The Tate transes Marlow Moss

[ArabeIIaScott]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12096405/Tate-gallery-changes-pronouns-late-British-artist-assuming-identified-trans.html

'Tate gallery changes the pronouns of celebrated British artist who died 60 YEARS AGO to become gender-neutral'

At first, I found only this interesting essay/biography on Moss:

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/marlow-moss-1671/essay

And then I found that the latest transing of Moss is actually on the Tate's kids' site:

https://www.tate.org.uk/kids/explore/who-is/who-marlow-moss

Quote:

'Wait - why did you say their voice? Was Marlow male, or female? Or neither?
The short answer? We’re not totally sure.'

Moss was female, you fucking lying bastards. They've erased a lesbian artist's sex.

This is horrific.

I just can't get through today without swearing a lot.

There are so few female artists of that time period, especially. So few. For obvious reasons.

Women's history is being deliberately erased.

• I should add - so few named, known, and recognised female artists.

Wow this reminds me of the Mormons baptising the dead, on the basis that the dead person would have converted when they were alive had they been given the chance.

Perhaps the Tate should just call all female artists 'they'. I may write and suggest it. Clearly anyone working as an artist must be at least gender neutral, if not a man. Because obviously mere women are not capable of making art! The fact of them doing so means their gender is thrown into question!

Wow, I hadn't heard of that.

Yes, same energy. Except I don't think that non-Mormons have been fighting for centuries to have their achievements recognised and permitted in society.

'Wait - why did you say their voice? Was Marlow male, or female? Or neither?
The short answer? We’re not totally sure.'

What utter idiocy this is. Every human on the planet ever has been male or female, even if in very rare situations it takes some investigation to work out.

In this case we know damn well that this artist was female and therefore a woman. So, she.

If they want to take this approach they need to do it for all artists who are dead, who didn't make an absolutely clear statement about their preferred pronouns. So all of them.

Jo Bartosch has been trying to get the Tate to comment on this, I believe. I'm not sure if it was Jo or someone else who pointed out that the information on Marlow Moss for the general public, i.e. mostly adults, is accurate about her sex, but the 'they/them' nonsense is just for the children, who have of course already been softened up at school. Despicable.

The Mormons - & it is the mainstream LDS - were meant to stop baptising anyone but their own dead (frankly I think baptising your own Jewish granny is fecking grim) but their new system to prevent this is far from perfect.

The scandal about baptising Holocaust victims broke in the 1990s, but this 2017 article mentions the notorious 2012 baptism of Anne Frank as well as the fact the church’s system halted the baptism of some notorious figures but waved through the late Queen Mother.

Also, the Tate can feck right off with their ahistoric & deeply disrespectful woman-erasing nonsense 🤬

Enraging. Belittling women's long history /struggle for rights and erasing a lesbian as well.
The Tate are evidently harbouring so many staff with Victorian attitudes to women.

Tate kids is awful.

They've another film (not sure if it's on tate kids or on their wider education site ) on Grayson Perry which is really good bar their choice of pot. One which I think they may own, that they're really proud of, of a young bound up woman.

Let’s get this straight. Abstract art pioneer, one of the few women to have earned recognition and kudos in the field, has just been posthumously transed because she was gender non-conforming. Or was it because there’s no way a boring old cis woman would ever do anything extraordinary?

How dare they? How dare they trans her when she is not here to give her consent?

Erasing women’s achievements is not a good look.

They also posthumously baptise Jews murdered in the Holocaust, which makes me feel physically ill.

"Sharing your pronouns is a great way to make people feel comfortable with sharing theirs!"Alternatively, it's a great way to let people know that you're a navel-gazing twat, and to give you a wide berth! 👍👍

I can't remember where I first saw something about this. Absolutely shocking. And yet apparently there is no lesbian erasure going on as a result of the truly homophobic gender identity ideology. Pull the other one!

This has really upset me. Misogyny, homophobia, gaslighting and indoctrination of children.

I'm sorry, PaleBlue.

This has to stop, now. It's gone beyond what anyone can tolerate. Erasing women like this is absolutely unacceptable.

'Moss cannot be confined to one particular field of academic study, as she pertains to several: British art history, European art history, feminist art history, queer art history. Moss relates to them all, and this is one reason for her obscurity. She was a British artist in Paris, a European in Cornwall, and woman artist among men. She disrupts and subverts the histories that could include her, and in the search for a coherent artistic narrative, has often been left out. However, despite being absent from almost all dictionaries and surveys of British art history, Moss’s name can be found.'

Tate St Ives links to Moss's Wikipedia article for her bio, which uses exclusively female pronouns for her. https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/marlow-moss-1671

The visitor feedback form links to: [email protected]

http://artcornwall.org/interviews/Lucy_Howarth/Lucy_Howarth_on_Marlow_Moss.htm

An interesting article on Moss' life, by her biographer.

I have a hard time caring if Mormon baptize the dead. Even they say that unless said dead people agree to it in the afterlife, it doesn't count, and really, it makes no attempt to erase the past.

Claiming people had identities they didn't is a rather different thing. Though I wouldn't say this is the first kind of attempt, we often look at historical figures through category lenses that didn't exist at the time. And there have been attempts to make other figures more interesting by completely inventing history for them, like Mary Anning. People seem to think it's ok because it promotes (they imagine) something they believe in, and who knows, it could be true.

Oh FFS. Women are only just starting to get recognised for the achievements men took credit for and then this!

The Tate I believe is also the gallery which called The Ressurection: Cooham, a racist painting, because the artist tried to show people of various races rising from the grave.

They don't actually care about art.

Oh, ffs, sorry about the spelling above.

https://artuk.org/discover/stories/queering-constructivism-the-legacy-of-marlow-moss

I really don't see how Moss' introduction of the 'double line' is in any way 'queering' constructivism.

It's expanding on it, perhaps. (Literally, if Moss' intent was succesfully realised).

'We have tonnes of words to describe gender that didn't exist back then'

I wonder why they don't just add a few scribbles to her paintings? A Progress flag icon maybe, or a bit of hentai? After all, we have tonnes of images used to identify queerness now that they didn't have back then.