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.

  • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    To be fair, there’s a difference between the lounge itself being the exhibit, vs restricting some of Picasso’s pieces

    • Gloomy@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why? Woman habe been restriced from artwork (and jobs, voting rights,…) for generations.

      If the point is to give male persons the possibility to feal this exclusion, then it makes sense to exclude something from them that they actually would like to see.

    • Zahille7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Once I read that the lounge and reaction to it is supposed to be the art itself, it kinda made sense. In a weird way, but it still kinda makes sense.