Source

updated by @sophia-trefusis: 06 Oct 2016 06:25:47AM

When were breastssexualised in western representation? I don't think this is the intention here. Makes me want to make nipple wall paper though.

In my time of the 18th century a bare bosom was considered the mark of femininity--our womanliness--and our dresses were not considered immodest, merely an acknowledgement and pleasurable display of the female breast.

Do we put a fig leaf on David to hide his penis? A scarf over the breasts of the Winged Victory?

Ms. Eberstein may be an astute politician, but she has much to learn about art, to say nothing of the glory of the human body.

Amen!

rofl...I would love nipple wallpaper for my boudoir.

Astute et politician, an oxymoron. Where were we?

Exactly. Whatnext? Paint clothes on the figures on the Sistine Chapel?

When I look at this painting I dont think its gross or crude. Its not pornography. Its a work of art and whatever a person personally read into it reflects something of themselves.

To tell the truth I didnt even know she existed until this article. Not that I am that interested in politics but I googled her and found out that she was votedthe winner in acontest run by a magazine called"Who said the stupidest thing in 1999? '. for this gem

Her statement on homosexuals opportunities to adopt, which according Eberstein was "As to emit a solvent and say: No one knows if this is dangerous. But we let it out and see what happens. "

Well its your boudoir lol. Go ahead!

Thanks Sophia

I never heard of masculism before, guess I learned something new! But maybe the right word here would be just sexism? Feminism advocates women's right, and from what I understood from masculism, it advocates men's rights.

Anyway, I think it is very uncaled for to have the painting removed because of the bare breast. What about the many sculptures and other paintings that show nude men and women? Besides, as Jane pointed out, in those paintings and sculptures the intention was never to sexualize nudity.

Good point!

rofl. It's the Christmas season so I will show charity to Ms. Eberstein and her thick head. Pitiful.

Well... I do think she makes a good point in some ways. I mean, in politics you must try to be as diplomatic as possible, and such paintings might offend certain people. Should you take something away because it might offend someone? Not necessarily, but in a political setting, and with current globalizing processes, I can understand it would be more politically correct not to show such paintings. I mean, it is true that nudity in art is more a Western thing, and much more uncommon in non-Western cultures. See also the quote below.

"Islamic art is normatively interpreted as aniconic, or nonfigural, in its emphasis on geometric abstractions. Although there is no Koranic prohibition against figural art or art, there is clear prohibition of images of either of idols or of God. For some commentators, the absence of the figure, especially the nude figure, is interpreted as a visual sign distinguishing Islam and Islamic art from Christianity and Christian art, which is fundamentally obsessed with Eve's nakedness and her role in the Fall. By contrast, Eve when she is depicted in Islamic art is the joyous companion of Adam. Commensurately, when those exceptionally rare nude figures are painted, whether male or female, they appear only in commissioned works of what might be best termed "secular Islamic art." ( http://science.jrank.org/pages/10509/Nude-Conundrum-Non-Western-Cul... )

Do I think we need to change traditions, cultural heritage, because it might offend some people? No, I most certainly do not. There were some recent examples of that in the Netherlands. However, in this particular political setting I can understand you want to make precautions not to offend any foreign dignitaries. Even though such foreign dignitaries should have some understanding of those cultural differences.

Does it have anything to do with feminism? I don't know. I am really not that much of a feminist, I like to think of myself more as an equalist when it comes to male and female rights. I do not think the painting is sexually objectifying of women or offensive in anyway, it is a purely artistic piece. Though I could understand that, as a female politician, you might find it hard for yourself to be taken seriously when women are portrayed in such a way. But.. I think in this case, with this painting, it has more to do with issues concerning the politician herself rather than the painting.

Blessed be the thickheaded because they do not know what they do :P

I was making a point of her comment and the equivalent of feminism..I suppose must be masculinism. But I dont think its considered politically correct to be a masculinist sincefeminists could argue men has had enough advocacy for theirrights throughout history.

But I guess sexism is also a good description.

There is a bit I cut from the article as it didnt add to much to the actual discussion,but it was about another politiciantalking outagainst the Juno being removed when the same building has a painting of Gustav IIIs Coronation as he considered the kingto bea symbol for autocracy and opressing democracy. ...and yet he hangs in a democracy stronghold.

Irony.

If they had omitted the bit about the female politican being offended and instead gone with the "not wanting to offend people" I would have probably not thought anything more about it. But she really put her foot in it when she made that remark.

I believe we should try and respect each others cultures and make compromises to a certain extent.Live and let live and all that.

But instead of it being all official-y and reasonable sounding it comes across as slightly weird and as you say ML and I stated Before,HER problems with the painting instead of it being a "feminist issue" But I guess in her mind it makes it sound less personal and instead something she felt she had to rectify TO PROTECT TEH WOMEN WITH HER FEMINISM POWERS

I added this because its pretty funny

Hark a vagrant-Straw feminists

HAHA, that is funny indeed!! Thanks for posting this.

I cannot say that I find the work of Georg Engelhard Schroeders to be much to my taste, but his subjects are entirely in tune with the ethos of the age. Feminist though I am, I find that in her understanding of art and allegory, and indeed of pride in feminitity, Madame Eberstein falls clearly within the realm of the Philistine.

Perhaps she has a good argument in terms of intercultural understanding, but an Islamic guest of the diplomatic category will in general not be so insular as to reject antique artistic expression.

--
Antiquity Hedgewitch

Hmm as a woman I personally don't find anything offensive in this painting, but then I appreciate art for art's sake. He's not the best painter of the time, and compared to other paintings such as this well known example its comparatively mild.

I do get cross however when a woman uses the 'Feminism' stance to cement her own silly views. It just tars everything else with the same brush and ruins the hard work of the original movement.

As for Islamic art - some 17thc examples of court life is pretty sexually explicit in places, including abuse of boys and sex with concubines. I've lived within a Pakistani and Arabic community for many years and learned long ago that they too, like the feminists, have mixed views of what is and isn't 'Haram', and how they translate the Koran and Hadiths into their daily lives. The Turks brew and drink beer because the texts simply say 'Don't pray when you're drunk, but wait'. But other Muslims use Hadiths to disagree.

I think its going to be a grey area for a long while yet. I just hope the world's miserable 'fun is sinful' people don't ruin it in the end for the rest of us.

HA! What stupidity! What does she expect its a painting with a Mark of femininity upon it i see nothing wrong or to hate. Id rather look at nude paintings and statues all day that look at a horrid disgruntled Picasso! It's art nothing more than telling a beautiful story and portraying beauty in a pure image

Well said! Thank you.

Perhaps we should now insist that Michelangelo's statue of David be removed from the Accademia Gallery in Florence because his genitalia are showing, and it makes it seem as if men are merely around for the purposes of procreation.

Back in 2002, in the US, then-Atty General John Ashcroft had the statue "Spirit of Justice" covered. $8000 in taxpayer money for drapes to keep one naked breast from being seen in the background during televised speeches.