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.

  • rustydrd@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    284·
    8 months ago

    In his complaint, Lau argued it is discriminatory to keep artwork, like that of the Picasso painting displayed exclusively in the Ladies Lounge, away from he and other men who pay to enter the museum. (…) He’s asked for an apology from the museum and for men to either be allowed into the lounge or permitted to pay a discounted ticket price for the museum.

    Kaechele and lawyers for the MONA rebutted by saying the exclusion of men is the point of the Ladies Lounge exhibit. “The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork,” Kaechele told the Guardian. “OK, they experience the artwork differently than women, but men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended.”

    This is going to be much trickier than it seems based only on the headline. Both anti-discrimination laws and the freedom of art are very fundamental rights, and a decision that weighs these against each other will not be easy to reach (at least I would think so). Curious to see how this lands, although I expect that the museum will come out on top, because the disadvantage that this special exhibit poses to the man (the museum would even argue there is none) is probably not big or permanent enough to justify a restriction on the freedom of art as big as this would entail (and I guess the museum probably discussed this with their lawyer beforehand).

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.todayEnglish
      194·
      8 months ago

      I disagree, I think it’s pretty clearcut discrimination. The museum has to give men the same treatment as the women when they buy the same ticket, and if they buy different tickets then the men need to be given the option to buy a women’s ticket. Only in that last circumstance could this have any chance in court against a discrimination lawsuit.

    • piecat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      8 months ago

      This reminds me of the “Nathan for you” episode where he turns a bar into a “live theatrical performance” so patrons could smoke as a loop hole.

      But honestly, the freedom of speech / claiming “art” stops applying when you’re doing something else illegal (threats of violence, slander, csam). Why would this be any different?

    • sailingbythelee@lemmy.worldEnglish
      35·
      8 months ago

      “The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork,” Kaechele told the Guardian.

      This is so interesting. I interpret this to mean that having a man sue them for discrimination could also be considered part of the experience of the artwork. It is very clever and very modern, and also good media exposure. It reminds me of when Banksy sold a piece of art at auction and the frame was a disguised paper shredder that shredded the artwork immediately after it was bought. I hope the media continues to cover this story to see if the artist/museum reveals that being sued for discrimination was their intention all along.