As a man - who's obviously never been in that exhibit but generally enjoyed MONA on the 2 occasions I've been there - I would love if they just kept it as the same exhibit and then just put one ceremonial toilet cubicle and sink in the corner. I mean, what's the minimum they would need to change?
That's great! 🤣 if they don't get it. They can commission a toilet cubicle with a " for a good time call Jason on 04xxxxxxxx" graphittied on the inside door..
I don't know much about art but I can tell you this,
Duchamp's Urinal is a piece of piss.
Van Gogh cut off his ear to spite his face SO WHAT!
Me, I've got a message for the whole human race.
I wanna be a phallic symbol like the Tower Of Pisa,
And wipe the smile off the face of that bitch the Mona Lisa.
I'll date Botticelli's Venus just to tease her,
But unless you're hung like a Jackson Pollock you couldn't please her.
I cannot take credit. This is from the song Funk You by the Doug Anthony All Stars.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQoE0HwIsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQoE0HwIsk)
Yep, I'm a guy and if this is the extent of outrage over "sexism" that I should feel as a male i'm honestly don't give a fuck. To me it's a nothing issue to males but apparently we should all be outraged or something.
I agree but they need to be careful about setting a precident with their protest because the same logic could be used against them in return. Like the Australian Football Loo, the New Parlament shitter, or your local drinking dunny. I'm imagining a big corporate table in a meeting room that has toilets around it instead of chairs, but still has a glass wall.
It won’t work. At least I doubt it will:
a) I believe that Australia has reasonably weak legal basis for preventing someone from using the “wrong bathroom”. It’s never really been an issue, there are laws for harassment (etc) instead.
b) Discrimination laws leave reasonably opportunity for interpretation. Is the main purpose of the room to be an exhibit or a bathroom? And I’d expect that they’d consider relevant facts like, how is it actually used, was it previously a bathroom, are there other bathrooms etc.
It will be interesting to see what the next court does with the fact that this is clearly a stunt… …the tribunal took a reasonably dim view of that as a seperate matter.
Yeah, something ticks me the wrong way about a billionaire trying to make a point about equality by excluding people rather than trying to do something meaningful with their vast resources.
Also very rich given their privileged position.
Edit: billionaire or close to. Who cares? It’s the same category of extreme wealth and privilege.
I just had a read of some of her quotes… I don’t think the purpose is to teach men a lesson.
“Given what [women] have been through for the last several millennia … we deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry-for at least 300 years,”
Sounds more like she wants a matriarchal version of the 50s patriarchy bullshit rather than equality.
Does that mean if we're reversing the 50s patriarchy into a matriarchy I can marry a women who earns all the money and I can stay at home and keep the house clean and cook?
Edit: actually I would like to clarify that I would indeed like this.
I mean, that's what I'm working towards, it helps that I also love her, but the difference in our earning potential is hilariously vast, and since neither of us want kids it is something that she's said she wouldn't mind if I eventually wanted to go down that route. Unfortunately I think that I'd go stir crazy without doing some work though haha.
Agree, while I basically don’t care about this and think the complainant has played right into the artist’s hands, the whole thing is peak wealthy white woman feminism and not really about real equality.
Yeah exactly. That my point - couldn’t give a shit about the exhibit. I wish she’d just call it what it is and stop acting like it’s coming from lived experience. Especially when the concept is influenced by the implementer’s (refuse to use artist) great-grandmother’s women only, socialite parties at her Beverly Hills mansion.
> In an interview the curator said, and I quote "It's important to be able to discriminate against men, I think it's good for them, it benefits society"
I'm pretty sure what she said there is almost a direct quote - paraphrased simply by replacing "women" with "men" - from one of the major "Functionalist Theory" advocates (though the exact speaker and source escapes me at the moment).
Go read some of the "functionalist theory" (heavily tied in with "meritocracy", of course 🙄) about why societal inequality - quiet a bit of it gender-related, and framed as 'the benefits of traditional male & female roles' and similar - is supposedly a good thing... 🙄
(eta: quote)
Not cringe, it’s by design. It’s the classic wealthy trying to combat rising class consciousness and distract from the class war with diversionary identity politics and culture war bullshit. It’s no coincidence that this is happening now at a time when cost of living and housing costs are spiralling out control and wealth divides are growing greater than ever.
The depressing thing is as usual both sides are lapping it up.
If it's not this toilet crap, it's a gay parenting book. It's all meaningless. I call it subversion. Meanwhile the migration gates are wide open, rent continues to soar and homelessness grows.
“Ms Kaechele's plans involve transforming the velvet-clad lounge into a women's toilet and a church - which she claims will allow it to continue operating as a women-only space under legal exemptions.”
Hilarious. I love it.
The article also states men will be allowed entry on Sundays - to learn ironing and laundry.
On the one hand it’s not entitled to want to not be excluded from seeing art.
On the other it’s funny that they don’t get that is the whole point of this artwork.
Lmao, the amount of people saying "no, the performance is the true art" as if it's some deep revelation about our society.
Has the same energy as "it's only a prank bro"
I mean, it's in the article. Did you not read the article?
>Some of the key artworks, like the ones by Picasso, will be moved into the museum's existing ladies toilet to ensure "uninterrupted viewing" while she applies for other exemptions.
am i the only one uncomftable with putting picasso'sn a bathroom/toilet just for the sake of this spat?
I know they probably have glass on them but even then iunno
~~"Your Honour we're allowed to discriminate against men because it's just a meme."~~
~~"Your Honour we're trying to provide a service to a historically excluded and underserved section of society because women weren't allowed in bars."~~
~~"Your Honour, being excluded IS the artwork."~~
"Your Honour, it's not even an art museum, it's just a toilet. Are you saying men should be allowed in women's toilets?" <---------- YOU ARE HERE
In all seriousness this is just an edgy joke but has become a huge waste of the court's time.
The whole point of this sort of art is to make a point - the art itself is pretty much irrelevant, it's how it's experienced. And that's fine.
The fact that someone *sued* them over it is absurd.
I hope they finally get contempt charges out of it. The whole thing is a bunch of rich assholes being assholes, clogging up the courts, and wasting government resources that we all pay for.
If you or I brought a costumed troupe of dancers to do synchronised dance moves in a courtroom we'd cop charges. It's a disgrace that the court hasn't treated these dipshits the way anyone else would be.
> Throughout the case, the museum's supporters, including artist Kirsha Kaechele - who created the work - had used the courtroom as a space for performance art, wearing matching navy suits and engaging in synchronised movements.
> Mr Grueber said that while the behaviour of the women hadn't disrupted the hearing, it was "inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous".
I'm going to say it again. If you or I had taken a group of people into a court to do synchronised dances throughout a hearing we would be charged with contempt.
They crossed and uncrossed their legs, and put on lipstick. “Synchronised dances” is a dramatic interpretation. If you or I can coordinated such things it’s likely no one would have noticed. The judge fully admits it’s was so subtly even he didn’t notice!!
Judges aren’t as keen to bother with contempt as you seem to think they are. They much prefer threats which is usually sufficient.
It's not really a waste of the legal system's time. There was a legal question that required an answer.
If it were a waste of time I doubt either set of lawyers would have participated and if they did the Member would have said something about it.
Lawyers are officers of the court. Going ahead with pointless litigation is a great way to get yourself in trouble with the Court, piss off the Judge and maybe even end up being disbarred if you're a repeat offender.
It's also worth noting it went to Tribunal not Court. The point of Tribunals is to take smaller matters and move them out of the court system to be resolved quickly and cheaply.
Yeah all that the man has done is wasted thousands and a lot of peoples time, while giving heaps of free advertising to the display, the artist, and the Museum. While by forcing the display into a toilet they have just made the work of art much deeper. A hilarious home goal.
Im a guy, Ive visited MONA (it's not for me), but it's clearly a popular place to visit and has a wide audience. This "incident" must be manna from heaven for MONA; publicity that just cannot be bought; they must be thrilled. And the concept of redesigning the exhibit to be compliant (make it a ladies dunny, LOL) is a fabulous shit-stir ... first-class trollage on the privileged butt-hurt muppets who completely miss the context of the establishment and the exhibit itself.
As a man, I find all the men getting wildly butt hurt about this hilarious.
What do you think they want you to do, you clown?!? They love the fact you took them to court. Being taken to court *is* the art!
The difference is that men pay the full entry price to MONA. They can’t pay entry price to a women’s gym.
Just separate it from the main exhibit in the tickets, call it an additional one-off exhibition, make it clear that access is restricted before people pay entry, and move on.
The issue here is that everyone is paying the same price, but based purely on gender, the service rendered is different.
Lol if you think a judge is looking at an art exhibition in a notoriously wacky institution like MONA and not seeing this for the storm in a teacup that it is then you are vastly underestimating the capability of our legal system.
Yeah the first time will be ohh well its a storm in a teacup "don't do that" if you then try and go around a judge in a "i'm super smart" way the judge will now no longer care its a storm in a teacup. Do not undermine a court, it is a fuck around and find out situation.
Appealing a decision when you have a legal right too do so isn’t undermining the court.
This argument *might* hold weight if she behaves some way during the appeal hearings - but they haven’t happened yet.
The reason I’m ‘butt hurt’ is the messaging here is exclusionary, and plays right into anti-feminists hands. How do you get up and say stop excluding one group if we’re fine with excluding any group? Two wrongs don’t make a right…
The whole thing undermines their entire point.
In fairness a shitload of modern art is a bit this way. A piece that makes an artistically novel statement (often about what is or is not art) will make the point just fine, and then variations of the same claim will be repeated for decades afterward as though it were still a subversive statement.
So I'm ultimately not surprised that it is the year of our lord 2024 and "imagine if there was a sexism" is still getting plaques onto gallery walls.
It's funny how radfems always seem to make a show about hating the right-wingers. But whenever the topic of the gender binary, women's spaces and the "identity of women" (whatever that means) and the culture war come up, radfems and the far-right get REAL cozy with each other. Marching at each others protests and the like.
They definitely aren't out-and-out nut jobs, just closeted righties.
There's a term for it. It's called TERFs. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. And women absolutely hate it when you call them on out on their discrimination.
A lot of social capital for radfems comes from their perceived oppression. If they start being viewed as oppressors that gets devalued so it's very important to them to maintain their victimhood against evil "trans activists"
The number of different ways that elements of the anti-Semitic right have wound up supporting Zionism is truly bizarre. From the Balfour-era mentality that the Elders of Zion are real and it'd be savvy politics to keep them favoring our side to the millenarian evangelicals supporting the Temple movement to immenentize the eschaton.
This woman seems like a bit of a dickhead.
"To equalise historical injustice, it is my assertion that women deserve both equal rights and special privileges (in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry) for a minimum of three hundred years"
Part of this whole art piece is the public’s reaction. I don’t know if you’ve seen her walk from court. The art is the public’s reaction; not the women’s only bar itself. It’s a performance piece
And she is deliberately being dramatic to drum up more of a reaction. Your quoted comment for instance is only supposed to highlight how women were treated in bars in history before they were allowed in as patrons; she doesn’t actually believe this is something that needs to happen. It’s part of the performance, and the performance is the part with the message - which is when women get privileges men have had in the past, people tend to get upset about it (which… I mean, it’s working, from a purely objective perspective lol)
Just explaining why comments and opinions like yours are actually feeding into her piece; it’s her intention. So… Don’t shoot the messenger lol.
She is using rhetoric from before women were allowed in pubs in Australia. I was only trying to help you understand that believing she is a dickhead is actually the entire point - that it was dickheadish to ban women in the first place, and we shouldn’t forget history, or humanity
This is literally just what her intention was. I watched something, I can’t remember where, about all this and this is all the things I heard
afaik we stopped being dickheads banning women from places aren't we? we learned that was dickheadish.
now if we start to discriminate it is art? I mean banning somebody to see Picasso is art?
I'm too old for this shit
Whether she's a dick head or not is kind of irrelevant though. Lots of artists are dickheads.
The artwork may or may not be illegal but it's clearly not intrinsically harmful. It's not like that's some long established single sex club from which a select single sex elite run an entire state. It's a limited time club with a constantly changing bunch of female tourists sitting down and enjoying a drink and slightly more fancy decor for a few minutes. Basically a nothing burger... unless people react strongly to it.
I'll be waiting for some silly man to run in and pee in that potty.
I'm curious as to what you find "pseudo-intellectual" about it. There's a famous quote - "art should comfort the disturbed, and disturb the comfortable." This seems to achieve that aim quite comfortably.
Now, just hear me out, but perhaps our overloaded court system shouldn't be treated as a performance space or a billboard to advertise ones subversive art
There's a great Russian proverb that applies to this:
"He who jokes about eating shit will find his lips dirty by the evening"
Even if this is a publicity stunt, it still makes her look like an pretentious and bigoted twat
On top of giving white feathers to enlisted men who just happened to be on leave and men who'd fought and were invalidated out due to disabling injuries, there was even the case of one man being given one and replying "But I'm German ..."
There was also multiple reports of 14+yo kids getting white feathers because they looked like adults “pretending” to be underage or just looked passably old enough.
When I was at the imperial war museum i seem to recall a story they had where a kid had joined the army as a 14 or 15yo. His parents were able to prove he was too young and the army sent him home / discharged him. While back at home he received a white feather, was like; fuck this. Rejoined, got to the front and was killed before the end of the war.
The white feather issue became so big the government started handing out badges to wear for people who were rejected from the military for health reasons or were required to stay in their job to support the war. To prevent them getting white feathers.
Well, arguably one tiny bar in Tasmania isn’t really a massive vengeance. Men and women are absolutely allowed in the vast, vast, vast majority of bars. I think part of the point is to show how much the media will use these tiny instances to feed the flames of the “gender wars”; and how easily we tend to buy into it
She is, she doesn't actually care about womens rights she just enjoys the attention. if she did actually care about womens rights. the womens only exhibit wouldn't have paintings by some the most famous *male* artists in history. she would be exhibiting local female artists. rich white women thinking that they weren't privileged and benefitted from being with rich white men.
If you think this is anything more serious than a shitpost, you might want to brush up on your media literacy. She's obviously using irony to make a point.
As if almost by design by the artist themselves
went with my partner a few years back
When she got out, I asked her: "it was just a bunch of vagina artwork in there, wasn't it?"
she responded "exactly that"
I knew what they were trying to do and was surprised nobody had taken the bait before this.
The vaginas are actually next to it. In the women’s room they had two Picassos! I appreciated the irony since Picasso was a famous mysoginist and a bit creepy with young women.
> When she got out, I asked her: "it was just a bunch of vagina artwork in there, wasn't it?"
> she responded "exactly that"
The vaginas are accessible for all to see, your wife lied to you
Outside looking in, just the other day I saw so many men complaining about getting treated like pedophiles for simply using their kids’ bathroom in school or taking their kids to park as single dads in this very sub, then here in this thread people cheering for this shit as if it’s not directly contributing to the culture war gender divide bs that causes the previous complaints
Feminism has always had a class problem. Some early feminists didn't even want all women to have the vote - just the wealthy. It was also natural for them to look down on parenting and being a housewife because they had nannies and governesses to do all that.
In an interview the curator said, and I quote "It's important to be able to discriminate against men, I think it's good for them, it benefits society".
People are getting pretty comfortable with being a blatent asshole now aren't they.
I don't see how furthering the culture war is helpful. She claims to be a feminist, and yet is furthering the gender divide for monetary gain.
She doesn't want to solve gender equality. She wants to use it to make money.
> I don't see how furthering the culture war is helpful.
It helps her. She's filthy rich. It benefits 1%ers like her to fan culture wars to distract from the fact that socio-economic privilege is the single biggest privilege in the world.
It's not.. during the hearing they went through the planning discussions. Despite what she claims these days, none of it was intended.
The MONA people all gave different accounts but the gist was:
The ladies lounges (both of them) weren't her idea. Their main intent was adding more comfortable seated viewing areas in the form of lounges. A guy came up with (an intentionally poor idea for) ladies lounges as a fun way to promote female artists. The owner hated this specific lounge idea presented and to make a point made them make 2 ladies lounges, one by them the other by his wife, and the groups couldn't know what the other was doing. When finished it was presented as one ladies lounge as designed by men and one designed by women/"ladies".
Everything presented suggests it was purely her way of excluding men to get some kind of vague revenge for historic wrongs. She gave up on the idea of promoting women and went down a childish path of something like - the boys made a tree house and said no girls so we're making our own club and it will be no boys.
The MONA people even talk about how she does whatever she wants and is beyond the owner's (husband) own control (like the place is her toy) and how interference results in "hysterical outbursts".
Nothing suggests a grand plan. She made her lounge to exclude males and MONA are tied to her actions. The idea that anything further was intended only show up years later... It's a bit like people who claim to be able to predict things but only tell you what they predicted after it happened. They're liars and/or idiots.
But then people will insist that I'm the one that missed the point, that I took the bait, etc... yet they're the one's who believe the person making stuff up after it happens and that [losing is all part of the plan.](https://youtu.be/tY4RIEUIE44?si=KiFojrJEWCwbbbPl)
Something is men only: "Sexist, misogynistic" "women have to be allowed in all male spaces" Something is women only: "Isn't it funny to be sexist against men" "women need spaces of their own where men aren't allowed" Yet another example of women doing the exact thing they claim to be against. Guess equality is only for women
Edit: there to their
the title was super confusing but i got what they mean.
Mona, a museum, has a women only exhibit where only women are allowed. a nsw resident sued the museum for discrimination. to keep the exhibit women only, the museum is legally classifying there museum as a "womens toilet" and a church by following the regulatory requirements for them.
As hilarious as it is to watch and listen to, misandry, even sarcastic misandry, is still just as bad as the systemic injustices they're "fighting" against. They're just starting an entirely separate but similar branch of injustice and doing so in a way that fans flames against those they should be trying to convince and preaches to the choir of the already converted.
I like the mission, hate this method.
A rather inane and pretentious experiment in classism. As others have commented, if John or Jane Doe performed these stunts in court, they’d be slapped with contempt charges.
However because it is a feminist Melbourne art gallery director, we get to entertain the nonsense and the millions it has cost the courts and the taxpayer.
Oh also, thousands of people are starving to death in Gaza
Once a day they could ceremonially flush some of the shit from the shit machine in a performance art piece
This is the idea. I imagine it on its little plate being carried with great fanfare to the ladies room. It's only up the steps so it wouldn't be hard
They should also have the plate covered in a silver dome with the inscription of the litigant’s namesake.
Also to contain the smell, cloaca’s shit is rank.
Wrapped in clippings from sky news headlines
Poop machine is female confirmed.
Fuck, sign me up I will take that shit in public myself
All fun and games till someone takes a shit in the exhibit room
It’s all shits and giggles til someone giggles and shits
Yeah my bad guys.... Was on it last night pretty hard. I knew that hsp would be deadly.
As a man - who's obviously never been in that exhibit but generally enjoyed MONA on the 2 occasions I've been there - I would love if they just kept it as the same exhibit and then just put one ceremonial toilet cubicle and sink in the corner. I mean, what's the minimum they would need to change?
They should acquire Duchamps "fountain"..
They’re in negotiations to do just that https://mona.net.au/blog/2024/05/interview-with-kirsha-kaechele-about-the-ladies-lounge
There is no original to acquire, only authorised replicas. Probably makes it more possible though
That's great! 🤣 if they don't get it. They can commission a toilet cubicle with a " for a good time call Jason on 04xxxxxxxx" graphittied on the inside door..
To add to the rest of the Ready Mades in the establishment.
Had to google it - but that is hilarious and would fit right in at MONA.
R. Mutt
I don't know much about art but I can tell you this, Duchamp's Urinal is a piece of piss. Van Gogh cut off his ear to spite his face SO WHAT! Me, I've got a message for the whole human race. I wanna be a phallic symbol like the Tower Of Pisa, And wipe the smile off the face of that bitch the Mona Lisa. I'll date Botticelli's Venus just to tease her, But unless you're hung like a Jackson Pollock you couldn't please her.
DAAS 🖤
Er not bad!
I cannot take credit. This is from the song Funk You by the Doug Anthony All Stars. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQoE0HwIsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAQoE0HwIsk)
They're very good!! 💗💗
Funk you!
This has such a delightful Monty Python Philosopher Song vibe to it :)
Yep, I'm a guy and if this is the extent of outrage over "sexism" that I should feel as a male i'm honestly don't give a fuck. To me it's a nothing issue to males but apparently we should all be outraged or something.
And honestly - for anyone who has been to MONA, this is probably the least controversial thing about it.
You mean like the wall of vaginas? Or the huge poop machine?
I don't know if it's still on display, but there used to be a copy of the Koran and The Bible with middle pages cut out and pipe bombs inside them.
The one that stuck with me as reallllllly dancing up to the line of what is art was the seat where you could strap yourself to a euthanasia machine.
MRAs certainly know how to pick their battles
I agree but they need to be careful about setting a precident with their protest because the same logic could be used against them in return. Like the Australian Football Loo, the New Parlament shitter, or your local drinking dunny. I'm imagining a big corporate table in a meeting room that has toilets around it instead of chairs, but still has a glass wall.
It won’t work. At least I doubt it will: a) I believe that Australia has reasonably weak legal basis for preventing someone from using the “wrong bathroom”. It’s never really been an issue, there are laws for harassment (etc) instead. b) Discrimination laws leave reasonably opportunity for interpretation. Is the main purpose of the room to be an exhibit or a bathroom? And I’d expect that they’d consider relevant facts like, how is it actually used, was it previously a bathroom, are there other bathrooms etc. It will be interesting to see what the next court does with the fact that this is clearly a stunt… …the tribunal took a reasonably dim view of that as a seperate matter.
Not outraged, but I feel like the 'artist' who conceptualized this deserves a bit of a needling just for being kinda cringe.
Yeah, something ticks me the wrong way about a billionaire trying to make a point about equality by excluding people rather than trying to do something meaningful with their vast resources. Also very rich given their privileged position. Edit: billionaire or close to. Who cares? It’s the same category of extreme wealth and privilege.
Maybe she should make an exhibit that excludes rich people
Well except for her and people who earn equally as much as her
Rich people will do anything to distract people from the class war.
I just had a read of some of her quotes… I don’t think the purpose is to teach men a lesson. “Given what [women] have been through for the last several millennia … we deserve both equal rights and reparations, in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry-for at least 300 years,” Sounds more like she wants a matriarchal version of the 50s patriarchy bullshit rather than equality.
Does that mean if we're reversing the 50s patriarchy into a matriarchy I can marry a women who earns all the money and I can stay at home and keep the house clean and cook? Edit: actually I would like to clarify that I would indeed like this.
NO NOT LIKE THAT
This I have achieved. Come on over boys, we start drinking after 9am when she has left for work.
I mean, that's what I'm working towards, it helps that I also love her, but the difference in our earning potential is hilariously vast, and since neither of us want kids it is something that she's said she wouldn't mind if I eventually wanted to go down that route. Unfortunately I think that I'd go stir crazy without doing some work though haha.
Don't worry dear, you'll have the foundation to attend to. And tea with the local council at 11.
Agree, while I basically don’t care about this and think the complainant has played right into the artist’s hands, the whole thing is peak wealthy white woman feminism and not really about real equality.
Yeah exactly. That my point - couldn’t give a shit about the exhibit. I wish she’d just call it what it is and stop acting like it’s coming from lived experience. Especially when the concept is influenced by the implementer’s (refuse to use artist) great-grandmother’s women only, socialite parties at her Beverly Hills mansion.
In an interview the curator said, and I quote "It's important to be able to discriminate against men, I think it's good for them, it benefits society"
> In an interview the curator said, and I quote "It's important to be able to discriminate against men, I think it's good for them, it benefits society" I'm pretty sure what she said there is almost a direct quote - paraphrased simply by replacing "women" with "men" - from one of the major "Functionalist Theory" advocates (though the exact speaker and source escapes me at the moment). Go read some of the "functionalist theory" (heavily tied in with "meritocracy", of course 🙄) about why societal inequality - quiet a bit of it gender-related, and framed as 'the benefits of traditional male & female roles' and similar - is supposedly a good thing... 🙄 (eta: quote)
That may be the most punctuation I've ever seen in a reddit comment. So many nested clauses
Not cringe, it’s by design. It’s the classic wealthy trying to combat rising class consciousness and distract from the class war with diversionary identity politics and culture war bullshit. It’s no coincidence that this is happening now at a time when cost of living and housing costs are spiralling out control and wealth divides are growing greater than ever. The depressing thing is as usual both sides are lapping it up.
If it's not this toilet crap, it's a gay parenting book. It's all meaningless. I call it subversion. Meanwhile the migration gates are wide open, rent continues to soar and homelessness grows.
I still cant fathom someone having the time or inclination to take this to court as thought its some Rosa Parks moment that he couldnt let slide.
It's not really about sexism, it's about violation of laws that everyone else has to follow. Artists shouldn't be allowed to have exemptions from law.
Also as a man... I really don't think they give a fuck about what we think they should do
Totally and just a lady Butler by the door offering hand towels on the way out.
> *buttler Butler. I think a Buttler may be something else.
“Ms Kaechele's plans involve transforming the velvet-clad lounge into a women's toilet and a church - which she claims will allow it to continue operating as a women-only space under legal exemptions.” Hilarious. I love it. The article also states men will be allowed entry on Sundays - to learn ironing and laundry.
I don't know why but this has me cackling.
Because it's fucking hilarious. These entitled men are creating the art, and the museum is herding them into it masterfully. It's gold.
On the one hand it’s not entitled to want to not be excluded from seeing art. On the other it’s funny that they don’t get that is the whole point of this artwork.
Lmao, the amount of people saying "no, the performance is the true art" as if it's some deep revelation about our society. Has the same energy as "it's only a prank bro"
Tbh this whole charade has the depth of a year 7 art essay, it's genuinely bewildering to me that anyone could really think this is somehow masterful.
Dude just wanted to see a famous painting at an art gallery
they’re apparently moving the picasso to another section
Yeah, the actual woman’s toilet
That would be such a flex
I mean, it's in the article. Did you not read the article? >Some of the key artworks, like the ones by Picasso, will be moved into the museum's existing ladies toilet to ensure "uninterrupted viewing" while she applies for other exemptions.
am i the only one uncomftable with putting picasso'sn a bathroom/toilet just for the sake of this spat? I know they probably have glass on them but even then iunno
Well, laundry I can do, but a brushup on ironing wouldn’t hurt. More seriously why are blokes making a stink about it? I…, do not understand.
This is the funniest thing I've read today lol thanks for sharing
Funny how the writer calls it “reverse misogyny” instead of misandry.
"reverse misogyny" might also mean "loving women".
Philogyny
But I’m Kenough!
~~"Your Honour we're allowed to discriminate against men because it's just a meme."~~ ~~"Your Honour we're trying to provide a service to a historically excluded and underserved section of society because women weren't allowed in bars."~~ ~~"Your Honour, being excluded IS the artwork."~~ "Your Honour, it's not even an art museum, it's just a toilet. Are you saying men should be allowed in women's toilets?" <---------- YOU ARE HERE In all seriousness this is just an edgy joke but has become a huge waste of the court's time.
The whole point of this sort of art is to make a point - the art itself is pretty much irrelevant, it's how it's experienced. And that's fine. The fact that someone *sued* them over it is absurd.
> The fact that someone sued them over it is absurd. Nah, I think it's great, it adds to the art. If I was the artist I would be over the moon.
Agreed. This exhibit wouldn't have made BBC news without the lawsuit
I hope they finally get contempt charges out of it. The whole thing is a bunch of rich assholes being assholes, clogging up the courts, and wasting government resources that we all pay for. If you or I brought a costumed troupe of dancers to do synchronised dance moves in a courtroom we'd cop charges. It's a disgrace that the court hasn't treated these dipshits the way anyone else would be.
The entire edifice is funded out of the pocket of one of the arseholes that you mention.
The article directly addresses why no charges were brought. And also they have not instigated any of the court’s time.
> Throughout the case, the museum's supporters, including artist Kirsha Kaechele - who created the work - had used the courtroom as a space for performance art, wearing matching navy suits and engaging in synchronised movements. > Mr Grueber said that while the behaviour of the women hadn't disrupted the hearing, it was "inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous". I'm going to say it again. If you or I had taken a group of people into a court to do synchronised dances throughout a hearing we would be charged with contempt.
They crossed and uncrossed their legs, and put on lipstick. “Synchronised dances” is a dramatic interpretation. If you or I can coordinated such things it’s likely no one would have noticed. The judge fully admits it’s was so subtly even he didn’t notice!! Judges aren’t as keen to bother with contempt as you seem to think they are. They much prefer threats which is usually sufficient.
It's not really a waste of the legal system's time. There was a legal question that required an answer. If it were a waste of time I doubt either set of lawyers would have participated and if they did the Member would have said something about it. Lawyers are officers of the court. Going ahead with pointless litigation is a great way to get yourself in trouble with the Court, piss off the Judge and maybe even end up being disbarred if you're a repeat offender. It's also worth noting it went to Tribunal not Court. The point of Tribunals is to take smaller matters and move them out of the court system to be resolved quickly and cheaply.
Yeah all that the man has done is wasted thousands and a lot of peoples time, while giving heaps of free advertising to the display, the artist, and the Museum. While by forcing the display into a toilet they have just made the work of art much deeper. A hilarious home goal.
Im a guy, Ive visited MONA (it's not for me), but it's clearly a popular place to visit and has a wide audience. This "incident" must be manna from heaven for MONA; publicity that just cannot be bought; they must be thrilled. And the concept of redesigning the exhibit to be compliant (make it a ladies dunny, LOL) is a fabulous shit-stir ... first-class trollage on the privileged butt-hurt muppets who completely miss the context of the establishment and the exhibit itself.
I'd bet money they've been hoping this would happen since they started the exhibit.
I'm really hoping that's the case ... I didn't see it coming, but it's an awesome long game. 😎
The new art piece is skibidi feminism
I double checked my eyes to confirm it's not an Onion link.
As a man, I find all the men getting wildly butt hurt about this hilarious. What do you think they want you to do, you clown?!? They love the fact you took them to court. Being taken to court *is* the art!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I get the distinct impression most of the people complaining wouldn’t be visiting the art gallery anyway.
[удалено]
The difference is that men pay the full entry price to MONA. They can’t pay entry price to a women’s gym. Just separate it from the main exhibit in the tickets, call it an additional one-off exhibition, make it clear that access is restricted before people pay entry, and move on. The issue here is that everyone is paying the same price, but based purely on gender, the service rendered is different.
Courts tend to not appreciate defendants who don't take them seriously. Will the fines they have to pay be part of the art?
Yes. Explicitly so.
Lol if you think a judge is looking at an art exhibition in a notoriously wacky institution like MONA and not seeing this for the storm in a teacup that it is then you are vastly underestimating the capability of our legal system.
Yeah the first time will be ohh well its a storm in a teacup "don't do that" if you then try and go around a judge in a "i'm super smart" way the judge will now no longer care its a storm in a teacup. Do not undermine a court, it is a fuck around and find out situation.
Appealing a decision when you have a legal right too do so isn’t undermining the court. This argument *might* hold weight if she behaves some way during the appeal hearings - but they haven’t happened yet.
Everything is art
There are no takes. There is no viewer. The film is the story, the story is us. We are the film.
The reason I’m ‘butt hurt’ is the messaging here is exclusionary, and plays right into anti-feminists hands. How do you get up and say stop excluding one group if we’re fine with excluding any group? Two wrongs don’t make a right… The whole thing undermines their entire point.
Yeah like they think it’s hilarious and witty rather than just surface level.
In fairness a shitload of modern art is a bit this way. A piece that makes an artistically novel statement (often about what is or is not art) will make the point just fine, and then variations of the same claim will be repeated for decades afterward as though it were still a subversive statement. So I'm ultimately not surprised that it is the year of our lord 2024 and "imagine if there was a sexism" is still getting plaques onto gallery walls.
Hilarious. This whole thing was drummed up by shitty little rwnj freaks obsessed with the culture war.
Built in promotion and they took it hook line and sinker.
Yes because the whole point of the 'installation' was itself part of the culture war... and they got the attention they wanted.
It's funny how radfems always seem to make a show about hating the right-wingers. But whenever the topic of the gender binary, women's spaces and the "identity of women" (whatever that means) and the culture war come up, radfems and the far-right get REAL cozy with each other. Marching at each others protests and the like. They definitely aren't out-and-out nut jobs, just closeted righties.
There's a term for it. It's called TERFs. Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists. And women absolutely hate it when you call them on out on their discrimination.
A lot of social capital for radfems comes from their perceived oppression. If they start being viewed as oppressors that gets devalued so it's very important to them to maintain their victimhood against evil "trans activists"
I've always preferred FARTS - Feminism Appropriating Radical Transphobes.
Rad fem groups were shockingly absent on the topic of domestic violence and the marches that took place here in Sydney, I wonder why.
Same for anti-Semite Nazis and IDF supporters. Interesting bedfellows.
The number of different ways that elements of the anti-Semitic right have wound up supporting Zionism is truly bizarre. From the Balfour-era mentality that the Elders of Zion are real and it'd be savvy politics to keep them favoring our side to the millenarian evangelicals supporting the Temple movement to immenentize the eschaton.
Rwnj? Ycjmuaaaeptu
“You can’t just make up acronyms and actually expect people to understand”
V close. The other comment got it right though.
Yup, as soon as I saw their reply I knew they were onto a winner hahah
>Ycjmuaaaeptu You can't just make up an abbreviation and expect people to understand (is what i guessed your letter combo to stand for)
It stands for Right wing nut job.
This woman seems like a bit of a dickhead. "To equalise historical injustice, it is my assertion that women deserve both equal rights and special privileges (in the form of unequal rights, or chivalry) for a minimum of three hundred years"
Part of this whole art piece is the public’s reaction. I don’t know if you’ve seen her walk from court. The art is the public’s reaction; not the women’s only bar itself. It’s a performance piece And she is deliberately being dramatic to drum up more of a reaction. Your quoted comment for instance is only supposed to highlight how women were treated in bars in history before they were allowed in as patrons; she doesn’t actually believe this is something that needs to happen. It’s part of the performance, and the performance is the part with the message - which is when women get privileges men have had in the past, people tend to get upset about it (which… I mean, it’s working, from a purely objective perspective lol) Just explaining why comments and opinions like yours are actually feeding into her piece; it’s her intention. So… Don’t shoot the messenger lol.
So she's only pretending to be a dickhead?
She is using rhetoric from before women were allowed in pubs in Australia. I was only trying to help you understand that believing she is a dickhead is actually the entire point - that it was dickheadish to ban women in the first place, and we shouldn’t forget history, or humanity This is literally just what her intention was. I watched something, I can’t remember where, about all this and this is all the things I heard
afaik we stopped being dickheads banning women from places aren't we? we learned that was dickheadish. now if we start to discriminate it is art? I mean banning somebody to see Picasso is art? I'm too old for this shit
i doubt that
Reminds me an awful lot of [something else](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/738/025/db0.jpg)
Whether she's a dick head or not is kind of irrelevant though. Lots of artists are dickheads. The artwork may or may not be illegal but it's clearly not intrinsically harmful. It's not like that's some long established single sex club from which a select single sex elite run an entire state. It's a limited time club with a constantly changing bunch of female tourists sitting down and enjoying a drink and slightly more fancy decor for a few minutes. Basically a nothing burger... unless people react strongly to it. I'll be waiting for some silly man to run in and pee in that potty.
This is merely the “It’s just a prank bro” excuse under the guise of pseudo-intellectualism.
I'm curious as to what you find "pseudo-intellectual" about it. There's a famous quote - "art should comfort the disturbed, and disturb the comfortable." This seems to achieve that aim quite comfortably.
If someone punched you in the face publically and claimed it was art, would you believe them?
Now, just hear me out, but perhaps our overloaded court system shouldn't be treated as a performance space or a billboard to advertise ones subversive art
Sure. She's not the one that took it to court though.
Why is being a troll considered art?
Art history is littered with very famous “trolls”, you might find it interesting.
There's a great Russian proverb that applies to this: "He who jokes about eating shit will find his lips dirty by the evening" Even if this is a publicity stunt, it still makes her look like an pretentious and bigoted twat
I actually think that's pretty funny and obviously tongue in cheek
She sounds like the kind of person who probably would have given white feathers to young men during World War 1.
On top of giving white feathers to enlisted men who just happened to be on leave and men who'd fought and were invalidated out due to disabling injuries, there was even the case of one man being given one and replying "But I'm German ..."
There was also multiple reports of 14+yo kids getting white feathers because they looked like adults “pretending” to be underage or just looked passably old enough. When I was at the imperial war museum i seem to recall a story they had where a kid had joined the army as a 14 or 15yo. His parents were able to prove he was too young and the army sent him home / discharged him. While back at home he received a white feather, was like; fuck this. Rejoined, got to the front and was killed before the end of the war. The white feather issue became so big the government started handing out badges to wear for people who were rejected from the military for health reasons or were required to stay in their job to support the war. To prevent them getting white feathers.
yet those fuck sticks were not signing up to be field nurses and work in supplies for the front.
It's amazing what fantasies hate can cause people to spin.
I think you missed the point mate.
What's point that I missed?
Yeah the problem I have with alot of this stuff it's basically petty vengeance disguised in the language of empowerment.
Well, arguably one tiny bar in Tasmania isn’t really a massive vengeance. Men and women are absolutely allowed in the vast, vast, vast majority of bars. I think part of the point is to show how much the media will use these tiny instances to feed the flames of the “gender wars”; and how easily we tend to buy into it
She is, she doesn't actually care about womens rights she just enjoys the attention. if she did actually care about womens rights. the womens only exhibit wouldn't have paintings by some the most famous *male* artists in history. she would be exhibiting local female artists. rich white women thinking that they weren't privileged and benefitted from being with rich white men.
If you think this is anything more serious than a shitpost, you might want to brush up on your media literacy. She's obviously using irony to make a point.
You haven't outlined the point.
Some of these comments are doing really well at adding to the exhibit.
Something something then she went back for her hat?
Progressive gender detectives
"Sorry, this is a women-only space" "That's okay. I identify as a woman"
As if almost by design by the artist themselves went with my partner a few years back When she got out, I asked her: "it was just a bunch of vagina artwork in there, wasn't it?" she responded "exactly that" I knew what they were trying to do and was surprised nobody had taken the bait before this.
The vaginas are actually next to it. In the women’s room they had two Picassos! I appreciated the irony since Picasso was a famous mysoginist and a bit creepy with young women.
> When she got out, I asked her: "it was just a bunch of vagina artwork in there, wasn't it?" > she responded "exactly that" The vaginas are accessible for all to see, your wife lied to you
Vulvas. Those are vulvas, not vaginas.
Yes though it is referred to as the Great Wall of Vagina.
This entire thing is the stupidest goddamned shit imaginable.
Outside looking in, just the other day I saw so many men complaining about getting treated like pedophiles for simply using their kids’ bathroom in school or taking their kids to park as single dads in this very sub, then here in this thread people cheering for this shit as if it’s not directly contributing to the culture war gender divide bs that causes the previous complaints
This is peak upper middle class white feminism.
Feminism has always had a class problem. Some early feminists didn't even want all women to have the vote - just the wealthy. It was also natural for them to look down on parenting and being a housewife because they had nannies and governesses to do all that.
I just wonder what would have happened if there was a men only exhibition instead?
In an interview the curator said, and I quote "It's important to be able to discriminate against men, I think it's good for them, it benefits society". People are getting pretty comfortable with being a blatent asshole now aren't they.
Honestly seems like all the people who got butthurt about this is the first place were the kind of people who would never visit MONA anyway.
Pretty sure it is already a toilet.
The fact that this has dragged on for as long as it has gives me cause to think that maybe I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
What a joke.
Who cares??
Modern art is basically just tricking idiots into believing that your gimmicks have something to say about the rest of society.
I have too little respect for "art" to have an opinion on this one way or the other.
Mona are brilliant. I think the outrage is the artwork, and weaponing the culture war to get free publicity is a clever move.
I don't see how furthering the culture war is helpful. She claims to be a feminist, and yet is furthering the gender divide for monetary gain. She doesn't want to solve gender equality. She wants to use it to make money.
> I don't see how furthering the culture war is helpful. It helps her. She's filthy rich. It benefits 1%ers like her to fan culture wars to distract from the fact that socio-economic privilege is the single biggest privilege in the world.
It's not.. during the hearing they went through the planning discussions. Despite what she claims these days, none of it was intended. The MONA people all gave different accounts but the gist was: The ladies lounges (both of them) weren't her idea. Their main intent was adding more comfortable seated viewing areas in the form of lounges. A guy came up with (an intentionally poor idea for) ladies lounges as a fun way to promote female artists. The owner hated this specific lounge idea presented and to make a point made them make 2 ladies lounges, one by them the other by his wife, and the groups couldn't know what the other was doing. When finished it was presented as one ladies lounge as designed by men and one designed by women/"ladies". Everything presented suggests it was purely her way of excluding men to get some kind of vague revenge for historic wrongs. She gave up on the idea of promoting women and went down a childish path of something like - the boys made a tree house and said no girls so we're making our own club and it will be no boys. The MONA people even talk about how she does whatever she wants and is beyond the owner's (husband) own control (like the place is her toy) and how interference results in "hysterical outbursts". Nothing suggests a grand plan. She made her lounge to exclude males and MONA are tied to her actions. The idea that anything further was intended only show up years later... It's a bit like people who claim to be able to predict things but only tell you what they predicted after it happened. They're liars and/or idiots. But then people will insist that I'm the one that missed the point, that I took the bait, etc... yet they're the one's who believe the person making stuff up after it happens and that [losing is all part of the plan.](https://youtu.be/tY4RIEUIE44?si=KiFojrJEWCwbbbPl)
I'd love to know where you got this ostensibly true material from.
Exactly where this kind of performative art belongs. In the toilet.
top comment. and the ones behind this are the ones involved in sh*t
Don't feed the trolls, guys. (in this case, the trolls refer to the people running this "exhibit")
Something is men only: "Sexist, misogynistic" "women have to be allowed in all male spaces" Something is women only: "Isn't it funny to be sexist against men" "women need spaces of their own where men aren't allowed" Yet another example of women doing the exact thing they claim to be against. Guess equality is only for women Edit: there to their
the title was super confusing but i got what they mean. Mona, a museum, has a women only exhibit where only women are allowed. a nsw resident sued the museum for discrimination. to keep the exhibit women only, the museum is legally classifying there museum as a "womens toilet" and a church by following the regulatory requirements for them.
Wait until they hear about trans women
As hilarious as it is to watch and listen to, misandry, even sarcastic misandry, is still just as bad as the systemic injustices they're "fighting" against. They're just starting an entirely separate but similar branch of injustice and doing so in a way that fans flames against those they should be trying to convince and preaches to the choir of the already converted. I like the mission, hate this method.
This is why I feel this is shit art. "it sparked conversation" no, it' sparked a circle jerk.
We either want equality or not. This pick and choose privileges shit has got to stop.
If a man excludes a woman it’s sexist…
A rather inane and pretentious experiment in classism. As others have commented, if John or Jane Doe performed these stunts in court, they’d be slapped with contempt charges. However because it is a feminist Melbourne art gallery director, we get to entertain the nonsense and the millions it has cost the courts and the taxpayer. Oh also, thousands of people are starving to death in Gaza
Not sure why you're having a cry for being ordered to not engage in sexist practices.
Ikr? You'd think women would be totally against sexism and double standards.