York Art Gallery

[Cucumbersa1ad]

I need a rant. I've just had a lovely anniversary weekend in York, but my experience of York Art Gallery and their "queered" permanent exhibition space has got me well and truly riled. It's so bloody contrived. I'd love it if they told the stories of gay artists - they have done this a little bit, but the casual bandying around of the word "queer" makes me so uncomfortable as the sister of an older gay man. The term being used offensively is not that far off in the past to people my age and older. This is accompanied by numerous somewhat patronising texts explaining why they use this word and how it's nothing to worry about these days because it's been reclaimed. Hmm, OK then.

What really pissed me off, though, was an exhibition text label next to a painting of St Agatha (who, for those that don't know, was tortured and had her breasts removed) written by a young transman describing how recognised this makes them feel and how it chimes with their own liberating experience of first wearing a binder, even though it really hurt their ribs. I mean, wtaf???!!! How is this OK? On every level - from the analysis of the painting to the celebration of painful ribs - this is so, so offensive to me as a woman.

I noticed they mentioned comments cards but none were to be found. I'm deeply ashamed to say that I'm too scared to contact them online with my views because it will necessarily have to include my contact details, and I work in a tangentially rated field (god I thought it was woke where I work but this is another level).

Well, phew. That was cathartic if nothing else.

MangyInseam
Thank you for that account about Douglas Murray being so upset about the Tate’s description of Stanley Spencer’s beautiful painting of the Resurrection as being racist.

I have just read the Tate’s description and do find it utterly frustrating too.

WhereYouLeftIt is absolutely spot-on in their analysis of “Queer” having been [overwhelmingly] claimed not reclaimed. I’d be interested to know, too, the extent to which it was used as a slur in the US vs fag[got] as I have the impression it was not used as much/widely, casting any reclamation in a very different light to here (should I be correct, obviously).

Using “queer” as a term of abuse while battering someone [you assume to be] gay survived into the twenty-first century. It was used “just” as a slur, too. Someone I knew was left with permanent damage after being beaten with an iron bar as it was assumed he was a “queer/poof/battyboy” - in 2006.

Maybe we should “reclaim” queer to mean
queer
/kwɪə/
adjective
adjective: queer; comparative adjective: queerer; superlative adjective: queerest
1.
strange; odd.
"she had a queer feeling that they were being watched"
• DATED•INFORMAL
slightly ill.
"he was feeling rather queer"

As for the Tate’s description of Spencer’s painting - THAT’S what’s fecking racist! For Spencer to dress up those particular black African people in Western-style clothes would have been horrendously colonialist. It was them he was drawing, so he drew them as they were - it’s absurd to suggest he was envisaging the village’s future black residents would be wandering around thus clad. I understand why you’d put a card up explaining he drew from pictures in Nat Geo as he didn’t have any other reference sources much less anyone to model. Unless they’ve found writings of his to back their claims they’ve run with “all white people are racist” in a very thorough & decidedly unhelpful way.

I assume most people who use the q word are straight. That’s all. Straight.

You have straight actors/singers loudly declaring their Q status to their fans (when in reality they are straight, not even bi but have dyed their hair blue, changed their pronouns and/or are trying to get more gigs).

So it’s like men deciding that calling women bitch/c*nt/cows is now a jolly good thing and should be used at all times. Oh. They did…

Queer is a word that a lot of LGB people - maybe even the T? I'm not sure - use to describe themselves. That doesn't worry me.

The St Agatha?
I noticed they mentioned comments cards but none were to be found.

then you must ask for them and make the comments. It is a complete corruption of everything St Agatha went through to liken it to breast removal of transmen.

As she's from Lancashire, that's likely to be construed as a wannabe peculiar Yorkshirewoman.

First thing that popped into my head with 'peculiar Yorkshire woman' was Nora Batty! You never know what is going to become fashionable, or gets put under 'the umbrella'.

As for the Tate’s description of Spencer’s painting - THAT’S what’s fecking racist! For Spencer to dress up those particular black African people in Western-style clothes would have been horrendously colonialist. It was them he was drawing, so he drew them as they were - it’s absurd to suggest he was envisaging the village’s future black residents would be wandering around thus clad. I understand why you’d put a card up explaining he drew from pictures in Nat Geo as he didn’t have any other reference sources much less anyone to model. Unless they’ve found writings of his to back their claims they’ve run with “all white people are racist” in a very thorough & decidedly unhelpful way.

I tend to think Spencer could reasonably have done it either way. He could have shown them as he saw them living in Africa in the photos, or imagined them living in England in some future scenario. Neither is inherently racist.

But it is revealing in terms of the ideology the Tate is working from. On the one hand it's always desperate to include minorities visibly, even in settings where it doesn't make historic sense, in that Spencer should be in their good books. They don't like that he dressed them differently, even though there were then (and are still today) people who dress that way in Africa. So what do they want? For him to dress them in European clothes - they would likely think that was colonialist. Not to show them? Evidence that he unthinkingly accepted white supremacy and Empire. In fact there is not any artistic choice he could have made that would have satisfied them, which is clear evidence that the ideology they are using is intellectually bankrupt.

This is the same thinking that results in these kinds of exhibitions about queering. It's nothing to do with the paintings or the artists, they just function as hooks to hang performative adherence to identity politics.

Oh …the Cookham resurrection was my favourite painting when I was a small child, 5 ish probably because in my Catholic preschool we were stuffed with terrible stories, which seem to be present in the painting. Sorry to derail .

She may have meant that although she's only had sex with men, she's somewhat sexually attracted to women. The word bisexual tends to be used mainly by people who have had sex with both men and women.

Sexual attraction isn't neessarily straighforward.

Since you ask :)

Some excellent posts - and thanks to the Tate on spencer details - so stupid - and @WhereYouLeftIt your claiming post was brilliant and ought to be framed and in every school hall.

North Yorks WRN women are on to it! Ridiculous reply from York Art Gallery.

North Yorkshire collective of women from WomensRightsNet WRN_NEandNYORKS wrote to York Museums Trust regarding an exhibition YorkArtGallery which included the 'queering' of St Agatha.
We were alerted to this by Carolinefff
Here is the exhibit 1/8

We were concerned about the apparent dismissal of the horrific torture of a woman & what appeared to be the promotion of the harmful practice of breast binding as resulting in feelings of ‘euphoria’.
Here is our letter 2/8

I’m not religious, but others in our group are & I respect their faith.
We note St Agatha is Patron Saint of rape victims, breast cancer patients & wet nurses.
YorkArtGallery seem ignorant to the fact her breasts were ripped off with pincers when she said ‘no’ to a man. 3/8

We were disappointed to receive a reply from their Head of Content & Public Engagement ('he/him') schooling us in ‘Queer Theory’ & failing to address the concerns we raised at all.
They think there is ‘respectful discussion’ to be had about the brutal torture of a woman? 4/8

This prompted a reply from us asking him to address the issues we raised.
We are obviously extremely concerned at the inherent misogyny & also disrespect to religious women. Furthermore the safeguarding issues were apparently completely dismissed. 5/8

We have highlighted these & signposted him to information on the harm caused by breast binding & that police may consider it child abuse.
If YorkArtGallery are promoting breast binding as potentially ‘euphoric’ experience, we think they should be made aware of this 6/8

We can only hope the incoming CEO, Kathryn Blacker, will take a more responsible approach.
We defend freedom of expression & accept art is open to interpretation... 7/8

I (personally) don’t accept the brutal torture of a woman is acceptable for ‘queering’ & it is grossly irresponsible of the Art Gallery (overseen by YorkMuseumTrust) to promote the dangerous practice of breast binding/flattening to vulnerable young women & girls
End

twitter.com/Lammysaurus/status/1575116959716450305

Archive:
web.archive.org/web/20220928152608/twitter.com/Lammysaurus/status/1575116959716450305

Yet another example of certain sections of society declaring ‘it’s all about meeeeeeee!’
ffs 🤬🤬

They are desperate to be relevant. Either because it attracts funding, or because they are secretly afraid that actually the art doesn't matter.

York Art Gallery has some good exhibitions but their commentary is woeful. Didactic, preachy and overbearing. Also sometimes just plain wrong : eg talking about 'privilege' in the context of wealth. A rich person is rich. They may also be deemed to have privilege in the form of race/sex/whatever but money is money, not a sociological concept.

Just ignore everything they say and enjoy the gallery.

BruceHellerAlmighty - "Just ignore everything they say and enjoy the gallery."

No.

What they have done here is a disgusting "snuff movie", extreme BDSM-porn recasting of the vile torture of a 15 year old girl - on the instructions of a powerful older man whom she rejected as a sexual partner, reframing her agony as a "euphoric" state.

The torture that Agatha was subjected to involved a series of acts of extreme sexual sadism, culminating in Agatha being stretched on the rack and having her breasts torn off - with hooks or pincers depending upon the account.

The anonymous commentary reads:

"St Agatha is usually shown with her severed breasts on a plate to represent her
martyrdom. Here, however, she covers her newly flat chest and looks towards heaven in ecstasy.

This reminds me of the gender euphoria I felt the first time I, a transmasculine person, wore a chest binder. It hurt my ribs, but | finally saw myself the way | wanted to be.

I see myself in androgynous Agatha. Euphoric, despite being tormented for
simply being ourselves. The elation of transcending physical form that we share is profoundly trans. Artwork of saints like this speaks to the queer experience of pushing against social norms to live euphorically as ourselves."

St Agatha "covers her newly flat chest" - does she really?
anastpaul.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/st-agatha-2.jpg

Oh look - here is Saint Catherine of Alexandria, also by Bernardo Cavallino - almost identical pose, gazing up, with the same gesture of her right hand over her heart:
www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/435861

Saint Catherine of Alexandria by Raphael, almost identical pose, gazing up, with the same gesture of her right hand over her heart:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine_of_Alexandria_%28Raphael%29#/media/File:Raffael_020.jpg

Virgin Mary in "Adoration of the Shepherds", also by Bernardo Cavallino, almost identical pose, gazing up, with the same gesture of her right hand over her heart:
artvee.com/dl/adoration-of-the-shepherds-15/

Saint Lawrence, also by Bernardo Cavallino, different pose but the same gesture of right hand over heart:
artvee.com/dl/saint-lawrence-2/

Saint Cecilia by Raymond Monvoisin, almost identical pose, gazing up, with the same gesture of her right hand over her heart:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Monvoisin,Raymond-Santa_Cecilia-ost_77x63_PinUnConcep_f03.jpg#/media/File:Monvoisin,Raymond-Santa_Cecilia-ost_77x63_PinUnConcep_f03.jpg

So, no, for a start, St Agatha is not "covering her newly flat chest".

Secondly, her chest would not be "newly flat". Her breasts were not surgically amputated and the area sewn up to resemble a torso with a zip or two. Her breasts were brutally torn off while she was on the rack. She would have been left with agonising, gaping wounds.

"Euphoric?" "Androgynous?" "elation of transcending physical form?" "profoundly trans?"

This interpretation is not "queer" it is grossly ill-informed and revoltingly perverse, although perhaps providing comfort of some sort to the author - and, of course, validation, validation, validation. How incredibly sad to be driven to such extremes of wild imagining in order to garner a speck of self-esteem.

The context is also dangerous - and York Art Gallery is funded by the taxpayer and the National Lottery via Arts Council England amongst others.

National Lottery through Arts Council England – £3.5 million
Private Legacy – £2 million
City of York Council – £500,000
Anthony Shaw Trust – £400,000
Garfield Weston Foundation – £250,000
The Foyle Foundation – £150,000
Sir Siegmund Warburg’s Voluntary Settlement – £100,000
The Feoffees of St Michael’s of Spurriergate – £50,000
Shepherd Group – £50,000 over three years.

The "Queering the Burton" page
www.yorkartgallery.org.uk/exhibition/queering-the-burton/
links to this ideological propaganda, parts of which are homophobic, most of which is designed to confuse and gaslight by conflating "sex" and "gender":

"York LGBT Forum have created a handy guide to commonly used terminology, view it here."
www.yorkartgallery.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2021/12/WHAT_DOES_THAT_MEAN.pdf

SEX
refers to a person’s genitalia. Sex is usually categorised as male, female or intersex and is assigned at birth.
(No, "sex" does not "refer to a person's genitalia"; and, no, "intersex" people are not a third sex, they are either male or female.)

GENDER
how you identify internally. Sometimes this does not match a person’s sex. Gender identities include male, female, nonbinary and others, and may change frequently or over time.
(No, gender is a social construct, it is shorthand for "culturally determined sex-role stereotypes". Someone might identify with a male or female sex-role stereotype - but not as a sex-role stereotype. We are not androids.)

SEXUALITY
refers to who a person is attracted to. Various sexualities are mentioned in this booklet, but many more sexual identities exist. Again, these may change over time.
(What are the other "sexualities" that are not mentioned??)

GAY/HOMOSEXUAL
sexual preference for people of the same gender.
(This is homophobic and the rationale for Nancy Kelley's accusation that lesbians are "sexual racists" if they refuse to have sex with males)

CISGENDER / CIS
identifying as the same gender you were assigned at birth ie male or female.
(No one is "assigned" either a sex, and especially not a "gender," at birth. It is arrant nonsense to suggest that anyone other than the minority who believe in this ideology accepts that the condition of "cisgender" exists. It is a concept posited for the sole purpose of supporting the contested theory of "gender identity", as proposed by discredited child-abuser John Money).

John Money: The Pro-Pedophile Pervert Who Invented “Gender”
reduxx.info/john-money-the-pervert-who-invented-gender/

Archive:
archive.ph/reduxx.info/john-money-the-pervert-who-invented-gender/

I can't be bothered to trawl through any more of the rubbish published in that "What Does It Mean" leaflet hosted by York Art Gallery.