Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist’s views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

  • jeffw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Performance art is wild, often misunderstood. The entire point is to outrage men and he took the bait lol. The artist is clearly getting off on this, staging shit in even more locations because of the lawsuit.

      • Neato@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Men like this always deliberately misunderstand because they are addicted to outrage and misogyny.

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Then explain why exactly is this not sexist? A good litmus test for such things is to replace the group in question with Jews. If it sounds antisemitic, you might have an *ism going on.

          So let’s do that “Jew sued art gallery for being denied entry in a non-jew only exhibition”. Sounds pretty antisemitic, right?

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            It is sexist. That’s the point of the exhibit. The exclusion is the point.

            I believe the artist explained it in court by saying that it allows men to feel the exclusion that women feel regularly. Many professions, clubs, and networking spaces were closed to women until very recently.

            If men feel excluded from the exhibit, they are understanding how women feel being excluded from other spaces. The men are experiencing the art exactly how the artist intends.

            And no you can’t just replace a word with “jew” as a good litmus test. If I replace “hamburgers” in the sentence “put some hamburgers on the barbecue”, it would sound insane. But it’s actually a normal sentence.

            Actually, you could make a good copy of this exhibition by making it “Jewish people only”. Then everyone else would understand that exclusion.

            • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              The key difference is that a) the sexism criticized by the artist is already illegal and b) (this might be a revelation for some people) hamburgers are not people, Jews are people.

              Even if you did a Jews only club, that would be illegal - and rightly so.