Artist Kirsha Kaechele arrived at the Tasmania courtroom alongside 25 women dressed in navy business attire, all of whom made a show of reading feminist texts in the courtroom.

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.

  • @[email protected]English
    9•9 months ago

    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.

    2 things:

    1. Because men totally never feel left out or others in their lives, this is the only place they’ll ever feel that. Fucking garbage excuse for sexism.

    2. It’s not just the artists art she’s locking behind this sexist wall, which is the exact dick move that she’s butthurt about from checks notes 60 years ago at this museum. If she was depriving men of her own art that’s one thing, but the article clearly states original Picasso’s are in the room.

    It’s incredibly fucking dickheaded to hide another, frankly more popular and actually cared about, artists work from people due to something they can’t control. I get that’s the point she’s making, but it doesn’t teach men something they don’t already know: it just makes her the asshole, big-time. It almost certainly will convince more people online who hear about this that her point is total bullshit and she’s some “stupid man hating count” or something, too, which is nice

    • RedFoxOPEnglish
      -8•9 months ago

      I initially had some of these thoughts, reflection changed my mind a bit. I’m not trying to change yours, but I think some people will benefit from this.

      I am not much into art and most of it is lost on me, but the more I considered the feeling I had thinking about the restriction, the more I appreciated the fact that she can cause affects across without boundaries just by the stunt.

      This would probably be less cool if it wasn’t intended to be about a civil rights awareness thing. There’s a limit for me on how far you can go before the justification isn’t enough for the negative affects of the action, but I don’t think anyone will really be hurt by this exhibit.

      • @[email protected]English
        0•9 months ago

        Yes, I believe that’s the point. This other guy is acting like she walked up to him and kicked him square in the nuts. He’s pissed about an exhibit he will never visit, in a country he has probably never been to.

        Art is a visual, audio, or performance medium that is intended to make you feel an emotion. This art works really well at eliciting the correct emotions: anger and exclusion because of sexism. Lots of people actually have their bodies forcing the emotion on them.

        This reminds me of another piece of art: a crank that you turn on a machine so pennies pop out. It’s tuned so that it releases pennies at the rate of minimum wage (one penny every 5 seconds). You can keep the pennies.

        When people first encounter it, they experience a little bit of joy at the free money. They crank out a few pennies. Then they experience dissatisfaction when they realize how long you have to crank it to get any real money. It’s a great way to teach people who have never worked for minimum wage how crappy it is.

        • RedFoxOPEnglish
          2•9 months ago

          mentioned penny exhibit

          Wow, that’s a good one, thanks for the mention.

        • @muntedcrocodileEnglish
          -1•9 months ago

          You have a choice on if you want to engage in art u dont have to look at something if u dont want. Denying someone access to work that someone else wants seen who does not support your mission/application is taking away your right to consent. I dont take away ur ability to consent then forcefully make you engage with my artwork.