Giving Offence

Written by

in

who died in 1975, is well-known in the art world, which made the decision by gallery director Iwona Blazwick all the more surprising to her.

Bellmer’s work includes dolls of naked young girls.

“It surprised me because Bellmer’s work is very well known. She already knew it well and by committing to take our exhibition she must have known what would be on the walls,” Beaumelle said.

“I tried to protest,” she said, adding that the move was “a little excessive but there’s no need to make a fuss about it.”

The gallery may also have removed some art depicting young girls because it was worried about the reaction of anti-pedophile groups, Beaumelle added.

Hmm. By speaking to Reuters you’ve already made the fuss.

I wonder if there’s any truth in this. It could be that Agnes, for reasons best known to herself, is stirring it. On the other hand there’s something wonderfully comic about an art gallery censoring a surrealist – especially a notoriously provocative one like Bellmer – because they’re worried he might give offence.

Comments

  1. Andres Kupfer Avatar

    Hi Mick
    there’s a strong case for arguing here that when Beaumelle says “not to shock the (Muslim) population”, she actually means “not to be shocked by the (Muslim) population”.
    Institutional self-censorship is, I think, more likely to grow from fear than from concern for the feelings of others.
    Best,
    Andres

  2. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    “The motive was simply to not shock.. ”
    Throughout my life, Arts Farts have proclaimed that the PURPOSE of Art is to shock.
    Has the change of tack been brought about by (1) a more intelligent vision, or (2) cowardice?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *