The Met will keep Theresa Dreaming for display,

dish rag

DIS Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Wonder what people think. I'm sure many here has seen the painting. It's an amazing piece of art. The artist, Balthus really did an amazing job bringing the viewer into the thoughts, hopes and dreams of the young girl in the painting, just amazing. More so in my opinion than Vermeer had done the the Pearl Earring painting. I never viewed this painting as being negative in any way but in todays climate I can see why some would, or would want too.

We enjoy the art museums in NYC very much, MOMA the most though, mainly for Starry Night.
 
Wonder what people think. I'm sure many here has seen the painting. It's an amazing piece of art. The artist, Balthus really did an amazing job bringing the viewer into the thoughts, hopes and dreams of the young girl in the painting, just amazing. More so in my opinion than Vermeer had done the the Pearl Earring painting. I never viewed this painting as being negative in any way but in todays climate I can see why some would, or would want too.

We enjoy the art museums in NYC very much, MOMA the most though, mainly for Starry Night.

What I quoted is what, imo, is the problem with this and the 9999 other things that someone is offended by today. They WANT to be offended and so they are. Its a paining that to me is meant to capture this girl and her dreams. There is nothing sexual about it. Some folks need to remove their minds from the gutter they swim in constantly.
 
Viewing the painting independently it would seem rather benign. Understanding Balthus' catalog of work in a broader sense, along with some of the means which he used ostensibly as a step of creating his art is a definite turn off for me.

I wonder if those who toss out droll comments about the perpetually offended would have even the slightest clue what I am referring to when I reference Polaroids?
 
I know the painting, but I must have missed the controversy. I am not sure that painting actually sexualized Therese. I was never personally bothered by the painting. In fact, I like it. However, I can definitely see how in today's world of sexualized children, it can appear sexual. Nevertheless, it is a significant work of art and I am glad the Met is not removing it.
 


Ahh, of course anyone who remarks that some are forever looking at ways to be offended MUST just not understand THIS particular issue. Give me a break.

Anyone that doesn't have a clue can always google, can they not?



Of course in the news this morning of dumb things to come down the "offended" line is Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. But no, no one is looking for something to be offended by.
 
I know the painting, but I must have missed the controversy. I am not sure that painting actually sexualized Therese. I was never personally bothered by the painting. In fact, I like it. However, I can definitely see how in today's world of sexualized children, it can appear sexual. Nevertheless, it is a significant work of art and I am glad the Met is not removing it.

It has nothing to do with today's world of sexualizing children.
 


Ahh, of course anyone who remarks that some are forever looking at ways to be offended MUST just not understand THIS particular issue. Give me a break.

Anyone that doesn't have a clue can always google, can they not?



Of course in the news this morning of dumb things to come down the "offended" line is Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. But no, no one is looking for something to be offended by.

One could, but then I wonder what one would think of the piece in light of it being one of many created of partially clothed young girls over the course of decades? Then of course there's always the fact he spent years sketching or taking Polaroid pictures of partially clothed young girls daily. Gotta get MY mind out of the gutter.

Yeah, I'm all wound up about Rudolph and the very, very inappropriate message of Baby, It's Cold Outside -- OMG, it's not even a Christmas song!
 
One could, but then I wonder what one would think of the piece in light of it being one of many created of partially clothed young girls over the course of decades? Then of course there's always the fact he spent years sketching or taking Polaroid pictures of partially clothed young girls daily. Gotta get MY mind out of the gutter.

Yeah, I'm all wound up about Rudolph and the very, very inappropriate message of Baby, It's Cold Outside -- OMG, it's not even a Christmas song!

So I take it that this painting offends you?

The girl is not partially clothed. She is fully clothed. She is just sleeping in a rather unlady like position. The other paintings and sketches are what they are. But if you look at THIS painting and see a sexual being, then yes YOUR mind needs to come out of the gutter.
 
So I take it that this painting offends you?

The girl is not partially clothed. She is fully clothed. She is just sleeping in a rather unlady like position. The other paintings and sketches are what they are. But if you look at THIS painting and see a sexual being, then yes YOUR mind needs to come out of the gutter.

I think if you'll look back to my original comment you may find out I said that if you look at this painting independently it would seem rather benign. Pulling back a bit and looking at the piece as one of several he created over decades in this theme and understanding he sketched and/or photographed young girls in various stages of dress/undress daily over that same period of time gives pause to consider both the context and the artist's motivations. I suppose it's only coincidental that with the vast array of themes and subjects he could have focused on his passions and interests led him to that which involved sketching or photographing (Polaroids so no pesky film developers to raise concerns) very young girls in varying states of dress in, ahem, unladylike poses?

I don't look at THIS painting and see a sexual being. I see a young girl being used to gratify an artist's desire to display his desires out in the open under cover of his "art". Nope, I have no desire to play his game. I think if you'll look back again at my original comment I didn't say the museum must take it down. I gave my opinion, one that derives from my own critical thinking of the topic based on my own knowledge of artist and works gained years ago while enjoying a casual study about art. Somehow that doesn't seem to fit so tidily into your category of one who's looking to be offended or in desperate need of pearls to clutch over an "unladylike" pose.
 
I think if you'll look back to my original comment you may find out I said that if you look at this painting independently it would seem rather benign. Pulling back a bit and looking at the piece as one of several he created over decades in this theme and understanding he sketched and/or photographed young girls in various stages of dress/undress daily over that same period of time gives pause to consider both the context and the artist's motivations. I suppose it's only coincidental that with the vast array of themes and subjects he could have focused on his passions and interests led him to that which involved sketching or photographing (Polaroids so no pesky film developers to raise concerns) very young girls in varying states of dress in, ahem, unladylike poses?

I don't look at THIS painting and see a sexual being. I see a young girl being used to gratify an artist's desire to display his desires out in the open under cover of his "art". Nope, I have no desire to play his game. I think if you'll look back again at my original comment I didn't say the museum must take it down. I gave my opinion, one that derives from my own critical thinking of the topic based on my own knowledge of artist and works gained years ago while enjoying a casual study about art. Somehow that doesn't seem to fit so tidily into your category of one who's looking to be offended or in desperate need of pearls to clutch over an "unladylike" pose.

If you aren't offended by it, why such a defensive attitude about someone being offended? That doesn't make sense.

You don't like the artist and you have an opinion of the man. Great.

The articles about the reasoning of why some thought the painting should be removed were not about any other work by the man. It was about THIS painting. Not based on anything else.

Your opinion of the man isn't necessarily shared by those who wanted this painting taken down. So while YOU may not be looking for something to be offended by it doesn't hold true for others who are choosing to be offended by it or a song written long ago or a cartoon about a flying reindeer or whatever new thing we will wake up tomorrow to discover is causing "great concern".
 
Some questions:

1) Did the artist sexually exploit the young lady who posed for the painting, either on-set or off-set?
2) Did the young lady consent to modeling for the painting (as opposed to being coerced into it because her parents needed the money, or whatever)?
 
As a point of further discussion, I bring up a controversy that I remember from when I was a teen (mid 80's).

A winery somewhere produced bottles of a certain vintage, and on the label was a sketch by an artist. It was an interpretation of a nude, pre-pubescent girl. It wasn't explicit - she wasn't doing anything, she was just laying there, but there was no doubt she was nude. Facing intense backlash, the winery re-labeled the wine.

Now looking back as an adult, I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand there's absolutely no defense to sexually exploiting children to sell merchandise. On the other hand, the winery was clearly going for art, and art depicting nude children goes back centuries if not millenia.
 
So, I looked at the picture. I knew nothing about this work of art beforehand. I honestly couldn't tell if this was a woman or a girl. I didn't see anything sexual at all. In fact I was more drawn to the cat at the bottom of the picture lol lol
 
Some questions:

1) Did the artist sexually exploit the young lady who posed for the painting, either on-set or off-set?
2) Did the young lady consent to modeling for the painting (as opposed to being coerced into it because her parents needed the money, or whatever)?

One of his models posed daily for him from the ages of 8 to 14. Do you think she was of age to consent? Could it be considered no harm, no foul if her parents needed the money? He took Polaroids with her because he claimed his hands no longer allowed him to sketch. Curiously he still managed to paint.

Don't forget that he had a decades long string of young models who all disrobed to the extent he instructed. I'm sure that this almost daily practice of sitting with young models and sketching or photographing had no meaning other than artistic ones.

Why consider any other factors about the artist and his other works? Nope, stay firmly within the frame of this single portrait where we find a fully clothed young woman in an unladylike pose (also a commonality of his work, but I'm sure that is meaningless also).
 
One of his models posed daily for him from the ages of 8 to 14. Do you think she was of age to consent? Could it be considered no harm, no foul if her parents needed the money?

I don't know. I don't believe that one is unable to consent to [sex, posing nude, entering into a business contract, whatever] the day before their 18th birthday and then magically able to consent the day OF their 18th birthday. But unless and until I learn that the artist forced her or coerced her, I'm going to say no harm no foul. And no, her parents needing the money doesn't make anything right - in fact, that would be a point in favor of coercion, not the other way around.

It seems clear to me that the artist, not unlike Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carroll), probably had a thing for adolescent girls that would seem untoward in today's society. HOWEVER, I don't think that detracts from the artistic merit of the painting in question. If it comes out that he somehow coerced the girl to pose, or was having an inappropriate sexual relationship with her, or whatever, I may rethink that position. But for now I'm going to say that the painting's artistic merit stands on its own.
 
I have no idea what any of you are talking about. Never saw the painting, didn't know of a controversy. Never heard of the painter.

I'm a pleib! :cool2:
 
Looked at the painting. Couldn't figure out the problem. Somebody mentioned the underwear. I though they were shorts.

There are three "problems" with the painting.

1) Her pose is "unladlylike" - specifically, the way her arms are held above her head and her legs are positioned, particularly with regard to the fact that she's wearing a skirt.
2) You can see her underwear.
3) The artist apparently had a fondness for adolescent girls that extended beyond his desire to paint them, if you get my drift.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Top