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.

  • RedFox@infosec.pubOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    When I first read it, the thought that came to mind was how stupid it is in this age to do anything that is restricted by gender when the rest of the world is trying to eliminate that.

    Once I read the part about the feelings, emotion, and experience the restriction brought was the actual art and not just the paintings, that’s when I thought it was clever. The definition of art seems to be ambiguous now, but I understand what she’s trying to to do and it’s still a clever in that it illicits an effect whether you wanted to visit the museum or not.

    I think people say they understand or empathize, but don’t really know what it means in a specific context until they experience it IMO.