York Art Gallery's crude trans appropriation of St Agatha

[escapingthecity]

Couldn't see another thread yet and just saw this in the Times. York Art Gallery has teamed up with a local LGBT group and has fixed a piece of commentary by a trans man next to a painting to St Agatha. She was an early Christian martyr famously tortured by having her breasts cut off (she's often depicted holding a plate with them on like 2 breasty blancmanges). But for York, the religious ecstasy of a tortured saint is apparently like the thrill of wearing a breast binder. I don't even know where to start with this appropriation of a Christian experience and apparent approval of violent torture.

Pictures here: twitter.com/georgewoxford/status/1572566353047097345?s=21&t=hBOADtJYRvIJM4SBW-EK7Q

Bloody hell. How ignorant can a person be? Why don't they know ANYTHING?

I’m cringing for the art gallery and for that man for failing to understand that St Agatha didn't choose to have her breasts removed. They were cut off as a part of her torture for failing to give up Christianity. Someone is confused.com, how embarrassing.

They were cut off with pincers. She didn't wear binders to hide them. They were bandages to cover the wounds.

Crazy to have any mention of sexuality or binders along this image.

Literally - is nothing sacred?!

*Cringeing

I am scratching my head at the concept that art galleries have ever been “unwelcoming” towards LGBT people. I used to run in some pretty artsy crowds and they skewed very gay indeed. Why any of it would need queered is beyond me.

if the ahistorical, self indulgent nonsensical witterings are what is meant by “being queered”, though, I think we can safely do without it. “Here’s some old piece of art or shit, whatever, but more importantly, what about meeeeeeeeeeee?”

(Snaps for “breasty blancmanges”, btw, which I should not find as funny as I do )

I agree - is nothing sacred?

It's hideous for sure and if I were a Christian I'd probably find it crazily offensive.
I do think he and York Gallery are free to hold their opinions and also utilise the art in any way they like. Freedom. Art. All that jazz. But I do also think they are scoring a marvellous own-goal which makes them look ridiculous.

@Sophoclesthefox here's the kind of picture I was thinking of. She's sometimes lined up next to St Lucy, who has her eyeballs on a plate.

if the ahistorical, self indulgent nonsensical witterings are what is meant by “being queered”, though, I think we can safely do without it.

Isn't that what 'queering' fundamentally is? Whatever norms, standards, beliefs, ethics exist need to be subverted and completely overturned. What does queering achieve, other than a terrifying combination of anarchy and dictatorship?

I like how Labour are blamed in the tweet despite not being in charge of the Council

That’s about the score of it.

It can only be destrictive, because that is its function. It creates nothing, it only kicks away the foundations of what already exists, like some nasty little bully kicking over sandcastles.

Nailed it @escapingthecity. That painting makes me extremely queasy and not just because I can’t stand blancmange.

What is it about the concept of a woman being tortured by involuntarily having her breasts cut off makes these people think “hmmm, yeah, but I don’t really think that torture and sainthood and the religious abuse of women is anything like as interesting as my very twenty first century identity, which we should immediately foreground”.

Now if they had looked at the painting and mused a bit about how the latest iteration of the patriarchy is encouraging women to cut their own breasts off rather than going to all the fuss and bother of doing it for us, then they might pique my interest.

But no.

Has anyone been in touch with the gallery to say how batshit crazy they've made themselves look?

Writing to the gallery might be an idea yes.

As a Christian, as a woman, as a parent of a girl child who has talked to me about breast binding (& many of her peers seem confused about their gender...)
this concerns me greatly.

Thanks for highlighting it here OP & for other posters insightful comments too

On flippant note I quite like the idea of 'queering' things. It might have been Graham Linehan who got confused recently about 'queering' a dining table, but it got me thinking.

Whenever I fancy changing things around they are henceforth to be called queered. If I move the furniture around, I have queered the living room. If I'm wearing a summer dress with winter boots, I am queering my outfit. And I shall definitely put the forks where the knives should be & the spoons under the table as a mark of respect to Glinner. And don't you dare argue with me. Else you're all transphobes.

See also this thread, for more batshittery

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4631901-york-art-gallery

@Sophoclesthefox this is exactly it "Now if they had looked at the painting and mused a bit about how the latest iteration of the patriarchy is encouraging women to cut their own breasts off rather than going to all the fuss and bother of doing it for us, then they might pique my interest."

@KatVonlabonk thank you, I had missed this. Evidently took a week for the Times to see it

Art is subjective. The viewer will inevitably bring their experience to what they see. In one sense, that kind of project is quite interesting to get viewers' responses to paintings BUT it about the viewer and the gallery visitor's experience. It should not be presented in a way that suggests we should reinterpret the painting. Where is the critical thinking these days?

We live in such narcissistic times.

I mean, this is saying the quiet bit out loud isn't it?

Yes, girls are now getting the NHS to remove their breasts in homage to the new religion.

They were cut off as a part of her torture for failing to give up Christianity

I don't think it is far from the truth to say that detransitioners are and will be undergoing torture for the rest of their lives. It is spot on.

A few thoughts have come to me after reading the Twitter thread. Artists in the past have gained enjoyment from illustrating St Agatha's torture. Not good.
And this offensive writing has been aimed, with some subtlety, at two areas where there are problems between trans people and women.
It has been reported that trans people wanting breast surgery think they should come ahead of women who actually need it. St Agatha has been made patron of women with breast cancer.
And she is also the patron of women who have been raped (despite, apparently, having been miraculously protected against it herself). We know how that is treated by the trans lobby.
This is not just queering another saintly woman. This is trying to remove yet more support from women who need it.

I think it should always be made clear that members of the public’s views on/responses to the art are just that: personal responses. I’m not sure this does.

There is value to queering in the sense of querying. Why should certain ways of thinking be established as the way? But querying for the sake of understanding, of growth and improvement, not queering for the sake of destruction.

If I lived in the York area (unfortunately about as far away as it's possible to get) I'd be tempted to simply remove the plaque or whatever it is. Or of it couldn't be removed, spray it with spray paint. That would get publicity and the debate would reach a far wider audience that polite exchanges from Christians would.

Oooo I got deleted. Bizarre.
Trying to work out my wrong think. Can't have been the bit about York Art Gallery being part of a trust and independent of the Council..... surely?
What about the bit about this coming from within the sector? That OK?
Got to stay relevant with the under 25s by appropriating Christian religion to reframe another set of beliefs ? Is that worded better for you?

The Art Gallery has responded with a series of tweets defending it's exhibition.

This was a good response

twitter.com/LissaKEvans/status/1573423118919806976?s=20&t=EzfX4XOr7gnRcr1opaueJQ