists.
But it’s probably only a matter of degree.
As we move on our linear way through time we all gain an understanding of the context in which items were created and this understanding helps shape our thoughts and actions in the present, selectively censoring/hiding away the past in darkened rooms does nothing to promote growth. Hide nothing discuss all.
Shame on you for taking down this painting. I suspect you did this to gain publicity but you are flirting with a disgusting ideology. What’s next, are the texts of ancient Greece to be taken off the bookstore shelves because women did not hold a place in the senate? Sickening act of despicable post modern cultural defilement.
Ridiculous act to remove this pre-Raphaelite painting from the gallery +even the postcards on sale (really!). Too much thought process from the curator and how pathetic really to say it’s not censorship and call it a space for debate.
“This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!”
Let’s challenge this 21st Century assumption first. I fundamentally disagree with the stated premise, which is an imposition from one individual at the expense of other more nuanced opinions. It reeks of new puritanism and has no place in art unless one has a fetish for armbands and uniforms.
“What other themes would be interesting to explore in the gallery?”
Those dogs playing pool are pretty good paintings, problem solved.
Either a dismal publicity strategy stunt, imposition of an extremist view of the representation of women derived from the new Puritanism or a pathetic cod-intellectual attempt to ‘inspire debate’ ignoring the fact that most visitors to MAG want to see great works of art not be sucked into endless meta analysis. Why can’t you just stop interfering?
I find this retrograde and deeply depressing. The notion that a public gallery should deliberately choose show only the historical art that is deemed to be acceptable on some transient and political criterion ought to be anathema. We surely know where that leads. Its irresponsible and juvenile.
Thank you (and the Guardian) for having given me the opportunity to discover this fine work of art and to learn more about the pre-Raphaelites and the myth of Hylas. But it’s the first time I see painted female characters described as «bodies». That’s weird… But you’re right, this should be replaced with another painting, more in line with our times. Let me suggest an allegory like «Stupidity ruling the world»…
According to your website this artwork is still on display.
Presumably you will be reimbursing those who have trusted that this information is correct and have travelled to see it.
http://manchesterartgallery.org/collections/search/collection/?id=1896.15
Removing from view a picture which many people love and cherish is hardly ‘playful’. It smacks more of a crude attempt to force a particular view on to the public. If the removal is temporary, when will the picture be returned to display? Otherwise, as a commenter above has said, why not lend it to the Walker, the Lady Lever, or Birmingham? In any case, the pursuit of beauty (or the cult of beauty as the V&A/Musee d’Orsay exhibition had it) was what the artists in your room were concerned with, the room is accurately named. A municipal gallery is for everyone, not a platform for pushing particular views. I trust that Hylas and the Nymphs will be back on display very soon.
Thank you for the opportunity to think about this subject and engage with it. It’s a very courageous thing to do. It also raises the issue about ‘who’ is art for and whether curation should ‘force’ an opinion on the viewer.
My reaction is as follows: Try as I might, I cannot see taking something from public view for an overtly political or social engineering purpose as (1) censorship (selecting out rather than selecting in), (2) philistinism (taking away something of beauty) and (3) an attempt at thought control (overt manipulation).
To the core matter: If the intention is to helps the public discourse on child molestation then I think it does the opposite. Child molestation is a serious crime. Sweeping something under the carpet perpetuates it, it doesn’t help stamp it out. If anyone is ‘odd’ enough to be titivated by the nymphs, then I’d sooner they came out and said it so they could be challenged.
Also, if it assumes that all or most viewers would ‘get off’ on this picture in some way then that seems to me to be projecting views onto others quite wrongly.
Finally I would suggest the whole point of art is that one interprets it from one’s own perspective, so the idea that curation should attempt to push the viewer to interpret something in a particular way is one that’s off to a pretty sticky start.
Hi, I guess you meant to say “Try as I might, I cannot see taking something from public view for an overtly political or social engineering purpose as *anything other* than (1) censorship …”
Brilliant idea with the burning of a book redefined as literature. I will borrow this from you.
So it has come to this. The act of censoring a piece of art is now considered an act of artistic expression. A generation which has lost the ability to create anything of beauty must redefine the destruction of the past as art. What’s next ? The burning of a book will be considered literature ?
This is my favorite painting in the whole museum, I love it so much I have a replica hanging over my bed. I’m a 34 year old feminist who loves Greek Mythology. It tells a story in the painting. If you have issues with the gallery signs, change them, thats your responsibility. Don’t just take a much loved piece of art off display as part of a “feminist installation”. What next..fig leaves on penises…oh wait the Victorians already did that. I will be boycotting the art gallery until this goes back up.
@Carly M
Well said. Part of this ridiculous stunt is the patronising decision to decide what art means, on our behalf. How dare they.
I also love this painting and also believe I am a feminist (it’s a broad church). I think the Gallery has succeeded in generating debate. I hope that, point made, they put the work back – perhaps with a sample of the responses its removal provoked.
Anyway I’ve enjoyed scrutinising online images of the painting more closely, and far more often, than I usually do. So that’s a plus really.
I am appalled by this condescending little stunt – which means that people will not be able to see this painting for the duration. What next? Do you think the Prado is going to put the Naked Maja in a room with a trigger warning? Will the Venus de Milo be winched into the basement of the Louvre?
Removing this beautiful painting is political correctness in the extreme. Rehang this beautiful piece of art.
How disappointing, the decision clearly shows that the curators have no understanding of the myth of Hylas and the Nymhs. It is Hylas who is being objectifed after all….
An incredibly beautiful painting removed and denied from the public as a stunt designed solely to align with, and pander towards, current attitudes towards sexism in general. I have had a print of this work of absolute beauty on my wall for 20 years and have often returned to the gallery to see the genuine article – how sad that this opportunity has now gone for however long it will be in storage. In my opinion its removal implies already that you have made a censure towards it’s subject matter based on personal politics which is a retrospective swipe at the artistic and cultural history that it is a fundamental part of. I offer you a question, which you may choose to define as rhetorical or not, which is .. what would happen if the majority of the public respond by saying, great, it’s not politically correct so keep it in storage. In that case, would you keep it there? What a load of crap.
This is silliness of the highest order. More discouraginly, it makes movements which have fought against the exploitation and objectification of women look petty and insignificant while undermining the important message of those movements.
Amongst the many crimes of Isis and other genocidal groups is the destruction of culture through the imposition of meaning. For Isis it was the imposition of the idea that images in Palmyra and elsewhere were incititing beliefs they believed were blasphemous. I don’t want to sound alarmist, but this decision is in a similar vein by introducing the idea that this painting incites the demeaning of women and the objectification of adolescent girls. It doesn’t. The gallery is the one creating that belief.
I don’t even like the painting or this style, but this is patently ridiculous.
[…] says it has removed JW Waterhouse’s 1896 painting Hylas and the Nymphs from its displays “to prompt conversation”. Yet the conversation can only really be about one thing: should museums censor works of art on […]
The ‘current climate’ is about one person enforcing their sexual need on another. About one gender, generally women, appearing to be complicit, ie ‘gagging for it’ when they are really being put in a position of sexual dispowerment. So then how has any of what has been genuinely wrong about how people of respect have been found to be treating others with disrespect, relate to Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse? This painting, and generally Waterhouse’s works, is demonstrating the opposite message. Because these women are choosing what they want. Therefore they are strong! Therefore they are powerful! They are not being forced into an action that they are not willing to commit. The nymphs are behaving as nymphs did in ancient Greek mythology because it is an ancient Greek story! I worked for Rape Crisis and I’m all for demanding people treat each other with respect, sexually and generally, but if we are going to start applying censorship to art that actually speaks for sexual freedom, because Hylas is not being forced into the water, then we could be accused of hysterically throwing our best symbols of sexual independence down the proverbial bath’s plughole, along with that poor baby!
How can it ever be better to not see a work, rather than to see it?
Why not just rehang it along with other paintings of a similar nature and label the exhibition “Degenerate Art”?
The fact is that censorious people like the people responsible for this nonsense just don’t trust people to make up their own minds.
The person who started a petition to have a Balthus painting removed from the NY Met expressed anxiety about the work being viewed by “the masses”and that says it all really. This is puritanical, patrician illiberalism of the worst kind.
No more donations from me when I visit.
One thing I find interesting about this painting is the contrast between the portrayal of these nymphs and the rather more repressed view of women in Victorian society (and I admit to having limited knowledge of the realities of life for a woman in Victorian England. The picture I hold is of women clad watertight from chin to toe and with freedoms granted occasionally and inconsistently)
Rather than censoring images based on certain sensibilities, it might be more interesting to see an exhibition – spanning cultures and times – that juxtaposes such sexualized images of women against those images that present a more conservative fashion. It seems to me that this is a false binary generated by male dominated societies; fantasy vs jealousy. Lets challenge that binary, but let’s do it by exposing the fundamental hypocrisy rather than a hodge-podge censorship
Most of all, let’s keep having these conversations
… After posting this, I then took the time to read the other comments and was shocked by how few people were willing to engage in this conversation.
I hope it doesn’t get you all down and that you keep on trying to provoke discussion and challenge perceptions.
And to everyone who views this as censorship: anybody who edits, curates or even creates art (of any form) is presenting their own personal view to the world. That – in and of itself – is not an imposition, but an invitation. Listen, respect, engage… please
People are engaging in discussion. They’re just sharing views that don’t match yours.
“… After posting this, I then took the time to read the other comments and was shocked by how few people were willing to engage in this conversation.”
‘This conversation’? Really? Or are you more shocked that people aren’t stupid enough to be sucked into a divisive leftist stunt.
Welcome to art identity politics.
No debate just division.
If the purpose was to start a discussion, then she’s done really well Matt. Unfortunately for Clare, the conversation just doesn’t appear to be going her way. That’s the problem with the public I guess, they don’t always do what they’re told.
“I then took the time to read the other comments and was shocked by how few people were willing to engage in this conversation.”
Is it only a conversation if they agree with you Matt?
I am surprised that you you cannot see the illogicality of removing all trace of an object (the painting and the cards) and then expect to create a debate. What are people to talk about – a blank wall? Since it is about a Greek myth, the Greeks themselves, who valued education and vision, would be dismayed at the lack of perception that leads you happily to countenance so great a paradox
I must disagree. This curator has gotten a little too full of themselves. The role of a curator is to tell a story, but it’s to tell a story of a particular artist, a particular style, a period of time, or a subject or theme. It’s not to tell the story of their personal politics. Removing a work from display and replacing it with nothing because they personally disapprove of the work is censorship. It can not reasonably be construed as anything else. People don’t want to engage in this discussion because they resent the manner in which they are being coerced into engaging in it. In these circumstances, it is completely reasonable for people to simply refused to engage. This curator clearly thinks that they are more significant than the work they are curating which is, frankly, preposterous. I encourage people to continue to refuse to engage.
Hi Matt,
It is censorship read the quote in the Guardian “For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere … we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”
It’s not about the action, but about the intention of the curator.
You and the American far right have a lot in common.
I’m all for discussion and it is certainly the job of curators and galleries to educate the public. My problem was that the reasons the gallery gave only served to demonstrate their ignorance and incompetence. I found their reasoning simplistic and embarrassing. Rather than discuss the painting, let’s discuss their lack of knowledge of the subject (of both the idealisation of the human form, male and female, in classical art – and the deeper meaning of the myth depicted in the painting).
It’s a publicly owned museum. The curator is more than welcome to display whatever she wants in her own property.
Until the painting is returned, I won’t be supporting Manchester Art Gallery anymore.
Presumably you are addressing these supplementary remarks to yourself, as you also describe the act as one of censorship in your first comment. No-one denies the need to curate large collections, but what we see here is a curator elevating her role to that of moral instructor to us, the ill informed. There is no conversation to be had, because the ‘correct’ opinion has been stated up front, and action taken before we, the unwashed, were even alerted.
Yes. On the one hand, Victorians had covered piano legs, and ‘exposed ankle’ photos as porn. Yet, on the other, art was pretty free: even the beginnings of ‘tableax vivants’. Or was that a later reaction to Victorian prudery?
I think one problem today is that we consume reality and fantasy (news and entertainment) through the same media. Can we no longer tell the difference? Has ‘Reality TV’ displaced reality?
I used to visit the gallery in my lunch hour and spend time studying all the paintings. The pre-Raphaelite works inspired one of my novels (even though in the novel I set a key scene in the Whitworth instead).
I don’t mind cycling collections at all, but attempts to hide or censor the past are generally counter-productive. Instead we should analyse the past as it was, and interpret it. We can’t do that when it is locked away. It’s like the bowdlerised versions of many books like Tom Sawyer. It’s actually better to see them in the context of the time and use them as starting points for discussing changing attitudes than to pretend any offensive elements never existed. In one case we educate. In the other we miss the opportunity to do so.
Maybe you could ask the Musée d’Orsay for a loan of Courbet’s “L’Origine du Monde”. That should provoke the conversation you are requesting.
In a city of proud liberal values such as Manchester, this can only be seen as a betrayal of the moral, educational and social progress that we have achieved in our great city. This curator has done us all a profound disservice, and her irrational act will almost certainly damage the reputation of the Gallery itself. She has no mandate to censor our access to Waterhouse’s exceptional art. It’s removal is an act of cultural vandalism, plain and simple.
Display the painting.
I will not return to your gallery until this painting hangs there again. This was a work that during my university years engaged me with my first appreciation of art. This is po faced censorship at and a dangerous retrograde step for 21st century morality. The comments here speak for themselves. Get off your high horse.
How dare you remove this iconic painting by one of the most talented artists to ever have lived. You, Manchester Art Gallery, have gone too far in your removal of Waterhouse’s ‘Hylas and the Nymphs’. This act of censorship is shameful. Art lovers of the world will not stand for this.
Where to start with this nonsense?
I’m not keen on the painting, but that’s hardly the point. It is the height of historical illiteracy to remove a painting because of the dictates of some modish ideological perspective. The painting may not be very interesting aesthetically, and may even be risible on some level, but it’s also a perfectly reasonable narrative depiction of the myth of Hylas and the Nymphs. Perhaps, therefore, you would like to start removing “problematic” stories from the corpus of Greek mythology? Where will this purge end? When everything offensive to contemporary political sensibilities has been placed under erasure?
I know those responsible for this think they are on the side of the angels, but they really aren’t. The removal of this painting has the singular distinction of being both utterly fatuous and somewhat sinister.
An absurd and facile thing to do.
The nymphs (non-human) are in the process of kidnapping Hylas so the viewer knows these are not what they appear and your preconceptions are unjustified.
Ignoring that, its beautifully painted – no Tracey Emin here – wonderfully composed and detailed beyond the ability of most artists. It remains a truly fantastic painting. Not all pre-Raphaelites were, but this one is.
If Manchester don’t want it, can I have it please?
Waterhouse’s work shows most of todays successful artists for the talentless dross they are.
Don’t blame the modernists or Europeans for this burocrátic felony!
As a gay man I am so utterly pissed off by this act of censorship (it’s still censorship even if you say its not) and what seems to be a group of small-minded prudes now in charge at the Manchester.
Ridiculous decision!
I studied art but I’m no art historian and I know nothing about Victorian gender politics beyond the commonly received wisdom. This may simply be a depiction of male desire but my first thought was that this painting might just as easily be an allegory about the dangers and pitfalls of male desire rather than a celebration of it. We all have base desires that we may be subservient to or in control of or somewhere in the middle. This shows a man not in control of his desire and I would posit that it is this leading him to his doom, not the women them selves who are, after all, a projection of that desire.
It reminds me of Odysseus and the sirens, a story which (without going into much detail) I believe to be an allegory about man subduing and mastering his own baseness. Despite temptation and a 20 year absence, Odysseus was ultimately faithful to his wife Penelope.
We should not merely view the past through today’s lens. To paraphrase Mary Beard, if we create a window to the past and expect to recreate a full picture for something which will inevitably contain voids it will be tempting to fill those with our own subjective views. We can’t just look at picture, we have to look at the window.
Ps. I think it’s a shame so many responses seem to take this a literal act of censorship. C’mon people, if it were, why can I see the picture at the top of this page and why haven’t they removed all ‘problematic’ images.
Also, I’m not sure there is such a thing as true objectivity but if we all strived a little harder to be objective in public discourse I think we’d all be enriched for it.
Sad to see this happening in the 21. century. Are you going to burn inappropriate books next? Or just lock those away too?
Absolutely disgraceful to remove the Waterhouse painting. Put it back as soon as possible, and don’t be so pathetic.
straight female. Love the pictue don’t feel upset by it, I’ve got breasts so they don’t scare me. I’m not interested in intrepreting, challenging the narrative, or looking at someone appropriating William Morris designs by scribbling ‘alternative anti-colonial PC unimaginative’ felt pen on them. The ‘show the Queen with a black face’ trope has been done before, it’s not saying anything. Put Waterhouse back. Some of us aren’t afraid of beauty, and don’t need big sisters to tell us other sisters what we’re permitted to see.
I completely agree with those who say that this is illiterate censorship, but what also disturbs me is the action of the curator. This is not a `playful’ gesture designed to provoke debate, it is an ill thought out move engendered by a trite and banal thought process. I expect a high quality of curatorship at public galleries. Curatorship of public art is a huge responsibility and should be based on expertise, intelligence and a non judgemental attitude to art. This painting, as other either great or universally popular works, speaks to universal human themes, something we all relate to. I know you want to put your personal stamp on your work, but this is a job where you, as curator are a public servant and you should act as such. This is naïve and illiberal and I will not be visiting this gallery.
Our culture is drowning in a tsunami of digitised hardcore porn and you thinks it’s time to get all prissy about a harmless piece of Victorian cheesecake? I am deeply disturbed by this decision and the whole “Year Zero” approach to rewriting history. I will not be visiting Manchester Art Gallery until this picture is put back on display.
Trendy PC nonsense. You should never try and contextualise historic art by the standards of today. Presumably you object to Renoir as well? The most objectionable thing about this painting is the overly romantic style.
Why the hysteria? The painting has not been burned. We are told it has been removed temporarily in order to provoke a reaction. We have been given permission to talk about what the painting-and possibly others which share some of its features- means to us-positive and negative views are equally permitted. Personally I find it disturbing that the tone of this conversation is so bitter with so many contributions assuming bad faith on the part of the Gallery when the explanation on the website is so open. Jonathan Jones in the Guardian is doing his usual rabble rousing-in the interests of his own notoriety or in the interests of a debate-well, your guess is a good as mine
“We are told it has been removed temporarily in order to provoke a reaction”
Well they are getting a reaction, by people who believe in freedom of expression and not censoring art. DOH
In what sense have we been given “permission” to talk about this painting? Are you really suggesting that debate can only take place when officially sanctioned?
Genuinely saddened by this. There’s great inequality and asymmetry when it comes to art in this country with the spoils going, like everything else to London.The V&A’s heist of Bradford’s photos is a recent example.
Manchester has a world class collection of Pre-Raphaelite paintings and the collection is a real jewel in what Manchester, as a cultural centre, has to offer. To start removing pieces like this – pieces that are relatively innocuous in the greater scheme of things – diminishes Manchester and especially Manchester Art Gallery.
Over the last 30 plus years I have seen a lot of art at Manchester Art Gallery and not all of it great. However, the Pre-Raphaelite collection is a constant in the sheer quality of the paintings on show.
This smacks of the Nazis removing art they considered debauched. Put it back or give it to another gallery which will display it.
The implication here is that male appreciation of a female body is somehow wrong, indecent, or unethical. It’s perfectly normal and healthy for men to appreciate the beauty of a women’s body. It doesn’t mean he thinks less of her as a person. It is just a man’s recognition of female beauty. It is somewhat ironic that you are striving to challenge a Victorian fantasy by engaging in the very prudishness that Victorians are best known for.
The ‘conversation’ so far looks somewhat one sided and you, MAG, look very silly.
The problem with the dictum usually associated with PT Barnum, that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, is that what might work for a nineteenth century freak show does not hold for a serious art establishment in the c21.
Please can Manchester Art Gallery let us know when this painting will once again be on display so that members of the public can once again view it and make up their own minds about it. I have just read the article in the Guardian concerning the sad removal of this painting and the overwhelmingly critical comments on this page. Hopefully the Gallery will listen to the views of the public and realise that this clumsy experiment should be brought to an end and return the picture as soon as possible.
Hylas and the Nymphs is one of the best works by JW Waterhouse. Your attempt to use this picture (or rather its removal from the gallery) as a leverage “to provoke discussion” (which should mean “virtue signalling and pursue of cheap popularity”) is absolutely disgraceful. This picture was provoking discussion and thought where it was and where it belongs – in the museum exhibition. If you are still a museum and not a Ministry of Moral. Your excuses “we’ll keep the picture out of sight to provoke discussion” are pathetic and I would call them also disgusting. Nearly as disgusting as Clare Gannaway’s use of the sore theme of “#MeToo” to “justify” this unpardonable attitude towards both Art and public. Does Clare Gannaway really think that females are so stupid that they will be offended by this picture? Well, she obviously should see from the reactions here that it is not so. But even now Clare Gannaway and her clique (sorry, after what happened I cannot possibly call this museum administration) continue to hold her “we will still keep the picture away from you, keep talking, we want you to talk, but not to see the picture” position.
Well, I think it is quite enough talking. This museum is funded by few public funds, here is the list.
Manchester City Council
Arts Council England
Heritage Lottery Fund
The Zochonis Charitable Trust
The British Council
The Charles Wallace Pakistan Trust
The John Ellerman Foundation
GF Smith
Farrow & Ball
I plan to contact each and every one of them explaining the situation created by Clare Gannaway’s lack of professionalism and want of cheap popularity. I will attach screenshots from this forum to show the reaction of the public and the poor excuses of museum workers. Then I will try to contact each and every one of the patrons here http://manchesterartgallery.org/support-us/patrons/. I am sure they will be quite interested to see that they suddenly became the patrons of some virtue signalling programme and not a museum.
I will strongly recommend those who want the picture back (and the people who put it away out of the Manchester Art Gallery) do the same.
Oh, and by the way. I am a female. I am a researcher, with more than one high education. I am also a cancer survivor. During my chemo I came to see “Hylas and the Nymphs” whenever I could (about once in three weeks, because I was in a lot of pain). It soothed me and helped me through. As a piece of infinite beauty and true Art. So dear Miss Gannaway, could you, please, get down from the cold and snowy peaks of your virtue and put the picture back, where people can see it and think about it. If you did not know it was supposed to provoke thought that way.
I will make screenshot of this comment. Just in case someone will get another idea of censorship that is masked as “thought provocation”.
This is a ludicrous decision. And the nonsense about ‘provoking a conversation’ is a fig-leaf (ha!) for censorship. Just as well you aren’t lucky enough to own the explicit L’Origine du monde or any of those queasy Balthus paintings, or indeed to be selling Lolita in your bookshop. If you want a ‘conversation’, then have it WITH THE PAINTING. Not by shoving it in store. A truly dreadful petty and rather pathetic decision.
Art is nuance and interpretation, whereby an artist’s vision can mean many things to many people. As times change, so do interpretations. The profound becomes the profane. But whether profound or profane, the measure of an artwork is its ability to provoke a response. That response is a reflection of the spectator, they who wander the gallery looking for something that stirs their emotion and humanity. In choosing to censor art, you are censoring your response. Whatever the content, your response is what makes you an individual. Art can be challenging and it can ask us questions. It is not the fault of the paint upon the canvas if we don’t like our answers.
In it’s own way, removing the painting and asking for a response is art. Like a Rorschach test, we are put in a position where we must consider an image or action on our own. When an art work becomes part of the scenery, it is no longer seen. Notable by absence, the removed painting is now more visible and relevant – kicking it’s spurs into the sides of the dazed spectator to command attention and discussion.
One of the stupider things I’ve heard of lately. I’m a feminist and (US) liberal and am totally against removing it. No censorship of art!
I’ve lived in places where there is serious censorship. This gimmick trivialises the real sacrifices and risks taken by those around rhe world struggling for freedom. Ashamed of you.
This is absolutely outrageous. It’s a beautiful artwork. Modern day neo-Puritans must be vigorously resisted!
This is so wrong. If The Manchester Art Gallery can’t bring itself to be sane about the well-known work of one of the most beloved artists in the world, please give or sell this painting to another gallery or museum that will exhibit it. You say it’s not about censorship, but it is, so own up to that. Every decision is about this or that, so it’s a judgement which is control on some level and people are human with biases and clearly this act exhibits a bias. The bias here is following the contemporary issue-du-jour and jumping on a bandwagon. You’re not provoking discussion by removing a beloved painting, you are inciting negative reactions. There are other ways to bring about discussion and the aim you say you want of exhibiting today’s artists, but this is not it. This is more wrong than you can understand, apparently.
There are some really serious issues about how women are treated in contemporary society which are starting to be discussed properly – and you go and crap all over that wirh this puerile, pseudo-academic nonsense. Depressing – you should be ashamed of yourselves.
You can’t hide something away and then pretend to have a discussion. Is this really the state of art education in the clickbait age? You mock the idea of in-depth discussion in favour of cheap controversy.
I’m not for censorship. Let folks see it and form their own opinions.
When I look at this painting and understand the Nymphs are luring him to his death, I see naked teenage girls in a lake about to commit murder. I can understand the historical context of the subjugation of women for the male gaze, but in today’s context of women shaking off gendered exceptions, a whole exhibition of murderesses in classic artwork would be bad ass. Sign me up.
This is a rotten decision. Please put the painting back, taking it from public view is equivalent to banning books.
PUT IT BACK, NEVER CENSOR ART!
HOW DARE YOU? WHATS NEXT PUTTING JEANS ON MICHELANGELOS DAVID TO COVER UP MR. WINKIE?
I’m sick to DEATH of PC ruining the arts. Nothing should ever be censored and nobody should be told what we are or aren’t permitted to see.
Please put the painting back. I think it has already all been said above. This stunt is not welcome.
I really wish I was the guy in that painting. Even if they are going to drown him, what a great way to go.
This destructive decision, formulated in part by contemporary politics, sets a dreadful precedent. Shame on the Manchester Art Gallery. They have committed a moral crime.
“The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?”
Requiring art to be relevant is philistinism.
I’m a 56 year old woman and love Waterhouse. I had several prints around the house when I had a house for over twenty years and this particular print was in a place of honour in my home office where I looked upon it every day.
I saw Greek mythology most of the time. Sometimes I imagined it was Narcissus staring at his face reflection in the water and the water nymphs pulled him to his death. Sometimes I imagined other stories as I stared at the women and the man. Were they mermaids? Did they have legs? What else was in the water? Can the man swim? Had they ever seen a man before? It’s a marvelous writing prompt!
I am a writer and the Waterhouse mermaid paintings inspired me for some of my stories. I had large prints and small postcard prints all around the house.
I’ve never looked at any of these brilliant works of arts as “body parts” and certainly have never thought about pedophilia. I don’t know what is happening in this world today where people can’t wait to trash history instead of understanding where a work of art, whether a painting, a book, a piece of music, or film fits into history and the social/political climate it was created in.
I thought we got past silly censorship situations in the eighties but apparently we’re going backward in time.
I’m really worried about the state of young people these days who seem to need to be protected all the time. Protected from what? A work of art created by a human brain and human hands before TV or video games were invented. If your first thought at looking up classic, gorgeous art is “ooh, boobs” or “that’s pedophilia” then you need more psychological help than hiding a painting is going to get you.
I am really not a fan of social media and have never posted online before, but I was so upset after reading the Guardian article about the removal of Hylas and the Nymphs I felt I had to speak up. I have always loved art, particularly Pre-Raphaelite art. I can’t explain how much this painting means to me, one of the only happy memories I have from School was visiting this gallery and seeing this painting. I have been back to visit many times since, even bringing others with me, however after this I will not visit Manchester Art Gallery ever again (even if they choose to eventually reinstate the painting). I don’t know how anyone can describe this as artistic expression, at best the removal of this painting is a cheap and nasty publicity stunt, at worst an act of fascism. The only thing that Manchester Art Gallery could do to even slightly redeem themselves is to give this painting to a worthier gallery such as the Walker or Lady Lever. Again, just to put this in context I am a woman and a feminist. Congratulations Sonia Boyce and Manchester Art Gallery if discouraging people from visiting art galleries and turning them away from art is your main aim, then you have succeeded.
Restore this beautiful work of art to public view as it should be, or sell it to a gallery who will. Your pathetic pretense of generating conversation cannot hide your shrivel-hearted resentment of both female beauty and artistic merit.
The myth of Hylas has Hercules falling in love with Hylas, and teaching him what he knows. Hylas meets the nymphs and disappears with them. Could we conjecture that Hylas is escaping a relationship based on an inbalance of power and turning to a more equal companionship? It seems to me tthat there is more than two ways of seeing this painting.
Put it back so that people can work out their own visions of it. Removing it seems to assert that your way of looking at it is the only one.
What we are seeing here is little more than a passive aggressive version of censorship of what a few cultists consider “degenerate art”. It is not the modern world or modern sensibilities that have changed how we view these things, it is a clutch of moral scolds who expect the rest of us to be shamed by their neo-puritan preaching and fingerpointing. It is one step away from declaring things “degenerate art”.
Less of the archaic moralism pretending to be socially relevant critique please.
Hylas and the Nymphs is one of my favourite works by JW Waterhouse – who is my favourite painter – and I was sad to hear of its removal from the walls of Manchester’s art gallery. Whether it’s part of a temporary ‘stunt’ or more permanent ‘removal’, I feel this act disregards both the mastery of the artist as well as the content of the composition. This painting evokes the power of women over men, visualising a significant metaphor, the entrancing yet simultaneously empty expressions of the nymphs draws the gaze of both the viewer in the scene and the viewer in the gallery. I have spent minutes on end enthralled by this painting and the magic and mystery it alludes too and I will be greatly saddened if it disappears from Manchester art gallery’s for good due to current waves in sexual ‘correctness’. I am a young woman and consider myself an ardent feminist, this painting does not, and has never, offended me. Rather for me it highlights not only the beauty of the small female form (versus say Rossetti’s voluptuous depictions) but the ongoing power and particularly strength found in female group solidarity in approaching – and disarming – male figures. I hope this work will be restored to its rightful place soon, otherwise my visits to the gallery may be far less frequent.
There must be at least 100 better ways to promote discussion and debate on this topic than by taking the painting down. No matter how you try to explain it away, it is, indeed, censorship, and it’s insulting to our intelligence to try and pretend otherwise.
Such a silly idea….the kind of move that makes me think that some people really have too much time on their hands.
Please put Waterhouse back. Removing it is a puerile gesture that does nothing for the cause of women.
I still have a postcode of Hylas and the Nymphs at home, will Sonia Boyce and Manchester Art Gallery be coming to my house next to remove that as well?
When you say “group gallery takeover”, do you mean “pretentious dicking about”?
I’m sure our city’s overseas visitors will marvel at the bare wall and celebrate how edgy you’ve been. Well done.
Art is supposed to reflect the entirety of the human condition. Surely this includes exploring male desire, and men’s fear of female power, which is what this painting represents. It is a snapshot of male anxiety just at a time when women were starting to win more freedom. It tells a tale from our history, which is exactly what museums are supposed to do. Manchester Gallery should present their art to the public and allow them to judge, not hide it away, which is tantamount to cultural theft.
Give me a break. Waterhouse was an outstanding artist, and this is a great painting. Either put it back on your wall or hand it over to some less delicate museum that is willing to display it.
I think I’ll just stay away period. There’s too much of this political correctness being forced by progressives.
This is reminiscent of Nazi Germany’s van of decadent art & Iran’s morality police forcing women to cover up. Whoever did this clearly has no appreciation of art & should be sacked
This important work of art clearly means a lot to people. Why does the gallery and this ‘artist’ have the right to prevent people from seeing it? Reading
The comments here I can see that some people have travelled far to see it. Also the website still
Lists it as being on display. This is unacceptable. This ridiculous kind of political statement would be more suited to the Tate perhaps? Where unmade beds and urinals are considered art. Removing a piece of art because it offends you is not art. I urge the gallery to reinstate as soon as possible.
I have visited the gallery twice in the last month, and remember studying this painting.
Perhaps instead of taking it down, the gallery could display contrasting works along side. This could provide the balance you are looking for, and would allow the visitor to come to their own conclusions.
Maybe the removal of this painting by the artist says more about the City Gallery and the inability of their staff to effectively curate this work or make it relevant in the contemporary world of 2018. Why not rotate works from the collection more often or have Victorian works displayed alongside contemporary perspectives?
Let’s hope Hylas and the Nymphs can now be moved to a more engaging space!
The only “conversation” this ridiculous act seems to have provoked is about whether it’s a good idea to remove pictures the museum team don’t want us to see. Perhaps if you put it back we could have a conversation about sexuality, gender politics, concepts of beauty etc. which the painting in itself is likely to engender.
>How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?
It’s a Victorian painting. It “speaks” from its own time. You’re trying to force it to “speak” in contemporary ways to the 21st century? If humans ever make it to a 22nd century what do you think your “provocation” (stunt/ gimmick/ banal advertisement) will “speak” about our time to future people?
This is “art” now. The chatter about art has replaced the art. Still you have your gravy train to ride, right?
All of this… All. Of. This. This is just going to a place I can never go, would never want to go. Why not hide Michelangelo’s Pietà in a moldy basement, lest a woman who’s chosen to remain childless feel shamed by the perceived glorification of motherhood, or a mother who has lost a child be “triggered” by having to look at it. You want to start a conversation? I’m so sick of these kinds of conversations, I could shoot myself. And if you didn’t know the myth of Hylas, you could make up any one of a million stories that would fit this painting. Maybe the guy lost his friends in the woods and the mermaids are giving him directions? Put the freaking painting back up.
As a female realist artist and a feminist, this act is offensive to me as a feminist and as an artist. The removal of this or of any art work in order to engage in some sort of dialogue about the female body? Does this mean that no one can ever paint a nude female ever again? Or can women only be represented as strong nudes? What does that constitute? You can’t take a painting out of its context and say, there are nude women, therefore this represents the eons during which the female body has been inscribed with performative norms. This act demonstrates what is profoundly wrong with the art world. Sophomores (no matter what age, it is a type of thinking that lacks sophistication) intent on controlling the dialogue on art from a insular academic standpoint are now hijacking works of art to make a point, to incite dialogue? Have your discussion all you want, be honest about your motivations, don’t manipulate people to engage them, which is what this is. If I lived in Manchester, I would look into how much funding the parties are getting for thinking this up and actually going through with it. Your tax dollars at work!
Looked into this further and have decided you think that removing the painting and having people put notes about it on the wall is, itself, some sort of art. Group Gallery Takeover? It isn’t art. It’s just pretentious BS. If you haven’t already put the painting back, put it back.
Not provoking conversation but promoting censorship.
“Starting a conversation,” nice anodyne attempt to hide your pearl clutching. I’m surprised you just didn’t put the nymphs in burkas. Your mission should be to help preserve culture and not to become part of the vanguard attempting to destroy it. Anyone involved with this nonsense should not be working in GLAM industries.
Heracles took Hylas with him on the Argo, making him one of the Argonauts. Hylas was kidnapped by nymphs of the spring of Pegae, Dryope, that fell in love with him in Mysia and vanished without a trace (Apollonios Rhodios). This upset Heracles greatly, so he along with Polyphemus searched for a great length of time. The ship set sail without them. According to the Latin Argonautica of Valerius Flaccus, he never found Hylas because he had fallen in love with the nymphs and remained “to share their power and their love.” Not really seeing how this diminishes women.
Put the painting back. This removal is one of the stupidest decisions an art gallery has ever made.
Put it Back, did you leave a blank space or perhaps only allow certain people to see it as they used to do at Pompeii? Did you ask the public before your desperate attempt at attention and relevance? Are your questions only referencing celebrity recent events? If not, why are you only doing it now. You have had quite a lot of time to ask this question, and this isn’t a new development.
Removing the work to discuss it?! What idiocy! That’s like saying let’s have a book club to discuss this book but wait, let me burn them all first. Pure ignorance.
I am so very disappointed in you, Manchester Art Gallery! As a university lecturer teaching the art and literature of the fin-se-siecle, I teach this painting, which is one of my favorites. It’s a glorious work of art, and one that people deserve to see. If you do not wish to display it, please sell it to a museum that will treat it with more care and respect. Taking it away from the public to prompt “conversation” is juvenile–there is nothing daring or genuinely intellectual in what you are doing. If you want a conversation, teach the public about the painting, and about pre-Raphaelite art, which does not get much respect anyway. Teach the concept of the femme fatale–teach the New Woman and the suffrage movement of that time. Teach about aestheticism. But any museum should be better than this–I am so very disappointed in how gimmicky this entire process is! Really, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I am sick and saddened to see that the Waterhouse painting is to be removed due to modern ideals of sexuality or nudity. It’s a beautiful piece of art with historical significance. What is wrong with you people censoring art?
Isn’t it more accurate to regard the painting as an image of female power? Hylas was a member of the Argonauts sent to fetch water, and the painting shows the fateful moment when the nymphs kidnap him into their realm. They are hardly a ‘passive decorative form’ but rather forceful enough to abduct one of the favorites of Heracles. Nor were they femme fatales, because they didn’t kill Hylas; Dryope induced him to love her as part of Hera’s plan.
So, Clare Gannaway and Sonya Boyce, when you’re ready to end this embarrassing publicity stunt, please replace the painting. You can ‘contextualize’ it with whatever caption you like, but why not let the public have access to a beloved work of art that predates you, because you are a trustee of that public interest, and what is a Museum but a haven of the muses?
This is not the first time that “Hylas and the Nymphs” has been removed from a wall. Back in the 80’s, a beautiful New Age friend here in LA hung a large print as the centerpiece of her tastefully erotic sitting room. She saw the painting as a subtle expression of the beauty of youth and the enticements of budding sexuality. I admit I took a bit of malicious glee in explaining that in another minute those beautiful girls would drown that handsome boy amidst their fragrant lilies. It totally popped her bubble and she took it down the next day.
Since the only reason I have ever considered going to either Manchester or Birmingham is the quality of their pre-Raphaelite collections, I decided to check out the museum’s website. The first thing I noticed is that one of the featured artworks is William Etty’s “The Sirens and Ulysses”, an image rather startling in its vulgarity — the sirens look like they just escaped from 60’s Soho. The nymphs of Hylas look like a Girl Guides swimming outing in comparison.
Having browsed through virtually your entire collection on ArtUK.com, I could count scarcely 20 paintings having any kind of female nudity or potentially dangerous women. You also have hardly any headliners in your collection, Hylas being one of the few. Your gallery is virtually sexless. So the idea that your “takeover” is going to somehow shatter centuries of ruthless Manchester misogyny is laughable. I think rather than the current empty space, you should move in Therese Lessore’s “Let’s Go Home, Sis!”, which may not upset people so much
The fundamental problem in your approach is that you want to suppress the mythic feminine, which contains many levels of ambiguity and danger. The romantics and pre-Raphaelites were obsessed with these myths and achieved a masterful retelling. But obviously any nymphs, sirens, harpies, lorelei, undines,
silkies, amazons and fairy ladies in dark forest springs need not apply to Manchester.
Bram Dijsktra’s “Idols of Perversity” is the most comprehensive study of the bizarre and systematic male hysteria against women in 19th century art. If you want to have a serious discussion on that topic, you could organize an exhibition of some of those paintings. Sacrificing Waterhouse’s subtly erotic retelling of the Hylas myth in the service of your shallow social media “takeover’ stunt is really too, too bad.
A conversation by taking art hostage is not something that can be reasonably had by creating duress. An act of PC vandalism–a stunt that should have been rejected out of hand, not put up for internet “conversation.” Deeply disappointed in the Manchester Art Gallery. A failure of judgement that will hopefully be remembered as one the 21st century’s greatest crimes against our culture and art.
I am very familiar with this painting and it is one of my all time favourites. I looked at it many times alongside all the Lowries. I could swear it was on permanent exhibition in the Salford City Art Gallery adjacent to the Salford CAT (later a University) when I was an engineering student from 1962 to 1968.
It is a truly beautiful painting with masterly execution, balance, an exceptional palette; just a delight to look at. I wish my own paintings were 1% as good.
As to interpretation it could vary from, “hello girls, taking a dip are you? I just came to fill my jug with water.” to a young man being led into temptation and it could be a metaphor for all kinds of temptation. I never, ever saw it as a representation of naked female bodies, nor as sexual in any way at all. The naked breasts are almost incidental – just look at the use of purple in the lily pads instead. Nor is there anything sexist about it and to even suggest such a thing is to attach to it a false attribute that just isn’t there. I grew up in Burnley in the 1950s where factory supervisors were called “overlookers” – non sexist language and I was taught to treat people with respect (also non sexist). Most families were two income and most women worked in the mill and men cooked and cleaned. Maybe that is why I never saw anything sexual or sexist in this lovely painting.
Finally: no-one tells me what to think. And I allow no-one to dictate to me what paintings I may or may not view. So please, please get rid of your misconceptions about the painting and put it back on the walls where it belongs.
This is a classic artpiece, Beautiful to the eye and by a master painter. Put it back.
pathetic choice.
Whom ever is responsible for this is not interested in protection they are interested in censorship and control of freedom of expression. Plain a simple.
Could you please, please, PLEASE sell this artwork to the Philadelphia Museum of Art? You don’t want it and many Philadelphians passionately do. I’m sure we can raise the money to buy your unwanted art.
I’m not a Brit, but I think it sounds like you’re rolling over for iconoclasts. To the extent that Waterhouse’s painting is reliant on what came before, it is a symbiotic relationship – Classical myth benefits from this visual depiction just as the painting benefits from its context. Taking it down, on the other hand, is purely parasitic.
This the height of absurdity. The censors have taken over in the name of political correctness and this getting out of hand. This is really the height of stupidity and seems like the kind of thing an adolescent would do. Pathetic.
1985 called and wants its victim feminism back.
What wonderfully ‘artistic’ timing of you to create this stunt.
Lets sow division, eh, where there was previously none.
There is no debate to be had other than what society should do with the socialist puritans that seem to be running the show.
Censor art at your peril.
You don’t deserve that beautiful piece of art. Don’t hide it, give it to a museum or a gallery that truly appreciates it and is not contaminated by this modern garbage of political correctness.
The very act of removing Waterhouses’ masterpiece is an act of censorship.
You should be ashamed for being in the vanguard of this.
Next we will have another Bonfire of the Vanities, correct? Will you be the first to throw Waterhouses’ work on the fire of the rising puritanical tide?
As an artist I find your move absolutely reprehensible
I will boycott the gallery unless this magnificent painting is not returned to display.
How about leaving the paintings where they are and letting the visitor decide what they want to look at and how they view each piece. When we start to go down the road of someone deciding what we should see or not see, it’s a dangerous road. Who decides and what criteria do they use? Everyone has different views. If you don’t want to see a piece of art you won’t go to the art gallery. If you do see a piece you didn’t expect to then maybe your views and understanding will be challenged – after all isn’t that what art’s all about?
Not sure what’s worse, the Post Modern Prudishness, or the exploitation of classic art to promote Post Modern agendas that certainly nothing in the Contemporary collection would illicit because quite frankly there’s mot a single work in the Contemporary collection that anyone would give a damn if it was removed. Keep on walking on the backs of giants while proclaiming yourselves the real giants, fools.
Others have already expressed my thoughts: the removal of this painting shows an appalling disrespect for the general public, who apparently must be shielded from art deemed politically incorrect. I can’t help thinking that somewhere in Afghanistan those responsible for destroying the Buddhas of Bamiyam must be cheering.
Utterly ridiculous. It’s a great painting depicting classical myth.
I think if the gallery wants to mount an exhibition about perceptions of beauty or bodies then it should do so. It could contrast other works with it’s Victorian collection. But just removing this particular painting feeling like a silly stunt which has annoyed a great many gallery visitors. Hylas isn’t Harvey Weinstein.
I’m quite sad to see one of my favourite and most challenging pieces removed from display. Everything in life had to be put into context with time. Our modern way of living is very much about ‘me’ & ‘now’. This picture forces an audience to break those modern ideals. As a male I feel drawn into the painting & wanting to enter the water just like our make subject. But I am fully aware of the sinister nature and the dangers that would entail. I think the picture in its current form already does a superb job of challenging male sexualised ideals.
Brilliant job you have actually succeeded in getting a proper debate underway .
With interesting reactions in both directions just as F1 has got rid of its ladies having decided they are outdated.
Discussing how we view the human form is interesting let us hope there will not be an over reaction to this move
Remembering the 60th and 70th of the last century the communist party paid artists to perform “agit prop” street theater showing a women cooking, while a Dr. Frankstein styled male monster performed sexual intercorse … women also performed naked to protest to show their freedom to do so. Same time a young generation overthrow a lot of common habits and performed a culture without classes and equal gender and freedom of sexuality.
We all forget, that the thing we call political correctness was a creation of the Stalinist propaganda to alienate bloody philistines, which they think is a way to knuckle down their influence replacing it with a Marxist culture.
I remember also the protests in the beginning of this century when statues of naked humans where taken away from public space in Turkey ignoring our constitutional state of freedom of the arts.
I have to admit I am not at all into this romantic aesthetic art of the 19th century this painting represents. For that being an artist myself I am to take up with any attempt to take art as hostage of any kind of political propaganda trying to destruct the artists’ freedom attempting to get a hand on our free world same time.
The most successful Stalinist propaganda of political correctness survived the crackup of the Soviet Union and got even more successful.
Please do not fall for it!
Put this painting back on the wall.
Do what is typical in today’s world, tear it down, burn it call it racist and sexist. God forbid see any beauty in it. Better yet raze your gallery, that will start a better conversation.
This is not about Feminism. This is a trend that is very worrying and appears to be attempting to appease the backward, prudish and the easily offended in 2018. Who is the Gallery really worried about offending? What an insult to one of the world’s best loved painters and an irony that some historians labelled the Victorians as prudish and inhibited. The Gallery should permanently loan the painting to say the Tate Britain or or perhaps the Royal Academy or the National Gallery in London or consider selling it. Better still, ask the public what they want and not a couple of dissenting voices. How long before nudes are removed altogether from the Gallery and perhaps other art galleries around Britain?
Might I suggest a big bonfire of the vanities next, à la Savonarola? Perhaps an exhibition of degenerate art, to provoke discussion and conversation?Down with anything that is not relevant and contemporary!
I suspect this has something to do with not offending some Muslim sensibilities in Manchester. A similar thing happened when the nude statues in the Vatican were covered up on the occasion of a visit by the Iranian president last year. You are disguising this fact by inventing a story about changing sensibilities towards women. Do let me know if I am wrong….
Totally ridiculous move. Except for the purposes of publicity. Now restore the painting. Does this means that Greek goddesses in museums are next? Is this the Taliban taking over?
This is not about ‘political correctness’ and wowserism, it is about provoking discussion, and it has done that! Sexism, misogyny, pedophilia in art are issues which transcend history, and Victorian art should not be immune from criticism and reassessment simply because it happens to present nudity is a coyly sweet and fluffy manner. . We have reassessed the photography of Charles Dodgson as quite possibly pedophilic and exploitative, why not the art of other prominent Victorians ? Or, shall we rehang all those racist paintings which depict slavery and anti-semitism, simply because we believe in the purity and untouchability of historical artworks. No-one is going to destroy Hylas and the Nymphs (that would be ‘political correctness’) but old ideas about art, politics and women must be critiqued: not be able to talk about such things openly is where the real ‘political correctness’ lies.
If you had simply rotated it with another work then people would barely notice. By declaring that you want to open a conversation, you are effectively dangling a power of censorship over us. Are you going to cleanse art work that relates to our imperial past? To promote the ‘conversation’ you should leave these allegedly controversial works up.
This is a dangerous precedent when applied in this context.
This is so wrong. How can we learn about the past & our history if articles, paintings, etc. are removed from sight. Where do we draw the line? Do we also remove articles from museums such as the Tate Modern, thinking of Tracy Emin, or take it further & suggest to the world that the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel should be covered also!
This is ridiculous, plain and simple.
If you were doing this with a painting by a current painter living today then the painter could have some way of responding either in writing, with a statement, or through another painting. But JW Waterhouse is long gone and so is the way women were viewed back then. And not only that but he was painting a scene from a myth that was around at least 2500 years ago. And I challenge anyone to show how this painting is demeaning to women in any way.
Instead of provoking conversation you are pushing people to the other side of where you want them to be. Because it is obvious on what side you want them to be. Just put the painting back and come up with a truly intelligent way of provoking discussion on sexism and the “male gaze”.
What’s next, removing penises from Greek statues because of some goofy crackpot idea the wacko curator is trying to shove down the throat of the viewing public! Perhaps the sight of naked breasts is too confronting for the curator to bear! Stop trying to tell us the public how we should interpret particular paintings and let us decide for ourselves. Why not just remove every single painting that features the female form that you obviously find offensive for some reason and close the gallery for good! Fortunately, you can still find the painting on the internet or do you plan to remove images of the painting from there too?
Works should be shown for their artistic and historic merit only. The decision to remove this works seems like pandering to a politically motivated agenda which would mark a dangerous precident. The issue of female nudity can not seriously be considered a motivation for it’s removal – artists have been depicting the human form – both male and female – for centuries. I fear it is a response to a religious and political drive towards a new puritanism and away from the views of the enlightenment that we should be promoting.
If you don’t like the badge “in pursuit of beauty” , change the badge, don’t hide the picture. You are in danger of making women ashamed of nudity and of sending a message that it should be hidden. The message that those who resemble a classic pre-Rafaelite should be particularly puritan. Education, not censorship is the way to go. I have been a feminist all my life but love this painting. To me the women are not ashamed and not disempowered objects. Do not hide the history you don’t agree with. Explain it and let people are up their own minds.
The removal of Hylas and the Nymphs wasn’t about “interpreting” or “contextualizing” anything. It is an act born of out of the cognitive dissonance that contemporary artists experience when confronted by a work by a master like Waterhouse and realize—but can never admit—that they lack the skill to ever match or exceed it. So they spout off some nonsense about issues of “gender, race, sexuality and class”, and take down what a painting that stands as a silent accusation of their own shortcomings.
“How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?”
This comment betrays a fundamental misconception about the role of cultural institutions like art galleries. Their task is not to make cultural artefacts from the past “contemporary” and “relevant”, as if all that matters is our present day. Their task is to situate these artefacts and explain them to the public. The whole idea behind removing this painting is completely flawed. It is censorious, suggesting that aspects of the past that make (some of) us uncomfortable today should not be shown, displayed or discussed. This is a Puritanical and historically illiterate notion. Put the painting back, and don’t do anything like this again.
If the removal was “playful”, why does absolutely everyone regard it as censorship? Why didn’t you have the confidence to reorganise the galleries and shuffle the pictures around to provoke a “conversation”, as you so patronisingly call it? London galleries like the Tate have been doing it for years…it keeps the viewers…and staff…on their toes. Put a homoerotic image or sculpture next to the Waterhouse, to redress the balance. And please don’t encourage a future conversation to take place via Post-It Notes…it shows how little you regard the other side of the discussion. And if this was all a publicity stunt to boost flagging attendance figures…it’s probably backfired, as you’ve removed most people’s reason to come.
Fair play to Clare Gannaway, as a curator, for being prepared to front up to the brickbats, that have inevitably been unleashed by what is, lest we forget, a conceptual ‘intervention’ conceived by commissioned artist, Sonia Boyce.
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the temporary removal of this artwork, at least the curator is not attempting to hide behind the license of artistic freedom, which so often happens when controversy raises its head in contemporary art discourse .
As such Gannaway has exposed herself personally to some fairly damning professional criticism, that I imagine she will learn from, ruefully or otherwise. I respect her honesty and sense of curatorial responsibility on this account.
This decision seems to be based upon a received perception of Victorian values.
It’s a beautiful picture which in any case depicts a mythological event. In psychological terms it might be best viewed as a conflict between archetypal forms rather than a representation of the natural human being.
Please put it back.
Is this what “feminism” hs become? The blatant censorship of works of art, of beauty, of woman triumphant? How many women want art galleries to be turned into pathetic ‘safe spaces’? What is wrong with this work, with this world?
If MGA doesn’t want this painting, I’ll gladly take it off their hands.
Utterly ridiculous and irritating. OK so a temporary removal it may be, but such a banal, facile and yet potentially dangerous (in terms of the censorship element) way to comment on the important subject of gender politics. Just put the work back, and think of a better way to have the discussion.
So basically my or any woman’s breasts are offensive now? This is extremely worrying.
This establishment is out of touch and help whipping up the modern day equivalent of the the Spanish Inquisition.
Shameful behaviour by a publically funded body, how dare they tell people what is or isn’t art. I find the sawn in half cow far more offensive than any portrait of a naked person. This was just beautiful. My favourite piece in the gallery. No more trips or donations from me. Boycott Manchester art gallery until they get off their high horses.
The Taliban would be pleased with this decision!
If the criteria for making art must be that it won’t offend anybody, then art would not be worth making.
Granted, this could be regarded Victorian soft porn, but it’s a beautiful and much loved painting, clearly out of step with modern sensibilities and which therefore prompts a debate in the viewers mind about the context in which the art is made.
Please put it back! I understand you want a debate, but in the meantime you are depriving visitors who come to Manchester to see the collection from viewing it. You don’t need to remove it to have the discussion. As someone who loves visiting cities to see the art collections, and then finding it has been removed deeply frustrating!
How can we develop knowledge of the Male Gaze in art, how the Victorians dealt with their combined longing for/fear of female sexuality by cultural distancing and Waterhouse’s ‘othering’ of the nymphs/the feminine by placing them in the element of water if we can’t actually look at the pictures? (All good themes in feminist art criticism, by the way.)
Please return Hylas and the Nymphs to its place as soon as possible, and run a screening of the relevant episode from John Berger’s BBC TV series ‘Ways of Seeing’ if you would like to help visitors in reading it through a critical perspectives lens!
Are you going to stop displaying Greek sculptures next?
This may not be “about censorship”, as the relevant curator so quaintly put it, but it is. It reminds one of the Third Reich’s removal (and destruction) of what it considered “degenerate art”. Apparently we are still not deemed mature enough to make our own judgements about works of art without PC commentary or “contextualisation”. A disgraceful episode. the MAG should be ashamed of itself for sanctioning such arrant nonsense.
Surely the painting is extremely relevant to the current campaigns? I thought the “message” was clearly that a young man will be lured to his doom when bedazzled by the nymphs. Ie acting as a reaction to physical charms with no thought for the outcome will only turn out badly.
I’ve always found Rudolf Ihlee’s “The Well” to be incredibly offensive, with its blatant depiction of a domineering patriarchy. And early 20th century manspreading. Can you burn that one too, please?
This is going too far. You cannot see the paintings of the 19th century with the eyes of the 21th century. People should go inside this room and learn about this period and the mentality instead of try not to offense the mentality of our period. Its called History. It’s so sad that curators today are trying to do somethibg new by imposing their beliefs, not a very professional beliefs. Please, reconsider the stupidity that you are doing and let visitors enjoy this beautiful painting.
A silly and condescending act, and illogical- if you remove a work from view, how can that “prompt conversation” and “provoke debate” except among those who already know what it looks like? And there’s a whiff of evasiveness and dishonesty about the gallery’s account of its intentions. In comment 11 above, Clare Gannaway refers to “taking down the painting temporarily”; but she is quoted in The Guardian as saying “We think it will *probably* return…” (my emphasis). The MAG should confirm that it will, and give a date (preferably tomorrow’s).
In my view, one (but only one) of the impulses behind Victorian art of this sort was indeed that it gave the artist an excuse to indulge himself in the depiction of naked female flesh, for the titillation of the male gaze. But however deplorable we may find this, we can’t airbrush away the past: the attitudes existed and the works exist- and are not devoid of artistic merit, and deserve to be seen.
As to how they should be contextualised, Gannaway is quoted as saying that the current title of the gallery, In Pursuit of Beauty, “was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.” But surely this is precisely what they are, however much the 21stC may deplore it? The problem, I fear, is that we are not trusted to view them in the correct frame of mind without being given a nudge by the curators. An earlier comment on this page put it perfectly: “It really does not need some vacuous gesture to make the issues this painting throws up visible to any thinking person, and the condescension that says WE have found it necessary to remove this from YOUR sight to teach you something is breathtaking”.
What a disgrace. Presentism should never be applied to works of art – or any other piece of history. It is how we wind up revisionist history altered by people for no good reason but to further their own agendas.
John William Waterhouse’s painting of Hylas and the Nymphs belongs to the world and should continue to be displayed to the public. Waterhouse’s works displays the human form in beauty through our western art traditions, including mythology, a tradition that goes back thousands of years. Why is the museum not proud to house and display these gorgeous works? When censorship like this comes knocking it is time to be alarmed. People come from around the world come to see these paintings like this one, and they are important on many levels. Without them…we are all poorer.
No work has a ‘right’ to be displayed. Removing and highlighting the fact of removal is a valid response to the current debate. You could have just took the painting off display as part of a general reorganisation, but that would have been cowardly. Well done MAG. (Plus, it’s a pretty poor piece of Victorian tat.)
“The conversation”. What’s the actual agenda, eh?Just be honest.
If you don’t want the picture, there are lots of galleries who’d be proud to own it.
How ridiculous; this is art, not a political statement. And it’s bloody good art, at that.
An utterly pathetic action. As censorship always is.
What a sad day indeed when Pre-Raphaelite paintings are deemed too outré to be viewed by the public.
It seems far more paternalistic for curators to decide for viewers what they will find ‘offensive’ and censor the exhibits accordingly, than anything depicted in the painting. If Manchester Art Gallery really wanted to stimulate debate then they should said why some might disapprove of the painting, leaving it up for people to form their own opinions.
Ironically, the Victorians are often satirized as being prudish and puritanical. Yet here in the 21st Century, it is us censoring Victorian works of art portraying nudity.
Small people..
Please don’t erase the past, our exposure to it allows us to learn about the present and the future. Please don’t censor, it insults your visitors by removing their ability to choose how they react. Please put the painting back up.
Another factor to consider in this dismal affair. No-one would find Hylas erotic in our era, so the purpose of removing it is to make some half-digested curatorial point about the ‘male gaze’ in history. But in doing so, it unwittingly mirrors the contemporary sexual censorship of extreme patriarchal societies such as Saudi Arabia, which enforce ‘modesty’ with censure and even violence. This is a regressive and anti-intellectual action. Plus, the art gallery is paid for by the public and is for the public. It is holding these artworks on public trust as part of our shared heritage. You are damaging that trust.
I think it was justified to remove the obscene harlots shown in the painting. Instead, you should use the vacated spot to put up posters of strong, emancipated feminist women like Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus.
A truly tragic, small minded publicity stunt, where a gallery jumps on a convenient passing bandwagon. What a disappointment.
I find painting representing violence towards both men and women, usually in the guise of illustrating an historical or biblical event, far more disturbing than female nudity.
I choose to go into a gallery and gaze at this or other nudes and I can walk by or linger. I have a choice and I want that choice.
Yes, there will be other wonderful paintings in storage but that is an argument for more gallery space not censorship.
I’m really shocked by this decision. I grew up in Manchester and I love this painting. When I come back to Manchester, seeing it is always one of the highlights on my list. I was always proud that we had it in Manchester – it seemed so much more beautiful than so many of the gallery’s other paintings. I used to assume that it would be poached by a southern gallery at some point and was always pleased to see that it was still safely there. As a teenage girl, I had a print of this on my bedroom wall and often popped into MAG when I was passing to see it displayed there. I always saw it as entirely empowering – it’s the young girls in the painting who are powerful, not Hylas. It’s partly the trust in Hylas’s face that I used to find so moving and partly just the strength of the emotion in that central gaze – despite the painting’s title and theme, the gaze between Hylas and the central nymph isn’t lecherous and it isn’t coquettish, either; it’s a depiction of love – misguided young love, with all its passionate strength and hope and misjudgement. It’s an extraordinarily beautiful painting, too: the facial expressions are so realistic – much more so than in many paintings of the same era, and the detail is so carefully observed. By all means change the name of the room it’s in, or put the painting somewhere else (I’m sure it used to be above the stairs for a long time), but it would be extraordinarily wasteful not to display it at all. I also think that this whole conversation misunderstands what Manchester Art Gallery is for: its role should be to safeguard and display the city’s best art and preserve its historical collection – there are plenty of other galleries which can (and do) comment on the world around us and which make political decisions about exhibitions, but that really shouldn’t be MAG’s role.
This decision is not ‘art’ in any way, it is just pathetically stupid…..Balthus, Eric Gill, Titian, Ingres…. come on, what else OFFENDS?? this po-faced pretence at engaging is offensive
I want it back on the walls. I have always thought that the Musee D’Orsay is an exemplar – after seeing their L’origine du monde. We need contentious art to be on the walls…
I thought the whole point of an art gallery was to promote discussion about art by, you know, actually displaying art. If you don’t want to do that why not give it to a gallery that will.
This is the height of the new philistinism, treating a painting as a mere ideological object, an excuse to indulge in 21st century identity politics.
I don’t imagine the tax payers of Manchester contribute to the gallery with the idea that populars works held in public collections should be hidden from them in order to advance a particular, reductive political agenda.
Put the painting back.
Experiments like this and the thinking that goes into it are symptomatic of the wider trend of contemporary political thinking. It’s not thought provoking – it’s divisive. It doesn’t make the viewer “think” it simply guides the viewer towards the political bias of the institute/artist. The most insidious part of this is the pretense of the conversation when in fact it is just systematic censorship.
This is clearly censorship because this one picture seems to have been singled out. As a 66 year old man who “discovered” Waterhouse a few years ago, I do not find paintings such as this at all arousing – just beautiful in the composition and content. To me it represents Greek mythology as an artist sees it. It seems to me that those who have removed the picture must be frightened of bodies, whether male or female and perhaps therefore of their own (which is sad.) I agree entirely with Ms Morgan’s email of 31st January but clearly from a different perspective!
OMG. Soon we will only be allowed to see flowers and landscapes as main art themes. No naked anymore (no male, no female), no animals, no blood, no religion, no nothing. Very, very sad ! Stupidity in its very essence. The people behind this decision have not understood what art is all about, so please remove THEM from the art gallery.
Shame on you, would you censor Lucian Freud?
To me, this is a beautiful painting, still, calm, and entranced, that brings Greek myth to what is clearly a visionary English wood.
As others have remarked, the myth involved is a complex one, and on one level the nymphs are ‘femmes fatales’; but, as any reader of William Morris’ Life and Death of Jason would know (and that would very likely have included Waterhouse himself), it is the nymphs who desire Hylas, and they do not lead him to destruction but to paradisal bliss: ‘Forgetting the rough world, and every care; Not dead, nor living, among faces fair, White limbs, and wonders of the watery world’. Perhaps such images of quietness, of bliss, and of the beauty of a young man and of young women are compromised, or corrupt, or corrupting. Personally, I doubt that.
Maybe, too, we are unhappy with the representation of the ‘femme fatale’, and would happily also ban Mulholland Drive, The Big Sleep, and Keats’ La Belle Dame Sans Merci – and then, to get rid of the ‘homme fatale’, Dracula, Jane Eyre, and Wuthering Heights too, and then right after that we could purge the human psyche.
Meanwhile, the job of a gallery is to act as custodian of pictures of recognised excellence, and to provide a space where visitors can encounter such paintings, engage with them, perhaps dislike them, or be moved by them, but certainly to reflect upon them. To do so, you need to be in the presence of that painting, and not standing before a blank bit of wall.
We cannot cut ourselves off from the art of the past, just because it challenges us. It is not a ‘playful’ act to play ‘hide and seek’ with paintings; rather it’s a betrayal of our deep need to step out of the provincialism of the present and confront views of the world that might make us uncomfortable, but might also (as I think this painting does) offer us beauty.
It’s clear to me from reading the earlier comments, that what the ‘conversation’ prompted by the gallery’s removal of the painting has revealed is how much people like Waterhouse’s painting. And therefore, I would hope that the end result of this conversation is that it’s put back on the walls of the Manchester Art Gallery where it belongs, or loaned to another gallery who would be happy to show it.
I am so sad right now.
The removal of “Hylas and the Nymphs” by JW Waterhouse, an iconic work of the Pre-Raphaelite movement, from the wall of Manchester Art Gallery is one of the worst decisions (not to say “mistakes,” because mistakes are usually acts of spontaneous thinking, which was not the case here) ever made by a curator of a gallery, especially when the actual decision was covered by a certain pseudo-academic rhetoric: “we should start a dialogue,” or “how can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?”, or “it is time for an open critique of all past art”. Is it? Or are we all witnesses of a notorious case of hypocrisy that could be perfectly defined as “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”? I presume – and I am afraid I am not mistaken – it is the latter. When the curators of the gallery (and, personally, Clare Gannaway) have taken down a piece of art for the sake of a “prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection,” does it remind you of something? I can give you a hint: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” The worst thing you could expect from an educated person, especially a person who is involved in an art activity, is to be a narrow-minded and sanctimonious quasi-expert, who, sadly, has enough power in their hands to provide a “brave new” agenda, which is neither that new nor specifically unique: after all, we all remember the famous “It was a pleasure to burn” books in Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451.” I do not want to live in a world where canvases removed from display because of one paranoiac person in power has decided that they provide destructive ideas (which in the case of Waterhouse is even more idiotic); I do not want to live in a world where every piece of art has to face a bunch of biased expectations from New Puritans; I do not want to live in a world which could suddenly make a turn into new Dark Ages, because the signs of that are here and they are alarming. I do not want this. And neither do my friends and colleagues. And we will not tolerate it.
I do not ask, but demand to see “Hylas and the Nymphs” back on display immediately. Until then, no dialogue with art barbarians.
I think the suggestion that this piece presents women as a dangerously sexualised coven of femme fatale could be missing a more complex exploration- the femme fatale figure in la belle dame for example is exploring the restrictions of the male role in society, perhaps an area which is overlooked. And whilst I recognise that sexuality is presented as dangerous and disturbing it also demonstrates a recognition of the power of women and suggests certainly fear and maybe awe. I quite like that.
It IS a masterpiece.
Some people are missing the point. This month, it’s all about feminism and #MeToo and #TimesUp. So I think that in this context of debate, it is a good move. It’s good marketing for the gallery. PR 101: Find a way to bring your brand to the media by aligning with the trending topic. If it was censorship, my opinion would be quite different. JW Waterhouse is a genious at painting, his work deserves to be on display, it’s remarkable. But it is true that his paintings show women representing only 2 possible erotic fantasies for men: as either passive and pretty (decoration), or as femmes fatales. Oh and obviously always too young.
I agree with the move of bringing this to attention and generating a debate around “objectification” and comparing the point of view of the XIX century (well… and many centuries before, back to ancient greek mythology) to today’s. Has it changed?
It’s a good thing to be aware of, especially if we believe this is now changing (I do), but I would never agree with censoring history. As I say, censoring isn’t the point of this move. Quite the opposite: It’s provocation. And marketing. Good move from the Communication/PR department. Should I apply?
This is an interesting idea and you are right to challenge the Victorian perception of women.
I don’t favour taking well-known but problematic paintings off of display. I would rather see them challenged in situ through interpretation, juxtaposition with the work of artists that have a different view etc. However, I do think temporary interventions like this can be a useful reminder that every painting in a gallery is there because someone chose to put it there.
Something I find interesting about Waterhouse and his contemporaries is how fruitful it can be to read them against the grain. The femmes fatales are often powerful and dangerous women and I find them appealing in ways that their painters probably didn’t intend. I’m not alone in this there are a lot of Tumblr blogs and Pinterest boards dedicated to 19th century nudes by women who aren’t duped by 19th century morality. They’re finding ways of making these powerful images their own.
For what it is worth, I think the LGBTQ aspects of the Hylas myth (that Hylas was Hercules’ boyfriend) should also be explored by the gallery. I’d be particularly interested to know more about how this aspect of the painting was understood in the 19th century, given the different attitudes to sexuality.
Dear Manchester Art Gallery. Thank you for bringing to my attention something for which I may now be retrospectively offended by. It is great to know there is someone out there looking out for the easily offended, and anticipating the things that will offend us, and taking pro-active steps to ensure we are not offended.
You want a discussion? Well I’m a woman and a feminist and I’m OUTRAGED by this removal. It is flat-out censorship and there’s nothing “playful” about it. If the gallery title “The Pursuit of Beauty” is outdated and creepy then change the name of the room – how hard is that? Re-order the paintings so the nipples are more dispersed across the collection, if you must. But don’t you *dare* tell adults what they are allowed to like in art!
An artwork is a piece of FICTION. It’s a window onto its subject matter, the social context of its time, and the mind of its creator. You don’t have to be in agreement with morality any of those things. You don’t have to like everything about it. You can walk away. You can find it uncomfortable – there are certainly artworks I don’t like because of the subject matter – but you do NOT get to dictate what people see, what they like or what they think about. That is an Orwellian-style totalitarianism.
I’m disgusted with Manchester Art Gallery.
Looks miles better than the modern day crap, most of which looks like being the product of someone giving a paint pallet and a bit of canvas to an autistic monkey.
Here’s an idea, instead of taking this down to appease a bunch of perpetually outraged moral puritans, how about telling any snowflakes that can’t handle looking at to, I don’t know, not look at it, instead of being whiny babies and ruining it for everyone else.
Display the painting. Stop censoring or trying to adjust history to modern values.
Also, why is the curator of contemporary art allowed to meddle with a 19th Century painting?
I find it very sad that we must denigrate art of past ages in a vain attempt to create our own. Needless to say I am saddened, disgusted, but not surprised.
I sincerely hope this is just a work in the Art of Trolling! The act of removal (i.e. the “un-presentation”) of a piece of art you are supposed to be presenting could be considered in itself a form of art, only of the basest level.
If we start deciding which art is permitted and which is forbidden we are already treading a very dangerous ground.
I loved Hylas and the Nymphs and had the picture on my wall at university, as a gay man my eyes were more drawn to the handsome Hylas than the nymphs. Femme fatale is a way of seeing the painting but why not see it as active appropriation? the Nymphs are in charge here, drawing Hylas down to the lake, I would see this as a passive man and active woman. What is important is how the gallery presents the painting as everyone has their own ideas of what it represents. Don’t tell us how to see it!
Rehang the picture immediately. I thought it was only the Taliban that tried to rewrite art history.
Or Edward VI’s destruction of our Medieval Art. Or Hitler deciding that Modern Art was degenerate.
The gallery is a custodian of our past and should leave it to us to decide what we admire and what we don’t.
Whatever the intention, this looks like censorship. Own goal.
Removing Watherhouse painting is enough for me not to ever go and visit the Machester Art Gallery. The painting is simply delightful, and removing it with a pathetic excuse is depriving visitors from forming their own opinions and views. Pure censorship and very shortsighted from the Director of the Gallery. Whoever the Director is, you should resign today.
Put Waterhouse back.
A public collection is not the place for ideological campaigns.
I feel ashamed of this obvious attempt at censorship, is this what Manchester has become? What next, boxer shorts for Leonardo`s David? Pathetic thing to have done. I wonder who came up with this offensive idea? One of the most important Pre-Raphaelites in the world, a gem in the collection, consigned to the basement. You do not deserve the guardianship role of looking after the city`s art and heritage . A disgrace.
If the Gallery wants to have a wide-ranging debate about what it displays, why and how, and about what is appropriate in this day and age and why, then more power to its elbow. That debate needs to be had, over and over again, and all possible views need to be heard respectfully.
But my view is that this has been a crass way of provoking that debate, and the dunderheaded messaging around it has obscured whatever good intentions the Gallery may have had. I’m staggered that intelligent curators couldn’t see how counter-productive this approach would be,
Strongly suggest that this debate is quickly and elegantly ended, then a new and better one is started up. I’m very happy to help in that, since you obviously need some assistance.
It’s an absolutely beautiful painting. I first came across Waterhouse as a child and adore all of his work, never had a single problem with the naked form in any art. Not sure when we all decided to be so prudish.
I worry this removal is nothing more than a shameless publicity stunt, denying the public great works of art for cheap media coverage.
Finally there’s an answer to Virgil’s question “cui non dictus Hylas puer?”. The asnwer is Manchester Art Gallery.
I feel a deep shame about the behavior of the museum with this subject, but “hey, we are really modern and progresist people, you can start like this, and in few months continue adding artist to this: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/va-to-publish-hitlers-degenerate-art-list-online-9064187.html
Scaring stupid society of twitter and social media…the victory of the ignorance.
There is a discussion that desperately needs to be had about the representation of the female form in art (and elsewhere), but this is not the way to have it.
The painting is arguably evidence of a particular way of seeing at a particular time, and I’m not sure that an investigation of anything benefits from the investigators themselves beginning with the burial of evidence.
An extraordinary and baffling misreading of Victorian art to assert without evidence that passive decoration and femme fatale were the only alternatives in the depiction of women. Try a Elizabeth Prettejohn’s reading of the PRB and then think again about this decision
HEY MANCHESTER! WANT TO BUY SOME FIG LEAVES?
You have succeeded in creating a storm. Be careful what you wish for, Any appreciation of mythology would demonstrate that the nymphs are the exploiters here, not Hylas.They are, indeed, in pursuit of beauty.Please restore Waterhouse’s masterpiece to its rightful place as soon as possible.
OK, so how do we see the film of the ‘takeover’ so we can determine for ourselves whether this is actually a performative strategy or censorship, as many of these comments imply. I’d quite like to see this painting moving around the space…
This protects no one from anything except art. A pathetic, McCarthyistic idea.
https://thelonglostband.bandcamp.com/album/song-to-the-siren-ep
Pathetic. What are the PC brigade going to do next? Cover up Venus de Milo? Ban Shakespeare and Dickens for misogyny?
How appropriate that you call it a “takeover”.
Put it back up.
Please give the painting to a gallery where it may be hung for the public to view. When I heard the story I really couldn’t believe it. Please take a good look at yourselves in the mirror. Your agenda has made you lose focus on your job, as guardians of Manchester’s heritage and artworks. Please reverse this silly act as soon as possible.
Arts purpose is to Stir emotion, create conversation. By pandering to this PC liberal agenda you are creating a world in which people can protest of the existence of anything they deem offensive and have removed. Right now it’s just one painting then another Then an Entire collections. what next the arts,dramas, plays Banned for there content. Already there Are warnings in place at Cambridge University for students wanting to study Shakespeare because the content in his works can be considered “triggering” which is ridiculous. I think the removal Raphaelite painting Hylas And The Nymphs was wrong and if you choose not to reinstate it you should send the entire collection to another gallery not ashamed to show any artwork.
Place it in context of myth, of its day, of its artist, but do not hide it away. It is obviously a beautiful and well loved piece and many will be unhappy not to be able to see it first hand.
If you think it is sending a “poor message” send a better one by contrasting it with other art on similar (or different) themes. More art and discussion is always better than less.
I’m delighted that the Manchester Art Gallery is taking down this painting. It gives the The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge an opportunity to borrow it or bid for it, and keep it on display to the public as an excellent supplement to its own excellent Pre-Raphaelite collection. (Yes, Waterhouse wasn’t strictly in the PRB, but his style was so close to and inspired by theirs.)
I guess it’s effective as a publicity stunt, in the sense that any publicity is good publicity, but other than that, what the heck? Nobody should have a say in what should be allowed to be expressed and what shouldn’t be. And I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s art, and even classical art, which as a rule should never, ever, be subjected to anything that is or may be seen as censorship. As long as what’s being expressed isn’t a credible, current threat, an explicit incitement to violence, or specific personal information about others made public without their consent, nobody should get to say what is and isn’t allowed to be expressed in public.
Removing this beautiful painting was a stupid idea. I cannot even begin to list the reasons: there are so many! Just put it back and let the visitors admire it!
Pathetic! Entartete Kunst, eh? Anything deemed ‘inappropriate’ (by whom, by the way?) is airbrushed out of existence. I hope your silly act of censorship will backfire massively!!
It’s not about the ‘femme fatale’ or ‘a passive body for consumption’. It’s about the seductive power of lust and the vanity associated with love based on physical desire. Its the opposite of what you claim it is… Try looking post 1960’s if you want consumption and ‘femme fatales’.
Trouble is the shallow marketing attitude in the arts sector has long been doing to the arts what you claim this painting is doing to attitudes towards women…
Presumably water nymphs are not women and Hylas is not a man.
The water nymphs are clearly cold blooded killers because they are luring Hylas to his death.
So what is the painting depicting?
Its sad that officials can not see this as anything but beautiful artwork instead of seeing it with such warped and perverted dangerous minds, This world has gone mad what chance do our children have of growing up in a balanced world where they are trusted to think and see for themselves. Its a terrible arrogance that such a few feel they are so elitist that can impose their minds on us all.
A”group gallery takeover” says it all really. Can’t think why you didn’t finish the job with a ritual slashing and burning. You should go and do something useful, instead of wasting your time on empty childish behaviour like this. Just heard your interview on R4, the man they put up against you has more intellect in his little finger than you have in the whole of your body.
Galleries have no right to censure like this …this is pc and feminism in it’s worst possible guise . Try to get in touch with reality rather than being petty and utterly ridiculous .Shameful.
Censoring history and now censoring art. What’s happening to freedom of expression and debating of ideas in this country. Your representative’ s feeble response on Radio 4’s World At One was just the kind of muddled mumbo jumbo which , unfortunately, one has come to expect. There should be space for the best of art both modern and that of previous generations. Hylas and the Nymphs is a fine painting and in no way objectionable to this woman.
I’m a woman and I see nothing wrong with this beautiful piece. Bring it back. You guys probably just lost a lot of potential visitors with this move. It’s such a beautiful piece that doesn’t deserve to be stuck in some basement. How the hell is this politically incorrect? What’s up next, locking up all Venus’ paintings because they’re not representative of an average female?
There is a Gallery here in Leamington called Slate Art Gallery – just coming to the end of an of an exhibition that explores the female form…its both thought provoking and potentially controversial, but isn’t that what art is for? https://www.facebook.com/Slate-Art-Gallery-334313690321426/
I enjoyed a visit to the gallery a few years ago as I have always been a fan of the Pre- Raphaelites and their followers. If this is the current attitude of the gallery to censor what they see as non PC, I will not be visiting again.
Oh dear oh dear. A beautiful piece of art dragged into a gutter debate.
We don’t need or want Big Brother or Big Sister telling us what we can and cannot see, and what we should think. Dress it how you like, you want to impose your wishes open others = Censorship.
Put it back immediately and remove your own blinkers, You should very seriously consider your position.
Why not invite some of our very talented artists to submit a painting that represents their reaction to the said painting and its removal from the gallery space. Each painting selected to fill the empty space could be shown for perhaps one week.
Unwarrantable censorship. Disgraceful.
Censorship plan and simple. This is not only about the Nymphs. Was it removed because there is a Gay character in the painting? Perhaps either sex must never be portrayed in any medium for fear of falling into some quasi political cause. A huge mistake. Liked Cathy’s Daughters reply and Paul Halsalls.
Have I missed the point? Isn’t this whole debate a piece of conceptual art? In a good way.
Can’t accuse people of censorship when the stated intent is to bring about debate.
As for the picture – thought it was a canny comment on suppressed late 19th century representations of sex and sexuality. And how that relates to general use of myth, standard artistic themes etc, etc. Early modernist. I know nothing about the artist.
In the end – art is what you bring to it and good art makes you think. Removing this piece has made people think about art – and made people think about the work.
What extraordinary arrogance by gallery management! If they do not want to display the picture, they should lend it to another gallery that does.
Surely for this to be an honest debate a work depicting half a dozen women visible ftom the breasts upward is not an explicit example of female nudity
Didn’t embarrassed Victorians stick figleaves on parts of artworks that they found offensive? Now we find that rather silly. Removing an entire painting would seem even sillier if it weren’t so sinister.
Any artist is allowed to create a work that is intended to offend. Indeed some might argue that this can be part of the job. If Waterhouse painted this now would the gallery refuse to hang it because some found it deliberately offensive?
Whoever made the decision to remove this painting should be ashamed of themselves. The irony is that we used to laugh at the Victorians and their “sensitivity”!
I’ve never been to this gallery, and had never seen this painting before. Seeing it now, online, my spontaneous reaction is that I like the painting, though I find it unexciting. When I was a student (nearly 60 years ago), I could be embarrassed about nudity in art, seeing it only as deliberately provoking sexual arousal. Now, it seems, any such portrayal is seen only in the context a war for a more cerebral and moral dominance between the sexes, which I find obsessive, invasive and sad.
So “Hylas and the Nymphs” one of the nation’s favourite paintings has been removed from the walls of a room in the splendid “Manchester Art Gallery” because the gallery’s Curator of Contemporary Art wishes to provoke debate about the amount of female nakedness on display in the work!
The abduction of Hylas by a group of water nymphs was a theme of ancient art! It has long been a subject of Western art. The next thing this curator will be trying to do is rewrite mythology because she disapproves of that too, followed by her seeking to remove from sight every nude ever sculpted!
It seems to me she may need to get out more and travel the world’s great art collections. Or stick to her gallery of contemporary art!
When I lived in Manchester I visited this gallery at least once a month and this painting and several others were the main reason for my visits. Exquisite!
Firstly, it is a strange act of provocation to remove Waterhouses unsexualised Nymphs and yet use Etty’s Ulysses and the Syrens to advertise events on the gallery website. The latter being a perfect example of Victorian porn dressed as art.
Hylas is not only one of the Nation’s most recognisable and loved works of art, it is a favourite of the public of all ages and genders. My 85 year old mother had this painting hanging on her wall for decades!
This seems just another example of an attempt to shock and spark controversy with an act that is both banal and unintelligent. Pre-Raphaelite women are idealised as are the men . Knights, lovers, poets all with the faces, and physiques, of dreamy Adonis’. Should we remove this Victorian male stereotype of the wistful, oft duped and suicidal male? Shall we debate that?
Writing in solidarity with the decision by manchester art gallery to remove this painting in order to provoke a discussion which it certainly has. This painting is one of so many by men across the ages that depict women as passive objects etc. The suffragettes attacked pictures in Manchester Art Gallery just over 100 years ago for very similar reasons.
This is the removal of one picture from one gallery. We need to put this in context – most galleries are stuffed full of paintings by men, many of which show misogynistic portrayals of women. This is where our anger should be directed, not at manchester art gallery for removing one picture for what I think are admirable intentions. To call this censorship is a huge over reaction. What is the more worrying censorship is that which is so commonplace that we don;t even recognise it as such, namely the censorship of women’s art that has taken place over the centuries and is still rampant today. How much work by female artists is hanging in our galleries? how many paintings by women are languishing unforgotten and unappreciated? The valuing of men’s art over women’s is the real censorship we should be angry about. The fact that the removal of one piece of art by a man provokes such outrage shows what a long way we have to go before real equality is achieved.
It is terribly sad to see this has happened. It should be immediatly reinstated. It’s a harrowing thought that beautiful works of art may be taken down because they offend people
This reminds me of the time I tried to introduce some French friends to the Manchester Museum’s wonderful display of Egyptian mummies, only to find them draped in white cloths to ‘avoid offending the public.’ I’m not sure whether they still are covered. Those mummies of course were freely available to study by those select academics who, unlike us plebs, are strangely immune to being offended. As I am sure is this painting. How sad that a child can happily view any number of nude young girls by a quick scroll on the internet, but at an art gallery of all places is forbidden from doing so.
This smacks of a cheap exploitative stunt and at best utterly ignores the historical and cultural contexts of artworks. Censorship and removal is high-handed and patronising in the extreme. I do not need to be ‘protected’. If you really wanted a genuine debate, the best way to promote that for people to see and judge. As an art historian (or are you???) you of all people should be aware of the transient nature of what constitutes ‘good taste’ in art. It isn’t long ago that Pre-Raphaelite works were banished to the basement for being ‘kitsch’ and ‘mawkish’. Now they are offensive – oh dear…..
I have enjoyed the beauty of this picture for over 30 years and never thought it portrayed women as passive. Where do we stop? How many other paintings will have to be removed because they don’t fit in with modern feminist thought. Leave them where they are and discuss the matter rationally.
It is a gross misunderstanding of their role as the facilitators and interpreters of art in a public collection to remove individual works from view, unless for a re-hang. The curatorial team should be ashamed of themselves in denying us all access to important works under their charge. This kind of juvenile posturing can only confuse the vulnerable and insecure and obliterate more serious debate about the issues like gender politics or representation that they are purporting to raise. Censorship hurts us all. This needs to be nipped in the bud now. MAG used to be a refuge for me where I’d spend many happy hours marveling at the collection when I was a kid. I can’t believe the curators are prepared to trash its reputation for being open to everyone in the city of Manchester, for a dumb stunt
Entartete Kunst !
I can imagine the scene. A group of concerned, like-minded individuals congratulating themselves on their progressive ideals as they are filmed removing an artwork not deemed to fit in with current ideals. A bit like the Taliban destroying artefacts from a culture they despise, don’t they film themselves too? In the case of Manchester Art Gallery, is it just jumping on the current bandwagon? I am shocked that they take such a narrow minded view. I am currently a member of the Gallery’s Friends scheme, but will not be renewing, nor purchasing from the shop, until this narrow minded and bigoted policy is reversed. And I am female.
??
As a device for gaining national attention, it can’t be denied this action has been highly successful. Here’s a suggestion for a follow-up event.
An open invitation (this time, genuine,) is given to the people of Manchester to assemble in the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ Gallery. Lined up before them will be the trustees, directors, and curators of the Manchester Art Gallery. The people can then select one of them for temporary, or possibly permanent, removal.
So the idea is to create a discussion about something by removing it from view?
What utter nonsense.
This is so absurd. There isn’t one comment of support for this stupid idea and yet the responsible parties refuse to compromise on their decision and even seen to be doubling down.
Only somebody with a terminally dirty mind could be offended by Waterhouse’s statement of female power. Your action is silly and dangerous.
You should (a) replace Hylas immediately, and (b) resign. The only “debate” this cheap publicity stunt promotes is whether we should allow fascist censorship in our great public art galleries. Like many others, I won’t visit MGA until you do so.
If this is a publicity stunt it is unworthy, otherwise it is small-minded, prudish nonsense. Removing this painting is an act of vandalism. If you want suggestions as to what should be hung in its place, I suggest the moron who is behind the decision.
For me it’s about the perils of giving into desire. The most base, and obvious desires of a man are women (to a Victorian at least).
Here, the desire to create controversy by taking the picture down and generate discussion is perverse in itself.
There is a joke about Russian plant that tried to produce various things, but always got AK-47 as end product. “Anglosphere” seems to always return to its roots – puritanism in various forms, be it conservative bigotry or progressive feminism.
Stop patronising us by telling us what to think! this is the first step in the puritanical cultural revolution which will end with nude statues covered up and erotic paintings defaced.
Are men not supposed to see females in a sexual way because that is what objectification is? Just because the New Puritans don’t like it, we have to censor western art. We will end up like Iran where they show Boticelli’s Venus with her body covered up to art students (described by Marjane Satrapi) as it’s so OFFENSIVE. Give me a break.
Guess what the past is not politically correct so get over it. Trust people to make up their own minds instead of being the superior do gooding nanny wagging your finger.
The Manchester Art Gallery should be forced to relinquish their Victorian collection to a more capable custodian, who will treat the works with the respect they deserve. Then they can re-brand the wing “The Pursuit of Identity Politics” and fill it with Andrea Dworkin portraits if they want.
I used to go and look at this every day when I was growing up. Sad.
This is all going too far…The theme of the imagery dates back to ancient Greece… next they’ll be wanting to burn books in the library … pretty damn sad.
This is so, so sad.
The fact that you would even contemplate removing the picture for these reasons is just too ridiculous for words. Art reflects the climate of the time in which it was made and should be exhibited as such. Should we remove all of Conan Doyle’s work from public libraries because of the way he belittles women? This level of censorship (because that is all it is) is a very slippery slope.
This is art, not pornography. Please put the painting back. It is a bit like The Victorians snapping the penises off statues. This is about mythology and should not be censored.
Absolute stupidity – this attitude would remove thousands of paintings, thousands of plays & books from libraries, and so on. I predict it will lose you many visitors as a protest boycott.
All paintings have to be seen in context, but hiding them removes that possibility. The same applies to war paintings, and many other that may be considered “inappropriate”.
Damn it. I was coming to Manchester from Seattle to JUST SEE THIS PAINTING. Now I can’t. I still have my ancient Athena Poster of THIS PAINTING. Now MAG says it’s too dirty for me to see. Might as well stay in London and look at their paintings. If they LET me. BECAUSE ART SHOULD BE POLICED BY CURATORS.
It is not your place to “challenge a Victorian fantasy”. Your role is to display art and to provide information about the historical context within which it was produced so that it may be appreciated for what it is. Your role is not to prompt people to judge artworks produced in previous periods by your modern, yet regressive, social justice standards. Return the painting to display and contain your personal politics in future.
This is not intended to promote debate. This is pure and blatant censorship motivated by political correctness and petty sensationalism. Authorities responsible for this outrageous move should be removed on the spot as enemies of art and freedom
I just don´t understand how someone can just believe in a second that we are able to interpret someone else´s point of view , especially from another era, with our eyes from today.
This is terrible.
What an idiotic way to incite interest in a gallery. If you feel the painting causing so much animosity then why don’t you just 1984 that canvas and slowly move the blade to Picasso?
I think you should give it to me since I care about Western civilization and you seem intent on turning your country over to 12th century barbarians who will probably burn it anyhow.
I’ll preserve it. I’ll care for it. I’ll display it. And I won’t pull stupid stunts to virtue signal to a bunch of emotionally stunted 8 year olds who will never be satisfied with anything anyway.
#MAGSoniaBoyce
Might as well close the museum. Civilization is lost.
Censuring artwork is not the answer, we should keep it in our mueseums, they teach us about many things, the dark side of our natures and the bright side.The decision about wich one is portrayed is, as they used to say, in the eyes of the beholder. Also, this painting portrays women as seducers but in a much better light than in the past, the nymphs look innocent, sweet and at the same time knowing. They are the ones iniciating the seduction in a active way, this was new in the XIX century. The painters used to give women roles as experience, dark seducers or the role of victims. That is the reason why I like Waterhouse.
Yes, like you said “in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all”, removing art that may offend is very important. The gallery staff should look up “Entartete Kunst” for more pointers about which art has no place in a modern progressive art gallery. I hear the people who came up with this term were masters concerning race, gender and class issues.
Surely the “context” in which this painting should be viewed is that of pre-Raphaelite art and the notable collection at the gallery – which is why many people visit it in the first place. To remove it from this context in order to hold a “conversation” in a completely inappropriate context is a silly publicity stunt as many have already said.
Has this ‘debate’ been motivated by the new director Alistair Hudson? If so then perhaps it’s an attempt to bring himself to notice. If not then perhaps the outgoing director is making his statement by leaving a controversy behind.
If the object of removing the painting was only to generate interest and discussion I am content. I sincerely hope though that this is not one more attempt at telling us, the public, what we should view, think, hear and say. Are we not mature and educated enough to judge for ourselves. It brings to mind the Mary Waterhouse era, Puritanism and the novel 1984. I hope that we are never deprived of the freedom we are so lucky to enjoy. I have been involved in the art world as an amateur painter since I was 12 and respect and honour all genres of art..
I think the overwhelming majority of the comments here say it all, loudly and clearly.
Please replace the painting immediately, and stop foisting this patronising censorship on the public, who are quite able to think for themselves and make their own judgements on works of art without ‘guidance’ from self-appointed moral arbiters and censorious puritans.
Are you lot out of your collective tiny minds? Put the thing back at once. This is nothing short of censorship and prudism masquerading as feminism.
“Debate”? who are you trying to kid? You might as well shut the doors altogether & burn every exhibit you have.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Why not just put up a load of paintings and other art pieces that you deem slightly risque for whatever reason and put them in a new exhibit at the gallery.
Or have an exhibition that celebrates the female form using artwork throughout the ages.
You would be creating more debate that way and would be less talk of what seems to be censorship on your part even if that was not the intent.
I hope everybody who will visit your gallery, hoping to see that painting, will request a refund. That’s what I would do if I experienced an unpleasant surprise like this. How could you be so stupid! Will you hide everything that is not to the taste of the moment? As someone said, Are you going to burn inappropriate books next? I have problems with a little group of stupid and small-minded prudes deciding for others what is good or what is wrong… This is so pathetic!
Ow noos, its so awful! Images of beautiful people should be forbidden! Give the painting to me, I’ll take care of it.
Thank you for starting a long overdue-debate. For me, this has nothing to do with being pathetic nor censorship, great performance.
So it’s not censorship, or telling people what pictures they can love, but postcards of the picture have been removed from the gift shop. If it walks like a duck…
“How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?” is not the question or the Problem. The latter is that some people want to teach us what is ‘acceptable’ art unter their contemporary bias. They have no idea of art – or the open society, by the way.
Art speaks for itself – just show it. Everyone is free to have his opinion on its formings, but does not have the right to impede its public Exhibition.
This is a very poor choice of target for this publicity stunt. The modern critic and dealer Christopher Wood describes this painting in his book, Olympian Dreamers, as Waterhouse’s “greatest classical picture”, he goes onto say: ‘Waterhouse chooses a moment of feminine agency; in this case, the Nymphs lure Hylas into their lily pond. He is the victim to their desires, and as such Waterhouse subordinates him in the painting Hylas faces away from the viewer, and the shadow cast across his face evokes a marked contrast with the illuminated faces and bodies of the Nymphs.’
Presumably MAG would approve of the religious zealots who took great pains in the Renaissance period to smash nude statues and break off or cover up penises. Perhaps that will be the centrepiece of the next group gallery takeover? When should I bring my sledgehammer for this artistic event? If only they could arrange for the loan of Michelangelo’s David they could really ensure it gains worldwide publicity.
Isn’t it interesting how people who censor art always say “this isn’t about censorship”?
The curators complains that “it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies.” In the picture’s own terms, it is quite obvious that it is the opposite–the women are pulling the hunky man into the pool. But even if we accept that the artist intended to display female flesh in a titillating fashion, that is part of art history. We can discuss it, contextualize it, dislike it. But it should not be erased from museums because of contemporary moralism.
Indeed, this curator’s attempt to “start a conversation” reeks of disingenuousness. Who decides what topics are “up for conversation”, anyway? Some think removing art from museums makes for productive conversation. Why don’t we try some other “conversation starters” too, like “temporarily” taking votes away from women, or not recognizing gay rights? Not because of bias of course! Just to “start a conversation…”
Classical galleries are full of representations of the luscious flesh of young men. Interestingly, we don’t see this kind of “not-censorship” when it comes to homosexual eroticism. It seems only heterosexual desire, on the part of men, is up for interrogation.
Truly awful decision – Oliver Cromwell rises again
I am outraged! I have loved this painting since I was a girl and have a print in my bedroom now over 45 years later. It is too beautiful to be hidden away. Shame on you Manchester Art Gallery.
Like others I was alarmed that you have censored this work of art (and it is censorship no matter how much you deny it as it’s been removed purely based on your own sociopolitical beliefs).
We often describe the Victorians as prudes. If that is so, then how puritanical are we?
By removing the piece of art you’ve denied the chance for people to see it and interpret it for themselves. Instead you’ve imposed your own feelings and perspective of the work on everyone.
I advise that instead of removing classical works you ADD new work which explores different perspectives on beauty such as male beauty, female perspectives on beauty etc.
How about we pretend we’re not living in a police state and you put the picture back up? Censorship, of any kind, never solves anything. You are a tax paid, public, institution, and you need to act like grown ups and stop molly coddling people.
This is a stunning piece of art, typical of the pre Raphaelite era and of it’s morals and views on woman. These views may not be acceptable now but this is a masterpiece and if we censor every piece of art that dares to show a body part then the art galleries will all be empty. It is of it’s time but even today it’s breathtaking beauty should not be censored. I am a strong modern woman but have a pre Raphaelite heart and it is so heavy at the removal of a masterpiece which lifts the soul. It has no relevance in today’s debates. For goodness sake give people the freedom and choice to enjoy the art they love. Personally I find a pickled sheep far more offensive!
I could understand it if it was a private collection. How is it, that a public Gallery, living from peoples taxes decides on hiding a painting from people??. My favourite picture by the way, the only reason I had so far to visit Manchester
Censorship just promotes ignorance and stifles debate. A cheap gimmick, so now that you have had your fifteen minutes – put the picture back.
just another step back into the dark ages of sexual repression.
next steps are the burning of witches and heretics………….let us start with easy things and burn books, remember May 10th 1933
Your action disgusts me. In the past we had people who “worked for us, ate for us, fought for us”. Now we know that you think for us. It’s no relief.
Perhaps the painting also objectifies the male body? To me Hylas is straight out of Men’s Health; one can almost see the wash-board abs under the tunic.
This is beneath contempt. You don’t even have the courage of your convictions to admit that your decision to remove this wonderful painting was motivated by self-imposed, politically correct censorship – instead you pretend it’s aimed at stimulating debate.
You have made yourselves look pathetic and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You have even managed to insult the common sense of feminists.
You have one of the most beautiful collections in the world. People come from all countries to enjoy it. The Victorian perspective might be different than the contemporary one, but taking down paintings for trivial reasons is disrespectful for all viewers. We are slowly but surely moving towards a dangerous regime of c’è censorship.
[…] "La galería existe en un mundo de cuestiones entrelazadas de género, raza, sexualidad y clase que nos afectan a todos. ¿Cómo pueden las obras de arte hablarnos en formas más contemporáneas y relevantes?", se pregunta la Galería de Arte de Manchester, una institución pública,en un comunicado. […]
Removing this painting is a disgraceful act, the decision would seem to be another ridiculous knee jerk by the politically correct desperately trying to be on trend. By the strength of the reactions so far the stunt appears to have backfired.
Interesting that the gallery seeks to inspire discussion by removing a painting. Rather an inversion of the usual function of a municipal gallery.
Exploring your collections online I noticed that the same room includes a nude woman brutally maltreating a tortoise (Holme Cardwell’s Venus Victrix).
Please take this sculpture from public view in order to promote discussion of outdated opinions of animal rights.
In 1914, suffragette Mary Richardson slashed Velázquez’s nude painting of Venus in the National Gallery with a meat cleaver. She proclaimed, “I have tried to destroy the picture of the most beautiful woman in mythological history as a protest against the Government.” Around the same time, conservative groups in Chicago were demanding that Matisse’s painting of nude dancers be removed from the Art Institute as inappropriate.
Today we see another indignant group eager to use someone else’s art as a tool for expressing their grievances. I guess we should be grateful they’re using persiflage rather than meat cleavers.
Being a Waterhouse fan, I was appalled at this curators views, I didn’t know we still practiced Victorian values.
If you view this whole activity as an example to show the consequences of overzealous political correctness, then it is an enormous success, as it made people think.
If it is really intended to be a pc activity, then I am truly frightened for our future… Just some thoughts sent from Germany
This has been my favorite piece of art since the first time I have encountered it at MAG. And MAG has ever since been my favorite art gallery. I was remembering the time I was able to visit MAG today and found out that out of all art work of MAG this was chosen to be taken down to promote conversation/dabate. I am very upset to find out about this.
I no longer live in UK and have not been able to visit MAG for a while now. But I cherish the times I was able to spend indoor MAG when it is raining and miserable outside. I would sit in front of this particular painting, studying the details of it. This is such a fascinating piece to me, particularly with the expressions on Nymphs’ faces. And I love the colour of comparison of the skin of Nymphs and the dark water. And how it just draws your attention to the depth of the depiction.
I think the conversation MAG is trying to promote with this action is an interesting one and not insignificant. But I can’t really process this seriously because the action taken does not really make any sense to me and is personally very very upsetting.
I wish the artwork would be put back soon.
I work in an international organization in a department that takes care of social innovation. I work in gender issues related themes almost every day. Because I choose to. Also, I try to be an artist in my free time. I was living in Manchester in 2006. This painting thrilled me like no other. I bought a reproduction there that’s in my wall. It´s beautiful and inspiring. As much as I encourage debate, this feels like an abhorrent decission. The people visiting the gallery the time the painting is away are missing a masterpiece because you want to force social debate into people. People that maybe are visiting the country and it’s a one chance only to see the pieces. Your moral authority self-bestowment is disturbing and terrifying, Please put the painting back in the wall as soon as possible. Thanks.
Manchester Gallery are you REALLY understand what ART IS ??!!!
Have so enjoyed the MAG’s Pre-Raphaelites collection in the past. By all mean have a discussion how society “display[s] and interpret artworks” BUT how can society take part in the discussion pick on only one image. Why not take down all images you think require this attention ? If you think that is an extreme reaction please contemplate your own action.
This is cultural fascism. How dare you politicise our heritage? JW Waterhouse was an exceptionally gifted artist and his art is breathtakingly beautiful and loved by men and women all over the world.
You wanted to start a conversation. You were successful, congratulations. Now bring back the painting.
Some of us are sick of the endless ‘discussions’ and destructive behaviour prompted by modern feminists and so-called social justice warriors, who apparently wish to take the beauty and pleasure out of everything. Leave the games for the playground please, no one who thinks like this should be allowed to work for or with a museum, which is after all meant to protect and display notable pieces, not follow the new religion of political correctness over the edge of a cliff.
A work from the ‘public collection. So yes the work belongs to the public. The public have decided. Put it back. Condemnation was surely not the intent for you but that it what you now get from this ridiculous decision.
Ah, yes, we now behave like the Nazi (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art ) how enlightened…
Victorianist art historian, curator and editor of the Review of the Pre-Raphaelite Society here, so this is a subject that I have thought long and hard about for many years. Of course some Victorian (and indeed, many contemporary) towards gender and race can be problematic, as can the whole notion of the male gaze. These issues are hardly new, and have been discussed extensively for decades now. Likewise, there are many artworks in galleries which, although seemingly benign, were made by people whose politics or sexual mores may seem objectionable to modern sensibilities. However, removing artworks should never be an option. It does not stimulate debate, it merely stifles it. A more sensible option would be to leave this much loved artwork (which some of your visitors may be travelling a long way to see) in place and improve your interpretation of the artwork to ask the questions around gender, diversity and the male gaze, which you wish to raise. Great publicity stunt though!
that should read: ‘contemporary) attitudes’!
Thank you. I love you.
[…] "La galería existe en un mundo de cuestiones entrelazadas de género, raza, sexualidad y clase que nos afectan a todos. ¿Cómo pueden las obras de arte hablarnos en formas más contemporáneas y relevantes?", se pregunta la Galería de Arte de Manchester, una institución pública,en un comunicado. […]
You ask how could artworks speak in more contemporary ways. We are all of us surrounded by the contemporary : modern life throws news, facts, ideas at us all the time. One of the functions of the arts is precisely to take us out of today and remind us that people in other times and other places had different ideas and thought in different ways from us. If we can, at least occasionally, be aware of this, we might have a bit more perspective on our own times and not so easily fall for whatever is the latest fashion.
So, why was this removed? Obviously the “space issue” is a cover. Is it haram or is it misogynistic? Which one is it?
Shame on you Manchester Art Gallery for jumping on the coat tails of a media frenzy around genuine wrong-doing. How can you that this painting the the same brush? We are supposed to live in a democracy, but increasingly the few are taking decisions for us all – dictating what we should think, believe and how we should behave. We are intelligent people and can make those judgements for ourselves.
I have visited your galley for nearly 40 years. Hylas and the Nymphs is one of my favourite paintings in both your gallery and of those paintings produced by the pre-raphaelites and their followers. My wife and children share my love for this painting. Seeking to edit our art history in this way sets a dangerous precident. Not that long ago, the Nazis chose modern or Avant Garde art to villify. Look what happened there.
No art can be judged on the basis of modern values. It must be judged on the values of the time in which that art was created. Picasso’s Guernica was a cry from the heart about the evils of modern warfare. Rubens liked ‘plus size’ women and so did his clients. The French Impressionists struggled to convey what they saw and how they felt about a scene. Their art was visceral and from the heart.
Likewise the Pre-Raphaelites struggled with a grim post-Industrial Revolution Britain and hankered for a romantic and idealised view of ancient mythology. Yes they were sexual beings and yes they had a certain view of women’s bodies. In creating their art they lift a veil on the tastes and values of the Victorian middle class and reveal themselves to be less prudish and far more prurient than we might otherwise expect.
The Pre-Raphaelites were the art of their times, they reflected the values of their times. I reject any attempt to remove art from display in a public gallery in just the same way as I reject and despise Nazi censoring of so-called ‘degenerate art’. Your gallery should be proud to have this piece in its collection. Kindly re-instate it. Celebrate it!
I like the poesy in the painting, and as a woman I dont feel offended. Why would I? We have TV Shows going on like The Bachelor and all the trillions of pornsites on the internet where women are represented like dumb objects, that should be better censored…However, starting this discussion is a great marketing act for the museum:)
Perhaps we should close the art gallery, and give the paintings to galleries around Britain that aren’t UNCOMFORTABLE showing them.
I agree that removing this piece is a silly idea. I’ve always been a huge fan of the Pre-Raphaelites–my single favorite painting has always been Rossetti’s “Venus Verticordia”–and I’m neither feeling threatened by nor inspired to suppress women by the presence of young attractive women (and a similarly idealized attractive man, one should not forget). Moreover, remembering the myth of Hylas, lover of Herakles, this painting is can be looked at as a moral tale of female empowerment, as Things Do Not End Well for Hylas here a minute or two after this scene.
I’m reminded of the fact that 500 years later, there are *still* idiots who feel that Michelangelo’s David should have a figleaf, as if they knew more about art than Michelangelo. If it is arguable that this is somehow a negative portrayal of women simply because they’re naked and young (a position I don’t accept), then it is equally an image of its time and is *still* valid for a’ that. Great art is often controversial, sometimes in continuing and unexpected ways decades later, but that is the nature of its greatness. Critics may choose to disagree with the artist’s POV, but it should never be denied that it is the artist’s work that has endured the test of time and never the critic’s.
IMO, this picture should continue to hang publicly as it has until now. Removing this particular piece seems little more than a stunt.
P.S. I greatly appreciate Stephen Riley’s comments in this thread, to which I can only add that Mencken probably said it best: to the effect that, while the Creator may have erred in making two sexes, a conspiracy of silence about the facts was hardly going to improve the situation.
Words fail me!
I think the debate should not be so much about whether the painting should be on display, but whether somebody with such narrow views should be doing the job that she is.
This sexism debate is pathological, the Mancester Art Gallery has failed !
You should be ashamed.
Hetero men have always and everywhere pursued females. Just as females have pursued males. That’s why mythological stories so often portray sexual themes. This is life, this is nature.
Your prudish reaction to this and other paintings is very disturbing coming from an art curator.
I had intended to see this exhibition and visit the gallery. Now art is being censored in your gallery, I shall go elsewhere
What a tasteless, revolting and appalling picture! My son just to came to me, totally disturbed, because he saw it. Can´t you put a disclaimer before one enters your site?! This is pornopraphy!!! Who in the right mind would think this is art? Breasts!!!!!! Bare Breasts even! Bad enough these strange things exists, but showing them is just shameful! Best solution would be obviously to burn this provocation or at least to paint clothes for these poor women! I was right NEVER to go to a museum. But I did not expect it to be that bad! Don´t you think modern art is better: I once saw a Kandinsky. It took a while, but after much concentration I noticed lines that could very well be interpreted as a penis!!! Sublimely done but that makes it even worse! Burn it! Burn it all!!!
Will every picture with a naked putti, every Madonna with a naked Christ and every Venus, Eros and Aphrodite be withdrawn? Rather than challenge Victorian Fantasy it is reintroducing Victorian prudery.
Cover up the chair legs in the cafeteria please.
It seems that in an attempt to gain some cheap publicity Manchester Gallery has made itself a laughing stock.
Manchester Art Gallery needs to cover the table legs in the cafeteria. Shocking display that only incites the passions of the lower classes.
Why could you not leave the work in place and at the same time encourage discussion? I suspect. once the furore dies down, the painting will never again be on show in the gallery. Let’s face it, this is simply part of an insidious move towards censorship and puritanism. It’s the 21st century, not the 17th!
Nothing better than a good censorship.
Start burning pictures and books like this. We love autodafes. Let’s start to draw up lists with names of these so called modern artists, and don’t forget the names of those that support them. Next steps should be clear; lets burn them all including their works, burn them all to ashes.
Gosh! You’re right! I thought this was simply a lovely pre-Raphaelite fancy, a lovely painting, reworking an ancient legend.
Thanks to you, I realise it is filth – a paedophile fantasy.
Burn it! Along with other works of art now seen for the filth they are. Burn the lot – in the street!
Thanks for this new perspective on what I had considered great art.
Utterly preposterous and ignorant decision to remove ‘Hylas and the Nymphs’ from exhibition. Could it perhaps be put on show in a separate exhibition, you could call it ‘Degenerate Art’. I believe there is a precedent…
Shame on Manchester Art Gallery.
Is this really a debate? Or is it a bit a cheap bit of publicity for the gallery? I’m not sure censorship is the best way to start a debate if that’s what you’re really trying to do. There’s plenty of homoerotic art, why aren’t they also being removed? I’m disappointed by the crass nature of this ‘statement’.
Dear Lord, Orwell’s 1984 has crept into the art world. Politically correct paintings are nothing more than censorship. Our world is falling into a neo Fascist system where a small minority infect the people and alter history. SHAME ON YOU.
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
George Orwell
Why stop at Waterhouse? So, so, predictable to carry off -in what will no doubt be yet another thrilling and wholly enlightening video installation – a canvas of unadorned female flesh when you could, instead, have deconstructed the subversive nature of Millais’ ‘Autumn Leaves’ with its fully clothed adolescents vanishing under the weight of even more outdated symbols and signs. Sad you can’t think of any more constructive ways to put your gallery on the map than cheap stunts like this – exhibitions maybe, loans and outreach to schools? But then you might have to creep down the steps of your ivory tower and engage.
My father just called to tell me about this and I said, don’t worry, that’ll be fake news. No one could be so breathtakingly condescending and puerile as to pull a stunt like this.
Does any piece of Victoriana featuring nudes come under the fevered spotlight of the zealot? The real conversation to be had here is the rise of the modern puritan and their appalling, stultifying censoriousness.
why must the painting be removed.?..by all means put a poster up near the painting and ask people to comment about what they think…removing the painting is the thin end of the wedge…what next?? something else that the curators don’t approve of? you are heading towards life that can only be lived as certain people say so…the Nazis started down this road in 1939… look what happened then….
Your big mistake was removing the painting, clearly censorship. What a pity. And the painting has gone for ideological reasons, a dangerous precedent. Today Waterhouse, next Waterstones?
It cannot be right to instigate a debate about something by removing the object in question, how can people make informed comments about things they are denied knowledge of.
If the gallery regards this painting as inappropriate and wants to test public opinion it should place notices in the entrance and have a way of recording comments.
What should we do with the past,bin it ,or preserve it in museums where people can study and perhaps even learn from it. When museums start to display only what they deem suitable it is a slippery slope. What about Michelangelo’s David, or is this only a female issue.
What is the role of a museum? To give us access to the past, warts and all, or to sanitise our heritage to suit today’s latest fad
Please put the picture up. It is clearly an act of censorship to remove it from display. The discussion you are claiming will occur has occurred already, and it has been well documented. Do we not learn from the past? Do we have curatorial amnesia?
I have a wonderful vegan friend who seriously objects to any depiction (in books or art) of meat eating/dairy industry etc. I love her dearly, but what happens if she ever gets on the board of your gallery or a library?
Pointless attempt at attention grabbing.
Attendance at Museums fell by over 1.5 million last year, they are becoming outdated and boring.
The painting is freely available on the internet in extremely high quality, and I’m sure the original will still be available for private viewing requests to those “intellectuals” who Clare does not feel the need to protect from this “shocking” work of art.
This “experiment” merely proves that curators still have a Victorian attitude to the general public and feel obliged to “filter” history for our benefit.
Long live the Internet!
This is silly, put it back and stop pandering to the PC brigade. If people don’t want to view such a painting then they can make that choice, it’s not your job to make that decision for them. Where will this nonsense end ???
Out and out censorship, no other name for it. When you are being told rather than asked what to think of a painting.
I think the painting should be put back exactly where it was, as I do not think anyone within a public gallery should be able to censor work in this way, especially not a public employee, who has told us why we should not be looking at or enjoying this painting in her own very opinionated way. I’m totally disappointed that she has been allowed to do this by her superiors and would say to Clare Gannaway that she should consider a career move as she is obviously not going to safe guard the nations great paintings if they include naked women. So please feel free to resign.
If we were to allow this type of censorship many of the museums and gallery’s around the world would be devoid of paintings because they have naked figures of women hanging on the walls, many of them from the great master themselves. None of them I deem pornograpic or personally demeaning to myself as a women. I’m so angry at the position Clare has taken and supposedly on my behalf as a women. All I can say is you do not speak for me.
Does the gallery not realise that the general public are clever enough to take a paiting in the context of when it was painted, and come to their own judgement what sort of issues it might raise if it were painted nowadays. How patronising of them to with draw the painting and peoples ability to buy a copy of it on postcard. It is censorship, it is ridiculous, and it is small-minded. Art crosses many boundaries – as a lot of the most recent works do – it’s not for a blinkered curator to make a decision like this,. Shame on you for pushing a self publising agenda.
I am an artist. Today, like I have done for the last few months, I have been painting a large canvas with a (naked) young couple embracing in a landscape setting. It will form part of a complicated narrative within a ‘double’ triptych. So now it seems I will be castigated by the thought police along with the venerable John Waterhouse. How dare you! Tomorrow I shall return to my canvas with renewed determination and my love of art undiminished. Return Hylas immediately!
It’s hard to imagine out- pruding the Victorians, when we live in a world where prostitution, porno, sex in advertising, etc., is rampant. As an Artist, I guess it’s time to paint more nudes, just to prove that not everyone in the 21st century is as fearful of art as this museum seems to be.
A more explicit picture on exactly the same subject was painted in 1909 by the female artist Henrietta Rae (it is easily viewable on the internet). Is the problem with Waterhouse’s picture a ‘gender neutral’ one, and if not why not?
Art should Not Be Censored – and should not even be up for debate – the thin end of the wedge. Put the painting back where it belongs … British culture is open minded and diverse – free expression is a very important component of our culture.
Can whoever was involved in this shameful, ignorant, and self-aggrandising decision to remove a first-class painting, please do the following two simple things:
1. Put the painting back on display.
2. Remove themselves immediately from Manchester Gallery and any other artistic establishment.
You clearly have no appreciation of art beyond the tired old 20th century views of deconstructionism, politicisation and gender theory, and you are not even qualified to tie the shoes of a Waterhouse. You are the embarrassment.
The public are not interested in your virtue signalling and “challenging” views which are nothing short of barbaric…they just want to see great works of art and beauty.
If you prefer ugliness and desecration, by all means indulgence your passion in your own time, but do not do so at the public’s expense.
I read that you’ve also removed postcards of the painting from the gallery shop. I think this undermines your stated stance that it’s not censorship and purely to provoke debate about how displayed.
Paintings provoke debate when we can see them. My wife and I discuss what we think the artist was trying to say or represent when visiting galleries.
We do not need to be told what is appropriate or not, we can decide that for ourselves
Presumably the gallery will be selling this painting as you seem very indifferent about it. Surely the comments made by the curator herself mean there is little option other than to pass the painting on to another gallery that would value the work. To do anything else would be muddled and hypocritical in the extreme. I’m sure you would get a good price.
How dare you apply your own narrow moralistic view on a past age!
How are future generations to interpret how society develops if it is only perceived from one narrow politically correct viewpoint. What kind of a challenge is this to Victorian values, it says more about the recent explosion of misandry.
It is a cynical and pathetic publicity stunt, you should be ashamed. What is next? Do we chop the balls off Michelangelo’s David? I am an artist and I resent my access to art censored by a misguided feminist agenda.
You need a new curator, I am available!!!!
Don’t let’s bow down to nonsense!! For one group to deprive another of an experience is undemocratic. Art has always been controversial and leads people to thought.
This is a monumentally sad and ridiculous decision. To withdraw a well-known and well-respected picture in order to “prompt conversation” is, frankly, beyond my comprehension. Perhaps you should just focus all your attention henceforth on Spiderman ephemera. Sad times.
Are you all gone mad!? In all seriousness, what are you going to do about Balthus? Or contemporary artist, sculptores? What about rape of Sabin women? Eugène Delacroix, ‘liberty leading the people’!!? I can’t believe we are all even discussing this!!
Is this a publicity stunt? You do appreciate the mythology being depicted? And the fact that women artists have painted this scene in a not dissimilar way? If you ever add context that should be included. If it is your intention to permanently remove items that do not conform to your sensibilities, then you should transfer the artwork to other “free entry” public art galleries. I’m sure you realise that popular paintings would be gladly welcomed elsewhere.
This is really annoys me. This painting should stay where it was, or do you suggest painting drapes over the bodies of the young nymphs ! We’ll be back to the stupidity of putting covers over the legs of pianos etc. This act reminds me of those people who want to rename streets in my home city of Liverpool because they are the names of people involved in the slave trade. We can’t and shouldn’t deny history, we learn from it. Now we have the situation which is happening in Manchester art gallery. We have a situation where people are worried if they take a photograph of grandchildren playing naked in the garden etc. The vast majority of are not perverts and we don’t need this madness of others who think they know better deciding what we can see or not see. Are you putting in a large order of fig leaves to cover all naked parts on paintings and sculptures ? I was an art teacher for 35 years teaching students both boys and girls from 11 to 18. I would never had decided to censor what they could or couldn’t look at in any art work. Put the painting back and do something worthwhile to earn your salary.
As a lover of Manchester Art Gallery and the painting which I love so sad we even have to have a debate about this painting. What kind of a Curator is this woman? Is she really suitable for this position? I am a 74 year old woman who is shocked by what she is doing and certainly not the painting. Put the painting back and come to your senses ‘woman’! Its feminism gone mad. Where is all this leading. So sad.
This is such a cheap attempt for publicity.
One of the reasons why that’s one of my favorite paintings by Waterhouse is the morality of it. Hylas is overcome by his sense of male superiority and entitlement. All he sees are women for him to conquer, allowing them to draw him into their natural environment and drown him. They will not confront him on land, so his ego is his undoing. It is the censors’ similar inability to see past the breasts that provides a textbook definition of irony.
It’s a disgrace (and a cheap PR trick on top of that) for an art gallery to jump on a populist bandwagon rather than preserving cultural heritage. What’s next? Will we start pouring concrete over Michelangelo’s David’s privates? Will the Madonnas in old churches get their breasts painted over? Sounds pretty much like the Middle Ages where “virtuous” furor once already silenced the voice of art. (To be a bit meaner we could draw comparisons with a well-known Austro-German’s war on “deviant” art…)
The gallery has made its point and has, I presume, received the attention it wanted. The point it has made, however, is irresponsible, reckless, and obtuse. At best, this is a phenomenally misguided attempt at social commentary; at worst, this is petty attention seeking behaviour the likes of which most petulant children would find excessive. The gallery and its decision makers should be embarrassed at the remarkable disservice they have done for the public as well as for the pieces they are entrusted with preserving.
You are protecting bigotry and imported savages. I’m giving you a helping hand: just tell me the amount of the cheque and the date of possible withdrawal of this beautiful painting. I’ll be happy to have it in my library for the cultural pleasure of my friends and myself.
he removal of this Waterhouse painting is an utter disgrace and a step too far. This is PC gone insane. My wife and I had a print of this wonderful painting hung above our mantelpiece for years until it became too faded to keep. You are an utter disgrace to the World of Art. Resign and replace immediately before you shut the door on your way out to collect your P45.
This seems like a publicity stunt
As curators you should know the stoey and history behind this amazing painting. Frankly you are giving the far right press everything that they could possibly want.
This is about as series as debate on the content of a gallery as Eastenders is a true reflection on life
Grow up and put it back or this will work negatively for you.
Conversation? “Art made tongue-tied by authority” (William Shakespeare).The censorship of this painting creates an appalling precedent.. Please restore the painting without delay.
.“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”
? Henry Louis Gates Jr.
Art made tongue-tied by authority.
Absolutely disgraceful to remove the Waterhouse painting. I thought Manchester was an enlightened city…pass the flat caps out, were’e heading back to the dark ages!
I have removed my comments about Manchester Art Gallery’s decision to remove Waterhouse’s sublime painting from public display as some might find them offensive.
Please feel free to discuss.
In the meantime here is a quote form Stephen Fry –
“It’s now very common to hear people say, ‘I’m rather offended by that.’ As if that gives them certain rights. It’s actually nothing more… than a whine. ‘I find that offensive.’ It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I am offended by that.’ Well, so f***ing what.”
Conversation? “Art made tongue-tied by authority” (William Shakespeare).The censorship of this painting creates an appalling precedent.. Please restore the painting without delay.
.“Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice.”
? Henry Louis Gates Jr.
I can see both (or more) sides of the argument here- and agree partially with all of them. MAG evidently wants to ‘provoke’ opinions and they’ve succeeded. I’m sure they’re soaking them all up, which can only be a good thing. In terms of criticising the nature/background of the gallery’s decision, it needs to be done but I would like to talk more about what could actually be put in place, whether short or long-term, to satisfy viewers and morals -not just in the world of 2018, but to suit all people, regardless of gender etc. Almost impossible to achieve; idealistic even.
You can’t change the picture without taking a brush to it- and that might lead to a mob of angry conservators coming after you. All that can change is display context and reception. I’m not sure I can agree with removing the picture (hey -I’m looking at it online right now; it’s not as good as in person but a lack of surface texture and detail doesn’t wipe out the portrayal of women-), however good the gallery’s intentions, and I can understand why they’d wish to stop making a profit from postcards.. but it’s encouraging that MAG is unwilling to become stagnated and outdated. How about isolating the picture and having a discussion around that; taking into account the context of the time it was made and how this sits with modern/broader-reaching ideas- where they clash, and equally where they might sit together. There’s never going to be a total agreement that there’s even an issue to start with here- many will hate the idea of the painter being ‘incriminated’. I don’t think that needs to happen. If the painting is still up, people can enjoy it. If MAG make changes to curation arrangements and display then the picture will still be the same- it’s just that the gallery and members of the audience will feel more secure that a balanced approach is being considered. Those that are ticked off can wear blinkers to block out the PC stuff and enjoy the skill and atmosphere of the painting. You could discuss JWW’s take on the myth in-amongst alternative ways that it could have been done: (a bit immaterial maybe but opens discussion and interest) why might he have chosen to paint what he did on a personal and social/audience-based level? Why might this pose a problem (or not)? You could even get contemporary artists to paint their own versions of the scene, curate a show of this piece alongside similar works and topical contemporary works of art that provide a contradictory viewpoint/ seem neutral to either stance, or hold bookable group séances so that visitors can interrogate Waterhouse’s spirit and decision making. Sorry about that last one, no disrespect.
I appreciate that it’s a lot, lot easier for a rambling 18 year old art student to plonk this out on a laptop than it is for large changes to be made to gallery displays, but I’d like to see a productive approach, hopefully with a result that everyone thinks is fab.
Reproductions of the painting have been removed from the gift shop. The explanation is patently dishonest and this is part of a culture war by ideologues who have marched through our institutions.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”
(George Orwell, 1984)
If you don’t want it I will gladly hang it in my hall. This painting is the only reason I have visited your gallery
I grew up with a reproduction of this on the wall. It was and is one of my favourite paintings and I loved to sit and look at it.
I have never seen it as a sexual image. Nudity is not automatically sex.
The nymphs are not passive. They are in control of their environment. Removing these paintings is, to me, more a victorian suppression of the image of strong, independent women than the artwork is.
If this is not censorship but merely a “provocation” inviting discussion when are you going to re-exhibit the painting and on what grounds?
On the basis of the justification given by the curator concerning the “takeover” of the museum most of your current collection could for once reason or another be removed from view. This walks and talks like a self appointed group’s censorship decision.
The issue is not the painting: the issue is the judgement, perspective and fear of the curator. This feels very much like the type of judgement being exercised in the 1930s.
What a stupid idea. Should the Musée d’Orsay in Paris take down Courbets “L’Origine du monde” now:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Origin-of-the-World.jpg/600px-Origin-of-the-World.jpg
*edit. I’m also with some of the comments above that discuss how open to interpretation this painting is and how positively it can be seen. But I’m just me.
‘This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!’
How ridiculous. The gallery does not present the female body as anything; the paintings present the female body as interpreted by the artist and context in which they were produced.
This headline-hungry move is not only shallow and misguided, but speaks of a dangerous ignorance and fear of other views that galleries largely exist to challenge and question.
Put the painting back on the wall and stop being silly! Mary Whitehouse and the Taliban would approve of what you’ve done, but few others. Manchester is bigger than this petty minded act – embarrassing – my home city! :-((
Patronising, condescending censorship. Who hires these people?
It’s very sad and disappointing to see a museum applying cheap censorship to their own collection. There is NOTHING wrong with this painting. I’ve seen modern art being way more provocative then this and it was heavily promoted. Please, don’t tell us what to see and what not to see. We can make up our own minds. We’re gliding into a soft-dictatorship where “elitists” say what the “others” may or can see. What will be next? Offensive books? Offensive movies? Historical artifacts? The BBC is already doing their best to align history with political correction. Where will this stop? When we all have one and the same opinion and agree on everything?
The weakness of this strategy is suggested by the phrase “Nobody is denying those views and ideas have existed in the past.” What ‘views and ideas’? Nineteenth-century British artworks obviously reflects some of the wider cultural values of their moment of production, but you need to make a much sharper argument if you’re suggesting that Waterhouse’s use of female bodies shares common ground with abuses of powers by contemporary global elites. I read elsewhere the you consider The Pursuit of Beauty a ‘bad’ title. It’s actually quite a neat summation of certain historical interests, but it does need more exposition and contextualisation, for sure. Such nuances don’t seem to be indicated in recent statements from the gallery, suggesting that this ‘intervention’ reflects a condescending understanding of nineteenth-century culture amongst individuals schooled in the ‘bubble’ of contemporary international art practices. That’s a bit disappointing in a gallery located in one of the nineteenth century’s most important urban centres.
If you want debate, ask the Musée d’Orsay for a loan of Courbet’s “L’Origine du Monde”, and as a woman I can say that Courbet was correct! If we cannot regard art in all its forms and appreciate the context then we will have lost the ability to understand the world. The removal of the J Waterhouse work of art is on a level similar to the logic of iconoclasts. The nymphs in this painting are empowered women, not objects for the male gaze and the curator is showing her ignorance of the Greek myth and her Marxist, feminist leanings. Put it back so it can continue to be valued by those who can understand and appreciate a beautiful work.
I am really shocked. This might sound bold, but this is what I feel: A museum decides what is and what is not degenerate art. This is what the Nazi regime did some decades before: Motives are removed as soon they challenge their ideology. The museum’s ideology seems to be: nudity = sexism; removing nudity = removing sexism. Honestly, how can prudery ever be an answer to sexism? And how can the current debate about sexism in Hollywood ever be related to nudity in ancient Greek mythology? There is sooo much wrong about this decision.
That’s how it began in the 1930s. Censorship is censorship, for whatever it might be the reason for….
You know who did the same in art in germany in around 1940 .Precise …..Hitler !!!Entartete Kunst ???Does remind us of the dark Nazitime .I am a feminist .Write about issues young adolt women /children almost every week .But this is making the whole diskussion a laughing stock .Shame on you to want become publicity by hanging a wonderful picture in a cellar .This is not adding .On the contrary .If you want to do good …go on the streets , to the schools .Teach young children and addults how to socialize in a respect way to one and other ,This is so silly .Step in the NOW and let myhology be mythology .
NYMPHS ARE NOT WOMEN!!!!
This should be enough to say that all the talking is just pure nonsense
As a (female, I guess in this day and age I have to add this, sadly) conservator of art from Germany who has spend 6 months as an intern in an art gallery in England 10 years ago I am absolutely terrified and disgusted by what you have done! Shame on you.
Apart from the utter nonsense this act of censorship committed by the new Victorian-style prudes is based on this doesn’t even make the slightest sense. This painting depicts a bunch of nymphs abducting a young gay man to use him for their pleasure because he’s beautiful. This depicts the females as the dangerous, powerful ones who are in control and the male as the powerless victim and object of their desire.
I mean you can’t make this s*** up if you tried. No one is offended by this painting but you intolerant Puritans! You are keeping people from watching this publicly funded work of art all based on your extremist ideologies. Stop it! What’s next? Removing all paintings with nudity in them? Or only female nudity? Only displaying them with explanations on how people should view them because the plebs can’t be trusted to have the “right” feelings and opinions?
What on earth were you thinking?!
Rich, this is a depiction of female desire! Hylas had a male lover, the nymphs dragged him into the water because he was so beautiful.
I was shocked to find out your gallery has removed my favourite JW Waterhouse painting. I saw it for the first time, back in 2009 when it was part of the Royal Academy of Arts J.W Waterhouse exhbition. Not once was I offended by it, nor did I feel, as a female, objectified by it. Instead, I was moved by its beauty and inspired by the story behind it. What’s next? Asking the Louvre to remove the Venus de Milo because it depicts a half-naked female?
Hope you reconsider.
I hope others like minded folk will sign the petition below:
https://www.causes.com/campaigns/117267-petition-the-return-of-hylas-and-the-nymphs-by-waterhouse
Just ignorant Puritanism
A German here.
Looking at what happens atm around the world(including this case) i am reminded of burning books. And for those who didn’t sleep during their entire school….we know what happened, right?
Feels like we are having a cultural downfall “correcting” things of the past. Did you know that here in germany, we have Political correct reprints of Kidsbooks? LLike stories of “Die kleine Hexe” or “pippi Langstrumpf”.
I am afraid on what’s to come 🙁
Censorship is censorship, whatever you choose to call it. I love art for its ability to transport me, to show me a different viewpoint, to challenge me. Most of all I love living in a society where I am free to choose the art I look at and enjoy. Having listened to the Radio 4 piece and having read Clare’s comments above which describe this painting respectively as ‘uncomfortable’ and the contextualising of it as ‘damaging’ to women; I would respond that the majority of women are not so foolish or delicate as to be damaged by a Victorian painting, particularly one that shows women in charge of the scene. I wonder does Clare understand the story of Hylas and the Nymphs? If the issue is the name of the gallery being ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ can it not be changed? Or better yet, can it not include much broader ideas of beauty including contemporary ones? Of far greater concern to many women today is the objectifying of women in media, music videos etc and a generation of young girls growing up trying to measure up to impossible ideals on social media. Start a conversation about that. I have always loved pre-Raphaelite paintings but have not been lucky enough to see Hylas and the Nymphs. With a bit of luck, it will make its way to a more enlightened gallery near me soon.
It’s despairating to misuse art for the purpose of any ideologic-political purpose.
That’s not the real reason, art wants was born.
Art was born to open new horizonts for the human eyes and to help understand there are more “sights” of the world we live in – except our own ones.
Sad greetings from Immenstaad/Germany
Stefan
Censorship. Period
How can there be a discussion without the art being discussed. Bunch of right wing clowns
What an astonishingly fatuous decision, dressed up in the most transparently politicised (and painfully crass) rationalisations. Claire Gannaway’s ‘response’ is little more than a cobbled together list of leaden, de rigueur cliches masquerading as ‘analysis’.
Reading of the removal of a painting not fitting the right ideology i have to think of one little German word “entartet”. Rember it? Guess you do.
What a useless and sad act of censorship in our great, liberal city of Manchester. I don’t understand the point that you are trying to make. This is an old Greek myth and the nymphs are naked in the water, I don’t believe swimming costumes were available at the time. You ask “how could artworks speak in more contemporary and relevant ways?”, does this mean we only display contemporary art? (because you can’t time travel to request that the artist please change their painting, although I am inclined to believe that you would if you could) and who chooses which art is relevant or not? This is a dangerous path to travel along. Please put the painting back where it belongs, I like to choose myself which artwork I want to see and not have somebody else make that decision for me.
I believe a painting done with equal skill depicting Ms. Boyce’s narrative would be far more effective than removing this masterpiece from the gallery. Sonia Boyce has great ideas and great things to say, however, I think if she wrote about how she interprets the meaning of this painting and displayed it in the gallery or elsewhere in the museum, it would serve her message better than depicting it with her skill as a visual artist.
As the night progresses I am getting more and more angry about this. We live in a world of so much cruelty and unfairness and art is a balm for the soul. Why remove beauty ,how can it offend? JW Waterhouse was an outstanding artist and his work has brought me comfort during turbulent times, I feel affronted by this lunacy. What next ? Will The Illiad be condemned to the same fate as another piece of mythological affrontery! This is not progress but regression back to when Sir Joshua Reynold’s claimed the PRB as degenerates, come on, have we not progressed since then. The list of censorable art works could be infinite at this rate, does Dali’s masterpiece St John on the Cross also offend for it’s “vulgar” display of naked flesh.I could go on……. Please remove these philistines from the art works for the sake of all art lovers!!!
Are you insane?
You have the good fortune of having this masterpiece and you remove it for some twisted PC idea that downed on you curator?
What’s next, we scalpel down Milo’s venus and all classical statues depicting naked women? We burn any painting portraying a female nude? We cover them with a burka?
You should be ashamed of yourself and the responsible should immediately be removed from his/her position, so to avoid the chance of more damage being done.
Shame, eternal shame, nothing but shame.
Sorry, Art has to provoke, did provoke and will continue to do so.
We need to see and understand how former generations saw this and so on. Otherwise we could also not show ancient Arabian art. Or would forget the disturbing German art of the late 1930s.
Isn’t this like having politically minded people in charge of Manchester Central Library and have them declare certain books “problematic” (i.e. you don’t agree with them) and then removing them for an unspecified time so we can all consider how “problematic” they are (i.e. agree with you). Imagine thinking you had that moral authority? The arrogance. The small-mindedness.
Censoring history is the road to ignorance and a hindrance to social evolution.
Why western europe plays with fire, do you want getting burned by totalitarian regime? We in easter europe still remember comunist regime. 1984 is not the manual, it is warning. You will get burned by political correctness, islam, censorship 🙁
Why would you like to return to dark ages?
I feel very strongly about this. The censorship of art from the past is dangerous and frightening (and this is censorship however you try to disguise that). The reference to book burning is entirely appropriate. Some years ago I went to an exhibition in Edinburgh showing art from Venice in the 16th and 17th centuries. I found many of the depictions of women very distasteful, especially the Titians and Tintorettos. “All boobs and buttocks” as one young man looking at the pictures rightly commented. Nevertheless, as works of art they were superb, and they reflected the age in which they were produced. Shall we remove those paintings from art galleries? I am ashamed that the city where I live has set this dreadful precedent.
One dreads to think where this sort of attitude might lead, were it to catch on. Thank goodness you don’t own Caravaggio’s “Amor Vincitore”, because you’d surely have to put that on a public bonfire in Albert Square. For Heaven’s sake, the Waterhouse is a very well executed painting that was created in the Victorian period when all manner of attitudes were different to what is the current (and probably quite temporary) norm. Put it back up so that people can enjoy what they have a right to see.
This seems to me to be a pointless act of artistic censorship undertaken with no awareness of historical or cultural context whatsoever. For goodness sake put the painting back and let the grown ups who visit the gallery make their own minds up as to its merits.
The feminist idea of starting a discussion: Let’s talk about that but hey, be aware that I DECIDE what’s approporiate to be taken down.
Shame on the curatorial team. In seeking to manipulate public response, you have allowed yourselves to be manipulated into doing something both disturbing and destructive to the status of feminist debate. Cycling collections is a legitimate aim, but you have removed this painting in service of a vacuous and misconceived project. As a feminist, I say: ‘Not in my name’. Put the painting back.
OK it is an attempt to stimulate debate and Its doing that. However in the longer term it is hard to discuss or be challenged by something which isn’t there. Really it just seems like a stunt to generate publicity and in this case there may be such a thing as bad publicity. I think it is unfortunate that art in Manchester is now associated with censorship and an ill conceived stunt. A feminist ‘friend’ of the gallery, who is rethinking my friendship.
Well, you certainly have drawn attention to …. what???!!! Yourself!! … What a sad pathetic attitude to women,art, and the general public!! You have, with your attempt to make yourself appear interesting, knowledgeable and concerned actually managed to show yourself to be little more than a ‘jump on the band wagon’, attention seeker with a very twisted view of humanity …. Please do yourself and everyone else a favour, put that beautiful piece of art back up on the wall, then return to your desk and send your cv to every board of censorship you can think of, everywhere and anywhere … Just leave the job you are presently in ….. which does not appear to provide you with the excessive levels of control, power,and fame you so obviously desire …
Seriously? I don’t think this action has anything to do with starting a discussion about how art is to be presented today, but a lot with how to get attention in an ever more noisy world. I would say this was a very successful advertising campaign, no more no less.
An appalling decision ! A beautiful painting … you should be ashamed! I suggest you allow another gallery to display this piece or apologise and reverse your decision! As a woman, I am really angry that other people are dictating how I should feel about a painting. I have loved this painting since I was about 14 … why do we have to debate it … just enjoy it and appreciate it! Really pathetic ! Disappointing and little more than censorship!
You can’t change the past by removing art but you can change the future by showing it and giving the chance to discuss. Please don’t remove Art – we can learn so much from it. Iam scared about the future – what happens next? Should we avoid to read Anna Karenina? This is not Art Performance this denying our history.
Put simply…if you don’t want to display Hylas and the Nymphs, perhaps you might consider giving it to a gallery where it will be displayed and people will be able to enjoy it. Or to me…I’d gladly appreciate it each and every day.
This is a beautiful painting, loved and adored by many. Please put it back on display. I do not understand the galleries rationale for removal at all.
I am astonished to hear about the removal of this beautiful example of pre-Raphaelite art. I am doubly offended that the excuse of some kind of feminism agenda is being used as the reason for this horrid decision. As a feminist I say you are doing the opposite of what I believe should be done to make your point, which would be to put up a painting to show the juxtaposition and ask for reactions. What you have done is taken that option away and only left the option for enthusiasts and fans of Waterhouse and this painting in particular to be frustrated, offended and angry. My planned trip to England later this year to view pre-Raphaelite art may well be canceled. I have little faith in the people in charge after this silly misinformed decision.
removing something to start a debate about it’s suitability is nonsense. How can people make valid comments concerning a piece of art when you deny them access to it?
The objectification of females in the past is an undeniable fact ,I would argue that today it is less so
But how does the removal of a painting further the debate ,it seems you have shifted the focus onto one of censorship.
People looking at this painting may read social issues of the time and perhaps the present into it, others may see it purely as a picture , some may have a high opinion some may be offended, the important point is they should have the opportunity to see.
Is it your aim to sanitise art by putting it through a filter of modern values or to display art warts and all
Deeply distrurbing to say nothing of the ridiculousnes of such an action. This work is a major one in a major public collection. I see no purpose whatsoever it its removal. Disgraceful.
At first I really did assume this was a joke! Now I’m very sad that you appear to assume that art gallery visitors are unable to think and reflect for themselves and that you need you to ‘provoke’ this. I find this deeply alarming and patronising. I do not know how to engage in this ‘conversation’ except to ask you to please re-hang this painting.
I’m not sure if Manchester thinks this is clever, by saying they are “stimulating debate.” Censorship means one group forcibly restricting another group from access to books information or art. No matter how well intentioned, it establishes a precedent of oppression. It will lead to fear, visits by enforcers, loss of freedom. Stalin and Hitler were enthusiasts. Manchester please apologise, and stick to art.
Wait, you’ve removed a painting and now want us to comment on a painting that isn’t there? You have already influenced the debate by suggesting it is so horrifying that you need to censor it. Eventually all your paintings will be heavily contextualised by middle class liberals. You’ll be like prison guards making the world safe for the rest of us, with art works for inmates. When that happens it’ll be time to close the doors forever.
This is a very brave move by this curator, stop calling it censorship. Will be interesting to see how they bring the gallery into the 21st century, very exciting to see this. #MAGSoniaBoyce
‘How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?’ is asked in the preamble above. For one thing, you’ve actually got to see an artwork in order to have a response; for another, why do they need to speak thus, even if they could? Choosing to remove this particular painting in itself suggests an agenda, one which to me at least seems utterly irrelevant.
good idea! 🙂 it takes courage to stand out with this! Finally! We get females from a masuline point of view, passive and naked to please men. How would men feel if they saw only men painted naked and passive?
Even the Nazis in their exhibition of ‘Degenerate Art’ displayed the works that they didn’t approve of! This was once my favourite gallery, which I visited often whilst my future wife was a student at Manchester University. How sad that it has sunk to this level. Presumably if Cabanel’s ‘Birth of Venus’ was in your collection it would have to go too.
I remember seeing this painting at the Waterhouse exhibition at the Royal Academy a few years ago. Interestingly it was originally exhibited in Manchester and had already been purchased by Manchester Corporation before being displayed in the Royal Academy the following year (1897).There is so much more to the picture than just the seven nymphs, and to concentrate on that element as the gallery seems to have done is to narrow the view of the painting. It could be that Pre-Raphaelite art is falling out of favour with the art establishment again.
I would be very grateful if you would consider some of the questions and misgivings I have regarding the removal of Hylas and the Nymphs.
The painting is a historical object of particular importance to the North West. The Pre Raphaelites were patronised by the new money of the northern industrialists, whilst the established cognoscenti further south favoured more edgy impressionist works. This contrast is enormously instructive about the cultural and economic forces of the time which still reverberate across this country and the world. If you set the precedent of obscuring these works you inhibit our view of our own history and culture, however troubling.
I broadly support the drive within contemporary Art and curation to question and reform the representation of the body (Indeed, it has concerned itself with little else). However, the Nymphs of the classical myths represent the numinous nature deities of the pre-archaic period. As such they are an unbroken link with our deep antiquity. They survived the overlay of the Olympian gods, Romanisation and even Christianity. Whilst it is true that they were characterised as beautiful young women (not necessarily pubescent) It would be a great loss for them to be excised from our cultural memory now. Especially as they are synonymous with the sexual freedoms we have fought so hard for in our own time and culture.
Additionally, Hylas represents a gay male paradigm that is all too rare in contemporary Western culture. A male beauty and also an accomplished and renowned warrior. His murder (not seduction) by the wiley water nymphs is all the more tragic for its truncation of the deep reciprocal love with his mentor Heracles.
I understand the physical removal of the work and it’s filming form part of an artwork by Sonia Boyce. However, curator Claire Gannaway talks of her embarrassment about the whole display and claims the removal of the painting was the result of ‘many people coming together.’ Who are these ‘many people’ and how representative are they? who selected them and how?
I fully appreciate the need to make collections and curatorial practice more accessible, inclusive and representative. In fact, funding demands it. Therefore, should we not also examine the curatorial profession itself more closely to ensure it is as representative as possible?
Hiding this work and representations of it reveals nothing apart from a lack of trust that we can make informed and even nuanced interpretations for ourselves.
I fear that the fact you have chosen to make an object invisible as a means of starting a conversation about it is perhaps revealing about your wider attitude to discourse. As of course is the brevity of response necessitated by the post-it note.
After consideration and with regret, I accuse you of censorship and ask you to desist.
PS
Holman Hunt’s ‘Scapegoat’ in your collection is clearly a religious painting. It might be considered offensive to atheists – so why not remove that one as well?
Philistines
Whichever way you look at this, it IS censorship and begs the rhetorical question, who or what next? You might argue that a large amount of art deals with fallen women and this redresses that balance by portraying a fallen man. J. W. Waterhouse is a national treasure and this is one of his better, more famous and beautifully executed paintings – please stop being silly and replace it now. Thanks.
Doesn’t it invoke a pre-medieval imagination?
Isn’t there something wonderful from that imagination to give to the 21st century? Faries and goblins and swords gifted from lakes.
I’m not sure what the decision really was to remove this piece, but instantly there’s a capture to the imagination.
Not all art should and does has this affect, but this certainly does and I’d be very happy to see it displayed further.
For goodness sake just put the damn picture back up and let people enjoy it. Ridiculous gesture which is self publication and nothing more. Don’t give me all this nonsense about ‘new thinking we can generate through it’. Martin Grimes, what do you even mean by that pretentious statement?!!
Just grow up, please.
It’s an amazing painting and I’ll be really sad not to be able to see it. Its open to loads of interpretations and you can’t discuss it if you can’t see it.
Surely it would be better to leave the picture and add new pictures with new ideas to contrast it?
‘How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?’ is your question, but why do you presume they have to. Isn’t the fact that they are from a different era speak for itself. Why bring them into the debate in the world today. My question is should it be up to the curators of public art galleries, museums, etc. to try and change attitudes and hold to account a piece of artwork to exemplify what is happening in the world today? To me (a woman) the beauty of this artwork should be appreciated and not taken from public view on a whim or experiment of social engineering.
Hylas is about to be destroyed by supernatural creatures who take the form of beautiful nymphs. These nude forms are assumed to be decorative or objectified simply because they are female. In removing the painting, aren’t you adding fuel to that assumption? Aren’t you also speaking for that artist regarding his intent? In “Challenging this Victorian Fantasy”, you’re creating the fantasy. Those words are also a dog-whistle for their intent – censorship.
The worst aspect about this clanger of a decision is that the topic under discussion has become the removal itself, with the (alleged) reason for its removal squeaking timidly in the background.
I loved this painting when I was a student in Manchester in the 1970s, and I still love it now. Put it back and stop trying to be clever
The removal of the painting is a laughable bit of ideological grandstanding. Feminist art theory seems to have bedazzled these curators into a painfully embarrassing self importance. They seem to think their job of “framing” art for public viewing somehow puts them on a par with the artists themselves. A little humility, modesty, and self effacement before the art they are hired to serve would go a long way. I know one thing: this Yankee tourist will not set foot in this museum until the painting is restored to its place; instead I’ll spend my vacation dollars at the Louve.
In the 19th century it was art to paint it. Today removing it is considered an art performance.
I weep for our civilization!
Scandalous. What right do you have to make a unilateral decision to take it down and impose your personal interpretation of the work: ‘”passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale” on everyone else.
Rather than leave a pathetic blank space put it back up and surround it with photos of drunken women in states of undress and distress on Lady’s Days ” at UK leading horse races. You will then certainly contemporise the issue and amply demonstrate that the classical virtues of women depicted in the painting are to be preferred to the ladette behaviour which, sadly, seems to be preferred by so many young women nowadays. Dont be a wimp. publish the results of your action – majority overwhelmingly in favour of restoration of the painting and give a firm date when it will be reinstated. At the moment you are doing yourself and the gallery no favours.
If art is removed from view the observer is denied the opportunity to consider the art for themselves, they are been told what to think by its absence.
So sad!! Art is freedom… Everything can be offensive to someone.
Let me parse this. A classical theme from Greek mythology, the kidnapping of Hylas, Hercules’ squire, by a group of nymphs (water creatures resembling females) is painted hundreds of times. Then someone comes over and explains that this should be understood in terms of a current debate which is not about Greek mythology, but about the need to have art to tell a different story (which is not the story of Hylas and the nymphs) because someone has obsessed about the female body and has extracted this from the whole context of the tale which the work of art is explicitly telling (the name of the piece is quite clear, I believe).
So what is next? Many great works of art depict the female body, sexual connotations and even horrible crimes such as the rape of the sabine women, the killing of saints, war, destruction, sadness, even eternal condemnation. Things which we certainly don’t approve of as a society today. How would it be relevant to hide them from public view? From Saint George killing the dragon to the Bayeux tapestry (not to mention music related to military events such as Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture), the opportunities seem to be endless for a dedicated censor.
Art should serve to educate us. If you cannot offer a clear explanation of the painting and choose to favor the view of people who are unable to grasp whole concepts and center on a limited attitude where being offended and scandalized is the norm, you should maybe go into some other trade. Art is too threatening for your fragile worldview.
Art of any era is intended to provoke thought and debate. Hiding it achieves neither. I’m amazed anyone considers this remarkable painting of a Greek myth to be pornographic. Censorship is never the answer; what next, blankets over every naked sculpture? Put it back and let the public form their own view, don’t insult our intelligence.
I fully support freedom of expression, free speech. Yes, have the debate, but why remove a painting to do so? The decision makers behind this removal should heed the words of the great nineteenth-century American anti-slavery campaigner — and former slave — Frederick Douglass. In his pamphlet, A Plea for Free Speech, he said: ‘To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.’
The public is being robbed of this right today. In countries where art is censored or destroyed it is particularly important for people of colour, curators and the general public to uphold Douglass’s enlightened principle that ‘liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants.’ The removal of course could be temporary to make way for another commissioned new work, but that’s not the reason given. A more nuanced public debate about the work, which is of its time, and rooted in classical Greek mythology, would’ve been a better route to take.
Clare Gannaway says:
“We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption.”
Just because Gannaway has a simplistic binary view of female beauty is NO reason to remove this painting. It simply reveals her lack of understanding. Early classical art was more concerned with notions of male beauty with the female form often covered. Surely the neo-classical interest in the female form was a necessary corrective?
All this publicity stunt proves is the superficiality of modern interpretations of historical art. It’s a faddish nod to our increasingly intellectually shallow world.
The real issue here is the gallery’s incompetence.
If you don’t need the painting anymore let me know.
Promoting a debate? No, a cheap publicity stunt to promote a new exhibition. Please – what depths are you prepared to plumb for publicity. You really don’t have us fooled.
Clare Gannaway/Sonia Boyce, Or anyone else there. I doubt that you have created something equally great as the art of the pre-Raphaelites. It looks like you wanted popularity, you want people talking about you. And this would not be a big trouble if you hadn’t used with this purpose the dirty censorship. Your “feminism” or your “political correctness” resembles censorship in totalitarian States. While journalists, writers and just the women of Iran are fighting against censorship, you are limiting the right of the people to see the paintings of a great artist. This is Shame!
Just makes me feel incredibly angry! Love the Pre-Raphaelite collection at Manchester Art Gallery and as a woman don’t see anything distasteful in this image representing a Greek myth. What I do find distasteful;
Being told what I ought to think by elitist people who feel they are better than me.
Images being taken out of their historical and cultural context and seen through a sleazy 21st century viewpoint
The feeling that book burning is on it’s way. The way public art is hidden without it’s owners – the people of Manchester – being informed or consulted.
A concern that the next step will be sale to a private collector
As a publicity stunt this has caused a great deal of distress to a lot of people
Hope the painting does return – and soon. Certainly puts me off visiting the gallery in the interim!
I am shocked about the removing of this beautyfull kind of Art! This is one oft the few Pictures, that want to see i real. Ony day I will have the time to do this. You should not compare a painting that was created centurys ago, with the situation today. We live in other times, where the women HAVE more rights. We work every day to make this world safer for our daugthers, nices and women in generality. So removing this painting from his rightfull place, doesn’t make really sense! It is a wunderfull interpretation of the Legend of Hylas. Please do us all a favor, and put it back to the Wall
I went without my dinner to buy a print of this painting when I was sixteen. It feeds the soul.
Hideous and totally pernicious left wing censorious opportunistic publicity stunt. Here’s the “conversation” , I won’t be signing off my foundation’s donation this year. Sack the pretentious and desperately ill- informed “ modernist” who sanctioned this totally ridiculous stunt.
Why does everything have to be over-interpreted according to the politically correct attitudes of today? Tate Britain is the same but at least the works of art are kept on display. Put it back and allow us to enjoy a great painting for its own sake. Save your extreme opinions for contemporary art.
What a pathetic and narrow minded act. How long before we start hiding the piano legs again in case they offend.
Suggest to remove the story from greek mythology as well. From all records. And why to let the painting rott in the archive? As this so called art might just block us on our path to greater human beings, would suggest to burn all bridges behind and light the fire up with books and these paintings. Wait…wasn’t that proposed before?
This is appalling! Hylas has been a favorite of mine for years – it is my screensaver! Who are you to judge the taste of the day many years ago? What will we be left with if all tits and willies are removed from historical art? Stop applying your prurient PC sensibilities and grow up! Bask in the warm glow of the reaction you have caused, then bugger off!
It seems we have come so far as to censoring ourselves now. It’s just a painting that has to be seen in historic context. I think this was a really, really bad decision!
I’m staying out of the gallery until the painting is back. I won’t be putting up a post-it note because that might be seen as supporting what you are doing. Long-term I see the PC lot taking over access to the arts, after that it will be online only for the rest of us. Must be fantastic knowing you’re always right and everyone else is wrong. It’s about building walls now.
Do you not trust your visitors enough to let us make up our own minds? Your removing the painting sends a message that you, the high-and-mighty curators – by virtue of your education or class or received wisdom or sensibilities – know better than we, the rabble of the public – the “great unwashed” – what is appropriate for us to view. Is that really what you are trying to convey? How do you expect to stimulate discussion about this painting if people cannot see it – or even postcard reproductions of it in your gift shop? I am not afraid of art. I am capable of thinking. Don’t patronise or condescend or make choices for me. As a woman – a feminist for half a century – I cannot comprehend this mindless, censorious act.
The painting is what it is. How are you to change it? Why should you change it? It’s simply a beautiful picture. Full stop. Please put it back and stop trying to be so clever. And whatever you do, DON’T try this trick with the glorious Light of the World.
Are you absolutely serious? Removing this piece of art is beyond the pale! Does one not know the myth of Hylas, son oh Heracles(?) When did we become like the Taliban, destroying or hiding works of art, that does not fit our current narrative
What sort of militant feminist is running Manchester Art Gallery? There has to be one for such a ludicrous action to have taken place. The painting is an instantly recognisable classic by one of the UK’s great painters. Someone will suggest we destroy all books about and all references to mythology next, as this scene is just one of the subjects that the PC brigade would probably target. If this picture belongs to the art gallery then I guess it belongs to the nation. If so, and they are not going to display it, then send it somewhere where the public can choose if they would like to view it or not
Honestly I don’t care too much how you display it… just bring it back, it’s beautiful.
However – just to make a point – it does not make any senese to rewrite history, if that was a Victorian fantasy I don’t see why deny or cover it – or trying to rebalance it with what you (and who are you by the way?) consider more appropriate!
I was planning to visit Manchester from Berlin, in August; now I know for sure that I will not; I see very few differences with the nazi ‘entartete Kunst’ (degenerate art); and please, we are not children, please do not tell silly stories about debates and so on;
Silly idea! The art gallery is not a plaything for leftie lovies, it’s for everyone. You know that’s a loved painting, stop messing around, put it back. Don’t take your right to public money for granted.
If you’re not going to display this masterpiece maybe you could donate it to another gallery, one run by adults who are actually educated in art, then you can go back to your Spiderman models and soft bricks for the kids.
Not much more to say, in view of the sentiments expressed by contributors to the blog and elsewhere. As a mere artist I at at a disadvantage – I feel I, as well as many others evidently, am being put at a disadvantage by the assumptions made by the institution’s curator of contemporary art about the necessity to have a ‘directed’ conversation about contemporary art theory and fashionable notions of what is suitable to be seen by the public.
The modern alternative:
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/37/61/bd/3761bd260c9f1a329fcedf612ab3a7f4.jpg
Portrait de Frank Lloyd Wright, Couverture « The New York Times Literary Supplement » (2009)
Let us first dismiss the spurious claim that this was NOT an act of “censorship”.
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the verb to “censor” as “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” The fact that the work in question was indeed “censored” is incontrovertible.
It is easy to see why the curator in question denies this plain fact. So, instead, I suggest the museum put the painting back, and remove the curator, to “start a conversation”, as they say…
How can this be a ‘conversation’ when you lay out your opinion at the top of the page? No; it’s you, the elite, telling us, the plebs’ how we are now required to think. And to help us with our re-education you are removings the things (owned by us) that offend your sensibilities. It’s Soviet style censorship and it stinks.
A gay guy, depicted at the very moment before he eventually falls into a lake (where he presumably drowns … or is made immortal, on behalf of his gleaming beauty?), because being attracted -or pulled?- by innocently leering nude girls; mourned by his lover, one of the most virile heroes ever, up to the point that his abductees feel forced to turn him into an echo that, they hope, would mislead the raging hero … painted in an age where both nudity and homosexuality were a true taboo. Say, what more do you need to discuss the issues you are so concerned about?
Straight down the heffalump trap.
Put it back or send to somewhere dwelling in more enlightened times. For anyone who seriously wants to have a little perve at this painting and honestly I have no idea why they might, Google have not tried to make it go away.
I’m a straight female. I love the picture. Please don’t be puritanical. It’s terrifying what is going on. This is a beautiful painting of a myth. It is a historic painting Be smart. Have a show discussing the constructs of beauty and body images, not censorship.
1) Who has the power here? (the curator).
2) Who is being hurt? (those who love this painting, mainly teenage girls).
So if one wishes to discuss the abuse of power…who is the abuser, and who are the abused?
The twittering, bubble-brained explanation offered for the removal of this beautiful, world class, timeless Waterhouse painting of the Greek myth is just pitiful.
Regardless of the howling winds of short term, trendy opinion, having such petty, twit, candle-in-the-wind, sex-negative, priggish curators at a serious museum is pitiful. This art celebrates millenia-old MYTHOLOGY and the human form, in exquisite combination. I say, to the guillotine with the twit curator Gannaway! I propose recurring Hylas and the Nymphs costumed flash mobs across the UK until this wonderful painting is restored to prominent display!
Geez, people, it’s ONE painting! I think art will survive. I marvel that everyone is so up in arms at the mere suggestion of rethinking how things have always been, by (temporarily) removing one piece. Perhaps having a blank spot, to represent what is missing is a good thing. I don’t think the point is that this particular piece is offensive. It is simply suggesting that we ponder in a different way.
Dear Sirs
I admire this tremendous provocation and am delighted that the responses have supported that art should not be censored. Please confirm when the painting will be re-hung.
The Italian press has missed the point of the provocation and note this as your following political correctness. You may consider some summary of the whole adventure.
I have been fascinated by Waterhouse’s work since a teen, as have other writers I know (all of us ardent feminists). Far from seeing his women as passive ‘eye candy’ for male titillation, we all find them strong and empowering, women who are not afraid to move into male spaces and make their own demands on them. Removing this major work in Waterhouse’s oeuvre would be a significant blow to the re-establishment not only of this artist, but of Victorian painting in general. Doing so because of some latter-day prudery shows the people of this century in a very poor light indeed!
The Exegesis of this painting is a narrative of Distraction. Hylas as an Argonaut is symbolic of a young man on a Spiritual Quest, which is to pursue the Golden Fleece as part of that entourage. The Nymphs are Symbolic of Beauty as the Distraction and are Sirens who lead him to his fate and in that sense are femme fatales. This is an Archetypal snare for anybody pursuing Spiritual transformation and Ascendence and this is the important interpretative message of the painting which Waterhouse was probably aware of and for that reason, it is important to continue to display. Nudity or Pornography are not relevant to this message. Nudity in a Painting is a sign of Purity often.
You’re trying to insert your politics between the art you were hired to present and the public. That’s a shame. You assume there’s a problem with the painting. Let me suggest that for millions who love that painting, the problem is with your arrogance and the 21st century postmodern fantasy that it’s trying to substitute. Put the painting back and treat it with respect!
If you want to provoke debate then put the picture up and ask for comments on the points you would like to be discussed ( you could display various pictures in a space designed for this). How can we debate the meaning of a picture we are not allowed to see? The comment that this picture displays a Victorian (outdated) view is ridiculous, do you expect a painting of this time to show, 21st century values? We go to art galleries to see beautiful paintings from all eras; we are capable of making our own decisions if needed but sometimes we just want to admire the beauty of the art and the skill of the artist. No painting should ever be removed because of someone else’s interpretation of it and certainly not because a few people find it offends their sensitivities. I have no time for the new fascism.
Put it back and then I’ll come and see it, I do not want to see displays defined not by what has been included but by what has been removed and until then I shall not return to the gallery.
I see the women in this painting as the *aggressors* (read the myth, fer Chrissakes). They’re about as “passively decorative” as a pack of lionesses closing in on their prey. I’m a feminist and I see nothing to object to in this eerie, beautiful painting. Stop censoring art because of the interpretation YOU are putting on it.
Ohhh…. too funny.
To keep things compelling, sometimes you just have to rotate out the well known and rotate in the soon to be captivating.
But don’t let the truth get in the way of everyone feeling the need to get tweaked.
Why don’t ya’all come on down and have a good time seeing what’s in the space next! Bring a sandwich, setting stool and a sketch pad!!
The left have taken over the gallery and they never retreat, they think they own everything, even our thoughts. Reduce the subsidy the gallery gets (send the savings to an NHS hospital), force them to charge entry (like York and Brighton) then the gallery must take notice of the public. A collection of beautiful old paintings is not something to be ashamed of, or a toxic problem to be defused.
It looks very much like she’s using Waterhouse’s reputation, his community stature, his greatness, to give herself a nice big boost up in publicity and stature. And on top of that, she’s putting herself above his work by casting herself, no less, as its judge. The arrogance is truly disgusting. She’s not only blatantly riding on Waterhouse’s coattails, but kicking him in the process. Grotesque.
The curator should be ashamed for taking part in this. You are a custodian of a collection built long before you. Its cultural legacy stretches far outside your purview. Do your job and honor what you have been deemed worthy of protecting. Live up to your station. Don’t defile it simply to bloody “virtue signal” to your political. Neither of you are worthy to judge this work.
This beautiful and subtly provocative piece should be on display. It would be a shame to visit the gallery and be unable to view it.
This is the ‘Monstrous Regiment’ writ large! Hylas and the Nymphs isn’t about male titillation, rather it’s a celebration of Victorian awe of the Classics and the Classical World. Please bring it back.
Degenerate art? Such arrogance, put it back!
Despite the attempts at clever spin, this smacks entirely and unambiguously of that recently growing odorous mixture of misandry, political correctness and censorship power. This is certainly shameful cultural vandalism, and there’s no doubt that this curator has done us all a profound cultural disservice, and I agree that her irrational act will almost certainly damage the reputation of the Gallery itself.
“How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?”
I think the best way to talk about these things is after removing anything that might give food for thought. We should only keep such artwork that doesn’t risk offending anybody.
Alternatively, we could continue to display this painting and other pieces of art and talk about them eyes closed.
Whoever is behind this childish act of interruption needs to grow up…
…UNLESS they are genuinely wanting to explore the responses and reactions that this removal is bound to catalyse.
Underlying such an act is the usual “educated middle-class” (and those that take on this view for themselves) assumption that “the masses” are incapable of understanding the contextual framework that has given birth to any given piece of work, without prior direction by those who think they know better: “We can’t trust them to really know what this picture is about”
“It is a bunch of naked young women in water with some young man – wait a minute – that girl is trying to pull him in!”
What IS that picture about?
Well, maybe the people who have done this thing DO know the classical context. Maybe they do know who Hylas was, and his background, and what happened to him.
I do hope so.
The gallery says that it has been “overwhelmed by the depth of feeling expressed”. Please ask yourself why it come as such a surprise, could it be that you out of touch with ordinary people? In an ideological bubble? An echo chamber? What about political diversity at the gallery – is there any? And are there any men working at a senior level at the gallery? I’ve never noticed any. What is the gender balance? Not too late though, put the painting back and admit you have made a mistake.
Errr, if you wanted to challenge the Victorian view you should have been there way back then to make your statement. It’s been and gone. If you wish to rewrite history with blank pages, please, record it in your own diary and not in public. You have your ideas about the modern world, but sadly, not everyone shares your ideas or looks upto you and your idea that you are “progressive”. Lame is a better word than progressive. Let’s debate that. Let’s challenge the view that men worked in fields and coal mines, and some wore top hats. Am i sounding progressive; or lame?
I hope that the gallery will follow the logic of its argument and destroy this and similar paintings that objectify the female form and pander to male fantasies. A grand burning of degenerate art will provide space for those artworks that are deemed to present the correct views about the human form.
Stop Censoring art, we’re not in stalinist Russia yet. If you want to make a statement try talking about it, rather then removing it. Disgusting.
I would have hoped the institution of the Art Gallery would provide sanctuary from the moral opinion du jour, however righteous it may be. It is not the purpose of the gallery to guide its visitors in any direction. It merely exists to house and display the ideas and art of artists, from this we question. Why not say, ‘here’s how Victorians viewed women’….no apologies needed.
Well played, Curators. Well played.
I don’t think you could have started a discussion like this with a sign, or an essay, or a speech.
The simple act of taking away provoked this much emotional outburst.
As I understand – from a continent away – the rest of the usual exhibition of naked women is still intact.
Censorship?
or a moment to consider.
Why are there so many female nudes.
But not so many males.
Why are there so many male artists, but only a small handful of prominent women? And those often overshadowed by their male ‘mentors’?
Female beauty.
It is fascinating, over the course of millennia, or just the few decades we can remember in person.
A painters reality, does it compare to the actual model?
Or is it like the photoshop fails that turned gorgeous women in grotesk jokes of the internet world?
Throw in some misogyny, some more sinister attacks, and voila, we have the stew that makes us consider what we have taken for granted.
Again, Well played.
As far as I know this is the first time in history a museum sets a dangerous standard. Before, dictators, religious leaders or other mad men (yes, all men) had this privilege. On one point I agree: the curator succeeded in putting herself and the art gallery in the centre of the attention. Until this morning I never heard of both of them. Living in Belgium is not that bad.
Censoring a piece in order to promote discussion? How hilariously Orwellian.
I suspect that many of the paintings in their care are deeply embarrassing to them. Imagine the horror of having to go to work knowing you had to display and curate so many items that you despise. Better to stick the most “problematic” ones in the basement and spew ideology over the rest.
How dare you allow your stupid political ideas to determine what artworks you display? This “conversation” has not been deemed necessary in the 120+ years since this beautiful painting was completed, and it is not necessary now. Can we next expect the Manchester Art Gallery to mount a “Degenerate Art” exhibit like the one the Nazis presented in 1937? This is nothing but censorship by modern-day puritans and my contempt for you is boundless.
What do you wish to see?
A gallery that’s tolerant and inclusive.
or
A gallery that’s intolerant and exclusive.
I believe I won’t have my morals corrupted by a piece of “art”. The debate is the piece itself in itself. Love comes naturally to mankind. Hatred does not. Repression causes hate. I do understand your cause though, it is even a noble one. Yet Art in itself is meant to be free and a society that has banned or burnt art in the past or present has always left an ugly mark on history. No matter what said cause was back then and now.
Kind regards Josep F.
Well done for taking your inspiration from the world’s most oppressive regimes to protect public modesty from a Victorian Pre-Rafaelite painting. Now could whoever did this please temporarily remove themselves to go, sit down and think about what they’ve done and why anyone should now trust them to manage a a public art collection – while we have a debate on censorship in the 21st century?
When is “Hylas and the Nymphs” going back on display?
At last! Congratulations Manchester Art Gallery! It is part of womens’ long oppression that the ways in which we are represented perpetuate offensive stereotypes about what we are, and are not, useful for (to men). I have always felt angry and disturbed when visiting art galleries that my gender is still being represented thus, without challenge or comment. Thank you.
How poor all this, how poor the museum’s directors. Nobody gets your message, sorry…. so just put the painting back, show respect for art & culture and stay reasonable!
I have concluded that the Curator of the Manchester Art Gallery is absolutely correct.
I also believe that the following so-called works of art should be removed from public display to challenge the degrading manner in which Victorians viewed any number of groups vulnerable to visual exploitation, perceptions which continue to persist and damage art and culture.
1. Heroic Metallic Men – includes younger skinny men and some S&M, B&D – I weep for the older generations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Westmacott_-_Wellington_Monument_1822_-_Achilles.jpg
http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_9b85dbb07f2715d8ce0d5dcae60b41ee.gif
2. Naked men in general who were obviously being objectified – come on chaps, who amongst us are not tired of being treated as a sex symbol, clearly the cause of this young 19 Century man’s ennui.
http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_fbca82fa1b53f9dd641c384c1ab37c4b.gif
3. Dead dudes and floaty male supernatural entities:
http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_8b82aec0429d38f4bc1df404cabb8ae8.gif
To quote the Don – You know I’m right, I know I’m right – so am I right or what?
4. Small devoted dogs – this dog was loyal to his deceased master until his own death – did Bobby the Scotty ever have the opportunity for personal agency or self-actualisation?
https://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/3130200.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1
5. Centaurs – who will speak for the Centaurs if we don’t?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiron#/media/File:Jean-Baptiste_Regnault_001.jpg
And for the art galley’s next political correctness stunt I understand they will be burning books in the public square whilst a rabid crowd cheers them on. The art gallery’s director needs to read some history and get a grip.
Censorship ist never a good idea. Everbody should get an den oppinion about art. Even labels anderen description change the way of viewing. Without the name I would come to an different conclusion. A guy is horny for those young women. Just like Thema actual discussion about sexism. If you look in his face you see hunger or even lust. As an artist myself how much perspective matters.
censorship is the end of art. i am german – we have some experience with destroying art by ideology.
It is unbelievable that 1 male person in the USA has given certain women worldwide a podium. Art has nothing to do with this, but Mrs Clare Gannaway is now in the spotlight because of the abuse of something that is called art. You certainly must have a life in which you feel bored to attract attention to you. As a woman I would be ashamed to do something like that.
What a wonderful idea to remove the painting temporarily! And to make people say what they think about it. All theses aggressive, even hateful comments. The painting and the comments are part of the same patriarchal world vision which makes us suffer.
This is a great and highly renowned painting. If you’re not going to display it, then make it available to some institution that isn’t afflicted with progressive Philistinism. You are loathsome cowards, and you disgust me. You don’t deserve the honor of safeguarding important works of art. #DEFENESTRATION
Does it need to come to armed conflict before this SJW/PC madness stops?
Stop this insanity. What’s next? Taking hammers to Venus of Milo, plastering over the walls of the 16th chappel, shredding every copy of the painting of the 3 graces, burn all copies of fifty shades of grey? Ok, I wouldn’t mind exactly the latter, but the point is that it’s a slippery slope we’re getting on.
If this hypersensitivy continues I think we’re not far of from getting another Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.
I hope this is just a provocation. Our history (and history of art) has often male dominance and objectification of women as a background, often also exploitation and social inequalities. We should not forget that, but this is no reason to erase beauty and history from our life. Please put the picture back and celebrate its beauty!
Well done, this has got you and the painting huge amounts more publicity than actually showing it.
Having said that, I have to say that, combined with the stushie about the Balthus, I am somewhat bemused at the change in who wants to challenge artworks being shown from the 80s when the objections were to such as Mapplethorpe and Serrano.
The curator has poor judgement. Read the mythology and stop being such a prudish person. Worst decision ever, shows that we are heading in a very bad direction. Marxist and uptight, feminism is bad our society. And I say that as a woman.
Well done! Those bad bad girls want to pull the poor poor boy into the water! Since I saw this painting I was so afraid of women with breasts that I could not sleep. This was an underestimated aspect of art until your wise decision.
You are quite right to remove this painting.
It is obvious that the nymphs had not been warned that this would be a male-only pond gathering and that their presence was only to display their beauty. If only the young man had made a contribution to charity…
Hylas and the Nymphs was the only reason I ever went in Manchester Gallery. If I was passing though the city I’d drop in to see it. Quite possibly my favourite painting. How awful that it’s not there anymore.
(Gay man, art enthusiast).
I think this decision is a disgrace. If it starts here, where does it end? Who will judge what is morally acceptable? And on what grounds? This is pure censorship cloaked in a prudish ideology. Why not put the picture back up and invite comments on its content rather than imposing your views on the museum-going public?
We are truly experiencing a shift in western society. The role of the woman is being rewritten and that’s a good thing. Empowerment of women in all fields is first and foremost a good thing.
Nevertheless, I don’t think we need to be saved from ourselves. We westerners, praising our culture and traditions shaped by the Enlightenment, often condemn the the demonisation of sexuality and the fear of the vital powers of the female body in Islamic cultures. If we now turn away from our anthropocentric world view and return to a puritan path, what would make us any different?
Art is about educating those around today, and by trying to decide what should be displayed based on puritanical and closed-minded ideologies, you begin to walk a very slippery slope.
Here’s what you’re really doing: you’re holding a beloved piece of art hostage so that people will listen to your political ideas. Rehang the painting and resign your position.
Works of the past have to be put in context. This is as true for Waterhouse’s Nymphs as it is for the large number of paintings since the Renaissance inspired by classical mythology, especially by Ovid’s Metamorphoses. And it is evident that we do not have today the same views on our society as our predecessors did. Therefore, every epoch has the right (and the duty) to take a critical look on its way of handling the past. And this can of course result in a re-evaluation of what was once considered a masterwork. And as museums offer limited space (to my greatest regret), such a process may result in new arrangements, paintings being relegated to the archive vaults while others come back into the light.
As for the case in question, I do think that the way it was carried out is more akin to marketing than to art history. The past may teach us important lessons, one being that things have not always been what they are now, and the contemplation of artworks, the display of historical context and the explanation of what were the artist’s motives for painting what he did in the way he did may be one of the best occasions to learn. So, what would we gain by simply erasing what was? Or by declaring a painter one of Weinstein’s forefathers? This seems to me like a violation of the one element that, in science, should never be neglected – context!
One may of course come to think that Waterhouses’s Nymphs are rather bad taste and an antiquated way to present women, it is nevertheless one of the Victorian age’s iconic paintings that can be used to explain this important era of English and European history. Removing it seems to me the wrong approach, especially as there are numerous other examples in recent months where popular wrath culminated in claims to remove paintings, like for example Thérèse rêvant de Balthus. This is a dangerous path we should not take lightly, or we may end up by sacrificing Art on the bloody altar of political correctness.
The charitable interpretation is that this is a publicity stunt. If so, well done. You got your column inches.
The uncharitable one is that you are really, really stupid people who have been caught up by the post-#metoo hysteria in artistic circles.
Just take a moment and think where artistic censorship ends. People who visit the Gallery (and I’m one local who won’t be coming again until it is restored) are perfectly capable themselves of deciding whether the painting is exploitative or titillating, or indeed anything else. Are you in favour of freedom or aren’t you?
People who want to stop men ogling women –
1. Leftist authoritarians.
2. Islamic fundamentalists.
Funny that.
People who get upset by a painting – and I mean any painting, including the most abject themes including incest, cannibalism and paedophilia – are morons who believe Magritte really created a pipe. The painting isn’t objectifying anything except your penchant for blatant censorship.
This is not just censorship this is one public serves employee’s political view, my question is why has she been allowed to express it in way her job is to work in the gallery not push her ideological view on every one that goes there
I think the gallery has missed the point and misunderstood the ancient Greek role of nymphs.
Nymphs are divine spirits who are creative forces in nature and semi-immortal beings.
This defined nature of divine spirits is an overwhelmingly empowering one for women and to lure Hylas to join them enhances that power.
It is sad that in denying the role of the classical nymph the gallery has fallen into the irony of denying them their genius loci.
For heavens sake let’s not paint over history … it’s art of the time.
Genius PR.
Questionable curation.
This seems to be an act of new-puritanism and a pitiful subordination to temporary trends. Showing nudes was for a long time only acceptable in a biblical/mythological context. To do otherwise was offensive. In these days the proper context for the display of nakedness would be some form of “protest”. To do otherwise is offensive.
What happened to diversity? Dear Manchester Art Gallery, is a liberal approach to art suddenly more than you can handle? If so, you disqualified yourself as a gallery.
In the name of the Lord the Allmighty, burn that disgusting, sexist painting
I believe moves such as this seriously harm the MeToo movement, which I support. It must not be taken over by extremists. I went to the Manchester Art Gallery some years ago to see the pre-raphaelite works and this painting in particular. I certainly will not go again until it is back on display. Are we now to deny that the human body can be beautiful? I see nothing wrong with an art display focusing on that. The gallery says this is not censorship, but of course it is. It is saying there are aspects of this picture which we question (stupidly, in my opinion) and therefore we are, at least temporarily, not allowing you to look at it. What is that if not censorship? This is a Victorian painting, for heaven’s sake – are we becoming more Victorian than the Victorians? Those who made this decision are, in my view, unfit to run a public gallery.
Get the painting back up, you are making the Gallery and Manchester a laughing stock. You have no right whatsover to impose this crazy censorship.
[…] A blog on the gallery website says: “Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!” […]
What a travesty! Many times have I visited the Manchester Art Gallery and admired its excellent collection. The Pre-Raphaelite section is extraordinary and deserves respect – whether you appreciate or esteem the genre or not. As to the subject matter of Hylas and the Nymphs…if you know the Greek myth then you will know that the nymphs, far from being victims and vulnerable young women, it is Hylas that is lured by them. Encouraging artistic debate is admirable, but don’t demean it by introducing misguided ‘socially correct’ focus. I agree with several of the other comments about the removal of this painting, in that they are part of our social history and deserve to be discussed in both their artistic merit and social references both of their time and now.
We had an Athena print of it hanging in our family home.! The family loved it.
I took it when I moved into my first flat
It’s beautiful. Some people only look at it for its beauty. It here, we can’t hide it, so show it.
I look at this painting everyday, it hangs on my stairs with a family photo of bathers in a similar pose. Only male chests, but neither offends me or my visitors. Are we going to take down Botticelli, Rubens, Michelangelo, Gwen John, Titian, Manet……all those greek and roman statues, i could go on, in fact most of western and, and lets not forget all those Japanese woodblock prints. In the words of Charlie Brown, ‘good grief’
Your (hopefully) publicity stunt/modern art provocation has certainly made a lot of people cross so I suppose its going well if that was what you intended. So I’ll join in with a ‘put back the painting now!’ What do you plan next? Remove all the pictures with female nudes or all pictures with nudes of any kind? Alternatively you could choose an issue of modern attitudes every week and pick a painting to take down to illustrate it and see what happens. Another idea would be to take down a painting at random each week, replace it with a post it note, and then make up the justification preferably with lots of references to contemporary issues.You will be able to have lots of fun – kind of a reverse art gallery where gradually there are more post it notes than pictures!
An other way of looking at this is that you obviously feel the painting’s value is no longer appropriate due to the subject matter. If that is the case then as the painting is now devalued in your organisations’ eyes, I trust you will be contacting your insurance company to notify them of this.
This IS censorship, and you are insane.
I salute you removing the painting to promote the debate. You have to wonder in what way the Victorian morale tale of the painting is not still relevant, or the scene is now too vivid for the modern internet-enabled sexuality. It seems to me that removing this content from art and public life would risk the type of dichotomy for which the Victorians themselves were notorious. I look forward to visiting the gallery and seeing the painting myself sometime soon.
I think the best solution is to give the painting to a London or Paris museum where people are not shocked by nudity. Hylas was the gay lover of Hercules. Will gay art be removed as well? Brave new world.
A completely vapid and moronic gesture. Manchester Art Gallery should be ashamed of themselves for doing this, which will be seen at best as a cheap publicity exercise at the cost of it’s patrons.
Politics and art are so intertwined as to be almost inseparable, but I don’t think it should be the Gallery’s position to espouse the personal views of it’s curator and arguably racist artist allies.
Now its official, you are no visit worth. The stupidity of feminists, me too shouters and gendering mainstream don t know any boarders. I am happy to grow up with a smart and modern mom, you are not modern women, you are modern idiots
This is a beautiful painting and you have no right to impose your embarrassing, socially-corrosive, navel-gazing, patronising curatorial views on a public who are paying for the Gallery via the Heritage Lottery Fund, Arts Council and MCC funding. Leave your dabbling with re-contexualisation in the classroom, pack away your liberal censoriousness and get that thing of beauty back on the wall where it belongs.
Between the 19th July 1937 and the 30th November 1937, in Munich in the Institute of Archaeology in the Hofgarten, the local Nazi Party held an exhibition called Die Ausstellung “Entartete Kunst”; roughly translated as The Degenerate Art Exhibition
I am struggling to understand the differences in motivation behind this decision by the gallery and those of Adolf Ziegler, the organiser of the event in Munich. The similarity is in the crushing of artistic expression, of past and present, in order to advance an ideological utopia. In the case of Ziegler, an aryan, jew free National Socialist State and the director of the gallery, a fully compliant, LGBTetc. (I lose count) post modern and culturally marxist puritanical tyranny.
Whilst you may take offence to the analogy, there are ample examples from history, whenever people have succumbed to an ideological utopian solution to the highly complex issues of society, the control of thought, speech, culture and art are seen as necessary to lead society to the utopia.
We saw this with the Jacobins in Paris in 1793, we saw this throughout the Soviet Union from 1920 through to 1990, with murderous and tragic results – a regime every bit as violent and brutal as the Nazi dictatorship. We saw this in Mao’s cultural revolution, and the famine that was the consequence, a famine which killed, my modern estimates, 100 million. We saw it in the killing fields of Cambodia and we saw it in the prisons and torture chambers of the DDR.
But you don’t have to go back into history to see the consequences of Cultural Marxism, you can see it in North Korea.
You would have thought that we would have learned the dangers of imposing ideological utopianism on societies. You may say that the above examples are a bit extreme, but study Solszenitskyn, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche and you will learn that the slippery slope to the KZ and Gulag starts when intolerance of ‘degenerate’ art, or art that is ‘contra to the zeitgeist of the moment’ is banished as being politically unacceptable. This is all this is, the political tarring and feathering of art that is offensive and ‘sending the wrong message’ to the proletariat who cannot be trusted with such material. Those demanding the censorship of such see themselves as leading the ignorant out of darkness, away from hate and the cardinal sin (in this case the image of the female form being linked to sexual violence) never mind the classical tradition of the romantic art period that inspired it.
What’s next, the smashing of Rodin’s Kiss? Or perhaps burning Botticelli’s Venus di Milo?
This is a very dangerous decision and the only reason I can see for the Director to make this decision is to gain publicity for the galley. What they don’t understand is that in doing this they run the very real risk, in an age where peddling ideological utopias has once again become fashionable (despite their bloody track record), of actually endorsing the intolerance of those demanding the censorship of art.
stop it.
At least the Nazis exhibited the “degenerate art”, albeit for a short time, and only with the intent of showing how “dreadful” it was. Simply removing this painting so that no-one can see it and form their own opinion seems far worse.
Deb C
Clare where can I see this painting now, are you going to put it back? In my opinion this is censorship. The painting does not make me feel uncomfortable. Put it back.
Mrs. Gannaway,
In the German press you can learn that your gallery has hung the painting “Hylas and the Nymphs” to discuss in a supposed art action on the representation of naked women in the art.
One wonders if you and your colleagues are still ticking properly. Art is and remains art and today, thank God, stands under the torch of freedom.
There are museum curators, who are psychologically naked, without their childlike innocent nakedness to fear a misinterpretation as shameless.
Please be examined for your mental state and hang this mail on the place of the suspended image.
With regards
As a teenager, 40 years ago, I thought the pre-Raphaelites were a revelation, and this painting made a big impression.
Now, four decades later, my taste has moved on. I don’t much care for the pre-Raphaelites – but I can still see – or I could if you still hung this painting – that it is a wonderful example of its kind.
Every viewer will have their own response to any painting. It’s tosh to say that’s a binary experience. To my eyes, the male figure is just as much an idealised physical beauty as the female figures.
In attempting to impose a contemporary (partial) view of gender politics onto a painting from the 19th century fails to understand the times in which it was painted or the antique times to which it alludes. But what else would expect from a curator of contemporary art?
Is this a good painting of its kind? Does it warrant space in a gallery? Does it dictate a response on the viewer? Do I want it back?
YES. YES. NO. YES.
I have to say guys I am really shocked by the levels of abuse and vitriol being directed towards Clare Garraway and the Manchester Art Gallery over what is, in the bigger scheme of things, a storm in a teacup.
I can fully understand why some people feel aggrieved that this work of art has been removed from the gallery walls, albeit TEMPORARILY. And I also know as someone who has worked in contemporary visual art for over 40 years that sometimes these kind of conceptual gestures can misread the public mood, which is clearly the case here.
But come on. To compare this transient, perhaps misguided, act with book-burning and the worst excesses of totalitarianism completely corrupts this debate (and the reality of what has happened, the temporary removal of a picture, however beloved, from a gallery wall).
But perhaps this kind of knee jerk elision that is evident in so many of the posts, talks more about the kind of society we now live in, where intemperate opinions can be expressed at will with little concern for the collective aggression, divisiveness and intolerance that is generated in the process.
When I first heard about this ‘controversy’ I was slightly irritated by what I felt was the curator’s naivety and lack of awareness about the repercussions that such an act could potentially unleash. Having now trawled through, what I believe to be, so many deeply reactionary and disproportionate comments that have framed this online debate, my empathy now sits firmly with Clare Garraway and the Manchester Art Gallery.
And the truth is, the artist and curator wanted this gesture to instigate a debate — frightening though it has turned out to be — which it has done in spades. In this respect the conceptual ‘artwork’ has achieved it’s aims, whatever anyone may think of its values or worth. I just think it will be very sad if Clare Gannaway, who I imagine entered into this cauldron in good faith, was to become personally damaged in the process. We are all human after all.
You are completely wrong. Clare Gannaway deserves all of the vitriol expressed in these comments for a despicable act of censorship, wrapped up in cultural Marxist claptrap.
Hi! If you no longer want to show that beautiful painting I would like to offer to buy it at a realistic market price. Please get backt to me. I leave you my email. I am serious, I love that painting and would like to show it in Switzerland. Thank you.
Great effort by the gallery. I hope it really opens up a dialogue especially by women about the female image and how it is portrayed. How do women see themselves through these images? How do these images affect young minds? Do we accept the way the other sex chooses to portray us or do we want control of our image? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves today and moving forward. Great move Manchester Art gallery. Hope to see more of this from you.
Since not a lot of people are going to come out with this opinion, I’m in favour. You’d think the town where its paintings of passive women had been slashed by campaigners for the female right to vote wouldn’t be whining about “political correctness” and “censorship” by having a painting taken down and accompanied with a little note explaining what is happening. In fact, after reading these people who are so concerned about censorship I’m in favour of burning the painting.
The people posting here are feeling the outrage of having the wallpaper of their worldview questioned even slightly. You’re claiming you feel no entitlement to women yet feel entitlement to seeing the Nymphs’s bodies whenever necessary. And yet, female artists still make nearly no money, on the whole, and will never be placed in the great Westen artistic canon where men choked out all female expression.
Those who say we should hear all speech are not the people who have to deal with the consequences of the speech.
I am appalled by the criticism that is thrown into the face of the curators on social media.
To say that is is censorship to remove a patently offensive painting showcasing young, nude females offering their body in a questionable manner and entirely without artistic merit, from public view is akin to accusing curators of censorship for not showing fascist propaganda artworks.
Whether Waterhouse intended to be misogynist or not is not relevant to the discussion, although I am sure he was. His paintings are misogynist and further, nourish and normalize despicable views of the female body as an object. The same is true for many of the other paintings MAG chooses to display alongside the Waterhouse in question. I have been at odds with most museums’ arrogant disregard for gender equality for a while now. It is frustrating to see how progress trickles down very slowly into the world of public museums and galleries.
While it is laudable that MSG has finally woken up and garnered the courage to remove the Waterhouse travesty, it is disappointing that none of the other offending paintings were removed, as they should have been.
The year is 2018 and we will no longer put up with such offensive dribble, if it is (supposedly) art or not. Women should be able to decide what kind of pictures of other women they want to be exposed to, not old white men.
I urge the resonsible curators not to be taken aback by the backlash they’re seeing on social media. Obviously people want to hang onto idols of their perverted view of gender dynamics. Such is the nature of discrimination. Fortunately, it is not up to them to decide what is being shown in museums and I hope more institutions will follow in your footsteps.
did you mean drivel when you wrote this ‘dribble’? OR do you really mean that all portrayals of nudity should be removed? Is that actually what this censorship is about? I think you gave the game away.
I consider this to be a regressive move and a return to the repressive censorship of the Victorian era. Is this where we have come to in the 21st century? Full circle.
I’m really sad that people’s discussion on this has been utterly moronic. Thanks for trying to start an interesting conversation on art and culture. It has at least shown the general public this one painting, and brought attention to your gallery.
These two posts hit the nail on the head.
‘Get the painting back up, you are making the Gallery and Manchester a laughing stock. You have no right whatsover to impose this crazy censorship.’
‘So it has come to this. The act of censoring a piece of art is now considered an act of artistic expression. A generation which has lost the ability to create anything of beauty must redefine the destruction of the past as art. What’s next ? The burning of a book will be considered literature?’
This is lunacy. I believe that the decision to take down the painting has nothing to do with promoting discussion, it is do with fear, fear of not adhering to the ridiculous ‘correctness’ of today.
Deleting history to fit in with the minority’s ideal. Galleries and museums, places of education for all ages, have no place in dictating this.
How utterly ridiculous! We have a copy of this beautiful painting hanging in our dining room, alongside copies of other treasured Pre-Raphaelite works. Many friends and visitors of all ages/sexual denominations have admired it, including those who were not familiar with the genre. No-one has ever expressed horror at its subject matter. Nor have they taken offence at the 8′ mirror topped by two golden, reclining female nudes in Pre-Raphaelite manner that graces our living room!
The only horror I feel, is that I and many others will now be unable to view the original of this stunning work of art at Manchester. All because of some person’s personal preference. I, for one, shall be boycotting the museum. If it is not the intention to return it to display, I agree it should either be donated to a museum that will appreciate it or else auctioned so that a collector can have the opportunity to purchase a work they love – Lord Lloyd Webber springs to mind.
Anyway, popping out now to buy some fabric to shroud the legs of my piano, lest some snowflake should be offended by their overt nakedness!
It is a great painting. There is so much rubbish. It is from a Greek Myth and reflects not the Victorians or our society today it reflects a myth beautifully painted. I will not be visiting the Gallery until this sort of censorship stops.
Too much safe funding? Don’t care what ordinary people want? Tamara Rojo (the much praised Artistic Director of the ENB) was guest editor of the Today Prog. (Radio 4) recently and said that too much subsidy and an organisation can become self indulgent and stop caring what people might like to see. Is that the problem here? Anyway, please put the painting back and don’t hang in a corner above a large cupboard next time please as we can’t see it properly (or was that the point?).
“Our civilization cannot afford to let the censor-moron loose. The censor-moron does not really hate anything but the living and growing consciousness. It is our developing and extending consciousness that he threatens — and our consciousness in its newest, most sensitive activity, its vital growth. To arrest or circumscribe the vital consciousness is to produce morons, and nothing but a moron would do it.” – DH Lawrence
‘Victorian’ is not a term of abuse. ‘The Pursuit of Beauty’ is a goodish description of the aims and objectives of Aesthetic Post-Pre-Raphaelite painters, including Waterhouse. Manchester has a great historic collection and a responsibility to display it. This was a misconceived stunt. Also, if it was not about censorship, I don’t see why you have removed the postcards from sale. Reinstate the painting and stop being so silly.
In a dictatorship, censorship is a given and if anyone complains they get a knock on the door from the secret police and disappear. In a democracy, lacking secret police, censorship has and must always wear a mask of benevolence. It isn’t censorship, it’s protection from harm. It’s respecting sensitivities. It’s keeping children safe. It’s provoking debate. The end result is the same in both cases. They – with a capital T – are telling Us – with a capital U – what we can and cannot see, and what we are meant to think about it. My consolation is that this painting with long outlive this fatuous artistic statement/publicity stunt.
I note that my earlier comment (originally no. 67) is said to be awaiting moderation. I note that subsequent comments by others are now published. I infer from this that you have moderated out my comment. I would like to understand the basis for this decision. As a public authority, the Gallery is under a direct duty to comply with Article 10 of the ECHR. To your credit, I note you have published some very acerbic, hostile and critical comments by others. My critical comment on the Gallery’s action was reasoned and no more acerbic than many. Why hasn’t it been published?
Hi, apologies for not getting to your earlier comment. We’ve been overwhelmed by the responses here and elsewhere on social media. There are another 540 comments to moderate at this moment and hopefully we’ll get to your earlier post later. Not every comment posted has been approved as some of it is exceptionally offensive, personally threatening or plainly libellous. Aside from those thankfully few comments, we’re not censoring passionately held opinions, however strongly they are worded. As we’ve said elsewhere, this is not about censorship. Many thanks for your contribution to the debate. Martin
IMHO it’s not really about the painting at all. In the real world you should consult first and then take action based upon the result, not the other way around. PUT IT BACK!
I understand that you have political objections to this painting. Ok, fair enough. But what political diversity is there at the gallery? Serious questions coming up. What would you do if you had a curator vacancy and a registered Conservative applied? A known Brexit supporter? A person with working class attitudes to art? Someone who said their favourite painting was Hylas and the Nymphs? A Telegraph/Sun/Mail reader? Would they stand a chance of getting a job? I suspect no chance at all; “snowball” and “hell” come to mind. As it happens I’m none of those things myself, but you need to have staff that represent different opinions and you’re not going to get them by employing mini-me’s. [P.S. There appear to be almost no men on your staff list – diversity issue again?]
I think, this is the most dangerous and disgussting kind of hypocrytical auto-censorship. What will be the next step?
Put the painting back. If it was publicity this act of censorship was hoping to attract then it has succeeded.All the drivel talked about ‘starting conversations’ and ‘redefining how we look’ etc. is the usual PC rubbish spouted by those who want to impose their views on others. The public is quite capable of deciding for itself what to think about the painting despite Ms Gannaway clearly thinking we are all idiots who have to it re interpreted from a contemporary viewpoint. Great paintings stand for themselves and speak for themselves. That doesn’t preclude discussion or consideration of historical context but it does mean the painting has to be seen in order for debate to take place. The whole history of painting is littered with nudes and female and male erotica – you name it its there. Will we now see more paintings consigned to the basement because they don’t meet the current PC standards? Assuming its true that Sonia Boyce is using this removal as part of her exhibition I would suggest that her work be removed and filmed and then discussed. To use the removal of a work of art t in your own work seems unethical in the extreme.
Those who believe that the art world is run by self regarding ninnies will have had resounding confirmation of their opinion.
The removal of Hylas and the Nymphs is an act of censorship, plain and simple. Disgusting attempt to censor art. Put the Hylas and the Nymphs back.
“Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.” – Oscar Wilde. The Picture of Dorian Gray.
=== FILING A LAWSUIT ===
The gallery curators don’t have the right to remove a painting for ideological reasons.
By doing so, I believe they are in breach of their duties.
I will ask for some educated opinions about the legal implications of this barbaric act of censorship. If necessary I will start/promote a petition to file a lawsuit against them.
This is vulgar censorship. If the objective is to discuss “the Victorian perception of the female body as represented in Waterhouse’s painting”, then how on earth can this be done without the object of discussion being visible? You not only do not need to take down the painting for this; you simply should not take it down.
This is a silly decision. I guess it has succeeded in provoking debate – but it’s clear the vast majority of comments here regard the (temporary?) removal of Hylas and the Nymphs as a retrograde step and one that could be setting a dangerous precedent. Art should be free, not PC.
Please read my blog post: https://gemma-parker.blogspot.co.uk/2018/02/ban-nymph-manchester-art-gallery-and.html
I tried to write a shorter comment to fit here but I feel there is too much to say.
I believe that art should speak for itself. Who knows what the artist’s intention was? Galleries should as far as possible offer art passively. Organise chronologically and by title/name of artist and let art speak for itself.
#MAGSonyaBoyce. This seems to me an instance of both seeing and not seeing a painting in its time. We – clever, post-Freudian modern people that we are – ignore this flummery about myths or history (of which we know little or nothing) and pronounce that the painting is REALLY about sexuality or orientalism or imperialism or whatever. Well, yes and no. We do have a hindsight into previous eras which does cast light on certain artworks. But we have usually lost the knowledge and perceptions of their original audience (there was a time when classical mythology or Roman history were better known and valued). Previous generations are not automatically less perceptive or more stupid than ours (au contraire…) so setting up our views as definitive is presumptuous IMO. The Waterhouse is beautiful, and troubling. Both good things in art. Re-hang it.
Removing a piece of art which does not fit into someone’s personal (or collective) view (btw, have any visitors actually complained about this painting in the past?) and THEN claiming “hey, let’s start a debate” among a patronised audience about an absent object is censorship and hipocrisy of the worst kind, as it hides its totalitarianism behind pseudo-democratic tactics. It is a crying shame that an art curator (Mrs. Gannaway) and an artist (Mrs. Boyce) not only did not defend the freedom of art as they should have, but took an active part in this fashionable neo-puritanism instead.
Totally in support of those horrified at the censorship of art. What sort of society are we making for ourselves?
Erasing history is as bad in destroying cities, statues, books, music or paintings, as in hiding them from the actual and future generations.
As Dr Sue Atkinson says “What sort of society are we making for ourselves?”
What you have done in some ways equates with the Taliban’s desecration of the ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. Removing things you don’t agree with doesn’t have a place in art appreciation. They should be used as teaching tools to show how things have changed. If it’s of any interest, Waterhouse was also interpreting the Language of Flowers through the painting Waterlilies symbolised “great beauty with a cold heart” in the lexicons so popular at the time. The beautiful nymphs luring Hylas to his watery grave were a visual representation of this symbolism. It is SO important to be open minded in Art and what you have done is narrow minded, conservative and regressive in the extreme. It completely negates beauty in the purest sense of that word.
It is a so stupid decision, and what wil be the next step?
To destroy the work like the Taliban did with the Buddha statues? And why not censor then all the movies, fictions, books and music that talk about murders, trafficking in narcotic, abuse and racism?
You have made a choice that is not only stupid but above all dangerous for the freedom and rights won by Western society, in the name of a superficial and faintly modern idea.
It is a beautiful and thought-provoking picture. Put it back up.
Your argument is ridiculous, what does the ‘M’ in your feminism stand for? Mary Whitehouse? I would say that as you find them contentious then you don’t want these paintings, period. As I love them I’d like to purchase them from you. They’d leave the country, but then you don’t deserve them anyway. The gallery I’m thinking of does allow the artist to dare to say what he or she thinks, regardless of some feminist mob consensus you represent.
Clare Gannaway is no longer a curator we can trust. This is an abominable way to treat great art. If she wanted to make a statement, she should have created an artwork herself, not censored the work of another artist. I would urge Manchester Art Gallery to reconsider Clare’s role as this decision has brought nothing more than embarrassment to their gallery. Please also note that their Twitter feed is only retweeting comments that support the removal – this is not a conversation, it’s an act of puritanical censorship designed to further a questionable narrative.
With approaching 700 comments on here, which we’re going through now, nearly all approved aside from the personally abusive or libellous, we’d say we’re being as open as we can to opinion, however strongly expressed. It is pointless even trying to debate on Twitter as there’s no room for nuance, and relentless trolling makes sensible discussion almost impossible.
Art is a form of expression and subject to freedom of expression. I don’t know what has gotten into the mind of your curator, but it certainly isn’t that, nor common sense.
The outcome of the provoked discussion is simple: it’s an artwork, it should be displayed as is – and discussed in the context of the time it was created. Not to be taken away and discussed in the context of ‘the time it was once displayed’. Your curator is clearly incompetent.
Removing this painting sets a very dangerous precedent, particularly with the association with the #metoo capaign. The suggestion is for all modern audiences to reimagine Victorian art as lecherous, male driven pornography. The reality is far from it. Waterhouse may be questioned in terms of style and artistic prowess, and debates on classical art may ensue. However, to suggest the human body and breasts are degenerate creates the censorship on women’s rights we have fought so hard as a society to build. What stance would La Leche league take on this? The Nazi regime made clear what was appropriate art to be shared or not? I certainly hope this is not reviving incendiary views where one is told what is prudish or not.
This action suggests is a very dangerous way to look and approach art and our cultural heritage. Where to draw the line between accepted and not accepted art, and who is the one to decide ? If we remove all paintings and sculptures showing nudity there will not be much left to see.
PLEASE RETHINK !
A painting removed because of Feminism. A furious debate ensues regarding censorship, what a surprize.
Put the painting back up.
It took a hundred years, but finally we have finally progressed to the stage where we have more double moral standards than the Victorians had.
This is but coarse, brute exercise of power placed in the wrong hands and minds. There is no debating an act of blunt censorship.
Put the picture back and we can talk. Calling for a debate is fine if this picture is there on the wall in plain sight (as should be the case for all other pictures in all other galleries that have ever offended, do offend or may one day offend anyone).
It’s shameful that this is happening in a city whose citizens have fought against oppression and repression for centuries. It makes a mockery of the fight of workers and women, and so many others to whom we owe the freedom we enjoy and which, through despicable acts like this, we have never been so close to losing.
Put it back.
Removing this painting does not give me pause to consider the depiction of the female body as a binary presented as either passive decoration or femme fatale.
Instead, I’m reminded of every tinpot despot, every dictatorship, both past and present and millions of people who suffered and died under Stalin / Amin / Pol Pot / Kim / because they did not have the courage or the wisdom to raise the alarm when they should have.
This is not about removing art, its about doing something deliberate to cause a reaction, and in so doing test public opinion on far-left feminist doctrine.
All of those involved in this should be fired, and replaced by competent people who can properly represent the sentiments of a more informed public.
Dear MAG, congrats, great conversation you started here. Although it’s not so much about Victorian fantasy and more about censorship, ignorance and self-righteousness – but these are are huge problems nowadays …
Oh my god…
Brave new world…
Hylas, reportedly the handsome young gay lover of Heracles, went to fetch some water and wandered into a female-only pond where he got groped by nymphs and drowned.
Waterhouse’s decorative but rather lifeless 19th century illustration of that myth is a time-warping ironic commentary on a 21st century all-male event where females got groped in a posh hotel.
This piece of art contextualisation may be incorrect, but it is less embarrassing than the alternatives:
“Public art gallery censors Victorian painting of bare boobies for virtue-signalling reasons”
“Public art gallery censors art to generate publicity for a worthy navel-gazing interactive multimedia exhibition that nobody would willingly travel into Manchester to see”
“Public art gallery expects visitors to have a conversation on post-it notes about an invisible painting they can’t see (but now wish they could ‘coz doing this is just so boring!’)”
Come to think of it, this is all quite funny, except to anyone who travels to Manchester to see Pre-Rafaelite art only to find it relegated to the cellar because it objectifies women/men/drowning characters/cake/fruit. Or to anyone who has lived in societies were what galleries/libraries/cinemas – and women/men – can have on display is dictated by sterile, humourless ideology. And who don’t want to see the same censorship here. But well done, MAG, this is a conversation. And if this conversation is not one-way: could you please consider loaning this and any other figurative paintings headed for the cellar to another public gallery that doesn’t feel the urge to pre-“contextualise” them for us?
Yes to all this. Thank you.
How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?
Following the national embarassement caused by unprofessional act of removal by Manchester Gallery one of it s key exhibits.
The title question seems legitimate , if a bit late .
Of course upon hearing about this “remove the painting to provoke discussion” – nonsense anyone in the museum circles will think
“Oh, Manchester Gallery discovered “Hylas” is a fake – and now they are covering their bumm in extremely schoolboy manner “…..
God only knows how will MAG get out of this crisis.
–I wonder how much will it cost to recertify
a painting like that for its premium? The insurance companies don’t take suspicious stories like that one idly.
That, of course, if MAG is willing to risk re-certification.
To answer the title question :
You have a press conference with lecture and drinks afterwards .
If you remove it under most ridiculous excuse one can think of – everyone knows , not thinks – knows, – MAG definately has something to hide, something very embarrassing.
This is no different to being told we wont get to eat burgers, until we can all taste it in the same way as the experts do at McDonalds.
I hope this is the stupidest thing I see all day. You know the moral of this story is to not be led into temptation, right?
Can I have it??
Ridiculous censorship of a delightful and popular painting. Think of all the classical themes that show women (and men for that matter) in a non-PC manner! Stupid to try to rewrite the history of culture and not allow people to enjoy a wide variety of art that some narrow-minded authority disapproves of. Crazy to even refuse to sell the postcards of the Waterhouse too. This is censorship. Please stop it.
Are you going to send a raiding party to Cerne Abbas?…. just wondering…
Art prompts conversation, has been doing that for ages. Censorship is meant to prevent, or to stop, or to kill human conversation. Who is this Big Brother or this Big Sister removing paintings from gallery rooms?
I hope MAG quickly returns Waterhouse’s painting to its place.
The widespread censorship must frighten everyone. History repeats itself.
This is a tragedy for great art. Too often in current times we ignore past great art. Why does one individual have the right to dictate for the majority of people who love this kind of art. I am infinitely happy that we still have this kind of art today as opposed to what is on offer in art today. Again it is down to the individual it should not be removed.
Please stop this ridiculous censorship.
This is terrifying – let me know when you start burning books (to ‘start a conversation’).
Stupid decision. Some will be satisfied but nothing improved for anything.
I am concerned for a future where works of art are removed on a daily whim. Populist beliefs are by their very nature liable to change – so removing this from sight is simply an act of censorship. It’s formed by a patronising belief that plebs such as us are unable to understand the nuances of sexuality and values. It may promote debate, but the very act of image choice is of itself a function that circumscribes that debate, whilst the nature of the debate is controlled by the very act of removal. It also displays a naive analysis of the way Victorians viewed women, and panders to a view of the Victorians that is at best questionable. I find it an insult to remove a work such as this – it is simply wrong on so many levels. I seriously worry for our society when people attempt to justify removing elements of the past from contemporary eyes.
Censorship is just another form of deceit, there is no excuse.
#MAGSoniaBoyce Put the painting back. Or launch a campaign to remove Botticelli’s Venus. Brick up Bernini’s St. Theresa. Cloak Michelangelo’s David. Shroud our living bodies. Veil our faces. If this doesn’t work put out our eyes so they can’t see the abominations. Block our ears so we can’t hear the protest. Cut out our tongues so we can’t utter our heresies. Fill us with pain to drive out thought of anything else. Now we are well protected and no longer contagious, lock us up out of sight so no one will wonder what our crime was. If that still isn’t good enough, execute us. Or put back the painting.
Blatant censorship walked back as an
“attempt to have a discussion”.
Disgusting move to 1984.
Very sad to see an art gallery aligning itself with this type of activity.
Artistic freedom, being able to produce art, without fear of some glorified administrator deciding to ban it, should be a fundamental freedom. MCR Art Gallery are standing with Nazi book burners. What they don’t like they take away.
I suggest a boycott of the gallery until they stop this dangerous and damaging act of censorship.
Here’s your precedent:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bguXM9MQN7c/Tgd6a7w9m0I/AAAAAAAAAc4/tI2Jg329jFc/s1600/w41_80430015.jpg
I do worry about the motivation of the artist, curator and others involved in this provocation. It feels like an act of self-promotion and careerism rather than an attempt to open up a debate and I feel very uncomfortable about the fact that it’s then being presented in the context of addressing a current issue. It has – very calculatedly -upset a lot of people but I can’t see what else it has achieved.
Art lovers and critics have been discussing the male gaze and women’s role in art for decades, and they have done so by viewing, learning about, and then interpreting art, not by staring at a blank wall. Art provides an amazing way to learn about our world, explore social patterns, critique who we are as human beings – but only when people are exposed to pieces of art and the historical significance/context behind them. To remove a piece of art that presents gender roles in a complex, intriguing way and to replace it with sticky notes for people to write whatever floats through their heads in the absence of art, promotes the kind of intellectual environment one would expect from Twitter, not an organization dedicated to exposing the world to culture. Institutions that we’ve entrusted to preserve culture (be they colleges or art galleries) exist to create an informed public capable of intelligent thought, not to elicit uninformed emotions from people by denying them that education and exposure – that is what corrupt politicians do to create a narrow-minded, easily manipulated population. If we want to find ways to heal current gender issues in our society through studying art history, we could ask “What can these paintings teach us about where we came from?” (the Waterhouse painting, in particular, far from depicting women as a “passive decorative form” can offer a rich examination of gender roles for those who research its background). Clearly, however, the museum had something else in mind when they ask, “How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?” The answer is you can’t make an art piece speak in a way it doesn’t speak, tell a story that isn’t its story to tell; all you can do is listen more deeply. Only contemporary artworks speak in contemporary ways (although past works can often show the struggles and battles that brought us to where we are). If a museum has interest only in contemporary thoughts and voices (and has no interest in studying the rich history of the past to see the voices who moved human history forward), that’s fine but they owe it to the rest of us to donate those art pieces to museums who will respect them so that the rest of us can still study, interpret, and learn from them.
So among many other things this is basically saying that women’s/girls sexuality is dangerous and must be suppressed and controlled at all costs. Not very feminist of you Manchester Gallery?
What next, stickers on rude parts of classics or more removals? This is not 1950!
I’ve always loved this painting. It’s so gorgeous and so much more cheerful than poor drowned Ophelia (in Tate Britain). I’ve had a bone china mug with this painting on since 1980. Thanks for the warning. Now I know not to make the ludicrously expensive rail trip to Manchester from London. And it’s an English artist, too. Please can you lend it to Dulwich Picture Gallery to replace one of their large foreign nudes!
Dear Clare Gannaway. Men and women – without exception – are indeed sexual objects. Sexual attraction is a biological norm, just as sexual fantasy is a biological norm. It’s not just confined to the Victorians…! As a heterosexual male, I am attracted to the naked female form – for which I make no apologies. What REALLY matters is how men and women treat each other……
Put the damn picture back, you Philistines.
Surprised they did not censor your remark.
I made a valid comment about removing the curator and it was removed. Censorship again.
Note to moderators – remove this if you like but my comments will still appear external to this forum – you cannot censor everything!
They say they published all comments but I can’t find mine. Not more censorship surely.
A very sad story how a populist campagne violates history of arts and history of culture 🙁
This MeToo campaign has exceeded all reasonable limits.
The painting was removed to create a discussion about portraying a woman in art.
The choice of removable painting is more than weird. The polemic is wanted about roles of the 21st century art, but the image of the Victorian Age was removed, just as if we were able and may to transform art history. This painting, as a valuable piece of art history, is not only without labeling women but is an illustration of the antique myth of Hylas and the nymphs. We can not rewrite antique myths, but to know them is very important for both the history of art and the history of culture. The fact that nymphs are painted nude young beautiful women is a natural choice because of the myth of Hylas, Hylas who was not interested in women. Hylas does not see the “object” in them. The artist portrays them as such, as if most men would see them seductively attractive. If they were painted burka on the head then it would not be nymphs. Painting is a illustration of tge myth. What is the fault of this painting, that it’s been removed? What is considered to be a threat if art history and antique mythology it is not desirable in the 21st century? Such a campaign is a culturally disruptive act of self-promotion by MeToo activists, wanting publishity and found to be reflected in the press. The further growth of such activity suggests the risk of social mental illness.
Why are cultural marxists intent on destroying all forms of art in this country? This is an ART gallery. One of the finest works of art produced in this country has been replaced by a wall of post it notes. welcome to hell.
Excuse me adding a further comment … but I cannot help but notice. You CLAIM that your action was to encourage debate, discussion and comment etc …. Yet I cannot but notice that the only people who have, NEITHER COMMENTED, DEBATED NOR DISCUSSED ANY COMMENTS ON HERE ARE INFACT … YOURSELVES, MANCHESTER ART GALLERY!!??? Now that you have received the public’s opinion, comments and views on your ill-conceived attempt to gain attention and free advertising, WHY such a resounding silence from you??? …. Could it possibly be that your grand plan has backfired and the vast amount of attention and discussion it has invited is negative and focused on your actions rather than on the ‘deep’ social attitude’s, you ‘CLAIM’ lay behind your action!! Admit it, all you have actually managed to do, is lower the public’s view of Manchester Art Gallery and those within it, who were unwisely given the job of caring for some of this nations treasures!!
With over 700 comments here, countless tweets and facebook posts and comments via emails I can say that getting into debate is pretty much impossible. You can see, I hope, that we have published everything, no matter how harsh the criticism is. When the public events take place, we’ll be better placed to comment, and to respond to the clear negative reaction expressed here and elsewhere. We are listening, but this response has, in all honesty, overwhelmed us.
You and the rest of the curatorial staff at Manchester City Art Gallery should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves for having committed an act of abject vandalism.
So the artwork is coming back. Too late for me, everything is different now, Manchester Art Gallery is permanently damaged. To me the gallery was a special magical place and I assumed the curators loved and cherished the wonderful art as I do. But now we know, not just Hylas and the Nymphs, but any number of other paintings in their care are considered “embarrassing”, “problematic” and needing to be censored, removed to the basement. Also – how could the gallery be so out of touch? Why didn’t you realise what ordinary people would feel? Censorship is nothing to the gallery – we were told to discuss a painting that had already been removed as toxic – when the gallery ought to be fighting for freedom of expression. The curators don’t seem to have a clue what they are doing, blundering about and causing this international debacle. It’s a blow for Manchester as well, because of all the amateur happenings in the leading gallery and the fact that we now know that the gallery is ashamed of it’s own paintings. And nobody wants the art to be “explained away” by political correct liberal elites. I will think for myself, thank you. I have no plans to return to the gallery, I’m too upset by it. You don’t deserve to work with such wonderful art.
Shame on you, Manchester Art Gallery. Bring the girls back on the wall.
The curator Clare Gannaway is really trying to defend the indefensible by portraying censorship as a means to create debate by “we need to challenge the way these paintings have been read and enable them to speak in a different way”. (BBC News article 2/2/2018). Sounds very noble – how do we, the public, do that when the painting is removed from public view? Ridiculous!
Badly done Man’censor’ Art Gallery, badly done indeed.
There is, very obviously, an interesting debate to be had about how the display of art of earlier eras objectifies the female (and the male – I’m never going to totally shredded like Classical Greek statuary, for one) form, but doing it in this manner seems unnecessarily “clickbait-y” to me.
While virtually anything can be justified as art with enough verbiage, censorship cannot. Responding to a show by removing a painting from view is a stretch at best. Surely directing viewers to particular questions can be done more effectively with signage.
On the other hand, MGA has garnered quite a lot of publicity for itself and for the painting. Maybe some people who hadn’t seen it before will be prompted to visit the museum. (I am American, so my chances are sadly slim.)
How about we start burning books? On huge pyres. After all, many of them are not relevant and present horribly outdated ideas, right?
This is a beautiful painting and I really missed it when I visited the gallery last week as well as being unable to visit the Lowry and valette gallery due to a wedding. It’s appalling censorship to remove such a painting. Yes females were represented in a different way in Victorian times but so were so many different aspects of life and society. To remove a piece of our cultural heritage like this is vandalism and akin to religious zealots and extremists destroying religious icons in Palmyra and Afghanistan.
It’s a foolish exercise of attempting to game the troll-ridden commentariat, while tarnishing the gallery by playing the fool in a poisonously devisive atmosphere. It’s trollish to denigrate your own merchandise, then urge others to begin the conversation, and sit back and offer nothing much yourself, Manchester.
Funny how the tweet address for this act of censorship is the name of a CONTEMPORARY artist with an upcoming exhibition at the MAG. And why is the curator who decided this a contemporary art curator, not the pre-Raph or Victorian curator? Clearly this is an act of guerilla advertising. Did Sonia Boyce or Clare Gannaway feel that Ms Boyce’s work could not stand on its own merits? That it needed this massive and stupid publicity stunt to get noticed? If Ms. Boyce’s works are good, if her art is true to herself, then it will stand high on its merits. This is unnecessary and ridiculous and does her no favours. And if Ms. Gannaway is uncomfortable with the naked female form then I suggest she consider working in a different field where her personal hang-ups don’t result in public censorship.
I posted a comment (No 67) over 24 hours ago but it is still marked “awaiting moderation”. Why? So far as I can see, it does not say anything that 100s of others have not said before and since, nor in stronger language- and certainly not in terms that are libellous or abusive.
Hi Mike. There’s well over 700 comments been posted here. At this moment, another 269 to moderate. I’m sorry for the delay. All comments, aside from the clearly abusive, will be published, maybe not today, but they will be.
The one point of solace in all this is that the works of William Waterhouse will survive through the centuries (censorship notwithstanding) as he had a firm grasp of technique and archival stability, while the works of Sonia Boyce and others will vanish into obscurity as they consider political stunts and statements more important than actually understanding their medium.
This is a ridiculous piece of modern bowdleristic drivel. The painting is not offensive, either in what’s shown or the motivation, either actual or ascribed to the artist by anyone looking at it today, The decision is not a rational response, or contribution, to the current legitimate debated about misogyny and abuse. Censoring Geek mythology indeed!
Are we to see all the female nudes removed soon, on the basis that painting a female nude is inherently abusive?
Put. It. Back. Removing this stunning classic, Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece, beloved by so many, is a complete absurdity. I’m a woman. I’m liberated. I’m feminist. I’m liberal. I am NOT offended by this painting. Such censorship is the height of misguided p.c. interference. Just damn glad I’m not currently planning a trip to England from my home in the San Francisco area… I’d be devastated to visit the Manchester Museum, looking forward to enjoying your fine Pre-Raphaelite collection, only to find Waterhouse’s masterpiece banished from the walls. Grow up y’all.
Just read that the painting has been re-installed. So glad common sense and a sensitivity to art history has prevailed.
Thank you, Manchester Art Gallery, that was a good move and a good statement by the curator. I love Victorian art and I was thrilled to see Hylas in 2016 when I was in Manchester. 15 years ago I wrote my PhD about Burne-Jones and Victorian views on feminity and masculinity. And I think it is totally possible – and necessary – to see art with loving eyes and critical at the same time, always asking yourself: What exactly am I looking at? What is and what was its context now and then? Now I work for the Staatliche Museen zu Berlin and we have had our own discussions here, even years before meetoo, especially about Caravaggios Amor at the Gemäldegalerie. Discussions thet made my eyes role. Exactly because of that I totally agree with Clare Gannaway’s statement. I don’t think this is about censorship (and I am sure you will hang the painting again at one time). It is about challenging our views on art and (from a museums perspective) from time to time and to question the narratives and the ways we present works of art that are perfect examples of, in this case, the Victorian imagination. I mean, are these artworks just about the “pursuit of beauty”? Of course not. Maybe there would have been better examples, and surely you could have chosen a painting that are linked closer to the meetoo debate. But, well… Hylas is probably the most famous and cherished artwork from this period in the museum, I would have chosen it too to take it down. And also from a marketing point of view it worked very, very well 😉
What absurd timeline are we in when Victorian paintings are considered too lewd by neo-puritans? I thought the times of covering table legs for modesty are long past, apparently not so… Brace yoursef for the bland future we are too afraid to reject and PC authoritarians so eager to bring!
Ms Gannaway –
This stunt seems to fail on four counts:
a) Since the original myth deals with a gay man being enticed by nymphs, it is diametrically the opposite of the Presidents’ Club incident and the behaviour underlying the “me too” movement you reference, which makes the supposed justification for your action look intellectually hollow.
b) The actions of you and your colleagues score an own goal, playing directly into popular prejudices that feminists are humourless, puritanical and self-righteous, and undermining the real need for female voices to be heard in matters that affect both women and men across the world.
c) It should have been obvious from the outset that removing the painting would provoke comparisons with Nazi attacks on “degenerate art” and complaints of censorship. All of this entirely distracts from any discussion about the historical context and meaning of the painting, which is presumably what you aimed to stimulate.
d) By removing the painting and publishing an “explanation” that suggests it was part of a conceptual artwork (filming the removal to display the video in a future exhibition) you have made you and your actions the focus of discussion, rather than raising the issues you felt important, while making MAG overall look like idiots. You can’t have a debate about Victorian attitudes to the women as depicted or the reactions of viewers if the painting isn’t there.
If you really want to take artists to task for objectifying women, why not criticise the work of acclaimed contemporary artists such as Allen Jones, with his sculptures of submissive women in bondage gear, or the paintings and sculptures of Jeff Koons based on pornographic images? Or do they get indulged for being “ironic”?
Is the next step in this insanity of the self righteous a book burning of Greek and Roman literature on the steps of the museum? In case you haven’t noticed women are sex objects and so are men, sort of helps mankind reproduce.
If this is a stunt then when do we pull down Sonia Boyce to deny it from the public. Good Night Freedom, Good Morning Fascism.
I am a bit worried about the reaction to Sonia Boyce and her replacement artwork especially if the removal of the Waterhouse is included as some sort of ritual ‘taking down’.
What I got out of the muddle. I think you should take heart in that the general public do engage with art and will protect it. They know how to place (this picture anyway) in its historical context as modern thoughts about it are easy, placing it backwards in time is not.
Nuance about the painting is everywhere and personal to the viewer. That much is evident and interesting. They know the mythological backstory to the painting but felt you did not
The publicity has fallen on the painting but not your question (still a positive). Modern political ideology from curators is problematic and embarrassing as they like space to make their own opinion/stories about art
They are now asking you to ask questions of yourselves and your attitude to art. For goodness sack do not make the mistake of thinking them reductive
I am pleased that the curators have chosen to re-hang the artwork as this shows recognition of the situation at hand. There is a crisis of confidence between the art loving public and the curating team. I trust the public debates are very carefully handled.
“Degenerate Art” (German: Entartete Kunst) was a term adopted in the 1920s by the Nazi Party in Germany to describe Modern art. During the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, such art was banned in Nazi Germany on the grounds that it was un-German, Jewish, or Communist in nature, and those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions. These included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or to sell their art, and in some cases being forbidden to produce art.” That is from Wikipedia. This is from me, You are a disgrace. You should be ashamed of yourself.
None of these people have demonstrated that they know enough or value the principles of western thought enough to manage something as important as this. This collection is our heritage – a heritage that belongs to all humanity. Its most distressing that these so called ‘caretakers’ care so little for it, and are so conceited in their own narcissist thinking, that they are willing to resort to infantile power games to force their dull perspective on the public. A perspective which has its roots in a doctrine aimed at everything but the preservation of Western thought and art.
This glaring contradiction is in urgent need of being fixed. Yes we all applaud political correctness in public and despise it in private, but in this case, these people support a kind of thinking that is diametrically opposed to the preservation of Western art. The very thing they are being paid for to protect.
Its outrageous that they are allowed to even work at the gallery, let alone be allowed to have this level of power.
Going by the level of outrage this has caused,the gallery needs to take drastic steps to reassure the public that this collection is in safe hands and actually being cared for,
The role of a curator is to protect art from those who want to censor it, however much they dislike a piece personally. A curator is a custodian with a huge responsibility.
I am more than disappointing- I am outraged and furious- at the actions of Clare Gannaway and the museum directors who foolishly supported her removal of this painting. You have all failed utterly to understand your role as professional guardians and to take your roles seriously. To hide behind weasel words such as ‘playfully’ remove or spark ‘debate’ are facile and mendacious. You treat the public with contempt by pushing personal political views on us. If you wanted to contrast it against a modern piece, that might have been thought provoking. This amateurish stunt? This is unworthy of a museum under professional management.
This leads to the next question; why are you, as curators responsible for this collection when you obviously have no idea how much the works by JW Waterhouse mean to other people? Why are you curating this collection when you hold him and his artwork in such contempt? How dare you ‘protect us’ from this art by hiding it away ‘temporarily’ (forever?). Don’t have room? Then you lend it to a museum who would make room for it. There must be plenty around with more ‘old fashioned’ views on displaying artwork rather than censoring it.
Seriously, though, how are you unable to look at it from the perspective of others? You might see semi-clad women cast in an unflattering light by some weirdo Victorian bloke; others see JW Waterhouse’s works in a different way. Unlike other commentators here I don’t see it as ‘decorative but rather lifeless’. In it I see the expressions, between the characters. Like in JWW’s ‘Ulysses and the Sirens’, and particularly in ‘Lamia’, I find a fascinating repetition (perhaps artistic obsession). I see this powerful connection between two of the characters but, as a viewer, we stand omnipotent – knowing that one side has false intentions. I am genuinely sorry that, as curators, the incumbents at MAG are unable to see any of this, or value it. So much of importance in our world is under threat; destroying that which means so much to others, censoring our art, destroying our ‘soul’, that is too much to bare.
Please find new management for MAG, Manchester City Council, this one has failed. It makes me concerned to think what stunt they will try next to promote their opinions over our right to enjoy our heritage.
By removing the piece of art you actually diverted the discussion away from the points you actually wanted to have discussed. I think that was a grave mistake.
-How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?
This is indeed a valid question but by removing a work you have diminished the importance of this point.
The gallery displaying these Victorian pieces probably wasn’t created in the Victorian age, but was most probably conceived in the nineteen fifties, when conservative ideas about the position of women had a surge in popularity following the 20’s and 30’s and WW II… (Mind you, this is an assumption on my part, but consistent with my stereotypes about English resistance to change of institutions.) So if your curator is so embarrassed by the way the MAG displays the works at this moment, wouldn’t a better way of focussing attention to that be a redecoration of the offending exhibit by the artist Sonya Boyce?
That way the actual discussion would have been a lot more on the topics you actually wanted…
That the discussion is not about your actual talking points is a direct consequence your own starting point, the removal of a work. I would have rather seen that you had started this discussion by changing the way your display delivers context in a meaningful and in the very least a shocking manner.
And what you did instead? That’s censorship. That is something that any person, be it with feminist standpoints or not, should abhor.
Not impressed by the Waterhouse removal……If anything it is a rather tame image compared to some of the others in your gallery that could have the description of provocative and raunchy!!!…….
To the majority of people this is just a cheap publicity stunt to put Manchester Art Gallery on the World Map.
What concerns me is the way this stunt comes across as pure censorship and from a personal whim of a curator.
I do hope this person has a conscience if suddenly this action of the removal of a painting hits all Art Galleries around the world and works of art art taken away from the public……..OR…worse still encourage groups of idiots to vandalise or destroy works of art under the guise of “Fighting for a cause”……If this did happen would said currator be willing to pay or even Manchester pay for the restoration or damage seeing that they had sparked this notion?
Getting back to the Painting by J,W, Waterhouse, Were you even aware that over the years this painting was looked upon as romantic and indeed become an iconic image and used for various things……
Walt Disney even used this painting for part of an animated sequence of the nymphs swimming in Fantasia Pastoral Symphony but was deleted in the final cut……..
In the 70;s a reconstruction of the image using live models were used to promote Onedine bathing salts and the publicity was aimed at woman. A two page advert was published inside Woman and Womans Own magazines…you could also purchase a record LP Music to bathe by with the same image on the cover with the likes of Tony Bennet and Perry Como crooning easy listening tunes to soothe your aches away as you soaked in the bath!!!!…
.finally the three nymphs were used in the 1994 Hugh Grant film Sirens. You see the actor Sam Neil as an artist painting the models posing like the Waterhouse painting………..
If you have a problem with the names that are used for the rooms….Then fine ….change them to 2018 meanings…Just don’t tamper with the works you have got.
I first saw this image as a large poster hanging in the window of Athena Poster shop back in 1977 in Plymouth. Nearly missed the train for stopping to look at it….. Loved it ever since, I find it mystical, entrancing, I feel serenity when looking at it…fascinated by the fact you have the same face in all of the nymphs…appreciate the way the water lilies and the water have been painted and see it as a FANTASY…MYTH…. representation of a story…..
So the curator feels embarrassed…….well I would like to thank her for making me feel uncomfortable for having this as my favourite painting for decades. I now feel it is my guilty secret of pleasure and somehow the painting has become slightly sullied by her intentions towards this stunt…….Sorry this is Unforgivable.
A formal letter of complaint with these points of view will be sent.
PUT THE PAINTING BACK ON THE WALL
Oh my. 21st century prudes. God forbid the artistic mind should ever contemplate a link between sexuality and death in the human mind. We must protect the public from such uncontrolled thoughts. And let’s also get rid of those damned Zeus raping the swan visual arts. Must not support those negative male stereotypes. Since Manchester is now so up to date, let’s break out the Poker Playing Dogs. Sans nasty cigars please. Mustn’t offend. After all, only Pit Bulls and art censors smoke cigars.
It’s quite impressive how desensitized people are to censorship. We’re a breath away from burning museums and libraries to appease the offended lowest-common-denominator.
Just don’t fail to return that magnificent painting to its rightful place once this interesting stunt has run its course.
It’s really a great move, but I suggest an even bolder one:
Remove all art!
Great art is always controversial in some way, pleases some, displeases others and if it doesn’t then it probably isn’t worth displaying anyway. Art is the fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden. Let’s not eat it and live together without controversy in a boring garden of Eden. Happily ever after.
The Manchester Art Gallery has broadcast a very disturbing image of itself, by censoring artworks that the gallery curator (some Clare Gannaway) deems not in line with today’s range of acceptable discourse.
When political correctness reaches out to the domain of the arts, it’s time to stop and reconsider the direction our society is heading. Witnessing the Manchester Art Gallery crossing that dangerous line is not only extremely disappointing but also very alarming.
Saddened by a publicity stunt which (judging by people’s comments and the reaction in the press) has only served to feed the growing backlash against #metoo. It’s all too easy to call feminists who question the sexualised imagery around them prudish – and the censorship argument is incredibly tired. It’s used consistently to defend pornography and I don’t have the energy here to detail all the reasons why it’s not about calling for censorship. I would ask those who are up in arms about this decision to challenge themselves more – as a woman travelling through this world has my view not been censored at every turn? Have I not continually been forced to view the world via the male gaze? What does that painting say to children and those who know nothing of the context? Aren’t there many many more paintings in existence which truly represent the plurality of our existence instead of yet more of the male gaze? How otherwise is anything to evolve and change?
And next “entartete Kunst” AT #entartet.
The removal of this masterpiece is little more than an outrageous attempt to appease the unappeasable. This exquisite painting survived the puritanical Victorian era but somehow cannot survive the sensitivities of today’s audience? What is going on? Something is very, very wrong within our collapsing society, and denying the past only serves to make us ignorant! Don’t let a bitter pencil with a postit dictate our history or claim to suggest the opinion of our future. Our art is the most valuable commodity we have, please, never deny us access to our art. Those who are offended can look away.
Please let me tell you something. Last year, I bought a Victorian painting. The artist, William Gillard, is by far not as famous as Waterhouse (that’s why I could afford the painting), but it’s a beautiful portrait of a woman. Several others of Gillard’s paintings are exhibited at Grosvenor Museum in Chester. That’s why I have been thinking if I should once bequeath my painting to that museum. But thanks to Manchester Art Gallery, now I’ve decided not to do so. Now I see: First and foremost, our art must be protected FROM our curators – because it is no longer protected BY our curators.
Let me add one thing: If a point of view is obsolete, then it is the view that Victorian art is obsolete. That’s a view from the 1960s or 1970s. In today’s auctions, Victorian art achieves top prices again. Pre-Raphaelite art is unaffordable. Also, Victorian paintings are masterpieces of their own. There’s no need to rack your brains how they could “speak to us in more contemporary, relevant ways”, as said at the top of this page. If you don’t find them sufficiently relevant, maybe your way to approach art is not relevant. Even Victorian prudishness is obviously nothing compared to this modern feminist puritanism.
Then, Ms Gannaway writes above, “The gallery doesn’t exist in a bubble”. How ironic – because Social Justice Warriors do live in a bubble. I’m not saying that Ms Gannaway is a SJW (because I don’t know), but here she acts like one. SJWs love to live in their own ideological echo chamber, a “safe space” where no one challenges their views, and sometimes they use censorship to ensure that. Now apparently also the censorship of paintings. If they ask the sane majority about their opinion, they don’t do it until afterwards. And then they wonder why no one agrees with them.
Depictions of nudity in art – male or female – is part of our cultural history. If we hide paintings, or statues, because a minority find them offensive, are we not in danger of engaging in another Reformation-style cultural cleansing?
I hear from the BBC that the painting is to be returned. I hope this will be filmed and form part of Sonia Boyce’s work.
At a time when galleries and museums struggle for funding and to make and keep an engaged audience, it does seem rather counter-productive to remove one of your most loved paintings – one which is responsible for many of your visitors crossing your threshold.
Not only that, but your reasons for removal translate as, “liking this picture is not enough; unless you can appreciate our currently-fashionable pseudo-intellectual reasoning, you cannot really understand the picture, therefore you should not be looking at it”.
This belittles the many visitors who simply want to enjoy the paintings in your gallery without having your intellectual agenda thrust upon them. It’s fine for art historians to study and consider different contexts and ideas (I am an art historian, so I do it too), but it’s not fine to do it in a way that makes your audience feel intellectually inferior and removes the main reason for them to visit your premises – looking at your collection!
‘Playful’? How very condescending and arrogant. This is nothing more than misguided, misplaced and sanctimonious censorship posturing and preening as gender politics. Perhaps what this débâcle really shows, is that we should be debating whether the current holders (MAG), of this collection, are suitable custodians of the artworks.
That press release is classic fluff. So your stunt “has opened up a wider global debate about representation in art and how works of art are interpreted and displayed.”
No, it hasn’t. From what I’ve seen it’s mostly outraged people appalled by censorship and cheap stunts employed by ideologically motivated art-pseuds. But you keep on believing.
Painting. Hang it on a wall, let people look at it. That’s the beginning and end of your job description.
There is only one ‘issue to be debated’ as you say in your header and that is the utter infantile stupidity of your actions and whether you should remain in your posts. Your behaviour has been that of a couple of 14 year old girls doing a GCSE art project who want to save the world.
Thank goodness Hylas is now to be re hung so we can now all decide for ourselves whether we have emotions of repulsion, admiration or even furtive eroticism when viewing this Waterhouse.
Freedom of expression and freedom of free thought must always win through.
It is in the nature of people that some individuals utilise power to exploit others who may be weak and vulnerable. Is Hylas and the Nymphs an illustration of the misuse of power or a myth ?
I suspect the root of the problem lies not so much in quasi-feminist theorising, as in the demand for novelty which afflicts so many areas of human activity.
In the comments above, Clare Gannaway writes (January 29, 2018 at 12:14 pm):
“As one of the people at the gallery who’s been involved in the conversations about this …
The area of the gallery which included Hylas and the Nymphs hasn’t changed for a VERY long time…”
To me not changing is a virtue, not a vice. I agree with Sickert and Gombrich. Paintings should be left where they are. A museum is a storehouse, like a library. It should not be converted into a lecture theatre with a continuous slide-show using real paintings. We have terrific technology for that sort of thing – better now than ever.
Unfortunately I get the impression that pushing pictures around, and making all sorts of changes to the display, is how curators impress their peers and make their reputations.
No doubt that, if some had their way, galleries the world over would only be filled with ugly displays of “Soviet Realism.”
The depth and spirit of humanity will best be preserved in our art institutions when the garish soul of Post-modernism is beaten back into the rusted towers of academia and the strile minds of grievance control freaks.
it is not even worth a “debate.” Why did you even consider doing this ?
Please put the painting back. What you are doing is not Art, it’s Censorship!
Just to shift the terms of the debate slightly, I’d like to draw attention to the residual Modernist prejudices reflected in the choice of Hylas and the Nymphs as a site of political resentment (something, thanks to MAG, that will now forever be part of its inscription). The statements of Clare Gannaway, who described the gallery as ‘very Victorian’, Professor Boyce, who leads the Black Artists and Modernism AHRC project and other commentators who’ve questioned the ‘artistic merit’ of the painting show that some very antiquated cultural prejudices underpin the claims for contemporary relevance asserted by those questioning the ethics of this artwork and others in the same gallery. Their judgements closely echo those of (white, male, privileged and culturally imperialist) Clive Bell, who described such works as ‘stinking fish’ well before WWI. The resonance of Bell words with Gannaway’s position of ’embarrassment’ in encountering these pictures and the total refusal of beholding implied by Boyce’s removal of the Hylas all suggest an on-going discourse of shame framing their encounters with illusionistic painting. And shame, as the psychologist Silvan Tomkins pointed out, is the “incomplete interruption of excitement or joy”. I’d suggest that as Hylas and the Nymphs does not actually present very much in the way of adolescent bodies (because Waterhouse had already partially refused our gaze with the weed-covered surface), this excitement in looking must largely be focused on the androgynous faces of the depicted female figures. It should give all those involved in this performance pause both that their assumptions are so historically-determined and that their critical strategy, as so often in contemporary political activism, involves projecting shame onto the representation of the human face.
Apart from that do you think the censorship exercise went down well with the public? There hasn’t been a debate at all has there? just outrage at this tawdry promo for a future exhibition by an artist whose other work seems to have involved hiding stuff she didn’t like away too.
It makes me so sad to see that in 2018 we have to debate on censorship in Art, shaming the human body (!!!) Who can claim the authority of approving or disapproving our access to a work of art ? Under which criteria and set by whom? And what makes this censorship different than all the past ones already condemned by History?
Manchester Art Gallery You should be protecting free expression of Art instead of suppressing it for the favor of fake moralists and later debating on it in order to find an excuse for your actions. Who could imagine that the contemporary Dark Age would be manifested by a Gallery itself… This leaves no work for the Church or the Politicians. Well done!
I am saddened that the MAG in my native city has been so inept and Clare Gannaway’s post early on in this thread is especially so.’Playful’ was a very foolish and arrogant word to have used. It is amazing that no-one anticipated the kind of reaction that the removal of the Waterhouse painting has generated. The curators seem not to have understood the place that the MAG has within the culture and social framework of Manchester. They also don’t seem to have realised that they and those gathered on the Friday evening (who were they and who selected them?) to deselect the painting are themselves an elite with a particular world view. They want to tell a different story but it will be their story. Clare Gannaway wants us all to adopt her story when it is quite clear from the contributors to this blog all have their own and quite legitimate stories about the painting. It is both crass and insulting to associate liking this painting with The President’s Club. Ms Gannaway has in fact blocked off debate by making her presuppositions so clear rather than leaving the questions open.
This is no way to conduct gallery outreach. Of course there are legitimate debates and questions to be had about paintings but they need to be done with much greater care and forethought than this. The standing of the MAG has been greatly damaged. One thing they could do is consult people actually involved in education and set up a series evening/day courses to explore the issues in an open rather than a closed way. More immediately, the new Director and the Curators need to read the excellent comments on this blog with humility, without condecension to the ‘hoi polloi’ who have written them and prepare a considered response, not a press release, posted on this website. I don’t think the MAG staff realise that not only are the commentators here, most of whom have posted under their own name, intelligent people but also they are angry.
I suspect that the presentation of the Pre-Raphaelite paintings is based on Timothy Clifford’s rehab.
Wasn´t this an invitation for possible censorship in the future? Not a good idea. Starting this, where do we stop? Probably every work of art from the past can be seen critical under contemporary terms. This is not the right way to look at art.
I’m afraid this is just another instance of the low level of current curatorship of our galleries. There is precious little interest in connoisseurship: art has become a vehicle for political posturing. Moreover, in a misguided search for greater eye-catching and bandwagon contemporary relevance, important areas of galleries’ holdings are shunted into storage to make way for installation art of no aesthetic interest and spurious intellectual content. Technical quality of execution is no longer deemed by many of our galleries’ curators to be of any aesthetic merit or of social relevance. It is no surprise that a Pre-Raphaelite painting should be a target. What embarrasses modern galleries is that the sheer technical quality of “Victorian” painting highlights the fundamental triviality of so much contemporary art. The shame-faced replacement of the painting, now presented not as retraction but as gleeful satisfaction at the level of response its removal elicited, merely serves to make the gallery and the curator in question appear even more ridiculous.
In black days, which are happily in the past, the state decided that some forms of art were ‘entartet’. Because of this paintings were removed, artist had to leave the country and books were banned and burnt in public. Now modern values are inposed on an older pinting and it is, once again, banned. Whn is it that people start to learn fom history and stop repeating yesterdays decisions. When in plainsite one can talk about art, it meaning and the matters of today in relationship to it. Take the art away and so you will take away the debate.
Writing in the ‘Guardian’ in support of the Curators, Gilane Tawadros says “The controversy about Manchester Art Gallery is about who has authority over representation – a question that critics of the gallery do not want asked. A truly democratic culture is one that strives to recognise and reveal the biases that underpin decision-making: which plays are put on, which painters commissioned, which objects acquired and displayed.” This is perfectly true. What has escaped her attention is that the Curators themselves have taken on the ‘authority over representation’ by removing the painting. In an earlier comment, Clare Gannaway says that the painting will ‘probably return’ – in other words she and her colleagues will exercise that authority. She also says ‘Who chooses these important narratives and determines what is, or is not, a legitimate part of the national cultural story.’ Again, a legitimate question. We know the answer here: Clare Gannaway and Sonia Boyce make that choice on our behalf.. These are important questions which in no way are addressed by the Manchester City Art Gallery’s antics. Moreover, in our current climate, it is facile to dismiss the concerns raised about censorship. That too needs further discussion
I haven’t read all the comments, but am surprised that so many people call this ‘censorship’ when it was a temporary removal for the purpose of debate. Would a temporary removal for cleaning/restoration also count as ‘censorship’? A few comments I read suggested that people would turn away from feminism as a result of this action. I’m completely flummoxed by this – how does it make sense to give up on the idea women’s rights and equality of the sexes because a painting has been temporarily removed??? And even more flummoxing to me was the suggestion that these are ‘water nymphs not human women’ … well, they look very much like young women to me. And I suspect that’s where Waterhouse got his idea of what a water nymphs looks like…
So thank you Manchester Art Gallery and thank you Sonia Boyce – for starting such an engrossing debate.
When Waterhouse’s masteroiece was taken down, however “temporarily”, it felt like akick in the gut to me, a woman who for many years has taken solace in the beauty of it. To cheer me a friend photoshopped my gray head in the water, along with the brunettes. This inspired me! If I compose my own “statement” art by adding nymphs of color, nymphs sporting glasses (and turtlenecks, even), nymphs with gender identity issues, plus-sized nymphs, male nymphs- the possibilities are endless! – would the Gallery display my work alongside Sonia Boyce’s? Surely this could add to the discussion, and enhance the exchange of ideas the Gallery’s curators so value?
A lot has been said already but I have to add something for my own piece of mind. I was very upset by this decision, close to tears. I’m not a religious person but, in a quiet way, visiting Manchester Art Gallery is often a spiritual experience. A special place when life is not going well (and at other times). I don’t mean this to be at all personally hurtful but I feel like the barbarians are not just “over the wall”, but they have moved into our innermost sanctums and are running things. What you have done (and what I fear you have a mind to do when the attention has gone elsewhere) feels very wrong. Like a murder in a church. A desecration. I wonder if the gallery will ever feel the same again? Perhaps it needs some sort of reconsecration? The gallery is not the plaything of a few curators, art is too magical and powerful for that. In a battle between art and the small-minded, art will always win. Oscar Wilde has written many powerful things about this, might be worth having a look.
I have a feeling the curators at Manchester Art Gallery are embarrassed by some of the Victorian paintings for which they have responsibility. We’ve had a “Gerald Ratner” moment when, without need or warning, the curators have announced: “We’ve got a lot of c**p we don’t know what to do with”. The only difference is that Ratner’s really did sell c**p, whereas Manchester Art Gallery is full of sublime delights – including a Pre-Raphaelite masterpiece, Hylas and the Nymphs. From the art custodians, instead of tears at the sight of beauty, we had tears of anger. I’m reminded of another event that occurred this week when a minister in the House of Lords arrived to a debate 2 minutes late and began to verbally flagellate himself for his lateness and then resigned, much to the astonishment of the world. Completely unnecessary and embarrassing. There are two important freedoms needed in an art gallery (1) the freedom to display art even though not everyone approves of it, and (2) the freedom of the viewer to interpret that art as they see fit. Removing an art work to the basement restricts the first freedom – and heavy contextualisation of art limits the second (do we need your God like wisdom telling us how to think about the art in front of us?). Time for a profound rethink.
Ms. Gannaway,
Here are four quotes to consider: “They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty”(Oscar Wilde); “The nakedness of woman is the work of God” (William Blake);
To the pure all things are pure”(Shelley); “I am in all things Pre-Prephaelite”(William Butler Yeats).
I daresay these quotes, like the art of Waterhouse (have you seen his exquisite preliminary drawings –at the Ashmolean — of the nymphs in the painting you have censored),
will be to you a dead letter and a nullity. You probably look down with supercilious self-complacency on those who are outraged by your decision. Do you have a faint inkling that perhaps Yeats,Shelley, Wilde, Blake, and William Morris who inspired the Waterhouse painting which illustrates a passage in “The Life and Death of Jason,” are superior in every way to the transient neo-puritanical philistinism which you embody? They and Waterhouse will long be remembered after your fadish philistinism is forgotten. You would probably have joined Robert Buchanan in condemning Rossetti’s exquisite sonnets in the House of Life as belonging to
“the fleshly school of poetry.” You certainly will turn the public against the me-too movement — which deserves support — by this act of gestapo-like censorship. It is not we who judge art; the greatest art judges us. And by that judgement the directors of the Manchester Art Museum stand self-condemned. This art is great not because of the opinions of a handful of 21st century fanatics but by dint of its incontestable beauty
and myth-poeic depth.
Better to die drowned in beauty, than to die stupid.
The problem is not with raising these questions but how it has been done. Not enough thought was given about setting up the debate. Had the Curators said that they were going to remove the painting to stimulate discussion but would put it back after a week or two, then issues of censorship would have been less obvious, though that begs the question about how you comment on something you cannot see. Clare Gannaway said it would ‘probably’ be put back which raises the doubt that it might not be. Not enough context was given by explaining that the removal was part of Sonia Joyce’s project. Not enough consideration was given to how people like Elis Rogers might react. This is something being done TO people not WITH them. Who is the collective ‘we’ who haven’t thought about things? We all recognise that given limited display space, paintings are circulated but that process doesn’t happen like this. By bungling setting up the event, the important questions are not being addressed.
In order to avoid the feminist holocaust of art, I buy all sexist artworks at half price. Make an offer please. Thank you.
In crying “censorship” regarding Manchester Art Gallery’s decision to remove the painting Hylas and the Nymphs, freedom of expression advocates – amongst whom I’d include myself – are guilty of the same sort of knee-jerk outrage that they frequently accuse others of.
In common with the tactics of those who easily take offence and seek to censor, advocates for freedom of expression have simplified and decontexualised the issue, and pressured the institution into put the painting back up. In a free society, why can’t an artist explore an issue in any way they see fit? How ironic that in the name of freedom of expression an artist’s freedom to explore is being criticised.
Perhaps it would be wonderful if everything that had ever been painted could be displayed for eternity. But that’s impossible. Of course, we should be vigilant towards attempts to curb freedom of expression. However, when it comes to displaying art, choices have to be made. This means that some paintings must be taken down whilst others are put up. This raises questions: Who decides what’s displayed and what isn’t? How do they decide? Do we know who decides and on what basis?
These are important questions that we can forget to ask as we wander around a gallery. It’s easy to slip into a view that just accepts that what is on display is “objectively great art”, and that over the years choices have been made.
The exploration of these questions is inevitably going to intersect with the issue of censorship. But that doesn’t mean that the removal of the exhibit is in and of itself an act of censorship. Are we really saying that any removal of any artwork at any time is an act of censorship? Do we simply ignore or lambast the reasons for its removal when commenting? Again, choices must be made. But who has the freedom and power to decide and what basis? Judging from the comments being made it looks like we can all play a part in the process.
By removing this artwork, the gallery is foregrounding these questions in a striking way – although it might be a way some disagree with. By reflexively crying “censorship”, freedom of expression advocates are failing to notice two things. Firstly, they are missing the point of why the gallery has done this. Instead, they seem intent on projecting onto this art-event their belief that it can only be about the imposition of a new wave of Puritanical feminism. I think the issues the removal raises are much broader and more complex than that.
Secondly, they are failing to notice that the space in question – as far as I know without having visited the gallery – is surrounded by all sorts of other paintings featuring nudes, none of which have been removed. There’s clearly no policy of censoring depictions of paintings featuring nudes. It’s also important to point out that the painting was only removed “temporarily” and is now back on display.
By having this issue bought to the forefront of our minds, we are enabled to think more clearly and critically about what is involved in the processes of curation and interpretation. To have a greater understanding of these processes – that too is liberating. We must not let knee-jerk outrage -wherever it comes from – to hamper better understanding.
The gallery is being condemned based on Clare Gannaway’s own comments. She said she found the Pre-Raph room “embarrassing” and “very old-fashioned”, that it was devoted to “male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale” (it’s a bad teacher who tells their students what to think). She claimed maintaining the gallery as it is equals “perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist”: the implicit conclusion being that anyone who likes the gallery as it is (or who thinks one can pursue “beauty” in art without ulterior motive) bears a share of the blame for the Presidents Club scandal. She said “Views of history, views of art history and views about representation have moved on and the gallery probably hasn’t in the way that it should have done.” She said Hylas would “probably” return, but in the context of sweeping changes she threatened “as soon as possible ” to make the room tell “different, relevant stories…acknowledging that views of history change” (i.e. her view, which as Contemporary Art Curator she has no right to impose on the gallery’s Fine Art collection).
And you wonder why people were angry, having had their views and tastes trampled on in such a high-handed manner by Gannaway?
As for the ‘temporary’ removal, and the other nudes still on display – I, and I suspect many others, feared a thin end of the wedge approach. It’s an old tactic. Many’s the bus or train service “temporarily” suspended, only to become permanent; the pub or shop closure “for refurbishment”, before it gets sold for redevelopment; the “driver-only operation” in exceptional circumstances, which becomes the norm. A temporary cut in services becomes permanent. Austerity is “temporary”, and has been so for the past 7 years, with no sign of ending.
Gannaway’s “probably” said it all. If people hadn’t complained, that “temporary” absence would have become indefinite, and other paintings that didn’t fit her narrative would have started disappearing.
M had made the points that I would have. The context for this discussion was set for many of us by Clare Gannaway’s comments. She needs to consider carefully what she has said, to recognise that she is herself is one of the elite, a gatekeeper whose role as a curator controls what we see in the Gallery and how paintings are labelled. I look forward to seeing her response to the comments made on this thread.
Juhu, wir gehen einem neuen Gesinnungs-und Meinungsfaschismus entgegen. Lautstarke Brüller und sich wichtig machende Minderheiten dürfen endlich ihren Frust abladen.
Public sector employees shouldn’t use their position to push their own political agenda (right or not). It sets a dangerous precedent for others to censor art in more extreme ways.
The painting needs to return. This time not hung in the corner with a large cupboard in front of her, as before. She is a star. Show that you are not ashamed of her, that you love her as much as the rest of us.
Now that the Manchester Art Gallery has officially sanctioned and encouraged sticky notes and Twitter hashtags as the preferred mode of feedback, a tantalizing prospect arises—that guests will express themselves about EVERYTHING in the museum, playfully and harmlessly. #MAGconversation
“Mervyn Griffith-Jones is most famous for leading the prosecution of Penguin Books for publishing Lady Chatterley’s Lover in paperback format in the obscenity trial held at the Old Bailey from 20 October to 2 November 1960. The book was prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, a private members bill introduced by Roy Jenkins, under which a work was considered in its entirety, and had a defence if it was justified by the public good. He asked jurors not to approach the novel “in any priggish, high-minded, super-correct mid-Victorian manner”, but alleged that the novel induced “lustful thoughts in the minds of those who read it”, and then asked, “…when you have read it through, would you approve of your young sons, young daughters – because girls can read as well as boys – reading this book? Is it a book that you would have lying around in your own house? Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?” The jury reportedly found this question amusing, and it has been described as the “first nail in the prosecution’s coffin”. A procession of eminent defence witnesses attested to the worth of the novel, and Penguin Books was acquitted of obscenity on 2 November.”
P.S. -in my experience people who think they are “humorous” or “playful” are not nearly so funny as they imagine. I bet you’re the kind of person who laughs at their own jokes.
Feminism run amock. Please start removing all Greek art from public view to continue in this vein. A misguided stunt that gives feminism a bad name.
“It’s about challenging those ideas from a contemporary perspective and being critically engaged in political debates about history AND the present. Telling different, relevant stories and acknowledging that views of history change.
The comments so far have been fascinating to read. We will make changes to those gallery spaces as soon as possible, as we feel this is vitally important.”
Clare, are you still planning on making these changes to the fine art collection, to suborn Victorian art to the goal of telling ‘relevant stories’?
I think the overwhelming consensus of feedback here is that such changes would be very unwelcome.
Hello again,
THANK YOU FOR HANGING HYLAS AND THE NYMPHS BACK ON THE WALL……..
BUT……..
I think the word “Playful” is not the correct phrase….. more like you have played a “dangerous game”.
I have read every comment and media coverage to try and see your point of view.
Sorry, your presentation skills fail; and it really does look like an act of censorship. Even to the point that there was uncertainty in some reports that Hylas would not be seen (If ever) for a long time.
I still have concerns at the back of my mind that there will be some fallout from this mini adventure of yours, if not in MAG but in some other gallery in the world.
I reiterate my point from the previous post about vigilante groups suddenly appearing to vandalise works of art for it’s content on nudity.
If other paintings disappeared, should one ban live drawing classes? The naked models there are being used and put in positions that could quite easily be misinterpreted as immoral, debauched.
Then further along the line future works of art and creativity from people could be stifled through fear of being categorised as being base from the art critics and galleries.
What a horrible thought……..
Thanks again for putting the painting back on the wall……….and DO change the names of your rooms as this also seems to be your problem and not the public……
Finally a “playful scenario” for you to discuss amongst all those involved in this venture…………..
I wish that I was an ancestor of John William Waterhouse and had his diaries and sketch books and notes and with a legal team I would pay you all a visit. We could have a meeting and then discuss the following…….
1= I fear the mis-management and handling of a family heirloom that was left for the public to enjoy. Please explain your care and intentions for the well being of all art works that you have in your building and your understanding of the history of different movements. What is your mission statement for MAG?
2= To show original intentions of said family member for the work of art and look at the recent attention that hints on the borders of slander for the painting and artist to be viewed as (if you pardon the pun) titillation and soft porn.
3= To stop the video of the taking down of the picture by contemporary artist Sonia Boyce. I am not against her exhibition, I wish her well with it…… No…for the reason she has USED a member of my family and distorted the original intention of said work to gain her own publicity and notoriety……..
There we go…….. a “Playful” discussion for you …….if this did happen how would you respond?………. Enjoy!
To Manchester Art Gallery –
Your greatest treasures are Victorian … Do you love Victorian art? Either (1) Yes, in which case you have a very funny way of showing it, or (2) No, in which case something needs to change, perhaps the art should be transferred to another gallery [or the staff].
Do you know what censorship is? Either (1) No, you need to learn quickly, or (2) Yes, you know, but don’t care.
I suspect that either (1) Ideological people have taken over the gallery driven by an agenda, or (2) You are wildly out of touch and this is a colossal blunder.
To me it is impossible to have a “discussion” when the artwork we are supposed to be discussing is in the basement (with the implication it is so toxic it should not be seen) and we’re staring at an empty wall.
Got it. Stupid moronic pointless stunt. All forgiven. Now put it back.
A sad publicity stunt… to promote the next post modern vanity, so sad…
In the myth, the handsome young man is the one who ends up the victim — apparently, the lovely but dimwitted pond-nymphs don’t realize that he can’t breathe underwater. I’m reminded of an old quote from _AbFab_:
SAFFY: Ugh, those porn mags are so degrading to women!
PATSY: What do you mean? *She’s* the one holding the whip…
It’s a beautiful example of Pre raphaelite art. I remember being taken, as a small child to the Manchester art gallery and marvelling at the the shear scale of the painting. This painting and The Hireling Shephard captivated me, the colours, the vivid imagery and when I went to Art school ,in later years, it effected the way I painted light. Maybe to challenge the pictures subject, place a more contemporary spin on the same story next to it, but please leave the painting where it is, to inspire future artists.
Since you took down the picture (and I am relieved you have now replaced it) I have been wondering why you did it. If it was to increase footfall in the gallery, a laudable aim, I feel sure that you will do so now, even if at the expense of some ill-will.
I wonder why you chose this particular work. I doubt it was a question simply of nudity per se, but more about the Lolita-like nymphs, young girls being portrayed as femmes fatales. So was this about the exploitation of female children? And/or about the concept of women’s sexuality being dangerous and disempowering to men? Was it the idea that the young man was the victim?
I do question your methods (how can I debate a painting I’m not allowed to see), but now that the work is back I have begun to consider your question of how you should display it.
As a historian I don’t think the painting should be set it in any context which fails to understand its historical background. It is not a product of the modern age, and should not be judged as such. I would hope you will display it with notes about the importance of Greek mythology to 19thc artists.
However, there has to be a reason why Waterhouse chose this particular topic. Was there something in his background which might explain his fascination with female nudity, which here is clearly linked with sexuality? There was a widely stated view amongst 19thc feminists that women were more moral than men, but because they were socially, economically and politically powerless they were subject to men’s rapacious carnal desires. Could it be that this painting was in some way a reposte to that contention, perhaps unconsciously?
It is inevitable that you as curators will have to make judgements about what should go on display from among your collections, and it is healthy that the public should from time to time be invited to debate those choices. It is also heartening to see that the public is so attached to freedom of expression and so hostile to censorship.
By the way, the painting by Valette of Albert Square in the Atrium has a mistake in the labelling – the statue in the square is not Abel, but Oliver, Heywood.
Joanna M Williams, author of ‘Manchester’s Radical Mayor: Abel Heywood, the Man who Built the Town Hall’
A poor publicity stunt executed badly. Mythology is timeless, leave alone.
Pretty poor excuse for an apology. Who made the decision to remove the work in the first place? Time to remove them from such a privileged position and replace them with someone who has a passion for the collection rather than a desire to turn Mosley Street into a cheap and nasty `pc` picture palace.
SPACE, PLACE AND GENDER, Doreen Massey, University of Minesota Press, 1994, chapter 8 – Space, place and gender, pp. 185-186
“I can remember very clearly a sight which often used to strike me when I was nine or ten years old. I lived then on the outskirts of Manchester, and ‘Going into Town’ was a relatively big occasion; it took over half an hour and we went on the top deck of a bus. On the way into town we would cross the wide shallow valley of the River Mersey, and my memory is of dank, muddy fields spreading away into a cold, misty distance. And
all of it – all of these acres of Manchester – was divided up into football pitches and rugby pitches. And on Saturdays, which was when we went into Town, the whole vast area would be covered with hundreds of little people, all running around after balls, as far as the eye could see. (It seemed from the top of the bus like a vast, animated Lowry painting, with all the little people in rather brighter colours than Lowry used to paint
them, and with cold red legs.)
“I remember all this very sharply. And I remember, too, it striking me very clearly – even then as a puzzled, slightly thoughtful little girl – that all this huge stretch of the Mersey flood plain had been entirely given over to boys.
“I did not go to those playing fields – they seemed barred, another world
(though today, with more nerve and some consciousness of being a spaceinvader,
I do stand on football terraces – and love it). But there were other
places to which I did go, and yet where I still felt that they were not mine,
or at least that they were designed to, or had the effect of, firmly letting
me know my conventional subordination. I remember, for instance, in my
late teens being in an Art Gallery (capital A capital G) in some town across
the Channel. I was with two young men, and we were hitching around
186 Space, place and gender ‘the Continent’. And this Temple of High Culture, which was one of The Places To Be Visited, was full of paintings, a high proportion of which were of naked women. They were pictures of naked women painted by men,
and thus of women seen through the eyes of men. So I stood there with
these two young friends, and they looked at these pictures which were of
women seen through the eyes of men, and I looked at them, my two young
friends, looking at pictures of naked women as seen through the eyes of
men. And I felt objectified. This was a ‘space’ that clearly let me know
something, and something ignominious, about what High Culture thought
was my place in Society. The effect on me of being in that space/place was
quite different from the effect it had on my male friends. (I remember that
we went off to a cafe afterwards and had an argument about it. And I lost
that argument, largely on the grounds that I was ‘being silly’. I had not
then had the benefit of reading Griselda Pollock, or Janet Wolff, or Whitney
Chadwick . . . maybe I really was the only person who felt like that . . . )”
Adriano Picarelli… from Brazil…
Two further thoughts for Ms Gannaway:
a) I note that MAG has a copy of Allen Jones’ screen print “Icarus”, described on your website as showing “Horror-comic pulp type glamour girls”. I don’t know if this is on public display, but presumably you’re “embarrassed” by the museum’s ownership of this work, too, given its subject-matter and treatment? Or, if the criterion is different for twentieth-century art, why?
b) Since this whole furore was whipped up as a publicity stunt for a forthcoming Sonia Boyce exhibition, can we assume that the ceremonial re-hanging of the painting will also be filmed for inclusion in Ms Boyce’s work?
I think the mass of comments from Disgusted, not all from Tunbridge Wells, accusing “you” (the Art Gallery) of “removing” or “censoring” the work proves that people don’t actually read, or think, before they throw up their arms in horror. I am far from being an expert, but it does feel as if the last 50-odd years of art criticism and cultural criticism might never have happened.
Perhaps part of the response to this intervention could be an analysis of how many of the commenters here, online and in the newspapers have just not read or understood the basics of what you have published….
A) Would you not agree it’s the job of the gallery to explain the background to a painting? There’s room in artistic as a appreciation for contemporary ‘relevance’, but first you have to understand the artist’s intent. If people don’t, that’s the gallery’s failure, not an excuse to rewrite meaning.
B) You sound disturbingly like the Chatterley prosecution, or Mary Whitehouse. This is art, not porn, and nudity does not equal porn. And thankfully right-wingers like you no longer have the power to enforce morality on us.
I think it’s clear people read more than the gallery expected them to. It is quite clear from Ms Gannaway’s posts here and comments in interview that she finds the gallery’s fine art holdings an ’embarrassment’, and was using the Boyce event as an excuse to shake it up to suit her declared ‘recontextualisation’ agenda.
Oh, and the comments about the Greek myth being about predatory nymphs seducing an innocent and chaste boy rather miss the point too:
(a) Almost no-one who has seen the painting at any point in the 20th or 21st century would know the myth without someone to tell them.
(b) Even with that knowledge it’s still pretty standard page 3 soft-core femdom porn, even if it’s been gussied up by being painted in oils and hung on the walls of an art gallery.
I’m writing for the Campaign Against Censorship to welcome the decision to return J. W. Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs to display in Manchester Art Gallery.
Removing a painting from the wall of an art gallery on account of its content is censorship. Removing it first and inviting discussion afterwards is like imprisoning someone first and then holding the trial: arbitrary and slightly absurd.
It is also a logical next step from arranging works in a gallery not according to their historical context but according to what the staff think they are about.
In this case there are two possibilities. One, that the people for the removal did not know the Greek legend the painting depicts and saw nothing in it but bare female torsos. That is childish (“ooh, boobs!”). Two, that they did know the story of Hylas but a narrative in which the female characters are the aggressors and the male character the victim does not fit their ideology. That is dictatorship.
Either way, we’re glad that the painting is back on the wall.
Hon.Secretary, CAC
With egg on its face the gallery has had to backtrack and re install Waterhouse’s painting. Hopefully the powers that be now realise that such monumental stupidity albeit masquerading as ‘an artistic act’ does not go down well with the public. Pretending that this has sparked any kind of debate is ludicrous – the stunt did not come off and Clare Gannaway et al have been left looking very silly for all the world to see .The Victorians have been and gone, you cannot ‘challenge’ their thinking. You can look at the work they left behind and come to your own conclusions. These paintings do not have be ‘themed’ or re interpreted through contemporary political thinking – they speak for themselves.
I would add that I find it highly distasteful and morally repugnant that any artist should collaborate on a project that involves censoring another artists work. To then actually use that act of censorship as part of their own exhibition is wrong on so many levels. It demonstrates a total lack of respect for the work of a fellow artist who for obvious reasons has no choice in the matter. I have a suggestion – perhaps after Sonia Boyces exhibition has been up for a few days the gallery could stage another ‘takeover’ and remove it. The public could then be invited to to put up their comments on post it notes in the space left by its removal.This could be filmed and used as part of a future exhibition. Finally, I would suggest that if Clare Gannaway is embarrassed by Victorian painting then she is in the wrong job.
May I ask how much political diversity is there among galley staff? Normally this would be none of my business, I wouldn’t ask it of a bank or supermarket, but it’s clear that you are engaging in overt political acts now; art may be political but the curators do not have to be. When the curators become political activists we have a right to expect the gallery staff overall to have politics representative of the community they serve.
‘Don’t worry, I’ve got your dog safe in a cage in my basement. Now let’s talk about how I think he’s barking too much. If you’d like to say something about this, just slip a note in my mailbox.’
What I like: It is always good to start a discusion about problems in our society, it is good to have a place to react for the ordeance, it is good to too talk about sexual compulsion,
What i dont like: is the removing of art in a museum, it is censorship, in times of fake news it is very common to censor everything, when we start to present only art what is “political correct”, we will kill art, art has to provocate, art has to be political, who knows what the artist really wanted to say, remeber the museums in Germany in 1933 – 1945 or the museums in the Sowiet Union, boring, dead, useless
You claim the number of responses as proof of success of your intervention. It is not. This is nothing more than a very cheap trick and way below an intent to be labeled “artistic” or even in fact responsible management of publicly owned cultural goods.
SRW has, somewhat arrogantly, claimed that ‘the mass of comments from Disgusted, not all from Tunbridge Wells, accusing “you” (the Art Gallery) of “removing” or “censoring” the work proves that people don’t actually read, or think, before they throw up their arms in horror’. I think, on the contrary, that the bulk of commentators have read carefully and thought about what, has been said by the Gallery. The problem is that what the Gallery has said has been not been thought through or clearly expressed. It doesn’t help to express the matter in terms of simple binaries: ‘This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!’ The Gallery has a fine painting of Madeline Scott by Ford Madox Brown and also ‘Autumn Leaves’ by Millais which includes four young women. I don’t read either of these paintings as fitting into this simple binary. Moreover, SRW, some of us have done a lot of reading about cultural matters and contemporary approaches. Of course there is an important debate to be had about the objectification of women in art and the issue has been raised in connection with the recent exhibitions in Cambridge, London and Paris of work by Edgar Degas. This is not the way to do it. As has been suggested elsewhere, the Gallery could plan an exhibition based on its own collections, of depictions of women which would set this painting in context and set up a serious discussion which does not operate in simple binaries.
It does raise the question of who is the Manchester City Art Gallery for, a gallery very much part of Manchester’s civic life and supported by Manchester tax payers and located in the centre of the city. Is it for the people of Manchester and for their education and enjoyment, I stress the latter, or is it for overt political purposes? Clearly it is different from the Whitworth Gallery which is owned by the University of Manchester and is located on the University Campus away from the centre. I ask the question because part of the context for this furore must be the incoming Director, Alistair Hudson. He is a champion of ‘the useful art’ movement. His vision for the Middlesbrough Museums where he has been for four years is ‘based on the concept of the Useful Museum, as an institution dedicated to the promotion of art as a tool for education and social change’. Prof James Thompson of the University of Manchester, which runs the Whitworth, said of his appointment: “Alistair is dedicated to the idea of cultural institutions as a force for promoting social change, and this fits precisely with the mission of the Whitworth.” This may be legitimate for a University owned gallery but is it legitimate for the Manchester City Art Gallery? A lengthy account of ‘Useful Art’ can be found here https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/tut/gen/tup/20559574.html Clearly art for contemplation or enjoyment doesn’t fit into this notion of art. This takes us back to the Gradgrind mentality satirised by Charles Dickens in Hard Times ‘Tom, I wonder’ — upon which Mr Gradgrind, who was the person overhearing, stepped forth into the light and said, ‘Louisa, never wonder!’
So what the current curatorial team have done with the Waterhouse painting fits in with the vision of Art Galleries as a branch of politics held by the incoming Director. Clare Gannaway is being canny with her new boss. Professor Thompson wants this approach for the Whitworth Gallery. Is this what Manchester City Council – I have been unable to find out anything about the governance of the City Art Gallery – wants for its Gallery? If it is what it wants, should it want it? Has there been any debate about the role of the gallery to which the public, the gallery users might contribute? Does the City Council understand the nature of the appointment that it has made? I fear the battle is lost. We are all going to be re-educated and Mr Hudson will tell us ‘never wonder’.
Art exists to prevent us getting complacent, by challenging us and kicking us out of our ruts. We have a problem in our society in that we have shut down talk of sex. This has a large impact on the next generation (and ones previous to it) in that they turn to the fiction of pornography in order to understand puberty. Is it any wonder why we have a society which is relationally dysfunctional? Shutting down pornography is an experiment which has failed for decades. We need less censorship and more open talking, to promote understanding and banish fear and embarrassment about the human body. I’m not saying everyone should walk around nude, be promiscuous or gush forth with our personal ailments, but we should at least be able to talk about the general function of the human body and its function without fear. I recall the TV show, “Sex In Class,” which examined this, and the educator being called by the father of one of the children, who was aghast that his daughter was being taught how to examine and understand her own body. It is critical for our society that we do not allow censorship to push us into a position where people continue to die, through being too embarrassed about their bodies, to seek discussion.
Entartete kunst or weibermacht?
Noting that Hylas was Hercules’ eromenos implies an interpretation of the painting that is far from “soft porn”, namely the idea of “healing” homosexuality by marriage or other forms of heterosexual activity, which was widespread in Victorian times. The result for Hylas was fatal (as it was for Alan Turing and many others). If Waterhouse was a (concealed) gay, he may have chosen to represent the option of following the societal pressure together with the consequences for his inner self. It is not the “temptation” by the females that the male figure experiences, but but rather a hesitation to give in to what is expected and to follow the heterosexual standards. As this is a reoccurring theme in Waterhouse’ works (Echo and Narcissus, La Belle Dame sans Merci, Decamerone, Odysseus and the Sirens), painting was perhaps for him a form of self-imposed “therapy”. It seems thus legitimate to ask whether the criticism of the painting as “sexist” isn’t rather a form of homophobia and essentially a misappropriation of it (like the word “misogynist” which was a mock word for gays, is now frequently and uncomprehendingly used to fight contempt for women). Removing the painting is not the best way of uncovering the many layers of its meaning (although I have to admit that I hadn’t even heard about it otherwise).
Although I do not quite buy that removing the painting was intended to spark debate rather than simply PC gone awry, if that HAD been the true intention, then the stunt certainly succeeded.
Art is supposed to stretch our imagination, to take societal assumptions to their extremes to expose the underlying absurdity and get us to second guess even things that we may hold sacred. It should also show parallels that we may not have thought about, and undermine the stories that we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel good (such as “we used to oppress women in the past, but now we are progressive” – simplistic at best, delusionally dangerous at worst).
Which is what we did. And perhaps we are all a bit closer to some kind of consensus for it.
Whatever happened to facilitating access to collections?
Seeing the footage of the Hylas and the Nymphs being wheeled out of the gallery I became incensed by such crass handling and lack of curatorial skill. It was being handcuffed, charged and arrested for a crime it never committed! Where was it going ? Not for a rotation of other works or for conservation treatment…as an artistic act why not loan it out to another gallery so the public can access the work while this debate about female representation is going on? I don’t object to a blank wall, but how mundane and throwaway are Post it notes? The City Gallery are asking the public to enter into a passionate discussion on something we use to leave a note on the fridge to remind ourselves to get more milk! We deserve more than this from a publicly funded gallery. Let’s have a series of public debates face to face with the artist and curators. Sonia Boyce and other curators at the gallery have been conspicuous in their absence during the last week, why is that? Who is the curator of the Waterhouse painting?
I don’t feel the Gallery articulated Sonia Boyce’s intentions or artistic reasoning behind the removal of the work her future show in March. This is a total failing of the contemporary art curator, Clare Gannaway. Also, I would like to ask if she feels a disconnect with her fellow curators at the Gallery, in terms of a lack of dialogue between curators of historical and contemporary works in the collection? Why has it taken since 2002 to have a fresh outlook and reorganisation of gallery spaces for these works? Is it budgets/ funding or lack of enthusiasm/ dislike for the more popular works in the collection? I am looking forward to some public debates at the City Gallery, including: what is the role, if any, of the curator in the 21st Century?
The early futurism, faschism and soviet art/propaganda managed to get some style and innovation. What followed was bleak ‘socialist realism’ and even more bland nazi culture/barbarism.
You are projecting an image of ‘Gleichschaltung’, not one of debate.
Idiots. You don’t foster discussion by removing art from view.
Do we pettition for the removal of the mona lisa because she is not being depicted powerful enough. or because she might be objectified. What about Venus on the Halfshell?
While we are at it what about Michaelangelos David?
Leave the art alone you nutters.
You could say the Nazi’s done the same on censorship by burning books is society so far gone that it has to worry about ruffling some feathers. It is the minority of the population that see’s evil in things, most people just see the picture not the debasing of the youth. Maybe its time for the adults of this society to explain history to children instead of trying to force there concepts on them.
I have never been to Manchester, and did not know the work, so the controversy has at least publicised this beautiful painting and brought it to the attention of those of us unaware of its existence.
“How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?”
_Who_ decides which ways of talk are relevant in the 21st century?
A small (but loud) minority?
“Here are some of the ideas we have been talking about so far. What do you think?”
Why don´t you keep the artwork up an talk then about it? Its easier to talk about something you can SEE or experience.
“This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’.”
That´s your opinion about the presentation of the female body in this gallery. YOUR opinion, NOT everybodies opinion!
“Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!”
Artwork like this is historical. It´s nonsense to challenge a long gone past. And after all, what do you really want to challenge? The greet mythology that is depicted? Or the way how it is depicted? What needs here to be challenged? Do you have a problem with the depiction naked beautiful women? Well, the your tinking is close to that of the Taliban.
“How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?”
Again: This is a historical artwork. It can´t and doesn´t need to speak in a “contemporary way”. An if you decide for US what is a “relevant way” for artwork to speak, then you are not just practice censorship. No, you are also promoting FASCISM with that. Look at what Mr. Goebbels did: He also decided for an entire society what should be “relevant ways” how artwork should speak.
“What other stories could these artworks and their characters tell?”
“What other themes would be interesting to explore in the gallery?”
You need not to censor art to discuss other themes in the gallery. So you simple made this up to justify your censorship.
Censorship is a pick-axe chipping away freedom bit by bit. And in the end we get fascism.
“The act of taking down this painting was part of a group gallery takeover that took place…”
Taking over to censor art by taking it down…. sorry but such kind of “takeover” by ideology-groups and “take down” whatever the group dislikes is known from german history in the years 1933 – 1945.
I am sorry but i can´t save you from this conclusion: Censorship is part of fascism, and everyone promoting censorship works to create a fascist society.
We saw this painting about a month ago and we wondered are there contemporary paintings as lovely as this one? Perhaps there are and we just haven’t found them. Our only surprise was that it was stuck in a corner, behind a large piece of furniture and with a column and statue blocking the view on one side. There is some fabulous art in Manchester Art Gallery and I thank all the staff who look after it so well.
I am glad it is back again. I nearly melted when I have seen it first 2012, standing in front of it. Reminded me of a poem I wrote about german “Loreley” myth. Usually I am afraid of naked skin in public, but this one caught me, until I noticed the danger and left regretfully.
[…] dangerous precedent is set for other artworks,” wrote Michael Browne, an artist, in a comment online. “The emergence of P.C. censorship, blurred into […]
Every act of censorship is an act of violence.
Censorship is one of the tools of fascists.
So much of what this painting is about has been obscured by this hot-house controversy. Waterhouse’s painting is more than a sleazy male’s fantasy, and modern ideologues who fear it is that are more puritanical than their Victorian great-grandparents. The painting was inspired by these lines from Edmund Spencer’s ‘The Fairie Queen’ a mythological poem harking back even further.
‘The wanton Maidens him espying, stood
Gazing awhile at his unwonted Guise;
Then th’ one her self low ducked in the Flood,
Abash’d, that her a Stranger did avise:
But th’ other, rather higher did arise,
And her two lilly Paps aloft display’d,
And all that might his melting Heart entise
To her Delights, she unto him bewray’d;
The rest hid underneath, him more desirous made.
Are we allowed to enquire as to whether Alistair Hudson had a role in the Hylas and the Nymphs decision? Was this part of the “art for social change” impulse? I ask this out of curiosity, not in criticism. In any case I am very interested to hear his views on what has happened.
‘intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all.’ -> diversity is missing in this list. On the other hand, looking at
http://manchesterartgallery.org/visit/about-us/departments-and-contacts/
it seems a correct description. Navel gazing, moralizing and patronizing.
People given power have a tendency to abuse that power, completly independent of gender, race, sexuality and class.
I know people are upset by what has happened, perhaps it is dangerous to flirt with censorship, but it has been a very interesting experience. The power of art! After 120 years the painting was removed from display and the question asked ‘The Victorian art establishment valued you but the world has changed, by what authority do you continue to be displayed?’ The painting was boxed up and sent to the basement. Now the painting has responded by blowing it’s way out of the basement, like Daenerys’s dragons when they burst out of imprisonment during the Battle of Meereen (see Youtube), walls tumbled and fire raged. Dracarys!!
Hello, writing to you from New York. One of the most beautiful exhibitions I’ve ever seen was “The Victorian Nude,” held some years ago at the Brooklyn Museum. I love this painting and I appreciate what you are trying to do in withholding it from public view. Here in America, Bush’s former attorney general John Ashcroft ludicrously ordered that the nude statues in the U.S. Capitol be covered while he was speaking because they offended his Puritan sensibilities. Certainly the far right in America has continued its slide down the slippery slope of censorship and prudery, and much worse. If this helps bring public awareness to that, that’s fine. Don’t become what our country has become; I hope you’re not in any danger of that.
So, female body being seen as an object of male sexual consumption is a problem, isn’t it? The thing is that basically it is so and it is beyond moral capability to change that, it is biology and chemistry. It actually not limited to men, it also work the opposite way and within the same sex if the lusting person is homosexual. BUT. A human is always both an object an a subject and this object which is called his/her body and his/her sexuality belongs to this subject.The problem isn’t female body being and object of sexual use of men, the problem is that some men seem to think that this object also belongs to them. Apart from that lust, sexual fantasies and so on, it is what you can do but you can’t use the object unless you were allowed by the owner.
Concerning the censorship. And I believe it is really censorship when you block pieces of art or media due to some unmatchness of your views and these pieces. I think political correctness should only be applied when insult is being forced on you (e. g. a random man complements a woman’s butt on a street, he acts towards he, so it is a ‘forced insult’) but when you choose whether or not to interact with a piece yourself it shouldn’t be applicable (e. g. a writer expresses some racist or sexist ideas, but you are not forced to read this book, you can simply walk away).
Very relieved that the painting is back. What a weird way to ‘stimulate’ discussion. Discussion about what exactly? Waterhouse knows his classical mythology. These ladies are water nymphs. What do you want them to wear? Or do we want to be angry at Waterhouse for painting classical subjects? Are you going to censor all art representing nude bodies? What is more, the nymphs are about to drown Hylas. They are certainly not the victims here.
If the Museum wants to engage in debate about the objectification of women, taking down a 19th c. painting representing a fictional scene is certainly not the most effective step. This is not helping women anywhere.
Also not making me want to see the exhibition which apparently prompted this. That an artist should need to remove art by another, (dare I say more famous?) artist to promote her own art is distasteful.
I enjoy the Museum so much and visit regularly, but this was a very disappointing move.
Instead of sparking discussion about Victorian art (which, by the way, should not be assessed by our modern criteria), it has shed light upon the ignorance and prudishness of the curators, as well as their apparent lack of understanding of what museums are for.
Thank you for promoting debate and making visible the stupidity of political correctness
Impotent modern arts and ideologies got so mad and jealous of the powerful art of yore, that they took down a beautiful painting. What desperate and pathetic fart of a move!
If you don’t want this (or other) picture any more, I’ll take it (them). Thanks
I find it comical that some compare the Mona Lisa, or some other timeless piece with multi-dimensional significance, to a politically correct piece authored simply to shock, not provoke deep thought. Perhaps the Manchester Art Gallery might consider a Porta Potty with a transgender logo on the door, as a de rigeur exhibition to cater to the more petulant amongst us. Mapplethorpe would be too deep for them.
If nobody noticed yet, the painting presents the male body too…The people who took it down and stirred this pot of @#!$# have some Freudian issues…
I dont get this. There is nothing sexist on this picture. Naked women are not sexist. For modern day feminists everything is sexist, their still think women are oppressed, although men faces more disadvantages than women (homelessness, violence, murder, suicide…).
Art is supposed to engage those who consume it. Those who observe it. Art can be controversial and there is nothing wrong with that. To remove any art deemed controversial is to betray the very concept of art itself.
I quote you below. Why won’t you see that responders to your actions reject your basis for discussion? The public at large have told you in their 100s that they fundamentally object to your removal of the painting, the reasons you removed it and the nonsense of the discussion you alone want to host. You are not listening to the people you serve, you are paid to work in this Gallery and you are pushing a marxist political agenda that is rejected by all who have responded. No one sees the paintings and is oppressed by the passive, decorative women, instead they see beauty in art as painted in the 19th Century. The women are strong with magical powers, the stuff of myth and legend. You have such a narrow minded view and no appreciation of historical context. Your views, censorship and opinions have been rejected by the public. Do not force identity politics at us from the gallery. Why aren’t you listening?
“Here are some of the ideas we have been talking about so far. What do you think?
This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!
The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?”
To label the use of the naked female body as “passive decorative” is comfortable and simple, isn’t it? Just as equal nudity with sexuality.
As an female artist, I look at this picture, as a piece of a story: A man obviously invited by these rather confident and curious female characters. He doesn’t even look as if he is about to happily join them. – a nice fantasy story.
If you realy want a discussion in relation to the #metoo movement (and not just some free advertising for your show) try hang, for example, some contemporary advertising/fashion photography – as they appear in magazines everyday (like, but not only, in the Vogue) – and take a look at the gesture and expression of the models, that often look like just or about to be f***ed (no nicer word would come to mind). Even if they are dressed, the story told in those pictures, is more likely to put the female form in sexual submissive position and reduce them to passive decorative objects.
You can’t discuss a painting that’s invisible. You can only discuss the reasons why some fool has made it invisible.
My concern is the thought process behind this painting’s removal, surely the same thinking applies to other art works at Manchester Art Gallery and hundreds across Britain? Presumably thousands or tens of thousands around the world? And if we are to remove this painting for the particular reason you describe, why not remove art work for other reasons? We could all come up with a long list of possible reasons for removal – challenging depictions of obese people, mental illness, physical disability, ethnicity or religion issues, look’ism, ageism etc. What would be left? Art to which no one had any objection; the sort that gets put on chocolate boxes or jig-saw puzzles?
According to Manchester City Art Gallery , Sonia Boyce ‘ is currently working with the gallery team … “to make a new work: a night-time group takeover of the gallery exploring ‘gender trouble’ among the gallery’s 19th century painting displays and wider culture. This new commission will be made into a film installation and shown for the first time in the exhibition.’
So far this artist, who is fascinated by ‘what people do when they come together’ seems to have managed kept a low profile. If you don’t like a picture remove it in the dead of night, film the proceedings, call it an art work or better still an ‘ intervention’ and display the results as an performance piece / installation in your own forthcoming exhibition.
Now that the offending picture has been returned by popular demand, it will be interested to hear how the artist now interprets the whole debacle – perhaps she will see it as an example of what people can do when they come together.
This will be my last response to your “Nymphs” escapade……. You may believe it has been a success, but it has not really given you the real answers to your original questions and instead brought a kind of turmoil.
IT HAS BEEN ONE BIG PROMOTIONAL MESS
Your press review for placing the picture back is better…….but still irritates when you see further questions to start a discussion……
Example being…..
What other stories could these artworks and their characters tell?
Straight away it shows that MAG have no respect towards the artists original intentions for his/her work
Thought you might be interested in the continued fall out…… I am finding on social media that people who may not be so passionate or even follow creative themes/ visit a gallery; are treating it as ONE BIG JOKE and LAUGHING AT YOU.
The only positive and surprising thing is that there are a lot of people who appear to have this image in their own homes. These are being posted but with crass phraseology towards you.
Tamed examples being……. ”Well, if the police raid my house they’re not grabbing hold of my T… they are staying on the wall”
Another being…… “OMG they’ve stopped selling the postcard….think I’ll go down there and get my T… out “
AND
“Pssst…… Wanna buy a dirty postcard of that painting? It will cost you!!!”
Two of the above comments were from females.
Also, it clearly comes across they believe it was just a stunt to get more people into the gallery.
So, Pandora’s Box has been opened………
The real fault lies in the way the whole thing was presented……….. A news reader delivers the facts in a very neutral way for people to take and interpret in their own way.
Sadly, your representative came across with her personal views on the state of the Gallery, how embarrassed she was and then in a very finger wagging way came across we should not be looking at it or tolerate it. Did not help adding a poor example of the hotel incident….which stems on social and moral issues and not art work and that incident alone could open up a serious debate but has nothing to do with MAG.
Then the removal of said painting being filmed by another artist for her own gains?…… That is another reason for anger from the majority of people; A true artist does not use another piece of work from someone else to either show dis regard or pump up their own value.
So yes……. You will get the word Censorship thrown at you for taking away the painting and then taking away the postcards from a so called experimental take over group.
Please take note of what your actions have caused…….
1= Anger from a lot of people involved in the art world who see this as a form of censorship and no respect for the context of works or the historical social values behind each work.
2=Anger from those who follow the feminist values as you seem to have ignored their values and placed them in a light that they do not follow.
3= Disbelief of your management skills and care towards works of art and that you have become an elite group that do not represent Manchester or the public.
4=Loss of respect towards you, as people think you have created a stunt to get more people to visit and that you are a bunch of imbeciles.
This is NOT success……. Still Pandora’s Box did have “Hope”……….. From this you have a lot of work to re assure A LOT of people of your intentions for MAG. Hopefully a lot will come from this and there will be a positive turnover.
Thinking about Pandora’s Box…… Waterhouse did a couple of versions of that theme. I like the one where she is wearing the pink dress and fully covered up………. Don’t panic I think the one in the black dress with the bare breasts belong in a private collection to Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber!!!
CF the quick retreat, it’s fair to ask what action MAG would have taken if the reaction aligned with the views that curator Clare clearly holds. If the majority, once stirred, vehemently positioned themselves against the picture, would MAG have stood firm against such a tide, or would it have been swiftly hidden away in a dusty cupboard to appease the baying mob? I’m not confident that this wouldn’t have happened, and that’s chilling.
It’s not too hard, given the wayward opinions she clearly holds, to imagine only a little more feminists brainwashing – and the removal of other constraining factors – is required for the petrol to come out.
This has nothing to do with the debate. The most innocent explanation is that it was a publicity stunt (which, at least for me, has failed: I would avoid anyone actively involved in this occurrence). I suspect, more likely than that, it was more a testing of the waters by an ideological infected individual or group of individuals working at Manchester.
A true, honest debate will never occur regarding these issues because anything but the trite is far too politically contentious. The terms of the debate would be stacked: women as victims, society as patriachy, male gaze as toxic, etc. The contention that we actually, for example, live in a gynocology, in which men have been manipulated to do women’s bidding, could never be voiced. Nor the pyscholigcal reality that the male gaze co exists with a female receptivity and requirement for it and that, rather than being objectified by men, women are more so objectified by biology.
I’m not arguing any of this. I’m saying MAG would never have a debate that held any risk of challenging the parameters of acceptable thought.
When will we receive any definitive answers from the gallery about any of this?
Excellent article on this subject:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-new-puritans-waging-war-on-art/21090#.Wnn3KUx2skE
I consider Hylas and the Nymphs to be a coming of age painting for me and first saw the work as a young teenager (not much older or physically dissimilar from the model/s posing as Nymphs). The same day I saw Hylas and the Nymphs I also visited a temporary exhibition at City Gallery called ‘Innocence and Experience – Images of children in British Art from 1600 to the present’. (1992) This show attempted to tackle taboo subjects- the portrayal of child or adolescent sexuality. Now I look at the catalogue and interestingly Hylas and the Nymphs is nowhere to be found. Although Sonia Boyce was part of this show. This was a time when I was between adolescence and womanhood myself, a time of discovering sexuality, attraction, beauty, repulsion and the body. Maybe this makes people uncomfortable or it’s just too confrontational. To deem Hylas and the Nymphs as pornographic or offensive or to move it to the art store, as if you were ashamed of it, is to somehow devalue or deny these coming of age feelings ever existed.
Why would you not publish the responses that are simple abuse? What except for abuse do you think you deserve for doing something so foolish? The correct response to the Me Too Movement would be to put up some paintings by Felicien Rops. No one objects to rapists and harassers being punished, but its not too hard to see that that will only be used as the thin end of the wedge for a new and horrible puritanism.
You discredit the #metoo movement attacking art! return Hylas and the Nymphs to its place for the world to enjoy. this movement is to help women, children, and men who have been violated, find strength and solidarity… not censor art work! you drag our movement through the mud by censoring art and saying its for us. its not. it was for some ninny that couldn’t handle seeing art depictions of female breasts. whats next gonna hid Georgia O’Keefe and blame some other minority group?
For sake of completeness, as e-mails (sent Feb.02) probably not found their way to this forum: “Three boos for this act of vandalism to remove John William Waterhouse’s painting! We are not idiots, we know about art and it’s time and context! Pretending to “start a discussion …” by removing a picture is a flimsy lie. It’s censorship, nothing else.” Thank you at Manchester Art Gallery for bringing it back!
Though many bloggers will already have seen it, here’s today’s resentfully reactive (and ultimately authoritarian) response by the artist Sonia Boyce to this shameful and embarrassing fiasco, carried by The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/06/takedown-waterhouse-naked-nymphs-art-action-manchester-art-gallery-sonia-boyce
She just doesn’t get it (doesn’t want to get it), does she? Judge for yourselves, but, for what it’s worth, here’s my ‘digested read’:
1. In Boyce’s pursed-lipped piece of historical revisionism, the Waterhouse painting depicts seven ‘long-haired topless nymphs’ (pubescent girls)’. Is she really this offensively reactionary or is she being paid by Manchester Art Gallery to be? They are NYMPHS! As in alluring mythic/inhuman feminine entities, in mortal garb. The Victorians didn’t even have our paranoiac, paedo-coated modern concept of ‘pubescent’ in this domain, with all of its moralistic cultural anxiety. Boyce also seems suspiciously preoccupied with their exposed breasts for reasons best known to herself (of which more below) – presumably, she would feel better if they had been depicted in bathing suits, bloomers and caps. (Or just not depicted at all.)
2. Boyce then attempts to make the ridiculous case that, because other galleries do not display and/or store certain artworks at certain times for different reasons, the accusations of ‘censorship’ in this case against Manchester Art Gallery are ill-conceived – and even tries to imply we, as mere ‘visitors’, are extraordinarily lucky to have been invited into the discussion at all. We are then advised that the ‘dialogue’ that has been engendered (a dialogue she clearly feels she must resist) is composed by hate-filled simpletons looking for ‘easy soundbites’, driven by ‘bigotry’, and is misguidedly ‘polarising’. (Even though the hundreds of posts I have read on the gallery blog have been, for the most part, stirring, educated and highly articulate, as well as, yes, angry, disgusted and properly indignant.)
3. She asserts, as if it were self-evident, that ‘judgment is at the heart of art’. The problem is this authoritarian statement is far from obvious. One could say – I would say – that being moved or disturbed, being ravished or silenced, is the alpha and omega of aesthetic feeling. Or falling in love with an image so hard one cannot forget it. Of poetry, W B Yeats wrote ‘Nor is there singing school but studying / Monuments of its own magnificence’. Unfortunately, for the likes of Boyce and Gannaway, classicism, monumentality, genius and mythic beauty are ‘out’, because art must fit modern demands for contemporary relevance, cultural inoffensiveness and whatever the #metoo generation is twittering about this week. Apparently, she also knows much more about these things than the Ancients, myth-makers and visionaries of our Western past.
4. There’s an ill-advised reference to Mengin’s 1877 painting ‘Sappho’, in regard to which the first adjective she can tellingly find is that the subject is, once again, ‘topless’. Apparently, this Sappho is not lesbian enough, among other things, for her retrospective/revisonist needs for the painting and/or not evocative enough of Sappho’s cultural achievements. (The lyre the subject is holding Boyce has apparently overlooked.)
What Boyce claims to celebrate is the contestability of art and its meanings. But she exposes her true agenda by telling us that the removal of the Waterhouse painting ‘can’ (read ‘should’) be seen in the ‘context’ (an hilarious irony, given her peerless deafness and blindness to Victorian context) of visitor-centred curatorial initiatives in Eindhoven and Middlesborough, in addition to conveying the spiteful and embittered reactions above that suggest people just aren’t sophisticated enough to attune themselves to her ideologically motivated cultural programme. The boot is so clearly on the other foot it’s embarrassing: a self-selecting elite – organised by fatuous/simplistic notions of binary gender, seduction and resentment of myth and history, topped off with puritanical outrage over bare-breasted images of femininity – hijacking art for politically driven ends. Against which hundreds of people, as invited, have now spoken eloquently, incisively and emphatically – not that, to read Boyce’s snookered, self-serving and bitter piece, you’d have realised.
I do not wish art to be preserved in aspic, and love the kind of baroque, life-loving and darkness-affirming criticism of stirring feminists like Camille Paglia. And I will concede that Boyce makes a decent point about the modern hypocrisy of sometimes treating, say, myth differently from photography. But one reasonable claim hardly gets her off the dozens of hooks upon which she is rightly snagged. The painting is back up, and the egg is all over these imposters’ faces.
From where I am standing, this nonsense was a very positive thing. People (men and women) will keep having incorrect fantasies and the harder fanatics try to take them out of their heads, the more they feed them. But I have question too. Does everyone think that the “objects” in the picture are the females (women of nymphs or whatever)? Really?
Clare Gannaway you are a sexist.
It’s paint on canvas!
not a nude, not a body, not a nymph.
paint on canvas!
you and the sexist artist
( surprising, right? you can be a woman, even a black woman and still be a sexist…)
are an embarrassment
to (wo)menkind.
and to art history.
hope the public taught you a lesson
(if it wasn’t only about abusing people to have a PR kick for the upcoming show.)
I am throwing down the gauntlet to both of you !!
Maya van Malden for
Artists Anonymous
.
See you, girls
I was eager to read Sonia Boyce in the Guardian. Keen to understand her point of view. I am disappointed it reads like a puritanical feminist bias that refuses to balance where we are in society now – with our increased tolerance, awareness and ability to legally challenge discrimination, our freedom to discuss openly all these issues. Her prejudice for telling us how to look at a painting, what it means and what it stands for is offensive and simplistic.
She mentions Sappho; I first saw Sappho, Mengin when I was 13yrs old. I was shocked, it was dark and disturbing and I didn’t understand this painting, so I researched it. Wow, what a story! We constantly try and make sense of the world and myths and legends do that, as does the bible, works of great fiction. We constantly need to look back in history to see how far we have changed, and assess what hasn’t changed at all’.
Sonia Boyce said;
‘What is beautiful to some people may appear to others to represent a problematic and pejorative system. YES! it can be all of those things and more – lovely and problematic simultaneously! Art continues to challenge down the ages, with changes to social convention, knowledge and education.
I lived through second wave feminism. Benny Hill, Page 3, everything sold from a joke to a car to a newspaper by the presence of a scantily clad bimbo girl. That was oppressive as it was so all pervasive. I was recruited via positive discrimination to get more women into a male dominated work environment. It was tough to endure the prejudice, the fact I did have the job on unfair terms. I was young then, I know more now. Quotas do not work, equality of opportunity is the only way forward. Strident feminism like strident anything, any form of extremism is to be resisted and exposed for what it is. That is threatening and divisive to those not in that group.
Matters of choice taste and decency have always been hotly debated, and rightly so. Contemporary art has always struggled against the well known and revered art of the establishment, the Pre-Raphs with Millais’ Holy family being very publicly criticised as being depicted as looking like slum dwellers, by Dickens, The Impressionists abandoning the academic rules for painting, the emergence of Naive painting. The depicting of Myra Hindley, Tracy Emin’s Bed. Art must challenge, show and shake us up. We must be thoughtful about art.
We need all the types of art galleries Sonia mentioned. We need new contemporary artists and the space for the public to discuss, and contribute opinion. We need the traditional galleries in order to compare new art works, evaluate everything from style, topic, portrayal, skill, relevance, to name a few.
Sonia said in the Guardian –
‘It is well known that the vast majority of artworks held in public collections languish, hidden from view, in storage facilities. Space constraints are one reason, but curatorial choices also play a role. Would we call these choices “censorship”?’
No, unlikely; definition of censorship – the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Curators select paintings to be displayed for very many reasons, it is their professional job to consider many factors. The removal of the Waterhouse was judged by the public in their many hundreds to be censorship. As low-key an event as Sonia remembers it, the effect and reaction was very strong and has still not been addressed by the gallery.
I do not understand this sentence by Sonia Boyce, it is near the end of the Guardian article.
“The reason why I invited five performance artists to Manchester Art Gallery last month – Lasana Shabazz, and the drag collective Family Gorgeous: Anna Phylactic, Venus Vienna, Liquorice Black and Cheddar Gorgeous – was to ask them to respond artistically to various works in these historical galleries with an audience of gallery-goers. ‘This was to help us consider these artworks in a non-binary way.’”
So were the Drag Collective there to be exceptional and provide their views as an exceptional group whilst maintaining their non-exceptional status? Please, someone explain!
As one individual responding to this event I strongly feel that my voice is heard along with the other individuals who have commented too. I do not need to join a group to air my views nor adopt a particular identity to do so. May that always be true.
Where is the ‘conversation’ MAG? You need to come out of hiding and start responding to the huge volume of views here. You wanted a debate but so far your resounding silence is making this difficult.
Who gave you the right to dictate what should or shouldn’t be considered socially acceptable or not? Art doesn’t have to be socially acceptable or provoke political discussions. Most people admire art simply because it looks beautiful!
In all my time learning about art, in history and as a well artist expression, I was teach that one is suppose to consider the time and period of the painting the background of the artist and what it represented…so the death of a character by deathly nymphs painted by a man more than a 100 years ago, totally clashes and now is outdated in comparision of the new age of thinking, no way! (sarcasm)
For the other side I was also taught that art has no purpose or meaning except for the one the viewer wants to give, but if an artist need a lengthy post on the guardian to excuse her actions not as censorship or a publicity stunt (which it totally was) but as a “debate”…many of my teachers would agree that you, Sonia Boyce, the curator, completely and totally fail to understand what is art, how to apreciate art and that you can’t call yourselfs artists, publicity campaign organizers, extremists, one sided mind persons (which I must add is quite the irony, that the artist in her lengthy justification of her acts say that we should have a non-binary view of point, yet all of you including her refuse to see that section of your museum as nothing but as an offense, a derogative and misogynist way of portraging women, stop viewing things in one close minded way and then you could tell the others to not to the same)
I apologise for this long post, but i hope it may be helpdul: After a week of discussion, it is helpful to get the chronology straight.
1) My first knowledge of all this was reading on 31st January The Guardian report that the Waterhouse painting had been taken down on 26th January as the outcome of a takeover by a Collective as part of an event lead by the artist Sonia Boyce to become part of her retrospective exhibition. Its purpose was to “prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. I have subsequently read reports in other newspapers. The Guardian also published comments from Jonathan Jones, Gilane Tawadros and Sonia Boyce.
2) This was contextualised in the Guardian with a quotation from Clare Gannaway, who is one of two Contemporary Arts Curators. In this she said “For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere … we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.” She also explicitly linked it to the Time Out and metoo hashtag. I would like to know who the ‘we’ is here. The curatorial staff? Visitors to the Gallery certainly haven’t forgotten to look and think about this space but they do not seem part of the ‘we’?
3) In the same report Clare Gannaway says “We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.” Again an unidentified “we”. Michael Browne in the same report says: “We don’t know how long the painting will be off the wall – it could be days, weeks, months. Unless there are protests it might never come back.” I, like most commentators on this thread, reading the two statements in conjunction, noting especially Clare Gannaway’s ‘probably’, took it that the painting would be in storage for some considerable time at best. These reports have shaped how many of us have responded to this issue.
4) On the gallery website, we read: ”Here are some of the ideas we have been talking about so far. What do you think? This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy! The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?” Here is the unidentified “we” again asking us to think – but only offering us a predetermined framework for our thinking. The ‘We’ offers us a closed question. As a retired University teacher, I would never open a discussion in this loaded way. For many, thee four points have contextualised the discussion.
5) In post 11 on 29th January on this blog, Clare Gannaway, among other things says, “We think that we can do better than this and the taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery, the collection and the way that artworks speak to us through the way they are interpreted and put into context. We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018.” Again, the unidentified “we”, the ill-judged used of the word ‘playful’ and the wish to tell a different story – but whose story and why?
6) The word ‘temporary’ begins to be used and on the instructions of the City of Manchester the painting is re-hung a week later. That is, a body external to the Gallery itself intervened.
By now, I would have expected the gallery to have produced some considered response and comment on matters so far but there has been absolute silence. There seems to be a vacuum. My sense is that none of this has been thought out and that the gallery is flying by the seat of its collective pants. There are important questions to be asked and to be debated but it needs to be in a coherent way. The 766 comments on this blog have, for the most part, have been thoughtful and intelligent. They deserve a considered response and some kind of written statement given that so many commentators are not resident in Manchester. I hope that this isn’t one of those consultations the Post Office is so good at ie consult but do what you were going to do anyway.
This affair raises some broad questions of general importance which need addressing:
1) Who is actually in control at the MAG?
2) Were the Fine Art Curator, Hannah Williamson, and the Senior Curator, Natasha Howes present at the ‘takeover’ and what role have they played in this debacle?
3) Why does the MAG, with a magnificent Victorian Collection, have two Contemporary Art Curators but no specified Nineteenth Century Art Curator?
4) What is the MAG’s policy and procedure for selecting and changing the artworks it displays? How does the Gallery guard itself against charges of censorship?
3) When did the Manchester City Art Gallery drop the ‘City’ and why? The Gallery is an important City institution and very much part of the ‘civis’ of Manchester alongside other civic institutions such as the Central Library, now magnificently restored.
3) There is a new Director Designate who was due to take up post ‘by the end of January’. What is his involvement in this and what is he going to do to resolve the questions that we have all raised? Why have we heard nothing from him?
4) Indeed, what brief was he given when he was appointed? Is it to continue the process by which the MAG seems to becoming primarily a contemporary art gallery with lots of performance art, and to play down its importance as a gallery containing pictures from various periods?
5) What is the relationship between the MAG and the Whitworth? Is it a branch plant? Is it complementary? What role does the University of Manchester play in the MAG?
5) There are issue of governance. I can find nothing on the MAG website. Who does the Director report to? Is there a Board of Directors? The most I can find on the City of Manchester website is that there is an Art Galleries Committee chaired by Councillor Rahman which meets once a year in February. How is the accountability of a public, civic institution secured? How and where can we, the public, raise issues?
Excellent post, thank you.
Could MAG please answer the questions put so excellently in the above post.
I have just read the piece in the Guardian, useful, it did add something to the debate, thank you.
I thought there was slight contradiction in that either the removal fitted in with routine curatorship in a crowded art gallery (implied in the fourth paragraph) or it was “art in action”. Surely it can only be one or the other? In any case I distinguish between Sonia Boyce (an artist who should feel free to be as political as she likes) and Manchester Art Gallery. An artist should have a lot of freedom, I strongly support that. I’m more concerned to know that the gallery was somehow collectively involved in what has been interpreted by most as an act of censorship.
‘Censorship’ is a strong word, is that interpretation valid? You described what happened as “art in action”, if so surely any interpretation is valid? You asked for a response and you got one. Artists sine the beginning of time have had different responses from what they hoped. I’m sure you appreciate, better than most, that creators do not have the last say, others will interpret and reinterpret ever after. Isn’t that the nature of art? You are a major art gallery in a city with global ambitions, you have a lot of influence. A message that removing art work isn’t really censorship (which I think is what you are currently saying) is not a good message for a liberal city in a liberal country (relatively) to send to the rest of the world.
That said, I still love your art gallery, a special place.
It is a radical idea for the gallery to allow an artist the opportunity to censor another artist’s work. More worryingly would be if Manchester Art Gallery saw it’s role as having a specific set of political beliefs and undertook a programme of related activism. Where would the legitimacy come from in a politically diverse world?
Increasingly, it seems, “art for art’s sake” doesn’t apply, everything is political. If everything is political, in a diverse world, we either tolerate a range of art in our public galleries or disband general galleries as no longer feasible. This latter thought should not make us despair, it is not without possibilities.
The thought that many of the staff at Manchester Art Gallery apparently blessed the removal of Hylas and the Nymphs, and presumably are not comfortable that it is one of the more popular works, is a little upsetting. Not to forget there are many similar paintings. The solution in Greater Manchester could be a contemporary art gallery (free of “problematic” historical art) and a pre-WW2 gallery, curated by those who love historical art. In Greater Manchester we have Manchester Art Gallery, the Whitworth and Salford Art Gallery (and others) to juggle with. Worth a thought.
I tend to take a practical view on most things (I’m a project manager). My impression is that you have two or three dozen paintings that you consider a problem, “Hylas and the Nymphs”, “A Water Baby”, “The Sirens and Ulysses” … Maybe the paintings don’t take you in the direction that you want to go as a gallery? Fair enough. There is no point in having embarrassed staff or hiding them behind furniture, placing them on a landing or sending them to the basement, so why not sell them? Public galleries are permitted to sell paintings as long as it is for the purposes of collection development. Better still, swap them for art from another gallery. There must be many galleries in the UK that would love them (my choice would be the Walker Art Gallery in Liverpool).
Absolute disgrace, art should be viewed in the context of its time, and not manipulated to suit a political agenda.
There is quite a lot of hypocrisy involved in MAG’s total silence ever since the removal. I presume that the idea is that the silence itself makes part of the conceptual piece of art the removal itself consists in, while in reality it is pathetic way of “playing safe”.
What we should be focusing on is how a type of – modern – artist, like sonia, manages to stay relevant by coming up with an idea so bland and pointless that in comparison to Waterhouse’s masterpiece you fail to see how it can be deemed art in the first place. Sure it has been done by “important” so-called-artists of the past but in todays world its not moving us forward in any way. It just makes Art look bad.
Also artist who strive to create a similar token of human excellence and skill are not invited in the same way to display their art or juxtapose their modern views of maybe the same themes in museums or galleries of this kind.
If anyone is reading this please have a go. I might change my mind but Im sure some share my point of view.
After reading Sonia Boyce’s justification in the Guardian I am even more convinced this was a publicity stunt that simply exposes the intellectual immaturity and superficiality of much of contemporary art.
Yes, artists and curators are perfectly entitled to challenge the public, but first they must know what they are talking about. Her analysis of the Victorian collection at MAG was both arrogant and ignorant. I certainly don’t accept her interpretation.
In essence the lightweights in the modern art section should not have been given permission to use the Victorian collection as a ‘plaything’.
I love this painting, but totally support the gallery’s decision to temporarily remove it as part of a discussion about the portrayal of women in art. This wasn’t an act of censorship, it was a reminder that – while as a society we are moving on (too slowly, admittedly) – the outdated perspectives and portrayals of the past are still hanging on our gallery walls. Keep up the good work, Manchester Art Gallery!
Mr V, I am sorry but I can’t see why this allegoric painting was chosen as an outdated perspective and portrayal of the past. Art is also just art, in itself, of itself. And who dictates what should be or not be hanging on gallery walls?
Is it someone who refers to nude paintings as “topless” because they can’t look beyond Page 3 and can only project their own confirmation bias onto an artwork to ascribe obscenity and pornography to it? Don’t their own identity politics have an expiry date?
Why should art and artists that came before them be required to speak exclusively to them, on their terms, in Twitter hashtags?
Why does their own art require interference with another artist’s – is it that poor in itself?The only good outcome I see in this episode for Manchester Art Gallery, which I like very much, is the show of strength of public feeling about art and against censorship. Also that, because of it, the painting is back and the curators might now be open to learning more about the works in their care and to engaging with them and with the public’s appreciation of them in a less myopic way.
I wonder if the painting would have been returned but for the outcry.
When I was a public servant I was not allowed to put forward my own political views, rightly so. As a public gallery, MAG cannot have a political agenda, it has to be neutral. To dress this picture’s removal as art, particularly given the comments made on the blog, does not reflect the act. As well as the person who took the actions the whole management that allowed this needs to be questioned as to their impartiality. You can no longer claim to be non-political and you leave yourself vulnerable to political criticisms; it was a very aware act. When an art gallery without outside pressure suddenly voluntarily censors one of its own paintings there is something seriously wrong with its reasoning. The lessons to be learned come not from art but from history – the Nazi’s held exhibitions of what were approved paintings (e.g. Haus der Kunst, July 1937) whilst others were described as degenerate and you have similarly questioned “Hylas and the Nymphs” suitability for display.
With regard to the painting I agree with those who have criticised the paintings removal and the points they make. However Its removal, as was intended, cannot be divorced from the current political context and cannot be seperated from the debate about removal of walk-on girls which it quickly followed on from. The censoring of this picture is just a logical extension of the arguments used to ban grid girls (relevant here as many of the same arguments were used, they are models and artists use models).
The problem is that there is an ideology with a narrative that justifies this behaviour and belittles and denies as valid any different opinion and, most concerningly, is frequently derogatory of those voicing an alternative view. They are willing for others to pay the consequences of the beliefs they impose whilst demeaning and alienating those who do not accept their agenda (the impure). There cannot be a conversation, only dictation, because the narrative is absolutist.
Whatever one thinks of the issues of what grid girls do (or any other target for this narrative of which there are a number) what appalled me was the ways in which these women were criticised: they set poor examples, girls need higher aspirations, they are participating in the objectifying of womens bodies etc, i.e they are degenerate. Just as with this painting, demeaning them provided the excuse to argue for and then celebrate their censorship, the loss of their opportunities and aspirations without any recognition that they are people too, fully entitled to their equally valid beliefs and opinions – just as people viewing pictures are; just because they want and aspire to something different does not make them “expendable” (to quote from one interview) to the cause. They were an easy simplistic target to be sacrificed in response to the views of how a specific feminist narrative saw them and their roles rather than how they saw themselves and their role; this is prejudice. These same prejudices can be applied to anything where the portrayal of women does not meet this feminist narrative’s criterion – hence the case for removing “Hylas and the Nymphs”. What other paintings, what books, what films etc, do not meet their acceptability criterion – whatever that is; what individuals, what other groups of people are expendable to this narrative? Who will decide? Perhaps we could prepare a list in readiness! I did observe one supporter of the painting’s removal suggest burning it, so we are not that far off. (As an aside, I saw Naomi Campbell interviewed by Piers Morgan on Monday 5 February call herself a feminist and then be appalled by the banning of grid girls).
Whilst the removal of a painting might have been opportunistic the particular choice of “Hylas and the Nymphs” as the painting to be removed was not playful but carefully chosen as it tells the story of a man seduced by nympths. Women perceived as villains willing to lead men on does not fit into this feminist narrative and is therefore ideal for removal. That is also consistent with the reason for the other targetting of grid girls and the like and the invective they have received; they do not present the image of women that this particular feminist narrative will allow. I have watched a number of interviews where women’s behaviour has been questioned and should the same principles and legislation apply to women as for men and time and again the question is dodged or stated as being not needed; it is the same reasoning.
Though I can see its populist appeal, it concerns me that a range of serious issues (including how people feel about themselves) have been co-opted into a simplistic and stereotyping political analysis which is comforting but is also, when applied, exclusive, authoritarian, censorious, belittling and simplistic and will not solve the complex issues of equality and the treatment of women and men in society. By its political act of removing “Hylas and the Nymphs” MAG has alligned itself to this unkind and guilt-laden narrative when, as an art gallery, it should be doing the exact opposite. The key is to build people’s belief and confidence in themselves, that they have equal value no matter who they are, how they look and what they do and that they and others are entitled to be treated in the same way. Am I allowed to have that view?
I’m not an art expert, nor do I know the context of the piece. BUt the above interpretation isn’t one I share. I don’t see this in the slightest about objectifying women (although even if it were, that wouldn’t necessarily be an issue: objectifying others is a normal, although not necessarily desirable, part of the human experience). More so I see it as depicting the destructive power of human sexuality – female sexual power. And in this case, less so about a supposed male gaze, but more so the male being the victim: being lured to his doom.
To politicise this within the parameters of a intellectually adolescent narrative that has to reduce everything to victim (woman) and perpetrator (man) is just… silly, in my opinion.
The problem is, as with a lot of these issues, A) there is both a willful conflating of ought and is and B) the limits of the discussion are assumed meaning no real debate is feasible. It amounts to “objectifying women is bad and therefore objectifying women is bad” – it’s a stacked position, full of feminist assumptions that are assumed to be given whereas, in fact, they are opinions that are almost never challenged.
I have just read Boyces’ response in the Guardian.
I found it full of contempt for the nature and style of hostile reaction against her work. She might be right in some extent. Let me try to provide some explanation though. People, in general, have the tendency to loath violence and, once they become aware of a violent act against an entity that under the circumstances is helpless, they react. At times, they exaggerate in doing so, and sometimes the “offender” had some wider scheme in mind that the general audience could not grasp. Nonetheless, there isn’t any doubt in my mind that what has fueled all this frenzy against the removal was that people got the sense that some unnecessary amount of violence has been exercised. They were try to stand for, and protect the assaulted.
Debate is encourage not by removing information–in this case, taking down art–but by providing more information, more art, for all to consider, enjoy, discuss, compare. Not everyone has the same likes, dislikes, interpretations, concerns, and this is a good thing. To remove anything, anything that disturbs someone, is to stifle growth, and limit diversity.
What I have learned from the Guardian is that the decision to censor the painting was taken by gallery staff (coordinated by an artist). I have worked on a lot of community activities and some theatre productions and there are always people who disagree and argue, but not this time apparently. I ask the gallery to think carefully whether they might accidently have created a bubble where everyone agrees with each other, or perhaps a climate where people daren’t speak up. Are you in touch with the wider world?
This is probably irrelevant but last time I saw this painting my artist friend complained that Waterhouse had self censored the nipples on the nymphs. I said that nymphs were mythical creatures and perhaps they don’t have nipples. We then went for coffee to cogitate on this puzzle further. Not sure what this adds to the debate, but I’m throwing it in anyway.
The only ‘sense of embarrassment’ in this whole situation is the fact that the painting was taken off the wall by ‘the art police’. If you are going to look at current issues, look at contemporary art as a platform for discussion, not a painting done in a different era. It’s like trying to re-write history – forget it! Just get the painting back on the wall so that everyone can enjoy it again!
I wrongly thought art galleries were neutral places, like libraries or the NHS. That is their justification for public funding. I now feel ideological people have taken over Manchester Art Gallery and are starting to remove, or add toxic warnings, to art they find hostile to their own unfathomable belief system (they’re not that different from Scientologists or Jehovah’s Witnesses really).
No one has denied Hylas and the Nymphs is a popular painting, it’s only offence is failing the lefty, middle class ideology test at MAG. Reminds me of Winston Smith in ‘1984’ who spends his working life at the Ministry of Truth constantly rewriting history according to Party needs. Presumably a lot of art ends up in the basement because it doesn’t pass the PC test. We’ve only got a glimpse of what happens now because the staff have been at it so long they’d forgotten what ordinary people think. I’m sure they won’t let us see behind the curtain again.
Dear Sonia,
With genuine interest I read your article in The Guardian and found that you came across rather MIFFED at the outcry.
I find this disappointing and surprising that you seem to not understand why the general public have reacted in this way.
With all your experience and excellent work promoting art and representing other artists and their works; and in helping others to succeed in finding their own creativity, you appear to have lost your compassion and integrity to see where another person is coming from with their views.
It is great pity that you alone had not been in charge of the whole promotion. This is where the fault lies in the uprising of complaints……… Please read post number 770 point 3
The nature of having two members of gallery staff giving the impression we may never see the painting again was the start of it.
The majority of people who have written on the blog will have seen the video of the taking down of the painting and know it wasn’t done in the manner of a battle scene from Les Miserables.
They will also understand that there is not enough space in a museum to show the whole collection at one time and things are rotated.
When you work within a set environment you get used to the words and theories that are constantly thrown at you at a daily basis. One can easily forget that outside the work you are in, other people will not understand some of the jargon that you use or have the same passion.
Please refer back to the blog and start reading from 700 onwards that depict from the return of the painting……but to begin with I recommend that you read these in this order to get a feel of where others are coming from.
770…… 762 768 766 769 772 Then ask why have they got these ideas?
All the best in your final exhibition…….
Hey, person/people responsible for this. What does the barometer tell you now?
I am a feminist and I love that painting, if I came to the gallery when it was not on display I would have been mortified.That would be one of the main paintings I would love to see , along with any other of JWW works in your collection.To think that you deprived people of the opportunity to view this beautiful work because of some trite concept of a modern prformance is boring and unnecessary.Leave the masterpieces on the walls and take the performance outside.
I consider myself a feminist, but Waterhouse’s painting is a masterpiece and to censor it, making almost a joke in doing so for the sake of “conversation” is poor judgement and sets a bad precedent. Artists today do not have the privilege of the kind of education it took for Waterhouse to create that painting and thus barely anyone even tries to create such an involved narrative masterpiece depicting a classic Greek story. We are becoming more and more ignorant and therefor use excuses to denigrate such work in the name of being “hip”.
I have just heard a radio interview on the BBC website with the curator and apparently *every* painting in the Victorian gallery could have been banished to the basement. The cultural Marxists at Manchester Art Gallery condemn them all for the same offence as Hylas and the Nymphs. Exactly what that offence is I’m not sure, I don’t speak their ideological jargon. But beware, historical art is not safe in the gallery, it’s in the hands of people who admit hating it.
I am so relieved Hylass and the Nymphs are back. I enjoyed it immensely when visiting your gallery. Pictures never tell a story. They are just there. The story happens in the head of the viewer. We shouldn’t try to define which stories are relevant, offensive or unwanted. Great pieces of art create a great audience, because they touch universal aspects of the human condition they never cease to be relevant.
is the response from the gallery to say it was about prompting a debate and then not actually taking part in a debate but hoping it would all go away. ?
Why has there been no response to the many many points raised?
Can’t believe I’m suggesting this but perhaps the gallery should be asked to charge for entry? Maybe with free entry for schools/children and annual membership? Plenty of UK galleries do it. It would be one way to ensure the gallery kept in touch with the community it served. Otherwise this Waterhouse painting problem is going to grow and grow, everything is politicised these days. A gallery that needs paying visitors can’t disappear up it’s own … errr … must keep ordinary folk in mind.
And, which is worst, I suspect that you are manufacturing the profile of your dialectical opponent by what you allow in the Barometer. You want her to look passé. More on that in some leading journal soon. With the evidence of what you have censored too.
Doukas Kapantais
Research Director
Academy of Athens
Oh dear you seem to be hitting the local papers now……and they are in the same frame of mind as your Blog posts and not the Guardian…….
https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/news-opinion/decision-remove-victorian-painting-nymphs-1172766
“Challenging a Victorian fantasy”. Well, the public met that challenge with a hard smack-down.
Unfortunately any intended message about objectification, etc. fell flat in the awkward way the museum used the Waterhouse painting as a pawn. They picked on, and in a way, bullied the wrong painting. It was a testament to the paintings greatness that so many people were outraged by its removal. Hylas and the Nymphs was a superbly painted and conceived, charismatic masterpiece. Apparently it’s big sin was that the nymphs were “femme fatales”. Really? I feel sorry for anyone who has a problem with this painting for those sort of reasons. There are so many other artworks which could have chosen, that would clearly illustrate their premise better than Hylas. Ultimately the stunt came off as provocative piece of “performance art”, that completely overshadowed their message.
“Boyce’s work is all about bringing people together in different situations to see what happens.” Yes, we found out what happened all right. People got together and defended Waterhouse.
One good side effect of this stunt was that it gave a lot of awareness to Waterhouse and his art. In that respect, great job!
Attention Sonia Boyce and Clare Gannaway – I suspect you do not like Pre-Raphaelite and Victorian art. Is that right? If so, own it. Everyone has different tastes, perhaps we can have a discussion about that? Also, we are looking forward to you actually getting involved in this discussion that you prompted.
Incredibly stupid and indicative of the dumbing down of art by the greedy modern art machine!
Those who aren’t capable of producing real works of art produce “projects” like this one.
They will do anything to attract attention to themselves.
This a public art collection, not a private one. If a private gallery wanted to put 99% of it’s paintings in the basement I wouldn’t object (I’d think it was a pity, but it would be their right). But the art in MAG belongs to all of us, it isn’t the private plaything of the curators. I’m puzzled to know why the curators thought they could impose their minority-view morality on the rest of us, apparently 93% of Mancunians have a different view. If the rumours are correct it was the council that sorted this situation out (not the gallery) and ordered the painting to be rehung. Quite right, but I fear that foxes are looking after the henhouse, in which case we haven’t heard the last of this.
Well, ‘The Guardian’ has pronounced in a second leader that the removal of ‘Hylas’ was not censorship. Unusually for me, I disagree. The painting was removed because it was ideologically undesirable, it was a single painting that was removed, and not as part of a considered re-hang, and, the clincher, all the postcards in the shop were also removed. I don’t believe that the gallery had any intention of rehanging the painting but was instructed to do so by the city’
We all understand that from time to time any gallery rotates its collection but it does so as part of a considered process and is done by professional curators. The MAG website gives no information about the qualifications and professional expertise of its curators. I have managed to find out about the qualifications of Amanda Wallace by looking at LinkedIn but of no-one else. Any school or university provides this information as a matter of course. For example, if I go to http://www.tate.org.uk/about/who-we-are/ I can find out about the qualifications and expertise of the Tate’s curators. Why can we not do the same for the MAG curators? What is being hidden? I can also find out who the Tate’s trustees are.
I ask this because I think that we are taking part in a sham and I doubt the good faith of the Gallery. For something over two weeks now, this blog has attracted 801 posts, most of them thoughtful and considered. Occasionally, a commentator may refer to another’s post but for the main we have the expressions of individual views. What we do not have is a debate. The 8th February header to the blog is full of post-hoc rationalisations. It offers a series of events to encourage further debate. We are told that there will be a chaired debate (chaired by whom?) with invited speakers (selected by whom according to what criteria?) at an unspecified date. In the light of past events, I distrust this. At this point, we do not need further expression of views by the general public. What we need is the gallery to engage with us. What is required is a considered response and an engagement with the points already raised. I assume that the curators have degrees. Can they not write? This is now an international cause celebre. Assuming the proposed debate ever happens, it is not what is required. What is required is a well-thought out written response explaining the MAG’s position. I don’t think we will get it.
On the matter of lack of clarity as to who the Director of the MAG reports to and how accountability for the operation of the Gallery is secured, I will write to Sir Richard Leese, the Leader of the Manchester City Council. Others may care to join me in doing this.
If there is no room for Hylas and the Nymphs (and the like) at Manchester Art Gallery there is no room for me and my friends. We have a right to see things in the gallery that we love. I spent several minutes trying to appreciate the mask with a thermos flask sticking out the mouth. I couldn’t get anything from it, but I didn’t even dream of asking you to take it down, someone probably loves that sort of thing.
To add to my last post, I wrote to Sir Richard Leese asking for clarification and suggesting that thinking of MAG as an agent of social change was debateable. Sir Richard replied with admirable speed answering my questions. Here is his reply:” For City Council responsibilities the Director of Galleries reports to the Deputy Chief Executive with political accountability to the Executive Member for Schools, Culture, and Leisure. In response to the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph, in nineteenth century Manchester the Art Gallery was fundamentally concerned with social and political change. That is still the case”. This is very clear and I now understand the City Council’s position.
Interesting, this should be publicised more widely. Who decides what “social and political change” MAG will be agitating for? What do we do if we object to it?
In the Greek myth which this painting depicts, Hylas is the young lover of Herakles who, due to his beauty, was abducted by nymphs of the spring of Pegae. Poor old Herakles, who thought he’d been jilted, spent years trying to find his lost boy. So far from this painting being a re-entrenchment of the male gaze ‘objectifying’ women through the intermediary of the male figure, it is a scene of female desire for the male object. The generic male viewer of the painting may find pleasure at staring at their bodies, but the nakedness of the nymphs is in the service of their desire, not the boy’s. In this respect the painting goes against the stereotype of male desire. Hylas isn’t reaching out to touch the nymphs, they’re pulling him into their pond. If anything, I’d say this painting stages male fear of female desire, and particularly of Victorian manhood’s fear of women’s vaginas. It’s more than likely that Waterhouse, as a middle-class Victorian, used working-class prostitutes to sate his desires outside his marriage bed. Look at that coluster of grasping female hands around the sinuous male arm. If that doesn’t speak of the anxiety of a Victorian gentleman being presented with a brothel’s array of prostitutes for his selection I don’t know what does. Shame the curator who censored this painting didn’t know her Greek mythology, or about the sexual habits of Victorian gentlemen, or how to look at a painting.
I am not a historian but I suspect 19th century MAG’s concerns with ‘social and political change’ were more to do with widening access to museums and galleries, hi lighting poor living and working conditions, improving education for the working classes etc. I believe some of its patrons were linked to the co operative society and labour movement. Fast forward to the 21st century and we have a curator who, ’embarrassed ‘ by Victorian art seeks to banish one painting to the basement whilst planning to ‘re contextualise’ a (possible) future display according to her political beliefs. Is this how Sir Richard Leese understands the meaning of ‘social and political change’? I am far from clear what he does mean. In the interests of clarity I think he needs to explain how he interprets ‘social and political change’ with reference to MAG now. What is his view on the recent debacle?
Finally, since MAG has been so silent and has refused to engage in any ‘conversation’ I can only assume that those responsible are in total disarray and struggling to limit the damage they caused.. No doubt they hoped terms such as ‘edgy’ and ‘pushing the boundaries’ (the usual art speak) would have been used to describe this stunt instead of which, words such as ‘stupidity’.and worse abound.
What I don’t understand is why Clare Gannaway, a curator of contemporary art at MAG, was able to facilitate the removal of a painting from the Pre-Raphaelite gallery. It is clear, from interviews she has given, that she feels a great antipathy for these works. It makes one wonder how safe these paintings are in the custodianship of MAG.
Interesting debate, freedom from censorship vs. the freedom of the gallery to express it’s politics. But I’m not sure I would bequeath an art work to a public gallery, with Northampton Art Gallery and Bolton Council selling art and Manchester banning it.
If we start to “correct” the past in every possible way due to “modern” thinking, we start to annihilate our history. What we are today, we are because of our past, our ancestors, our history. Sometimes, political correctness simply is overrated. To quote an artist from the 20th century: „Who does not honour the past, will lose the future. Who destroys his roots, cannot grow.“ (Hundertwasser)
I’m happy the Waterhouse is back on the wall where it belongs!
I’m not going to a add anything – since most commentators are critical of the original decision, and have said what I would’ve wanted to say – I just want to say thank-you to so many of the posters of comments for making so much sense. It seems the entire board and management of MAG ought to resign and give the management of the gallery to these posters. I never gave much creedence to “the wisdom of crowds”. These posts might even change my mind
I disagree with the removal of the Waterhouse painting. To hide the painting is censorship, not a way to promote the debate and it’s a lack of respect towards people which go to the Art Gallery, specially those ones from other countries. I am a professor of History in Chile, South America: suppose I would spend my money that I would have been saving, in order to go to Manchester and England, on February, during my vacation period, to see Waterhouse paintings and I discover that someone has removed it “to encourage debate”. You can’t encourage debate removing paintings, specially in this case. There are a lot of much more provocative, offensive and disgusting paintings in the world that remain in their Galleries and if someone would propose to hide them for a while “to encourage debate”, certainly people like Ms. Boyce and Ms. Gannaway would protest. The reasons to hide Waterhouse painting have been poorly explained and justified.
Many thanks to the people that has written a lot of wise comments above.
A footnote:
From 23 February, MAG is presenting a brand new retrospective of paintings by Annie Swynnerton, hailed by them as a feminist artist.
From the video on the gallery website, I see that three paintings in the exhibition – Mater Triumphalis, Montagna Mia, and Cupid and Psyche – feature “topless women”. Won’t this just add to Ms Gannaway’s “embarrassment”?
Oh, and Annie Swynnerton also painted “Oceanid”, featuring a topless water nymph; but that’s safely on display in Bradford – phew!
[…] entbehrte für eine Weile den menschlichen (männlichen?) Blick. Die Aktion war unter anderem eine Re-Aktion auf die #metoo-Debatte. Derweil hängt die Arbeit […]
[…] Manchester art gallery’s act of removing the Waterhouse painting flooded the news and art magazines during last week. The seemingly feminist act is justified with […]