Glorifying double mastectomies - museum exhibition

This exhibition has to be taken in context: the venue is situated in the busiest part of the city with a huge pedestrian footfall. On account of its location, it is extremely accessible and young families make regular visits part of their schedule -as well as a much-loved children's area, it houses permanent natural history and palaeontology exhibitions, as well as an impressive section on geology, Egyptology, oriental pottery and a cracking art gallery. People pop in off the street to use the cafe and conveniences.

The entrance hall is now dominated by an enormous mural and freize-style panel paintings on the upper levels along the same visual and ideological theme: "You are loved.", painted in situ by the artist. It is visually striking (stylised human forms in bright, flat block colours and repeating words in a flowing cursive font) and the message is compelling. The cheery approachable artist has been working on-site, accessible to the visiting public, including groups of children and young people from local schools prior to the official opening of the exhibition.

The issue, which is why the exhibition carries an age recommendation of 14+, is not necessarily this particular artist's work, but the contributions of other artists who are also participating in the collaborative exhibition 'Gendered Stories'. Bristol Museum and Art Gallery's own website provides a clear rationale and description of their vision and intent for the show and nobody who takes the trouble to check out the online blurb will be left with any doubt as to what to expect. Trouble is, in all my years of visiting the museum with my DC, I don't think I checked the website once, and I suspect this is likely true for many parents.

Thanks for your opinion. It's not mine though. I love the person who was in pain more than life itself. But I'm not going to argue - I just came on here to agree that a double mastectomy, for whatever reason, isn't art.

Oh I read the whole thread then went back to the picture ... bit of a letdown really. I was expecting a graphic surgical photo instead of a cartoon that's easily explainable to kids in multiple ways depending on your own beliefs. You are loved is not a terrible message.

I would put this way down the list of my difficult to explain to kids moments - well below explaining slavery after stopping a kids movie where a black kid was beat up by a white man (Tom Sawyer), talking about rape when my 12yr old son asked why the girls got special self-defence classes, or that moment when my children were young and asking why everyone was crying and having to tell them someone had shot dead dozens of people in a terrorist attack in our country. Bringing them to a vigil (they asked to go) and placing flowers was among the most meaningful and terrible things we've ever done as a family.

This - no. Not even close. You can explain it with whatever your personal belief system is. Focus on the message. You are loved. I would personally add "regardless" but that's just me. How your kids walk away from that image is entirely up to you.

Of course you need to see it this way. If you don't, you'll have to face the fact you're in agreement with the mutilation of healthy bodies as treatment for mental illness or distress. I too am very close to young adults who claim Non-binary and Trans status and in no way do I accept this 'treatment' as a healthy way to address their pain. Their claimed identities are very clearly a maladaptive coping mechanism, not a way to stay alive despite that narrative that is fully proven false based on all collected evidence (Cass Report, and numerous other studies in different countries).

And I do everything I can to keep them from further harming their bodies because I love them more than I love my ego.

That is your opinion.

If people feels the need to make the art, and other people feels the need to go and view it, then yes it needs to be seen.

You can't decide for everyone that they don't need to see it because you personally don't like it.

If it's not a mental illness, what is it?

Prior to hormones and surgery their bodies are as healthy as any other person's. The problem is a psychological one.

So how is it not a mental illness?

No part of society needs to see this 🙄

That's fine, don't take her to see it then.

There are many things that aren't healthy for lots of people to see due to certain personal circumstances, you just avoid them and move on.

You don't demand that the rest of society can't see them either.

As the mother of a 15 year old who is having trouble accepting she is a girl and who hates their breasts (and I suspect is going to ask to start binding soon) this would not be healthy for her to see.

Extreme body modification when ears and fingers etc are cut off for no medical reason is generally seen as "problematic" for most people. Why is removing healthy breasts different?

I think you know that stating that a certain group in society are not allowed to share art of their lived experiences because you personally have a problem with it is censorship and censorship has no place in a modern democratic society.

I also think your description of trans gender men is quite revolting.

No, not abuse but has just had an adult diagnosis of ASD. Family history of mental health added to that I guess.

I find it very odd that a depiction of a lived experience is automatically "celebrating" that experience in your eyes to be honest.

This. It is art.

No I don't agree that's trans men are mentally unwell. I agree that people who are covered in self harm scars are mentally unwell which is what I was referring to in the post I replied to.

The person who created this art clearly feels pain, since when was every person in a group feeling pain the qualifying factor of whether people in that group are allowed to make and share art about their lived experiences?

Maybe the depictions of male groins with penises chopped off are in a different museum? I don’t have a well developed view on this but I know that what-about-ery is not the way to go.

Awful!

Isn’t it astonishing that a forum aimed at mothers seems to have so many women happy with mentally ill young women being so failed that they end up amputating healthy body parts to calm their troubled minds. And for images celebrating that to on display for all, including children, to see.

The support this is getting makes for some of the most disturbing posts I’ve ever seen on MN.

Just how is it Art?

I think you know that the difference is that nobody celebrates Van Gogh slicing off his ear in the way that mentally ill young women are celebrated when they slice off their healthy breasts. This is a glorification, celebration and normalisation of extreme self harm by self-loathing young women, in a free museum aimed at families.

Nonsense - there’s a big difference between depicting inner pain, and celebrating a contentious ideology. Would you be keen on an exhibition about mental illness that glorified lobotomies? Or an exhibit of celebratory pictures and writings about how it’s great for able-bodied people to “identify” as disabled? Perhaps an exhibition in which Van Gogh is described as a “transabled” person who knew his inner identity was as a disabled person with an amputated ear, who anticipated the modern movement of “transableism”? (I’m not making this up as just a thought experiment: there actually is such a thing as “transableism”.)

Or might you think that was (a) of dubious historical merit; (b) politically pretty contentious and not a great thing to normalise to vulnerable people with mental health issues; (c) pretty offensive to people who were born disabled or have become disabled with serious medical issues?

There’s plenty of art I don’t like, but it doesn’t stop it from being art. If you want to make art that offers a different perspective on trans issues then make some 🤷‍♀️
Whatever you think of people having double mastectomies, they ARE having them. This is a significant thing that is happening in our times. If you don’t want your children to see it then don’t take them to see it.

It's a picasso-esque portrait of a person with lots of zany colours, third eye imagery and make up/tattoos. The person also mastectomy scars which are not the focal point of the piece at all, they just happen to be there and I actually wouldn't have noticed them if I wasn't looking for them. Google it.

It's not horrific graphic photographs like people are making out.

I agree. So whats the problem?