[HN Gopher] The Theft of a Magritte
___________________________________________________________________
The Theft of a Magritte
Author : onepossibility
Score : 33 points
Date : 2021-06-02 06:50 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vanityfair.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vanityfair.com)
| ravenstine wrote:
| I think that's the least Magritte Magritte painting I've ever
| seen!
| _emacsomancer_ wrote:
| If it had been one of the more Magritte Magrittes the thieves
| could have easily pulled it off just by putting up a sign that
| read "This is not a heist".
|
| [edit: insert missing 'been']
| greatgib wrote:
| Omg, this article is so long, useless and boring that I can't
| manage to read it to the end!
|
| The subject in itself is interesting, and there could probably
| have been a story of around 50 lines to describe the case and its
| resolution.
|
| But, here, the author is professionally trying to waste your time
| with hundreds of useless paragraph of blabla that might have been
| generated automatically by an AI.
|
| For exemple who cares that the stolen art division of the Belgian
| police changed its name 3 times for obvious non original names?
| Or that the lead investigator has a wine yard and like to offer
| wine to his friends and colleagues...
| WalterGR wrote:
| Actual title: "Did Paying a Ransom for a Stolen Magritte Painting
| Inadvertently Fund Terrorism?"
|
| Also, contains a painting of a woman with bare breasts above-the-
| fold. People sometimes mark such submissions with the letters
| "NSFW".
| Agentlien wrote:
| Title aside, this is an article about the theft of a famous
| painting and the opening contains an image of said painting.
|
| Are many workplaces really so strict or people so embarrassed
| about nudity that being caught reading an article with an image
| of tastefully painted nudity is an issue?
| sixothree wrote:
| You could pretend the reality some people live is not true.
| Agentlien wrote:
| Let me be clear: I am not claiming what others experience
| is not real. Simply saying that it's far enough from what
| I've experienced in my corner of the world, that I find it
| surprising.
| haliskerbas wrote:
| Yes, being labeled a creep at work risks your entire
| livelihood.
| m_st wrote:
| This is a picture of art. Not a nude web site. If I would
| be considered "a creep" for reading this, then I would
| consider changing employer. Or not be reading articles on
| the internet while working.
| elliekelly wrote:
| _Ceci n'est pas "a creep"._ The treachery of images of
| women's breasts on the internet.
| mcherm wrote:
| > Are many workplaces really so strict or people so
| embarrassed about nudity that being caught reading an article
| with an image of tastefully painted nudity is an issue?
|
| Yes. Many are. Labeling thing with "NSFW" is a polite step we
| can take to make it easier for those whose workplaces DO have
| that concern. I have previously worked in a high school and
| at a bank -- both would have had this concern; for the former
| it would have been a serious offense.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>for the former it would have been a serious offense
|
| Looking at ART would be a serious offence at a high
| school???? Are the history/art books you use at that school
| also censored?
|
| I mean, sure, someone might react to it if they only saw
| the painting briefly flash on the screen, but surely any
| sort of misundersstanding could be explaineed in a grand
| total of 10 seconds of conversation.
| danaris wrote:
| At some high schools, books with art of that type would
| have been strictly prohibited in the libraries.
|
| Even at others, looking at art in a book about art, that
| happens to have naked ladies pictured, would be seen as
| completely different (and more obviously scholarly) than
| looking at naked ladies, whoever originally painted them,
| on the computer. Once it's on the computer, it's just
| Internet Porn.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>At some high schools, books with art of that type would
| have been strictly prohibited in the libraries.
|
| What an awful, awful place to live that must be.
|
| >>Once it's on the computer, it's just Internet Porn.
|
| Is that like a written rule somewhere? Surely it could be
| explained to a person with like, 2 functional brain cells
| that an article about art will have a picture of said art
| included.
| danaris wrote:
| > What an awful, awful place to live that must be.
|
| Welcome to the fundamentalist theocratic Christian hell
| that is (parts of) America.
|
| > Is that like a written rule somewhere? Surely it could
| be explained to a person with like, 2 functional brain
| cells that an article about art will have a picture of
| said art included.
|
| While I have personally been fortunate enough not to fall
| afoul of such people, I have absolutely heard from people
| who had to deal with librarians or other school
| administrator types who, whether or not they had 2
| functional brain cells in other contexts, were absolutely
| inflexible in their treatment of students on computers.
|
| Naturally, this would've been back in the '90s, so having
| computers at all was a fairly new thing, and computers
| with Internet access were (for a public school library)
| positively bleeding edge. But students doing anything on
| computers other than very obviously typing papers were,
| at best, Goofing Around With School Resources, and, if
| there was anything on the screen that might _remotely_
| resemble porn....frankly, that could have been enough in
| many places in my youth to get a student expelled,
| without the possibility of appeal. Today, such a reaction
| would be much less common, but I would not be at all
| shocked if there were places in the Bible Belt where it
| was still totally possible.
| Agentlien wrote:
| Out of curiosity, can I ask in which part of the world
| these were located?
|
| The fact that it would have been a serious concern is
| itself concerning in my eyes. The art of Magritte is
| something I would expect and hope would be showcased in
| school, not frowned upon.
| m_st wrote:
| So we're lucky it's not a picture of David by Michelangelo?
| Would this also be NSFW?
|
| I get your point. But this is yesteryear thinking, no?
|
| And what is the risk of someone opening an article "The Theft
| of a Magritte" during - you know - actual work time? ;-)
| etrautmann wrote:
| Well, as Magritte painted comparably few nudes, my prior
| would not be to assume it's NSFW.
|
| That being said, I'd hope we could collectively evolve away
| from general prudishness when it comes to nudity, especially
| in a context like paintings.
| klyrs wrote:
| Funny that you say "evolve". For many of us, showing that
| off in the office would result in a considerable loss of
| fitness...
| Ansil849 wrote:
| When someone quickly walks by your desk, unless they happen
| to be a really big surrealist connoisseur, their first
| thought will not be 'oh, they're looking up Magritte's
| Olympia, how lovely'. The first thought of a casual co-worker
| would be 'oh, they're looking at nudity'. Yes, you can
| subsequently explain the issue during your meeting with HR,
| at which point you'll still be told to not view things that
| can be misinterpreted.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| This is only true for the US.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Tbf, a reasonable proportion of this site's readers must
| be in the US. In fact, given the assumptions made to that
| effect that I see on here fairly often, it must be a
| pretty high proportion.
| splithalf wrote:
| Truly curious, is there no concept of sexual harassment
| in Europe? Maybe Europeans are less pervy than Americans,
| like how they don't have alcoholism or fat people?
| drumttocs8 wrote:
| Yes, Magritte's portrait of his wife is definitely more
| overtly erotic than Michelangelo's David. I think you could
| make that case for most of the surrealists in general!
| elliekelly wrote:
| What's erotic about it? Her nipples? The David depicts
| nipples _and_ genitals and yet isn't considered erotic.
| quesera wrote:
| The most obvious difference is color. White marble is
| "clearly" "art". Flesh-colored paint is closer to "real",
| so might be ambiguous if you're sensitive to that sort of
| thing.
|
| Either that, or it's the lusty way she is regarding the
| conch shell. Hey, people are into stranger things!
| elliekelly wrote:
| I don't think flesh colored paint is the obvious
| difference driving the comments for a NSFW tag or else HN
| would consider the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel "erotic"
| and equally deserving of the label. I think the obvious
| difference is the gender of the person whose nipples are
| depicted and the different standards to which women are
| held.
| quesera wrote:
| Agreed: there is clearly a double-standard regarding
| subject torso nudity in the US, but I don't think that's
| the difference in the example under discussion (Olympia
| vs David).
|
| For the NSFW issue (i.e. coworker glanced and reacted
| badly to what you were viewing), this is just a matter of
| realism, plus a high sensitivity to what might offend
| other people and women in particular.
|
| But I also don't think it's entirely about the "different
| standards to which women are held", which I perceive you
| to mean _female-as-subject_. In some ways it 's more
| about _male-as-viewer_ :
|
| As sibling comment points out, when a male views a nude
| female, it is frequently assumed to be lecherous, or at
| the very least have prurient motivations.
|
| When a female views a nude male (or female), it is
| assumed to be incidental, art, or accident.
|
| This is also a double-standard, but honestly it cuts both
| ways.
| Veen wrote:
| Women are indeed held to different standards. For
| example, a woman viewing this image at work is unlikely
| to get in trouble for it. A man's motivations for looking
| at it are more likely to be questioned and judged, which
| is why they have to be more careful about any content
| that could be considered NSFW.
|
| The same goes for Michelangelo's David. Because there is
| a default assumption of heterosexuality (and gay men are
| not considered a threat by a protected group), David is
| not going to arouse suspicion, no matter who is viewing
| it. Female nudes are a different matter, not because
| nudity in art is judged differently by the subject's
| gender, but because the viewer is judged differently
| because of their gender.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| That's when you know we are on a US centric side, for nowhere
| in Europe this would be an issue (more likely that you read
| news articles instead of working :-) ). Plenty of schools with
| nude statues or paintings, certainly in art and history
| classes; biology books will also show naked people - when I was
| in school even both adults and children with visible genitals,
| which I guess would give you a 'possession of pornographic
| images of a minor' charge in the US.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-02 23:02 UTC)