Got it!

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website More info

Manchester Art Gallery

Presenting the female body: Challenging a Victorian fantasy

We have left a temporary space in Gallery 10 in place of Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse to prompt conversation about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection.

How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?

Here are some of the ideas we have been talking about so far. What do you think?

This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!

The gallery exists in a world full of intertwined issues of gender, race, sexuality and class which affect us all. How could artworks speak in more contemporary, relevant ways?

What other stories could these artworks and their characters tell? What other themes would be interesting to explore in the gallery?

The act of taking down this painting was part of a group gallery takeover that took place during the evening of 26 January 2018. People from the gallery team and people associated with the gallery took part. The takeover was filmed and is part of an exhibition by Sonia Boyce, 23 March to 2 September 2018.

To be continued…

Get involved in the conversation

Add your thoughts using #MAGSoniaBoyce.

152 responses to “Presenting the female body: Challenging a Victorian fantasy”

  1. Kenni Lowe says:

    I accept there are more works in the collection than space to display. I am worried we don’t start to only display “acceptable”.

  2. Michael Browne says:

    A dangerous precedent is set for other artworks. The emergence of P.C. censorship, blurred into Law. Deciding what history to hide, and what people should know, and what artist’s can create. Even games have rules, of exclusion and inclusion.

  3. Joan Davies says:

    Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse is a fascinating work, with depth. It promotes questions among a modern audience, not least of which is how it was viewed by its contemporary audience, and even who were its contemporary audiences. Were galleries welcoming to women? Could women be seen to be viewing these images and what was their effect on women artists and women in general? The parallels between the presentation of young almost identical women with idealised bodies and today’s debate about catwalk models and the impact on self-image are clear too. But I’ve discussed these issues in the past, prompted in part by viewing this particular painting. I’m hoping we’ll get a chance to debate this off-line, at an open event.

  4. Geli Berg says:

    I know this move is to promote discussion, but if we impose censorship in the arts, I would find that world truly terrifying. The role of art is to encourage debate.

    • Martin Grimes says:

      We agree, censorship is not the answer. Think of this move as a provocation, let’s see what new thinking we can generate through it. The questions Joan raises above need further exploration if we are to deeply understand what a work like this means, or does, in 2018.

  5. And I thought po-faced, politically-correct virtue-signalling had exhausted itself by the 1990s. Sure, those paintings represent long-outmoded ways of seeing, but one would have thought that was pretty obvious to anyone looking now, and a good reason to keep them as a lesson from history. Trite PC gestures are an insult to the intelligence of your audience, but more worryingly, this is born out of the same impulse as book burning.

  6. Karl Coppack says:

    I’ve been a member of various photography groups on Facebook where every other image is of a mostly naked woman provocatively posed. I also believe our society can be too ‘old fashioned’ regarding nakedness and it’s unhealthy for us not to see normal body’s whilst we are drip fed images of models, often enhanced using image software. I believe art work like the painting removed from the gallery temporarily tended to show women’s body more naturally and I always felt this was a positive thing compared to a lot of modern images of women.

  7. […] 2018. Presenting the female body: Challenging a Victorian fantasy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://manchesterartgallery.org/blog/presenting-the-female-body-challenging-a-victorian-fantasy/. [Accessed 28 January […]

  8. John says:

    Instead of trying to ignore history, why not focus on positive portrayal of women (and men) relative to our modern values. Why not use such artists as Sylvia Sleigh (“At the Turkish Baths”) to present an counter-offering?

  9. Having an art and design background and a career in the fashion industry spanning two decades, I have always had a love for art. From Robert Mapplethorpe at the Hayward Gallery to Yayoi Kusama at the National Gallery in Singapore, I have visited numerous exhibitions around the world where censorship has never been an issue. There have been exhibitions I have liked and some that were questionable.

    Art, at its essence, can be controversial, exposing us to all kinds of debatable questions. It opens us up to new perspectives and enlightens us, regardless of whether we agree with it or not. It is a history lesson to remind us of where we were in terms of thought and how far we have come. Ever since I was introduced to the Pre-Raphaelites, John William Waterhouse has been a favourite of mine. Having lost my husband four years ago to brain cancer, I found solace in three of his works, “Boreas”, “The Lady of Shallot” and “Hylas and the Nymphs”. Waterhouse’s paintings not only express an incredible artistic temperament, but he is a master at emotional storytelling within an ethereal world.

    For years, I have been living in London and thinking how much I would love to see “Hylas and the Nymphs” at least once in my lifetime. Well, I finally got the opportunity to go to the Manchester Art Gallery only to be told the painting was removed on Friday 26th January as some part of feminist installation relating to the representation of the female body. I cannot express how devastated I am, not only to miss out on seeing the painting but to be told that it may never be exhibited again.

    Correct me if I am wrong but do we not live in a liberal and civilised society where the job of the curator is to enlighten, not to impose their own personal beliefs on others and censor art at their will? Why would you impose your own beliefs on others? To morally dictate to others what we can or cannot see? Censorship like this puts you in league with restrictive regimes, both current and historical. Shall we start destroying everything that offends us and end up living in “Fahrenheit 451” or “The Handmaid’s Tale”? We ridicule the past for banning “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” and the future will ridicule us for the amount of disrespect we have demonstrated for our history and heritage.

    The removal of “Hylas and the Nymphs” from the Manchester Art Gallery is feminist extremism at its worst and I am truly ashamed to call myself a feminist. I want to ask all of those who supported this reprehensible act of censorship: are we so weak minded as women or insecure about our own femininity to be so easily offended by freedom of artistic expression? It is a cheap gimmick and a publicity stunt at best, by an unknown artist who truly has not experienced what it is to live in a country that restricts your rights because of your gender.

    To quote “The Handmaid’s Tale” for all the Serena Joy’s of this world; the very women who misguidedly impose their own beliefs on others and manufacture a whole new form of oppression… “A rat in a maze is free to go anywhere, as long as it stays inside the maze.”

    Please sign the petition to return Hylas and the Nymphs on public display at the Manchester Art Gallery: https://www.causes.com/profiles/189447564/campaigns

  10. Emma Marigliano says:

    Instead of enlisting Gallery staff and people ‘connected with the Gallery’ why not invite an eclectic and representative group from the public to ‘remove’ a selection from the gallery, ask they why and then throw this out for discussion.But if you want relevance in the 21st century, surely relevance to Galleries and Museums is what brings people in or, more importantly, what keeps them out?

  11. Clare Gannaway says:

    As one of the people at the gallery who’s been involved in the conversations about this, and was at the event on Friday night, I really want to express how this is not about ‘censorship’. It’s about challenging the outdated and damaging stories this whole part of the gallery is still telling through the contextualising and interpretation of collection displays.
    The area of the gallery which included Hylas and the Nymphs hasn’t changed for a VERY long time and still tells a very particular story about the bodies on display. We think that we can do better than this and the taking down of the painting is a playful way to open up a discussion about this whole gallery, the collection and the way that artworks speak to us through the way they are interpreted and put into context.
    We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption. Shouldn’t we be challenging this instead of perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist? The gallery doesn’t exist in a bubble and these things are connected, surely?
    Nobody is denying those views and ideas have existed in the past; that’s not the point. And nobody is dictating which works of art people can love or not. It’s about challenging those ideas from a contemporary perspective and being critically engaged in political debates about history AND the present. Telling different, relevant stories and acknowledging that views of history change.
    The comments so far have been fascinating to read. We will make changes to those gallery spaces as soon as possible, as we feel this is vitally important. But we want to be open about it and have conversation about how we do this, and that’s what the act of taking down the painting temporarily was about. There’s no book burning going on here!

    • Sue Grimditch says:

      So you agree this was a managerial decision and not a takeover by the people of a publicly owned gallery. As for your cheap shot connection to the Presidents Club, jumping and bandwagon spring to mind. Is the ‘temporary space’ to be filled with another painting? Is Hylas and the Nymphs a temporary or permanent removal?

    • I wrote a thesis on the representation of women in James Bond films… What makes the 21st century so self-righteous over the Victorians? How about we look at how pornography has evolved… I don’t think the Victorians will take to kindly to the demise of our moral values. There’s nothing playful about taking the painting down. That would imply there was something “fun” about it. FYI I’m not having fun. Having this pointless conversation with someone who already has a forgone conclusion isn’t fun… What’s to discuss if all we’re staring at is a blank wall with post its illustrating the sparking of a frenzied witch hunt… How about we castrate every heterosexual man for having a sexual fantasy about a woman… maybe that would be fun!

    • Ettore says:

      The explanation provided by the Manchester Art Gallery is heavily sugar-coated. It’s easy to say: “We have done that to promote debate”. Promoting debate entails to show MORE, not less.
      The curators of an art gallery are the custodians of the art pieces, not their owners. Removing an artwork from the public’s gaze in favour of another one (which I have to say is quite lame) under the pretext of promoting debate is a very dangerous path to walk.
      I’m surprised how the gallery’s curators fail to see this, and just go along with the “promoting debate” narrative by hiding/removing a piece of art that some self-righteous minds consider culturally outdated.

    • shaun says:

      With respect Clare, I don’t find the removing of the painting ‘playful’. Trying to link a work of art to the President Club is, at best, a daft stunt. This is censorship pure and simple. Removing a painting for little more than a naive and ill advised attempt to appear edgy has not opened up debate, merely annoyed loyal patrons who love your gallery and the works of art within.

      • Ray says:

        Clare,

        1. The ‘nymphs’ of classical mythology are neither passive nor wanton. That is your misunderstanding. The nymphs are nature spirits governed by the fiercely independent Artemis/Diana. Remember the story of the hunter Actaeon turned into a stage and ripped apart by Artemis’s hounds?

        2. You ignore the place of the idealised body in classical thought. Usually it is the male body and indeed, a proper understanding of the era would include the romanticised nudes of the young Hylas.

        3. It is your job to understand art history and to explain it to the public.

    • Samuel Matthews says:

      Do you really think anybody is buying this mendacious hogwash? We all see what’s going on in our society right now, with this burgeoning culture of censorious neo-puritanism. You’re not burning books… yet. You’re just burying them out of sight and out of mind, while you dictate what “story” people are allowed to experience. The irony of bemoaning “Victorian” attitudes, while concealing works of art as if they’ve fallen foul of Victorian obscenity laws, is simply laughable.

    • Bernd Bausch says:

      How can you challenge something if you don’t see it? Are you going to look at an empty wall and discuss the painting that used to hang there? Makes me think of Chomeini issuing a death sentence for Rushdie without having read the Satanic Verses (not that reading the book would have justified his fatwa, but that’s not my point).

    • terje simonsen says:

      For all its professed good intentions, such a move to challenge the ‘damaging stories’ has a quite disturbing resemblance in the interwar period’s removal from galleries of ‘entartete Kunst’—also with professed good intentions. And as we know: The road to Hell is paved with such…..

    • Chris Rae says:

      “I really want to express how this is not about ‘censorship” – sorry but removing a painting so people can’t see it is censorship, I think that is clear to everyone. As a provocation it’s obviously effective in stimulating in a conversation, but I see most of the responses here are negative so it’s probably a counter-productive tactic – you’re just offending and annoying people rather than recruiting them to your cause. Also this painting seems a bizarre choice to support current concerns about harassment of women/MeToo etc since it is Hylas who is abducted by the nymphs – ie he is the victim here.

    • Steve Hanscomb says:

      Hello Clare. Please stop this nonsense and put the painting back. If you want to start a conversation, a well written introduction to the gallery, visible when you walk in, or a postscript as you leave can do this. A blank wall filled with post it notes is just a sure fire way to anger most free thinking people and involve those who simply want a new excuse to rail against the ‘liberal elite’. Is this the conversation you want? You have made a mistake in removing the painting, please return it and let this all die down. There are far better ways to help with the Me Too campaign than blatant censorship.

    • Ailsa Boyd says:

      I do not think that removing a work of art and its reproductions is the most fruitful way of provoking a discussion of what it shows – it just demonstrates censorship. A discussion can only be had with the evidence in front of you. As an art historian/museum professional, I feel that this was the wrong way in which to stimulate this discussion. The ‘playful’ way in which Sonia Boyce interacted with this work does not seem to have translated into the discussion on this page, or in the wider media/social media, which has been very angry. Nor should a ‘playful’ approach be taken towards the debates surrounding #metoo which must form a backdrop to this, the exposure of the consequences of patriarchal power. Removal of the painting reduces and closes down discussion, rather than opening it up to a consideration of art in its historical context.

  12. ANON says:

    If it’s “temporary”, this implies that it will be going back up on a given date. If not, then it is misleading and arguably disingenuous to use that word.

  13. The ways of seeing represented in this painting and others like it have been challenged already, for the last forty plus years, by many well known and not so well known artists. Unless you suffer from amnesia or live under a stone the argument has already been made, accepted and disseminated. This piece of banal gesture politics looks like the efforts of an excitable undergraduate, who’s just seen Schneeman, Wilke and the rest for the first time and thinks all this is radical and new. I thought the contemporary perspective was an informed and grown-up one, and that we were in a pluralist era in which we can see paintings like this for what they are. It really does not need some vacuous gesture to make the issues this painting throws up visible to any thinking person, and the condescension that says WE have found it necessary to remove this from YOUR sight to teach you something is breathtaking.

  14. Joan Davies says:

    Clare Gannaway says “We’d like this gallery to tell a different story in 2018, rather than being about the ‘Pursuit of Beauty’ with a binary tale about how women are either femmes fatale or passive bodies for male consumption. Shouldn’t we be challenging this instead of perpetuating views which result in things like the President’s Club being able to exist? ”
    It’s MAG that chose to to name a Gallery ‘ Pursuit of Beauty’ and place the painting there, rather than the Pre-Raphaelite Gallery 7, so perhaps it’s MAG’s gallery themes which could be discussed.

    Additionally I’m unconvinced by the blog statement ‘The act of taking down this painting was part of a group gallery takeover that took place during the evening of 26 January 2018. People from the gallery team and people associated with the gallery took part.’ If the group was the gallery team and associates how was this a ‘takeover’ as opposed to a managerial decision? I’m wondering whether the language has been chosen to give the event an edge which isn’t truly justified.

    • Clare Gannaway says:

      Joan, I completely agree with you that the gallery’s themes need addressing and challenging. That’s kind of the point and it’s amazing it hasn’t been done sooner, really.

  15. Ettore says:

    …and this was when the Manchester Art Gallery became a circus.

  16. Michael Browne says:

    An original intention… Can have far more ‘unintentionall’, multiple far-reaching effects and consequences, than you realise.
    Negative ‘public’ actions will automatically generate negative public responses. Your in danger of dividing and reducing the demographics of your visitors, instead of increasing them.
    You have to take a holistic approach instead of an overall ‘replacement’ approach. Vetting of ‘any’ artistic integrity is wrong. Whether is a man who wishes to pose as a fine work of art, or a man who wished to paint a woman as/within a fine work of art.
    All tastes within the law have equal validity. And within this, the public will remind you that ‘quality/virtuosity’ is regarded very highly.
    It’s noticeable that the wall space for historical art is steadily shrinking year by year. And the historic gallery is turning into a ‘Tate Modern’. One at the expense of the other!
    Create public themed + counter-themed events/shows, but don’t remove popular history from its own territory.

    The public challenges you to produce more imaginative, integrated, themes, instead of removing widely popular artworks.

    Play fair 🙂

  17. Sue says:

    A painting like Hylas and the Nymphs teaches people the Greek Myths. Your interpretation of the painting could encourage people to read the Greek Myths and learn for themselves. They would find that Hylas was gay, in a relationship with Heracles, and the nymphs, far from just being passively beautiful, were in fact abducting him for their own ends. It is far from a stuffy, prudish story!

  18. Ginny Ann Weinberger says:

    I have flown across the ocean to visit this beautiful painting. Have never, ever, viewed it as “bodies”.
    How very disappointing that the museum, known for its rich collection of PreRaphaelite art, chooses to politicize it.
    And if you must do so, why not pick on de Kooning’s women instead?

  19. Claire L says:

    There is a simple solution.
    If the Manchester Art Gallery wish to take part in a social experiment perhaps they should just lend John William Waterhouse’s masterpiece to another gallery, for example the Walker in Liverpool.
    That would mean that those of us who wish to view it could do so at our leisure, and those who don’t, don’t have to.
    It would be interesting to know who actually owns the painting and on what terms it was entrusted to its current home. Is the gallery now in breach of contract?
    Do what you like with your social experiments but don’t inflict your narrow views on those who wish to see this beautiful painting, and who may have limited time in which to view it.
    This is quite outrageous and heavy handed in my opinion, and shows an extreme amount of arrogance, particularly when those responsible try to justify their actions.

  20. Ettore says:

    The political correctness’ madness has reached out to the domain of the arts, starting to censor masterpieces that some gallery curators deem not in line with today’s range of acceptable discourse.

    Let’s do ourselves (and the generations to come) a favour by promoting freedom of expression in the arts and in public speech by signing this petition.

    https://www.causes.com/campaigns/117267-petition-the-return-of-hylas-and-the-nymphs-by-waterhouse

  21. Brian Young says:

    Another example of historical (hysterical) revisionism by those who seem only able to see the prurient in works of art to the exclusion of the beauty.

  22. Patrick Taylor says:

    What do I think? I think the move is outrageous, and in Manchester where I thought there was quite a good art gallery. In fact it makes me so angry I can’t think straight enough just now to explain why (although it should be obvious when looking at such a harmless painting). Anyone can see it online anyway.

  23. Alex Jupp says:

    All i want to know is what will happen to paintings like this if other galleries in the U.K decide to follow this trend? if your planing on putting in storage forever i suggest to give it/ sell it to someone who will put it on public display.

    Art can offend anyone, if you go down this path you’ll end up with an empty gallery.

  24. Leo Yellow says:

    The Feminist Marxists behind this disgusting act need to be removed from their jobs.
    What’s next?
    Destroying statues with pick axes like Islamic State ?

    Are you trying to appease the rabid feminists or the Moslems ?

    This country is circling the drain thanks to political correctness and cultural Marxism.

  25. Chris Muir says:

    Art is not for conforming to the mode of the day. It is for challenging the conventions of said mode.

  26. J. Ennis says:

    This is quite definitely censorship. Also a reinterpretation of the painting to fit with the zeitgeist. Does every naked female depicted in art now get considered for a politically correct cover-up? Perhaps Christo can be asked to wrap-up all nudity in art as a new proposal?

  27. Steve says:

    Jump on a bandwagon, why not? Or better still why?

  28. This is an unreflected act of violent homophobia, as a young man growing up gay in a once hostile Manchester it was a way out of the straight world. Was it in the Queens Park collection? If so was that not a bequest with terms?

  29. Michael Wyvill says:

    May I suggest another section to your web site – “What’s Not On” – then maybe people can plan their visits around these publicity stunts and actually see the paintings? Sigh.
    People come to art galleries to see the paintings – not to see the remains of a ‘takeover’. Please do this via another forum that doesn’t impact the visiting public.

  30. Simon says:

    Removal of this painting is not quite on a par with the wholesale destruction of ancient monuments in the Middle East by religious extremists.

    But it’s probably only a matter of degree.

  31. Craig says:

    As we move on our linear way through time we all gain an understanding of the context in which items were created and this understanding helps shape our thoughts and actions in the present, selectively censoring/hiding away the past in darkened rooms does nothing to promote growth. Hide nothing discuss all.

  32. Jeffrey Wood says:

    Shame on you for taking down this painting. I suspect you did this to gain publicity but you are flirting with a disgusting ideology. What’s next, are the texts of ancient Greece to be taken off the bookstore shelves because women did not hold a place in the senate? Sickening act of despicable post modern cultural defilement.

  33. Nathalie says:

    Ridiculous act to remove this pre-Raphaelite painting from the gallery +even the postcards on sale (really!). Too much thought process from the curator and how pathetic really to say it’s not censorship and call it a space for debate.

  34. Simon Howles says:

    “This gallery presents the female body as either a ‘passive decorative form’ or a ‘femme fatale’. Let’s challenge this Victorian fantasy!”

    Let’s challenge this 21st Century assumption first. I fundamentally disagree with the stated premise, which is an imposition from one individual at the expense of other more nuanced opinions. It reeks of new puritanism and has no place in art unless one has a fetish for armbands and uniforms.

  35. Frederick Blythe says:

    “What other themes would be interesting to explore in the gallery?”

    Those dogs playing pool are pretty good paintings, problem solved.

  36. Tom Beresford says:

    Either a dismal publicity strategy stunt, imposition of an extremist view of the representation of women derived from the new Puritanism or a pathetic cod-intellectual attempt to ‘inspire debate’ ignoring the fact that most visitors to MAG want to see great works of art not be sucked into endless meta analysis. Why can’t you just stop interfering?

  37. neil blackshaw says:

    I find this retrograde and deeply depressing. The notion that a public gallery should deliberately choose show only the historical art that is deemed to be acceptable on some transient and political criterion ought to be anathema. We surely know where that leads. Its irresponsible and juvenile.

  38. Vincent says:

    Thank you (and the Guardian) for having given me the opportunity to discover this fine work of art and to learn more about the pre-Raphaelites and the myth of Hylas. But it’s the first time I see painted female characters described as «bodies». That’s weird… But you’re right, this should be replaced with another painting, more in line with our times. Let me suggest an allegory like «Stupidity ruling the world»…

  39. Stephen says:

    According to your website this artwork is still on display.

    Presumably you will be reimbursing those who have trusted that this information is correct and have travelled to see it.

    http://manchesterartgallery.org/collections/search/collection/?id=1896.15

  40. Micheal Jacob says:

    Removing from view a picture which many people love and cherish is hardly ‘playful’. It smacks more of a crude attempt to force a particular view on to the public. If the removal is temporary, when will the picture be returned to display? Otherwise, as a commenter above has said, why not lend it to the Walker, the Lady Lever, or Birmingham? In any case, the pursuit of beauty (or the cult of beauty as the V&A/Musee d’Orsay exhibition had it) was what the artists in your room were concerned with, the room is accurately named. A municipal gallery is for everyone, not a platform for pushing particular views. I trust that Hylas and the Nymphs will be back on display very soon.

  41. Andrew C says:

    Thank you for the opportunity to think about this subject and engage with it. It’s a very courageous thing to do. It also raises the issue about ‘who’ is art for and whether curation should ‘force’ an opinion on the viewer.

    My reaction is as follows: Try as I might, I cannot see taking something from public view for an overtly political or social engineering purpose as (1) censorship (selecting out rather than selecting in), (2) philistinism (taking away something of beauty) and (3) an attempt at thought control (overt manipulation).

    To the core matter: If the intention is to helps the public discourse on child molestation then I think it does the opposite. Child molestation is a serious crime. Sweeping something under the carpet perpetuates it, it doesn’t help stamp it out. If anyone is ‘odd’ enough to be titivated by the nymphs, then I’d sooner they came out and said it so they could be challenged.

    Also, if it assumes that all or most viewers would ‘get off’ on this picture in some way then that seems to me to be projecting views onto others quite wrongly.

    Finally I would suggest the whole point of art is that one interprets it from one’s own perspective, so the idea that curation should attempt to push the viewer to interpret something in a particular way is one that’s off to a pretty sticky start.

  42. Rex Mundi says:

    So it has come to this. The act of censoring a piece of art is now considered an act of artistic expression. A generation which has lost the ability to create anything of beauty must redefine the destruction of the past as art. What’s next ? The burning of a book will be considered literature ?

  43. Carly M says:

    This is my favorite painting in the whole museum, I love it so much I have a replica hanging over my bed. I’m a 34 year old feminist who loves Greek Mythology. It tells a story in the painting. If you have issues with the gallery signs, change them, thats your responsibility. Don’t just take a much loved piece of art off display as part of a “feminist installation”. What next..fig leaves on penises…oh wait the Victorians already did that. I will be boycotting the art gallery until this goes back up.

  44. Anna says:

    I am appalled by this condescending little stunt – which means that people will not be able to see this painting for the duration. What next? Do you think the Prado is going to put the Naked Maja in a room with a trigger warning? Will the Venus de Milo be winched into the basement of the Louvre?

  45. Gordon Hayward says:

    Removing this beautiful painting is political correctness in the extreme. Rehang this beautiful piece of art.

  46. R Lloyd says:

    How disappointing, the decision clearly shows that the curators have no understanding of the myth of Hylas and the Nymhs. It is Hylas who is being objectifed after all….

  47. Darren Birchall says:

    An incredibly beautiful painting removed and denied from the public as a stunt designed solely to align with, and pander towards, current attitudes towards sexism in general. I have had a print of this work of absolute beauty on my wall for 20 years and have often returned to the gallery to see the genuine article – how sad that this opportunity has now gone for however long it will be in storage. In my opinion its removal implies already that you have made a censure towards it’s subject matter based on personal politics which is a retrospective swipe at the artistic and cultural history that it is a fundamental part of. I offer you a question, which you may choose to define as rhetorical or not, which is .. what would happen if the majority of the public respond by saying, great, it’s not politically correct so keep it in storage. In that case, would you keep it there? What a load of crap.

  48. Daniel T says:

    This is silliness of the highest order. More discouraginly, it makes movements which have fought against the exploitation and objectification of women look petty and insignificant while undermining the important message of those movements.

    Amongst the many crimes of Isis and other genocidal groups is the destruction of culture through the imposition of meaning. For Isis it was the imposition of the idea that images in Palmyra and elsewhere were incititing beliefs they believed were blasphemous. I don’t want to sound alarmist, but this decision is in a similar vein by introducing the idea that this painting incites the demeaning of women and the objectification of adolescent girls. It doesn’t. The gallery is the one creating that belief.

    I don’t even like the painting or this style, but this is patently ridiculous.

  49. […] says it has removed JW Waterhouse’s 1896 painting Hylas and the Nymphs from its displays “to prompt conversation”. Yet the conversation can only really be about one thing: should museums censor works of art on […]

  50. Morgan (Ms) says:

    The ‘current climate’ is about one person enforcing their sexual need on another. About one gender, generally women, appearing to be complicit, ie ‘gagging for it’ when they are really being put in a position of sexual dispowerment. So then how has any of what has been genuinely wrong about how people of respect have been found to be treating others with disrespect, relate to Hylas and the Nymphs by JW Waterhouse? This painting, and generally Waterhouse’s works, is demonstrating the opposite message. Because these women are choosing what they want. Therefore they are strong! Therefore they are powerful! They are not being forced into an action that they are not willing to commit. The nymphs are behaving as nymphs did in ancient Greek mythology because it is an ancient Greek story! I worked for Rape Crisis and I’m all for demanding people treat each other with respect, sexually and generally, but if we are going to start applying censorship to art that actually speaks for sexual freedom, because Hylas is not being forced into the water, then we could be accused of hysterically throwing our best symbols of sexual independence down the proverbial bath’s plughole, along with that poor baby!

  51. Mark F says:

    How can it ever be better to not see a work, rather than to see it?

    Why not just rehang it along with other paintings of a similar nature and label the exhibition “Degenerate Art”?

    The fact is that censorious people like the people responsible for this nonsense just don’t trust people to make up their own minds.

    The person who started a petition to have a Balthus painting removed from the NY Met expressed anxiety about the work being viewed by “the masses”and that says it all really. This is puritanical, patrician illiberalism of the worst kind.

    No more donations from me when I visit.

  52. Matt H says:

    One thing I find interesting about this painting is the contrast between the portrayal of these nymphs and the rather more repressed view of women in Victorian society (and I admit to having limited knowledge of the realities of life for a woman in Victorian England. The picture I hold is of women clad watertight from chin to toe and with freedoms granted occasionally and inconsistently)

    Rather than censoring images based on certain sensibilities, it might be more interesting to see an exhibition – spanning cultures and times – that juxtaposes such sexualized images of women against those images that present a more conservative fashion. It seems to me that this is a false binary generated by male dominated societies; fantasy vs jealousy. Lets challenge that binary, but let’s do it by exposing the fundamental hypocrisy rather than a hodge-podge censorship

    Most of all, let’s keep having these conversations

    • Matt H says:

      … After posting this, I then took the time to read the other comments and was shocked by how few people were willing to engage in this conversation.

      I hope it doesn’t get you all down and that you keep on trying to provoke discussion and challenge perceptions.

      And to everyone who views this as censorship: anybody who edits, curates or even creates art (of any form) is presenting their own personal view to the world. That – in and of itself – is not an imposition, but an invitation. Listen, respect, engage… please

      • Ray says:

        I’m all for discussion and it is certainly the job of curators and galleries to educate the public. My problem was that the reasons the gallery gave only served to demonstrate their ignorance and incompetence. I found their reasoning simplistic and embarrassing. Rather than discuss the painting, let’s discuss their lack of knowledge of the subject (of both the idealisation of the human form, male and female, in classical art – and the deeper meaning of the myth depicted in the painting).

      • Susan says:

        It’s a publicly owned museum. The curator is more than welcome to display whatever she wants in her own property.

        Until the painting is returned, I won’t be supporting Manchester Art Gallery anymore.

      • True S. says:

        Presumably you are addressing these supplementary remarks to yourself, as you also describe the act as one of censorship in your first comment. No-one denies the need to curate large collections, but what we see here is a curator elevating her role to that of moral instructor to us, the ill informed. There is no conversation to be had, because the ‘correct’ opinion has been stated up front, and action taken before we, the unwashed, were even alerted.

  53. I used to visit the gallery in my lunch hour and spend time studying all the paintings. The pre-Raphaelite works inspired one of my novels (even though in the novel I set a key scene in the Whitworth instead).

    I don’t mind cycling collections at all, but attempts to hide or censor the past are generally counter-productive. Instead we should analyse the past as it was, and interpret it. We can’t do that when it is locked away. It’s like the bowdlerised versions of many books like Tom Sawyer. It’s actually better to see them in the context of the time and use them as starting points for discussing changing attitudes than to pretend any offensive elements never existed. In one case we educate. In the other we miss the opportunity to do so.

  54. Mark Lane says:

    Maybe you could ask the Musée d’Orsay for a loan of Courbet’s “L’Origine du Monde”. That should provoke the conversation you are requesting.

  55. Peter T says:

    In a city of proud liberal values such as Manchester, this can only be seen as a betrayal of the moral, educational and social progress that we have achieved in our great city. This curator has done us all a profound disservice, and her irrational act will almost certainly damage the reputation of the Gallery itself. She has no mandate to censor our access to Waterhouse’s exceptional art. It’s removal is an act of cultural vandalism, plain and simple.

  56. Display the painting.

  57. Daniel McQueen says:

    I will not return to your gallery until this painting hangs there again. This was a work that during my university years engaged me with my first appreciation of art. This is po faced censorship at and a dangerous retrograde step for 21st century morality. The comments here speak for themselves. Get off your high horse.

  58. Susan Burky says:

    How dare you remove this iconic painting by one of the most talented artists to ever have lived. You, Manchester Art Gallery, have gone too far in your removal of Waterhouse’s ‘Hylas and the Nymphs’. This act of censorship is shameful. Art lovers of the world will not stand for this.

  59. Alex says:

    Where to start with this nonsense?

    I’m not keen on the painting, but that’s hardly the point. It is the height of historical illiteracy to remove a painting because of the dictates of some modish ideological perspective. The painting may not be very interesting aesthetically, and may even be risible on some level, but it’s also a perfectly reasonable narrative depiction of the myth of Hylas and the Nymphs. Perhaps, therefore, you would like to start removing “problematic” stories from the corpus of Greek mythology? Where will this purge end? When everything offensive to contemporary political sensibilities has been placed under erasure?

    I know those responsible for this think they are on the side of the angels, but they really aren’t. The removal of this painting has the singular distinction of being both utterly fatuous and somewhat sinister.

  60. Grant says:

    An absurd and facile thing to do.

    The nymphs (non-human) are in the process of kidnapping Hylas so the viewer knows these are not what they appear and your preconceptions are unjustified.

    Ignoring that, its beautifully painted – no Tracey Emin here – wonderfully composed and detailed beyond the ability of most artists. It remains a truly fantastic painting. Not all pre-Raphaelites were, but this one is.

    If Manchester don’t want it, can I have it please?

    Waterhouse’s work shows most of todays successful artists for the talentless dross they are.

  61. Paul Halsall says:

    As a gay man I am so utterly pissed off by this act of censorship (it’s still censorship even if you say its not) and what seems to be a group of small-minded prudes now in charge at the Manchester.

  62. P.M.Fleming says:

    Ridiculous decision!

  63. Rich says:

    I studied art but I’m no art historian and I know nothing about Victorian gender politics beyond the commonly received wisdom. This may simply be a depiction of male desire but my first thought was that this painting might just as easily be an allegory about the dangers and pitfalls of male desire rather than a celebration of it. We all have base desires that we may be subservient to or in control of or somewhere in the middle. This shows a man not in control of his desire and I would posit that it is this leading him to his doom, not the women them selves who are, after all, a projection of that desire.

    It reminds me of Odysseus and the sirens, a story which (without going into much detail) I believe to be an allegory about man subduing and mastering his own baseness. Despite temptation and a 20 year absence, Odysseus was ultimately faithful to his wife Penelope.

    We should not merely view the past through today’s lens. To paraphrase Mary Beard, if we create a window to the past and expect to recreate a full picture for something which will inevitably contain voids it will be tempting to fill those with our own subjective views. We can’t just look at picture, we have to look at the window.

  64. Attila says:

    Sad to see this happening in the 21. century. Are you going to burn inappropriate books next? Or just lock those away too?

  65. Simon says:

    Absolutely disgraceful to remove the Waterhouse painting. Put it back as soon as possible, and don’t be so pathetic.

  66. Cathy's daughter says:

    straight female. Love the pictue don’t feel upset by it, I’ve got breasts so they don’t scare me. I’m not interested in intrepreting, challenging the narrative, or looking at someone appropriating William Morris designs by scribbling ‘alternative anti-colonial PC unimaginative’ felt pen on them. The ‘show the Queen with a black face’ trope has been done before, it’s not saying anything. Put Waterhouse back. Some of us aren’t afraid of beauty, and don’t need big sisters to tell us other sisters what we’re permitted to see.

  67. Robert Watts says:

    If you’re not going to display this masterpiece maybe you could donate it to another gallery, one run by adults who are actually educated in art, then you can go back to your Spiderman models and soft bricks for the kids.

  68. Jeremy Yates PRCA says:

    Not much more to say, in view of the sentiments expressed by contributors to the blog and elsewhere. As a mere artist I at at a disadvantage – I feel I, as well as many others evidently, am being put at a disadvantage by the assumptions made by the institution’s curator of contemporary art about the necessity to have a ‘directed’ conversation about contemporary art theory and fashionable notions of what is suitable to be seen by the public.

  69. Ryan McCourt says:

    Let us first dismiss the spurious claim that this was NOT an act of “censorship”.

    The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the verb to “censor” as “to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.” The fact that the work in question was indeed “censored” is incontrovertible.

    It is easy to see why the curator in question denies this plain fact. So, instead, I suggest the museum put the painting back, and remove the curator, to “start a conversation”, as they say…

  70. Horst Liebner says:

    A gay guy, depicted at the very moment before he eventually falls into a lake (where he presumably drowns … or is made immortal, on behalf of his gleaming beauty?), because being attracted -or pulled?- by innocently leering nude girls; mourned by his lover, one of the most virile heroes ever, up to the point that his abductees feel forced to turn him into an echo that, they hope, would mislead the raging hero … painted in an age where both nudity and homosexuality were a true taboo. Say, what more do you need to discuss the issues you are so concerned about?

  71. Peter Crosland says:

    Straight down the heffalump trap.
    Put it back or send to somewhere dwelling in more enlightened times. For anyone who seriously wants to have a little perve at this painting and honestly I have no idea why they might, Google have not tried to make it go away.

  72. katharine boyd says:

    I’m a straight female. I love the picture. Please don’t be puritanical. It’s terrifying what is going on. This is a beautiful painting of a myth. It is a historic painting Be smart. Have a show discussing the constructs of beauty and body images, not censorship.

  73. KT says:

    1) Who has the power here? (the curator).
    2) Who is being hurt? (those who love this painting, mainly teenage girls).

    So if one wishes to discuss the abuse of power…who is the abuser, and who are the abused?

  74. The twittering, bubble-brained explanation offered for the removal of this beautiful, world class, timeless Waterhouse painting of the Greek myth is just pitiful.
    Regardless of the howling winds of short term, trendy opinion, having such petty, twit, candle-in-the-wind, sex-negative, priggish curators at a serious museum is pitiful. This art celebrates millenia-old MYTHOLOGY and the human form, in exquisite combination. I say, to the guillotine with the twit curator Gannaway! I propose recurring Hylas and the Nymphs costumed flash mobs across the UK until this wonderful painting is restored to prominent display!

  75. Amy says:

    Geez, people, it’s ONE painting! I think art will survive. I marvel that everyone is so up in arms at the mere suggestion of rethinking how things have always been, by (temporarily) removing one piece. Perhaps having a blank spot, to represent what is missing is a good thing. I don’t think the point is that this particular piece is offensive. It is simply suggesting that we ponder in a different way.

  76. Neil McDiarmid says:

    Dear Sirs
    I admire this tremendous provocation and am delighted that the responses have supported that art should not be censored. Please confirm when the painting will be re-hung.
    The Italian press has missed the point of the provocation and note this as your following political correctness. You may consider some summary of the whole adventure.

  77. Keren Gilfoyle says:

    I have been fascinated by Waterhouse’s work since a teen, as have other writers I know (all of us ardent feminists). Far from seeing his women as passive ‘eye candy’ for male titillation, we all find them strong and empowering, women who are not afraid to move into male spaces and make their own demands on them. Removing this major work in Waterhouse’s oeuvre would be a significant blow to the re-establishment not only of this artist, but of Victorian painting in general. Doing so because of some latter-day prudery shows the people of this century in a very poor light indeed!

  78. The Exegesis of this painting is a narrative of Distraction. Hylas as an Argonaut is symbolic of a young man on a Spiritual Quest, which is to pursue the Golden Fleece as part of that entourage. The Nymphs are Symbolic of Beauty as the Distraction and are Sirens who lead him to his fate and in that sense are femme fatales. This is an Archetypal snare for anybody pursuing Spiritual transformation and Ascendence and this is the important interpretative message of the painting which Waterhouse was probably aware of and for that reason, it is important to continue to display. Nudity or Pornography are not relevant to this message. Nudity in a Painting is a sign of Purity often.

  79. You’re trying to insert your politics between the art you were hired to present and the public. That’s a shame. You assume there’s a problem with the painting. Let me suggest that for millions who love that painting, the problem is with your arrogance and the 21st century postmodern fantasy that it’s trying to substitute. Put the painting back and treat it with respect!

  80. Fiona bottomley says:

    If you want to provoke debate then put the picture up and ask for comments on the points you would like to be discussed ( you could display various pictures in a space designed for this). How can we debate the meaning of a picture we are not allowed to see? The comment that this picture displays a Victorian (outdated) view is ridiculous, do you expect a painting of this time to show, 21st century values? We go to art galleries to see beautiful paintings from all eras; we are capable of making our own decisions if needed but sometimes we just want to admire the beauty of the art and the skill of the artist. No painting should ever be removed because of someone else’s interpretation of it and certainly not because a few people find it offends their sensitivities. I have no time for the new fascism.
    Put it back and then I’ll come and see it, I do not want to see displays defined not by what has been included but by what has been removed and until then I shall not return to the gallery.

  81. Cokie says:

    I see the women in this painting as the *aggressors* (read the myth, fer Chrissakes). They’re about as “passively decorative” as a pack of lionesses closing in on their prey. I’m a feminist and I see nothing to object to in this eerie, beautiful painting. Stop censoring art because of the interpretation YOU are putting on it.

  82. John Theo Konczak says:

    Ohhh…. too funny.

    To keep things compelling, sometimes you just have to rotate out the well known and rotate in the soon to be captivating.

    But don’t let the truth get in the way of everyone feeling the need to get tweaked.

    Why don’t ya’all come on down and have a good time seeing what’s in the space next! Bring a sandwich, setting stool and a sketch pad!!

  83. Pat Roberts says:

    The left have taken over the gallery and they never retreat, they think they own everything, even our thoughts. Reduce the subsidy the gallery gets (send the savings to an NHS hospital), force them to charge entry (like York and Brighton) then the gallery must take notice of the public. A collection of beautiful old paintings is not something to be ashamed of, or a toxic problem to be defused.

  84. Kev Ferrara says:

    It looks very much like she’s using Waterhouse’s reputation, his community stature, his greatness, to give herself a nice big boost up in publicity and stature. And on top of that, she’s putting herself above his work by casting herself, no less, as its judge. The arrogance is truly disgusting. She’s not only blatantly riding on Waterhouse’s coattails, but kicking him in the process. Grotesque.

    The curator should be ashamed for taking part in this. You are a custodian of a collection built long before you. Its cultural legacy stretches far outside your purview. Do your job and honor what you have been deemed worthy of protecting. Live up to your station. Don’t defile it simply to bloody “virtue signal” to your political. Neither of you are worthy to judge this work.

  85. Sandra Cranston says:

    This beautiful and subtly provocative piece should be on display. It would be a shame to visit the gallery and be unable to view it.

  86. This is the ‘Monstrous Regiment’ writ large! Hylas and the Nymphs isn’t about male titillation, rather it’s a celebration of Victorian awe of the Classics and the Classical World. Please bring it back.

  87. David Broughton says:

    Degenerate art? Such arrogance, put it back!

  88. John Russell says:

    Despite the attempts at clever spin, this smacks entirely and unambiguously of that recently growing odorous mixture of misandry, political correctness and censorship power. This is certainly shameful cultural vandalism, and there’s no doubt that this curator has done us all a profound cultural disservice, and I agree that her irrational act will almost certainly damage the reputation of the Gallery itself.

  89. Bernd Bausch says:

    “How can we talk about the collection in ways which are relevant in the 21st century?”

    I think the best way to talk about these things is after removing anything that might give food for thought. We should only keep such artwork that doesn’t risk offending anybody.

    Alternatively, we could continue to display this painting and other pieces of art and talk about them eyes closed.

  90. Graham Clark says:

    Whoever is behind this childish act of interruption needs to grow up…

    …UNLESS they are genuinely wanting to explore the responses and reactions that this removal is bound to catalyse.

    Underlying such an act is the usual “educated middle-class” (and those that take on this view for themselves) assumption that “the masses” are incapable of understanding the contextual framework that has given birth to any given piece of work, without prior direction by those who think they know better: “We can’t trust them to really know what this picture is about”

    “It is a bunch of naked young women in water with some young man – wait a minute – that girl is trying to pull him in!”

    What IS that picture about?

    Well, maybe the people who have done this thing DO know the classical context. Maybe they do know who Hylas was, and his background, and what happened to him.

    I do hope so.

  91. Alex D says:

    The gallery says that it has been “overwhelmed by the depth of feeling expressed”. Please ask yourself why it come as such a surprise, could it be that you out of touch with ordinary people? In an ideological bubble? An echo chamber? What about political diversity at the gallery – is there any? And are there any men working at a senior level at the gallery? I’ve never noticed any. What is the gender balance? Not too late though, put the painting back and admit you have made a mistake.

  92. jason says:

    Errr, if you wanted to challenge the Victorian view you should have been there way back then to make your statement. It’s been and gone. If you wish to rewrite history with blank pages, please, record it in your own diary and not in public. You have your ideas about the modern world, but sadly, not everyone shares your ideas or looks upto you and your idea that you are “progressive”. Lame is a better word than progressive. Let’s debate that. Let’s challenge the view that men worked in fields and coal mines, and some wore top hats. Am i sounding progressive; or lame?

  93. Paul Williams says:

    I hope that the gallery will follow the logic of its argument and destroy this and similar paintings that objectify the female form and pander to male fantasies. A grand burning of degenerate art will provide space for those artworks that are deemed to present the correct views about the human form.

  94. Ingrid says:

    I would have hoped the institution of the Art Gallery would provide sanctuary from the moral opinion du jour, however righteous it may be. It is not the purpose of the gallery to guide its visitors in any direction. It merely exists to house and display the ideas and art of artists, from this we question. Why not say, ‘here’s how Victorians viewed women’….no apologies needed.

  95. Magret says:

    Well played, Curators. Well played.
    I don’t think you could have started a discussion like this with a sign, or an essay, or a speech.
    The simple act of taking away provoked this much emotional outburst.
    As I understand – from a continent away – the rest of the usual exhibition of naked women is still intact.
    Censorship?
    or a moment to consider.
    Why are there so many female nudes.
    But not so many males.
    Why are there so many male artists, but only a small handful of prominent women? And those often overshadowed by their male ‘mentors’?
    Female beauty.
    It is fascinating, over the course of millennia, or just the few decades we can remember in person.
    A painters reality, does it compare to the actual model?
    Or is it like the photoshop fails that turned gorgeous women in grotesk jokes of the internet world?
    Throw in some misogyny, some more sinister attacks, and voila, we have the stew that makes us consider what we have taken for granted.

    Again, Well played.

  96. Willem says:

    As far as I know this is the first time in history a museum sets a dangerous standard. Before, dictators, religious leaders or other mad men (yes, all men) had this privilege. On one point I agree: the curator succeeded in putting herself and the art gallery in the centre of the attention. Until this morning I never heard of both of them. Living in Belgium is not that bad.

  97. SK says:

    Censoring a piece in order to promote discussion? How hilariously Orwellian.

  98. Peyton Phillips says:

    I suspect that many of the paintings in their care are deeply embarrassing to them. Imagine the horror of having to go to work knowing you had to display and curate so many items that you despise. Better to stick the most “problematic” ones in the basement and spew ideology over the rest.

  99. How dare you allow your stupid political ideas to determine what artworks you display? This “conversation” has not been deemed necessary in the 120+ years since this beautiful painting was completed, and it is not necessary now. Can we next expect the Manchester Art Gallery to mount a “Degenerate Art” exhibit like the one the Nazis presented in 1937? This is nothing but censorship by modern-day puritans and my contempt for you is boundless.

  100. Josep F says:

    What do you wish to see?

    A gallery that’s tolerant and inclusive.

    or

    A gallery that’s intolerant and exclusive.

    I believe I won’t have my morals corrupted by a piece of “art”. The debate is the piece itself in itself. Love comes naturally to mankind. Hatred does not. Repression causes hate. I do understand your cause though, it is even a noble one. Yet Art in itself is meant to be free and a society that has banned or burnt art in the past or present has always left an ugly mark on history. No matter what said cause was back then and now.

    Kind regards Josep F.

  101. Linnette says:

    Well done for taking your inspiration from the world’s most oppressive regimes to protect public modesty from a Victorian Pre-Rafaelite painting. Now could whoever did this please temporarily remove themselves to go, sit down and think about what they’ve done and why anyone should now trust them to manage a a public art collection – while we have a debate on censorship in the 21st century?
    When is “Hylas and the Nymphs” going back on display?

  102. Jude Connor says:

    At last! Congratulations Manchester Art Gallery! It is part of womens’ long oppression that the ways in which we are represented perpetuate offensive stereotypes about what we are, and are not, useful for (to men). I have always felt angry and disturbed when visiting art galleries that my gender is still being represented thus, without challenge or comment. Thank you.

  103. KGM1970 says:

    How poor all this, how poor the museum’s directors. Nobody gets your message, sorry…. so just put the painting back, show respect for art & culture and stay reasonable!

  104. Noid Zarts says:

    I have concluded that the Curator of the Manchester Art Gallery is absolutely correct.
    I also believe that the following so-called works of art should be removed from public display to challenge the degrading manner in which Victorians viewed any number of groups vulnerable to visual exploitation, perceptions which continue to persist and damage art and culture.
    1. Heroic Metallic Men – includes younger skinny men and some S&M, B&D – I weep for the older generations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Westmacott_-_Wellington_Monument_1822_-_Achilles.jpg
    http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_9b85dbb07f2715d8ce0d5dcae60b41ee.gif
    2. Naked men in general who were obviously being objectified – come on chaps, who amongst us are not tired of being treated as a sex symbol, clearly the cause of this young 19 Century man’s ennui.
    http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_fbca82fa1b53f9dd641c384c1ab37c4b.gif
    3. Dead dudes and floaty male supernatural entities:
    http://www.musee-orsay.fr/typo3temp/zoom/tmp_8b82aec0429d38f4bc1df404cabb8ae8.gif
    To quote the Don – You know I’m right, I know I’m right – so am I right or what?
    4. Small devoted dogs – this dog was loyal to his deceased master until his own death – did Bobby the Scotty ever have the opportunity for personal agency or self-actualisation?
    https://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/3130200.jpg?w=360&h=240&crop=1
    5. Centaurs – who will speak for the Centaurs if we don’t?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiron#/media/File:Jean-Baptiste_Regnault_001.jpg

  105. Mac says:

    And for the art galley’s next political correctness stunt I understand they will be burning books in the public square whilst a rabid crowd cheers them on. The art gallery’s director needs to read some history and get a grip.

  106. ulrics says:

    Censorship ist never a good idea. Everbody should get an den oppinion about art. Even labels anderen description change the way of viewing. Without the name I would come to an different conclusion. A guy is horny for those young women. Just like Thema actual discussion about sexism. If you look in his face you see hunger or even lust. As an artist myself how much perspective matters.

  107. carl says:

    censorship is the end of art. i am german – we have some experience with destroying art by ideology.

  108. Theodora says:

    It is unbelievable that 1 male person in the USA has given certain women worldwide a podium. Art has nothing to do with this, but Mrs Clare Gannaway is now in the spotlight because of the abuse of something that is called art. You certainly must have a life in which you feel bored to attract attention to you. As a woman I would be ashamed to do something like that.

  109. Hans Barth says:

    What a wonderful idea to remove the painting temporarily! And to make people say what they think about it. All theses aggressive, even hateful comments. The painting and the comments are part of the same patriarchal world vision which makes us suffer.

  110. Kevin O'Keeffe says:

    This is a great and highly renowned painting. If you’re not going to display it, then make it available to some institution that isn’t afflicted with progressive Philistinism. You are loathsome cowards, and you disgust me. You don’t deserve the honor of safeguarding important works of art. #DEFENESTRATION

  111. Will says:

    Does it need to come to armed conflict before this SJW/PC madness stops?

    Stop this insanity. What’s next? Taking hammers to Venus of Milo, plastering over the walls of the 16th chappel, shredding every copy of the painting of the 3 graces, burn all copies of fifty shades of grey? Ok, I wouldn’t mind exactly the latter, but the point is that it’s a slippery slope we’re getting on.

    If this hypersensitivy continues I think we’re not far of from getting another Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

  112. A.I. says:

    I hope this is just a provocation. Our history (and history of art) has often male dominance and objectification of women as a background, often also exploitation and social inequalities. We should not forget that, but this is no reason to erase beauty and history from our life. Please put the picture back and celebrate its beauty!

  113. NearlySane says:

    Well done, this has got you and the painting huge amounts more publicity than actually showing it.

    Having said that, I have to say that, combined with the stushie about the Balthus, I am somewhat bemused at the change in who wants to challenge artworks being shown from the 80s when the objections were to such as Mapplethorpe and Serrano.

  114. Caroline says:

    The curator has poor judgement. Read the mythology and stop being such a prudish person. Worst decision ever, shows that we are heading in a very bad direction. Marxist and uptight, feminism is bad our society. And I say that as a woman.

  115. Well done! Those bad bad girls want to pull the poor poor boy into the water! Since I saw this painting I was so afraid of women with breasts that I could not sleep. This was an underestimated aspect of art until your wise decision.

  116. Alan Williams-Key says:

    You are quite right to remove this painting.

    It is obvious that the nymphs had not been warned that this would be a male-only pond gathering and that their presence was only to display their beauty. If only the young man had made a contribution to charity…

  117. Ryan Lewis McKindle says:

    Hylas and the Nymphs was the only reason I ever went in Manchester Gallery. If I was passing though the city I’d drop in to see it. Quite possibly my favourite painting. How awful that it’s not there anymore.
    (Gay man, art enthusiast).

  118. Jane says:

    I think this decision is a disgrace. If it starts here, where does it end? Who will judge what is morally acceptable? And on what grounds? This is pure censorship cloaked in a prudish ideology. Why not put the picture back up and invite comments on its content rather than imposing your views on the museum-going public?

  119. Kiyan Farmand says:

    We are truly experiencing a shift in western society. The role of the woman is being rewritten and that’s a good thing. Empowerment of women in all fields is first and foremost a good thing.

    Nevertheless, I don’t think we need to be saved from ourselves. We westerners, praising our culture and traditions shaped by the Enlightenment, often condemn the the demonisation of sexuality and the fear of the vital powers of the female body in Islamic cultures. If we now turn away from our anthropocentric world view and return to a puritan path, what would make us any different?

  120. Sarah H says:

    Art is about educating those around today, and by trying to decide what should be displayed based on puritanical and closed-minded ideologies, you begin to walk a very slippery slope.

  121. James Murray says:

    Here’s what you’re really doing: you’re holding a beloved piece of art hostage so that people will listen to your political ideas. Rehang the painting and resign your position.

  122. Thomas G. says:

    Works of the past have to be put in context. This is as true for Waterhouse’s Nymphs as it is for the large number of paintings since the Renaissance inspired by classical mythology, especially by Ovid’s Metamorphoses. And it is evident that we do not have today the same views on our society as our predecessors did. Therefore, every epoch has the right (and the duty) to take a critical look on its way of handling the past. And this can of course result in a re-evaluation of what was once considered a masterwork. And as museums offer limited space (to my greatest regret), such a process may result in new arrangements, paintings being relegated to the archive vaults while others come back into the light.

    As for the case in question, I do think that the way it was carried out is more akin to marketing than to art history. The past may teach us important lessons, one being that things have not always been what they are now, and the contemplation of artworks, the display of historical context and the explanation of what were the artist’s motives for painting what he did in the way he did may be one of the best occasions to learn. So, what would we gain by simply erasing what was? Or by declaring a painter one of Weinstein’s forefathers? This seems to me like a violation of the one element that, in science, should never be neglected – context!

    One may of course come to think that Waterhouses’s Nymphs are rather bad taste and an antiquated way to present women, it is nevertheless one of the Victorian age’s iconic paintings that can be used to explain this important era of English and European history. Removing it seems to me the wrong approach, especially as there are numerous other examples in recent months where popular wrath culminated in claims to remove paintings, like for example Thérèse rêvant de Balthus. This is a dangerous path we should not take lightly, or we may end up by sacrificing Art on the bloody altar of political correctness.

  123. voice of peason says:

    The charitable interpretation is that this is a publicity stunt. If so, well done. You got your column inches.

    The uncharitable one is that you are really, really stupid people who have been caught up by the post-#metoo hysteria in artistic circles.

    Just take a moment and think where artistic censorship ends. People who visit the Gallery (and I’m one local who won’t be coming again until it is restored) are perfectly capable themselves of deciding whether the painting is exploitative or titillating, or indeed anything else. Are you in favour of freedom or aren’t you?

    People who want to stop men ogling women –

    1. Leftist authoritarians.
    2. Islamic fundamentalists.

    Funny that.

  124. VC says:

    People who get upset by a painting – and I mean any painting, including the most abject themes including incest, cannibalism and paedophilia – are morons who believe Magritte really created a pipe. The painting isn’t objectifying anything except your penchant for blatant censorship.

  125. Peter says:

    This is not just censorship this is one public serves employee’s political view, my question is why has she been allowed to express it in way her job is to work in the gallery not push her ideological view on every one that goes there

  126. Hugh McKinney says:

    I think the gallery has missed the point and misunderstood the ancient Greek role of nymphs.

    Nymphs are divine spirits who are creative forces in nature and semi-immortal beings.

    This defined nature of divine spirits is an overwhelmingly empowering one for women and to lure Hylas to join them enhances that power.

    It is sad that in denying the role of the classical nymph the gallery has fallen into the irony of denying them their genius loci.

  127. Christopher Green says:

    For heavens sake let’s not paint over history … it’s art of the time.

  128. Paul says:

    Genius PR.
    Questionable curation.

  129. John says:

    This seems to be an act of new-puritanism and a pitiful subordination to temporary trends. Showing nudes was for a long time only acceptable in a biblical/mythological context. To do otherwise was offensive. In these days the proper context for the display of nakedness would be some form of “protest”. To do otherwise is offensive.
    What happened to diversity? Dear Manchester Art Gallery, is a liberal approach to art suddenly more than you can handle? If so, you disqualified yourself as a gallery.

  130. Daniele da Volterra says:

    In the name of the Lord the Allmighty, burn that disgusting, sexist painting

  131. Adrian Schmit says:

    I believe moves such as this seriously harm the MeToo movement, which I support. It must not be taken over by extremists. I went to the Manchester Art Gallery some years ago to see the pre-raphaelite works and this painting in particular. I certainly will not go again until it is back on display. Are we now to deny that the human body can be beautiful? I see nothing wrong with an art display focusing on that. The gallery says this is not censorship, but of course it is. It is saying there are aspects of this picture which we question (stupidly, in my opinion) and therefore we are, at least temporarily, not allowing you to look at it. What is that if not censorship? This is a Victorian painting, for heaven’s sake – are we becoming more Victorian than the Victorians? Those who made this decision are, in my view, unfit to run a public gallery.

  132. Glenn says:

    Get the painting back up, you are making the Gallery and Manchester a laughing stock. You have no right whatsover to impose this crazy censorship.

  133. Chris says:

    What a travesty! Many times have I visited the Manchester Art Gallery and admired its excellent collection. The Pre-Raphaelite section is extraordinary and deserves respect – whether you appreciate or esteem the genre or not. As to the subject matter of Hylas and the Nymphs…if you know the Greek myth then you will know that the nymphs, far from being victims and vulnerable young women, it is Hylas that is lured by them. Encouraging artistic debate is admirable, but don’t demean it by introducing misguided ‘socially correct’ focus. I agree with several of the other comments about the removal of this painting, in that they are part of our social history and deserve to be discussed in both their artistic merit and social references both of their time and now.

  134. P says:

    We had an Athena print of it hanging in our family home.! The family loved it.
    I took it when I moved into my first flat
    It’s beautiful. Some people only look at it for its beauty. It here, we can’t hide it, so show it.

  135. Jane Molloy says:

    I look at this painting everyday, it hangs on my stairs with a family photo of bathers in a similar pose. Only male chests, but neither offends me or my visitors. Are we going to take down Botticelli, Rubens, Michelangelo, Gwen John, Titian, Manet……all those greek and roman statues, i could go on, in fact most of western and, and lets not forget all those Japanese woodblock prints. In the words of Charlie Brown, ‘good grief’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *