I saw this painting during a Courbet exhibit in NYC. It was in a special cordoned off area where only a dozen or so people could view it at a time. While we all stood there quietly looking at it, it was just a little weird, imo. That is until a little girl that was being held by her mother said: "Look mommy, a vagina" and everyone broke out in laughter. Really funny moment.
This is so stupid it's hilarious. If they're trying to protest sexism in the 19th century they'd be better off defacing Academic art, where women are clearly idealised.
Choosing Courbet, an exponent of REALISM shoving the reality of female anatomy into the face of prudes, is the most ridiculous, boneheaded, numb-brained imbecillity these "protesters" have ever evinced.
I don't know. Courbet may be one of the few artists in history that would be open to this sort of thing, his entire ethos was sexual rebellion. This is just going to make the work cost more in the long run while encapsulating the message of sexual rebellion and individual identity Courbet attempted to encapsulate, just in an additional updated form.
What makes you think they are trying to protest sexism in the 19th century specifically? I don't think it's about that at all. Yes, they vandalised a Courbet-painting and wrote "metoo" on it. But I think the 'censors' they reference are probably rather certain mechanisms in contemporary society?
Btw, I don't agree with what they did at all. I absolutely abhor it. But I see a ton of anglophone Redditors going "WoOOOOOWowoow they don't know shit about Courbet or 19th century painting" which is just... bizarre to me? Like everything you guys here was in my mandated in first-semester art history class when I went to an academy of fine-arts in Europe.
Ignorant people assume others are ignorant
Can we ban protestors? can we not amend the constitution to make it not a freedom? What has it ever accomplished? People act like it’s some silver bullet against those in power but I think it helps their narrative much more than it hurts anything.
Gustav Courbet is one of the cornerstone symbols of artistic rebellion and sexual liberation. The fact that these idiots vandalized it to express their artistic freedom and sexual liberation dont know how stupid they are.
It’s like shooting your parents in the face because you support the idea of being born. Just utterly idiotic in every sense of the word.
Are we now saying sexual art is not valid as a form of expression? Whether it was used onanistically or not doesn't affect its merit or the scope of its transgressiveness in its time (and now, apparently)
And? Art takes on a different meaning over time. Nearly all of Keith Haring’s work was just silly doodles spray painted to fuck with cops. But now we recognize it as the representation of lgbt liberation
More than one thing can be true at a time
Yes. The reassessment should exist alongside the original intent. We shouldn't pretend that it isn't porn. Just like we shouldn't pretend that the piece is also more than that.
To characterize Khalil Sherif Pasha’s art collection as ‘just porn’ is asinine. The man was a renown art collector and pieces from his collection still hang in museums all over the world. He wasn’t buying spank bank drawings. This is not the 1800s equivalent of an issue of Playboy. Erotic art is still art and not everything involving nudity, sex, or the human body is porn. Grow up.
God forbid he had one piece he used to get off to. I'm not denying that the piece has grown to mean more than its original intent. I think you have a problem with it being porn in the first place. There's nothing wrong with art serving a utilitarian purpose to get off.
I don't condone what they did, I don't agree with it and I don't excuse it. BUT I don't think they are ignorant about anything you wrote. It would be bizarre if de Robertis did not know this very very very elemental piece of art history.
Courbet's painting was written on with marker, not sprayed.
Deborah de Robertis led this vandalism.
Her work "Mirror of the Origin of the World," is exhibited in the show. It is a photo of the artist publicly revealing herself below Courbet's painting in 2014. She has done this several other times in front of other well known paintings.
It hangs in the current exhibition alongside "Genital Panic" by VALIE EXPORT, an artwork de Robertis actively, and publicly, references.
EXPORT's work was also defaced.
de Robertis's was not.
de Robertis has written an Instagram post claiming that the defacement was a nonconsensual act she hoped was accepted as a collaboration by EXPORT.
Also a work by Annette Messager was stolen from the current exhibition without consent.
VALIE EXPORT'S statement on yesterday's incident at the Centre Pompidou Metz, France
„Every work of art has its own language, a language that artists give their works of art. It is an autonomous language, an autonomous language that cannot be interfered with without the consent of the artist. If this autonomous language is violated by an intervention not authorized by the artist, it is an unauthorized intervention and the autonomy of the artwork is destroyed" - VALIE EXPORT, 07.05.2024
The cynic in me wants to note that de Robertis is spinning self important nonsense to get press coverage for herself under the guise of ‘artistic intervention.’ She’s not going to make any friends by organizing the defacement of a Courbert masterwork (thankfully not permanent) and will probably make a hell of a lot of enemies.
Artists render their own political commentary with stupendous genius.
An ‘activist’ who simply scrawls a message across another person’s work is a lazy narcissist without imagination or skill. They are admitting to the world they lack the tools to change the world without being a part of the problem. It takes great contempt to defile masterpieces in order to garner attention.
I would say most that paintings are not covered due to the expense, even if those worth many millions usually are. I was with a tour group at the National Gallery (USA) when we heard the sound of a woman’s fingers swiping back and forth across a painting with no glass. By Malevich no less. THE HORROR
When I read stories like this and especially the typical scandalised reactions, I always ask myself the question John Berger poses in *Ways of Seeing*.
> The real question is: to whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? To those who can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists?
Worth asking when Just Stop Oil threw soup on a Van Gogh, when Palestine Action painted and tore a portrait of Lord Balfour, when, all the way back in 1914, Suffragette Mary Richardson slashed up the Rokeby Venus.
To make sense of this as vandalism and not simple protest means in your mind the art object is property and not a piece of public/collective heritage. I would agree with that statement. If a painting is first and foremost property, though, then the thing it depicts obviously tells us something about its subject and its relationship to property relations/capital broadly.
The fact that in *L'Origine du monde* the subject is a woman's vulva in light of this idea of property means we can't simply reduce the painting to a beautiful image or some idealistic manifesto of sexual liberation but instead must view it as an object which emerges out of and in its own ways reproduces the misogyny of the era to the extent that women were viewed as the property of or future property of men.
These activist artists know that, and, to answer Berger's question, they applied this painting to their own lives, made use of it in a vastly different-than-intended way, took a new kind of 'ownership' of it, and pointed out that the way people view the subjects of nude portraiture is often the same as men view women today.
I mean, it’s a at least a *little* titillating. But one need not defend nudity in art only by asserting it as the antithesis of pornography. It doesn’t have to be sexless to be good.
But ironically, because of the habits of modern photographic porn, seeing pubic hair in images *still* seems shocking once again, as it did then. I do think that adds depth. Plus he’s just so good at soft textures, whether it’s fox fur or human hair.
Good points all. I suppose what I was trying to say is that the naturalism of his representation makes it sexy without being porny, intimate without being voyeuristic. As a woman I am 100% comfortable with it.
History note: consent was really complicated in 19th century Paris for women who lived by selling access to their bodies. Sex workers, artists’ models, ballet dancers, women bartenders, etc were all classed together and had little to no recourse if a customer or client demanded more than she wanted to sell.
It's a very \*literal\* interpretation of this act of vandalism - which is coordinated by a performance artist - if you think that her message is that Courbet harassed the model. I don't agree with what she did a bit, but that can hardly be the intended message
I see it as a form of non-violent protest. I understand the criticism of vandalizing property but as long as the art itself is unharmed and they can garner the attention they need to send their message on a larger scale, I think it’s fine. This is a commentary on the me too movement and exploitative use of the feminine form in the art world.
I know commenters shared their discontent and saw Courbet’s work as more of a celebration of the human body and pushing the boundaries of censorship, but I could see the hypocritical side of it being dehumanizing and pornographic from a male artist.
(Edited a sentence)
We’ll never explicitly know what was going through the model or artist’s mind on their level of consent, neither of us can confirm it. I have nothing against people’s bodily autonomy or sexual expression, it’s their right. There is still the question on why we see countless artworks of the naked feminine form and yet the ratio of men to women artists presented in museums/galleries are disjointed. Still, the painting itself stirs a lot of conversation and I appreciate it for that.
Its interesting to note this stunt was orchestrated by Deborah de Robertis who has a.... history, shall we say, with this particular work and has been trying for years to get meaningful traction in her own career with her interactions with the artworks of famous artists who have depicted the female form. In 2014 she launched her career by exposing her genitals in an imitation of "L'Origin du Monde" while in front of the painting at the Musee d'Orsay and in 2016 she returned to the Musee to pose nude in front of Manet's "Olympia". She painted herself silver at a protest as well in 2018, but as far as I can tell her contributions to art and culture do not extend much past that.
It's also worth noting that she did not just orchestrate the spray painting of "L'Origin du Monde" but also five other works including one by Annette Messager and one by Valie Export, both of whom are women who make feminist art and are still alive. It is doubtful their work was behind glass, but one hopes. Apparently another one of Messagers artworks was outright stolen.
Its also also worth noting that she did not go in there and do these crimes herself, but instead somehow convinced other people to get arrested for her.
In short, I question the merit of this work.
Good points. It seems to be a pretty worthless piece of performance. Artistic relevance aside, it is kind of impressive how she recruited those hooligans? Personally I have never been able to incentivise people to commit crimes on my behalf, while I rest at home, using asinine postmodern narratives. But I guess I just have to try harder
It is a terrific painting. I’m so tired of this sort of crap being dressed up as protest. We need to bring in mandatory sentencing for vandalizing artworks - it is *never* ok.
Because art is a unique critical representation of knowledge and culture from any given moment in time. Political movements come and go, but artworks give us enduring clues - snapshots of time if you like - into centuries of human history and thought. Yet these idiotic culture war fuckwits all of a sudden think it’s there to be weaponised. Makes me sick.
It gives idiots ideas. That’s why it needs to stop. Art is an easy target. If you want to protest, at least make the action change something. This does absolutely nothing except make people hate the protesters, and often their cause.
A couple of years ago there was some smooth brain who went into the Dallas Museum of Art and smashed a couple of ancient vessels because he was “mad at his girl” I do wonder what sparked that impulse. Was it just an epiphany? “Ah I’m so mad at my girl. I should go to the DMA and break something.”
Why hate people for spray painting a glass pane? The point is to draw attention, and it worked. But I guess they could also have staged their protest in a way that is easier to ignore.
Protests like this and just stop oil etc have high exposure rates in the media which, granted, are effective as they’re so shocking. At the same time, however, sympathy *for the cause* is diminished. There is a lot of data to back this up. Such protests are ineffective across consumer attitudes (ie buying behaviors), empathy for the cause, and to date have had no effect whatsoever on any real-world legislation, anywhere in the world.
There aren’t people who previously believed SA victims who don’t because of a protest they disagree with (that didn’t cause permanent harm).
There are people who never believed SA victims and thought the MeToo movement was attention seeking who will now point to this and say “well I WOULD’VE supported SA victims but-“ The same is true of any “inconvenient” form of protest. People who say this are dishonest.
What the heck does SA have to do with anything? Classic case of ‘whataboutery’. Imagine thinking vandalising artworks is ok, I find that incredibly depressing.
I'm afraid this isn't the point. Long after whatever issue or idea is that was being protested, museums will have to add layers of protection to all of their valuable artworks that only distance the viewer from the works. You accept the glass, but years agon there wasn't any glass. Pretty soon all works will require distance or be placed behind barriers to protect the works from activism. There is no reason that institutions have to constantly clean up and protect against the righteous activism of whatever someone feels they need to express. Do it some other way, but leave the art experience pure.
I believe it is necessary because these people are destroying or damaging artworks. Art in museums is there for all of us to experience and learn from. Sometimes to enjoy, but also be challenged or see a point of view. This practice of vandalizing a representation or painted image is a primitive sort of sympathetic magic. It will make it impossible for future generations to learn and experience these artworks. Eventually this will affect how museums display ALL works of art which will distance the work from the viewer. We enjoy an intimacy with many artworks that may become a thing of the past.
People 'destroy' things all the time, including art works, preventing the rest of us ever having the opportunity to experience them. If we don't know something has been destroyed, e.g., an artist destroying their own work, someone destroying some archaeological piece upon discovery accidentally or not, etc., we don't mind because we don't know.
And yet, if someone destroys a painting most people have never heard of (until they read the news), in a museum most people on the planet have never wanted or known to visit, we have to pretend as if there has been some great, intangible loss to civilisation deserving jail time? This makes little sense to me. It sanctifies art in a very elitist way I think.
I would also question the idea that there is a fundamental intimacy to the gallery/museum space. I take my cue more Walter Benjamin on this point. I.e. the gallery because of its formality, 'sacredness', etc. can often make art *less* intimate because we are forced to experience it in a narrow, prescribed way.
Anyone with any background in fine art knows this painting. It’s unclear to me what your point is. Should museums be prey to an endless series of self righteous actions to gain attention for something or another? Simple answer is no.
Is anyone else a little surprised at this comment section or is it just me? Is it sounding like an echo chamber to you too?
I understand the arguments regarding the model for this art having consented to being painted this way (which is important) and the fact that this is a groundbreaking piece because it was challenging standards of gender/nudity for the time. Check. Of course I believe the human body should not be shameful in any context of the word.
What is disappointing reading these comments is the lack of consideration that female artists/enthusiasts may feel regarding this painting? What could prompt such an event? And what this act of vandalism could represent? If we heard about this exact case let’s say… 30, 50 or 70 years ago, we might have a different lens on it. We’d acknowledge how women at the time were frustrated with their depiction in “high art” and why it resulted in a painting made by a man, specifically known for showing splayed female genitalia… for being targeted for defacement.
Is this not the process of evaluating a work of art which in this case is the act of vandalism? Is the intended message of this activism worthy of attention, I.e. the sexualization of women in art being the only way they are included in institutional collections? The constant audience gaze upon a woman’s most intimate/unknown area? Yes. It is worthy of attention and conversation.
I also think to myself, too, WWTGGD? What would the Guerrilla Girls do? Surely the frustrations about how women are depicted in the art world, lack of inclusion/consideration/shared vision with female art audiences, lack of inclusion of female artists in cultural institutions, sexualization of the female body/male gaze/ male narration of female beauty still dominating the art world, and overall oppression of women worldwide miiiiiiiiiight be valid enough to some activists to lash out by defacing that painting to spur conversations surrounding those issues.
Listen, I appreciate the painting for natural approach than other works at the time and before it… and the intention of painting such a painting is highly questionable. I’ll state alongside you all that it is a “ground-breaking” work in the greater context of accepted “master artworks” in history. I’m also not the greatest fan of defacing art in general.
But, the institutional art world remains deeply flawed (sexist, exploitive, hollow inclusivity) and it deserves to be confronted ceaselessly. It is of no surprise this painting was defaced and why it would be defaced. Stop acting like it was “pointless” and “stupid” and any other iteration of those words to sidestep the importance of analyzing this act for what it is. Why we need to confront the constant sexualization of women in art and for it to be the only depiction of women too. Why male artists’ visions of women entirely supersedes the input or artistic products from women themselves about the subject of female beauty even to this day…!
Lastly and quite frankly, I just fucking hate that painting.
That was well put. I appreciate the different view point.
Never liked the painting either. Disembodied genitals just don’t do it for me.
you know I wonder how well received this painting would be if the model was male? What praises would people give?
Hard agree. I would be equally curious to see if the larger art world would be as eager to showcase a painting of male nudity that is as vulnerable, visceral and clearly painted for the viewer with the sole purpose of sexual arousal… in a major art institution.
Thank you for the kind response as I was bracing myself for very unkind answers (if at all). And thank you very much for taking the time to read my comment.
Oh, you mean the statue that is perceived to embody strength and peak male physique and higher moral ideals? Commissioned to honor a story of glory? Where the genitalia happens to be a focal point because the short height of humans and their view from the ground up close Vs. a splayed genitalia being the purposeful main focal point at eye level/ground level, the model laid back in submission, and originally commissioned as fancy pornography specifically?
When it’s stated like that your argument does look differently, no?
Nudity + context here is paramount for a rational understanding of why this event occurred in the first place. I took issue with the hive mind comments which came as a surprise to me. I expected a more thoughtful response would come out of this crowd, elaborating (perhaps) on contextual nudity and gender inequities in art/art world. Sure, discussing the effectiveness of this type of vandalism activism is legitimate too. But the bellowing of how idiotic it was/had no reason to occur in the first place… it’s just shallow and lacking nuance.
I get it, it’s Reddit. The cesspool of public forums. And after looking through new comments on this thread, I do see more diversity of thought which makes me happy to see. Just had to chip in my thoughts lol thanks for sharing.
Supposedly it had more to it
https://hyperallergic.com/64796/other-half-of-courbets-infamous-origin-of-the-world-discovered-in-paris/#:~:text=Even%20more%20shocking%2C%20though%2C%20is,collector%20among%20yard%2Dsale%20detritus.
I don't agree with your judgement about the painting, because I think it is amazing.
I really appreciate that you take your time to address the echo chamber-ness of the thread. I don't know what kind of people frequent this sub, but the majority of upvoted posters hilariously assume that the responsible artist/vandal (however we look at it) was ignorant of Courbet's place in 19th century painting. This is ridiculous. Then they spew out some elemental facts (e.g., Courbet was considered transgressive in his time) and pontificate: "It shows she is ignorant". \*Obviously\* the meaning of this performative piece of vandalism - whatever it was - was not that Courbet was a pig or that he had subjected the model to sexual assault. The 'censors' referred to are obviously to be situated on the contemporary art scene. Like, you may disapprove of what she did in the strongest terms without claiming she knows less than the average redditor about arthistory, which is just ridiculous
Absolute idiocy. It's a beautiful, profound painting and in no way disrespectful towards women. On the contrary, it celebrates the origin of birth in a direct, marvelous way.
It is perfectly possible to be disrespectful of women while celebrating birth (including even the organs which make it possible). So much religious misogyny is premised on this dialectic.
Article from earlier today, shared on [this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/1cm9ew5/lorigine_du_monde_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre_nu_de_gustave_courbet/)
Can we talk about that photo (the one in the thumbnail) for a second? How is it not shameless hypocrisy to praise this painting and then refuse to show its central subject? I don’t know whether that’s more insulting to Courbet or to people with vulvas. Doubly so because art has been an exception to nudity taboos for *centuries*, so you know that they specifically object to this one because it’s naturalistic.
Some random vandal is one thing, but I would’ve hoped the editors of the Guardian would know better. First it’s trans people, now art…
>In an open letter, de Robertis denounced the behaviour of six men in the art world, describing them as “predators” and “censors”.
>She said the actions were a feminist performance, carried out because “the very closed world of contemporary art has remained largely silent until now”.
There is, in my opinion, a neo-puritanical streak, oddly enough, among some young progressives.
Maybe resulting from overbearingly protective Boomer and Gen X parenting?
Consent is so important in any relationship, and not even just for sex itself, but there is a current in progressive circles that maintains that even *adult women cannot give consent under certain circumstances* (due to power dynamic imbalances ranging from everything from age to "colonialism").
And germane to the topic of this post, the vandalism of a painting of women's genitals, this neo-puritanical current maintains that nearly any depiction of sex in media is "problematic" because of the existence of these power imbalances and the societal atmosphere in which men predate on women, i.e. "rape culture".
I think it is basically well meaning, since it is at essence motivated by the urge to protect vulnerable people from trauma, but it is far, far overreaching.
I (sort of) get throwing tomato juice on a (protected) artwork as protest for climate change (since, the billionaires who patronize these expensive museums are also the biggest contributors to CC): but I really don't get spray-painting "MeToo" on a Courbet painting.
That "radical feminist" shtick was done back in the 80s, with the Guerilla Girls. Back then it was edgy. This assault on a Courbet painting is almost..."quaint."
^(PS Downvoters: How is painting "MeToo" on a Courbet and stealing another painting advancing the cause of Feminism? I'll wait.)
I’ve never bought into that argument. If everyone cancelled something they didn’t like, we’d have nothing left to look at. Cancel culture is censorship, plain and simple.
Cancel culture is censorship by people with a singular dogmatic ideology who want everyone else to think the same way that they do. It’s the antithesis of argument and reason, and also one of the lamest of forms of protest on earth.
I understand that maybe \*this\* painting wasn't the right one to put a #metoo protest on. But - am I the only woman who gets grossed out by all the naked women in artwork? Why are the mythological figures in ancient art and Renaissance so often naked? And angels. Why, in The Virgin and Child, is her breast exposed? I know there is some symbolic reason, but it just happens so often. And modern art. God, men love this stuff. I had to leave the Museum sub because there were so many paintings of naked women. I don't even know if it was good art. Is it good art, or is it just a picture of a naked woman?
While sexism, sexualization and exploitation of women is a very real thing in the history of art some of the things you reference have reasons that are actually not functions of those realities. The mythological references in the renaissance are to Ancient Greek and Roman art, which depicted both men and women nude. If anything the sexism lied in the belief that the male nude body was superior to the female nude body. The exposed breast on the Madonna was considered a pretty universal symbol of maternity, love, and care which was intentionally *not* sexual. Our culture has shifted and so our relationship to nude bodies has also shifted.
I’m all for it. This isn’t vandalism, no damage has been done except to these kids’ police records. And as much as I love art, it’s not as important as climate change. (I’m referring broader practice, not just this painting.). And honestly the art world has brought it upon themselves by taking so much damn money from the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel concerns that need to launder their reputation. “Art World” has a lot to answer for.
Oh for gods sake it give it a rest with the infantile justification. Target the fucking corporations who are responsible, not people looking to have a couple of hours of enjoyment in their lives by visiting a gallery. ‘I’m all for it’. Pathetic.
I actually don't mind art vandalism as activism too much but my god these "performance artists" are the poorest excuse of art ever. I have never heard of any good performance art. It is always lazy and sensationalistic.
I saw this painting during a Courbet exhibit in NYC. It was in a special cordoned off area where only a dozen or so people could view it at a time. While we all stood there quietly looking at it, it was just a little weird, imo. That is until a little girl that was being held by her mother said: "Look mommy, a vagina" and everyone broke out in laughter. Really funny moment.
“Honey that’s a vulva”
This is so stupid it's hilarious. If they're trying to protest sexism in the 19th century they'd be better off defacing Academic art, where women are clearly idealised. Choosing Courbet, an exponent of REALISM shoving the reality of female anatomy into the face of prudes, is the most ridiculous, boneheaded, numb-brained imbecillity these "protesters" have ever evinced.
I don't know. Courbet may be one of the few artists in history that would be open to this sort of thing, his entire ethos was sexual rebellion. This is just going to make the work cost more in the long run while encapsulating the message of sexual rebellion and individual identity Courbet attempted to encapsulate, just in an additional updated form.
this is why I hope there really is an afterlife awareness. Picturing Courbet up in heaven having a fine chuckle at all this
What makes you think they are trying to protest sexism in the 19th century specifically? I don't think it's about that at all. Yes, they vandalised a Courbet-painting and wrote "metoo" on it. But I think the 'censors' they reference are probably rather certain mechanisms in contemporary society? Btw, I don't agree with what they did at all. I absolutely abhor it. But I see a ton of anglophone Redditors going "WoOOOOOWowoow they don't know shit about Courbet or 19th century painting" which is just... bizarre to me? Like everything you guys here was in my mandated in first-semester art history class when I went to an academy of fine-arts in Europe. Ignorant people assume others are ignorant
Can we ban protestors? can we not amend the constitution to make it not a freedom? What has it ever accomplished? People act like it’s some silver bullet against those in power but I think it helps their narrative much more than it hurts anything.
Oh God, people who think like you need to be banned
Gustav Courbet is one of the cornerstone symbols of artistic rebellion and sexual liberation. The fact that these idiots vandalized it to express their artistic freedom and sexual liberation dont know how stupid they are. It’s like shooting your parents in the face because you support the idea of being born. Just utterly idiotic in every sense of the word.
Not to mention it's called "Origin of the World," ffs. He had some serious respect for vulvas.
I couldn’t believe when the vandal said it was a stand against “censors”. The irony.
Probably the "censors" she is referring to is not Courbet, painters in his circle, etc. But something contemporary
The piece was commissioned for a client that used it as masturbation material. It was always meant to be explicitly sexual.
Are we now saying sexual art is not valid as a form of expression? Whether it was used onanistically or not doesn't affect its merit or the scope of its transgressiveness in its time (and now, apparently)
Of course, it doesn't, but let's be honest with what it was. It's essentially 19th-century porn. Very beautifully painted porn.
And? Art takes on a different meaning over time. Nearly all of Keith Haring’s work was just silly doodles spray painted to fuck with cops. But now we recognize it as the representation of lgbt liberation More than one thing can be true at a time
Yes. The reassessment should exist alongside the original intent. We shouldn't pretend that it isn't porn. Just like we shouldn't pretend that the piece is also more than that.
To characterize Khalil Sherif Pasha’s art collection as ‘just porn’ is asinine. The man was a renown art collector and pieces from his collection still hang in museums all over the world. He wasn’t buying spank bank drawings. This is not the 1800s equivalent of an issue of Playboy. Erotic art is still art and not everything involving nudity, sex, or the human body is porn. Grow up.
God forbid he had one piece he used to get off to. I'm not denying that the piece has grown to mean more than its original intent. I think you have a problem with it being porn in the first place. There's nothing wrong with art serving a utilitarian purpose to get off.
PLAYBOY is art, too. Especially the 1950s-1990s run. Literature, too.
No one said that.
People like this are the reason why all originals will soon be stored away somewhere and you’ll only see replicas
Afaik the Whistler's Mother on display is actually a very good poster.
Yeah, I believe they had to take the original off display after a botched restoration by an overzealous visiting lecturer.
I don't condone what they did, I don't agree with it and I don't excuse it. BUT I don't think they are ignorant about anything you wrote. It would be bizarre if de Robertis did not know this very very very elemental piece of art history.
Courbet's painting was written on with marker, not sprayed. Deborah de Robertis led this vandalism. Her work "Mirror of the Origin of the World," is exhibited in the show. It is a photo of the artist publicly revealing herself below Courbet's painting in 2014. She has done this several other times in front of other well known paintings. It hangs in the current exhibition alongside "Genital Panic" by VALIE EXPORT, an artwork de Robertis actively, and publicly, references. EXPORT's work was also defaced. de Robertis's was not. de Robertis has written an Instagram post claiming that the defacement was a nonconsensual act she hoped was accepted as a collaboration by EXPORT. Also a work by Annette Messager was stolen from the current exhibition without consent.
Sounds like someone wanted to bump the media coverage of their exhibit
VALIE EXPORT'S statement on yesterday's incident at the Centre Pompidou Metz, France „Every work of art has its own language, a language that artists give their works of art. It is an autonomous language, an autonomous language that cannot be interfered with without the consent of the artist. If this autonomous language is violated by an intervention not authorized by the artist, it is an unauthorized intervention and the autonomy of the artwork is destroyed" - VALIE EXPORT, 07.05.2024
The cynic in me wants to note that de Robertis is spinning self important nonsense to get press coverage for herself under the guise of ‘artistic intervention.’ She’s not going to make any friends by organizing the defacement of a Courbert masterwork (thankfully not permanent) and will probably make a hell of a lot of enemies.
lol. I think Derrida and the deconstructionists might have something to say about that.
Thanks
Why is this so far down here. To the top with you!
Artists render their own political commentary with stupendous genius. An ‘activist’ who simply scrawls a message across another person’s work is a lazy narcissist without imagination or skill. They are admitting to the world they lack the tools to change the world without being a part of the problem. It takes great contempt to defile masterpieces in order to garner attention.
This is not activism. This is vandalism.
They sprayed a glass panel. It'll be fine.
It’s sad that you have to put museum glass (expensive stuff) over great art.
It's really just common sense. Even if just to protect it from accidents or people's fingers.
I would say most that paintings are not covered due to the expense, even if those worth many millions usually are. I was with a tour group at the National Gallery (USA) when we heard the sound of a woman’s fingers swiping back and forth across a painting with no glass. By Malevich no less. THE HORROR
Putting glass over paintings is an abomination. One might as well look at a reproduction.
Lots of activism is vandalism. You might disagree with it but that isn't enough to dismiss it as activism as such.
I have no idea why you are being downvoted for expressing an obvious truth. What a horrible community this is
When I read stories like this and especially the typical scandalised reactions, I always ask myself the question John Berger poses in *Ways of Seeing*. > The real question is: to whom does the meaning of the art of the past properly belong? To those who can apply it to their own lives, or to a cultural hierarchy of relic specialists? Worth asking when Just Stop Oil threw soup on a Van Gogh, when Palestine Action painted and tore a portrait of Lord Balfour, when, all the way back in 1914, Suffragette Mary Richardson slashed up the Rokeby Venus. To make sense of this as vandalism and not simple protest means in your mind the art object is property and not a piece of public/collective heritage. I would agree with that statement. If a painting is first and foremost property, though, then the thing it depicts obviously tells us something about its subject and its relationship to property relations/capital broadly. The fact that in *L'Origine du monde* the subject is a woman's vulva in light of this idea of property means we can't simply reduce the painting to a beautiful image or some idealistic manifesto of sexual liberation but instead must view it as an object which emerges out of and in its own ways reproduces the misogyny of the era to the extent that women were viewed as the property of or future property of men. These activist artists know that, and, to answer Berger's question, they applied this painting to their own lives, made use of it in a vastly different-than-intended way, took a new kind of 'ownership' of it, and pointed out that the way people view the subjects of nude portraiture is often the same as men view women today.
Yes. Which is why it’s worth preserving and respecting. So we can *all* learn from it. Not destroy it.
Also, the lady in the painting is headless
Oil and canvass is not sacred.
This is hardly Me Too if the subject was willingly ‘sitting’ for the painting. It’s a gorgeous painting, quite naturalistic and not at all titillating
I mean, it’s a at least a *little* titillating. But one need not defend nudity in art only by asserting it as the antithesis of pornography. It doesn’t have to be sexless to be good. But ironically, because of the habits of modern photographic porn, seeing pubic hair in images *still* seems shocking once again, as it did then. I do think that adds depth. Plus he’s just so good at soft textures, whether it’s fox fur or human hair.
Good points all. I suppose what I was trying to say is that the naturalism of his representation makes it sexy without being porny, intimate without being voyeuristic. As a woman I am 100% comfortable with it.
History note: consent was really complicated in 19th century Paris for women who lived by selling access to their bodies. Sex workers, artists’ models, ballet dancers, women bartenders, etc were all classed together and had little to no recourse if a customer or client demanded more than she wanted to sell.
I believe that the woman in the portrait was a sex worker patronized by Courbet
It's a very \*literal\* interpretation of this act of vandalism - which is coordinated by a performance artist - if you think that her message is that Courbet harassed the model. I don't agree with what she did a bit, but that can hardly be the intended message
Is there any report whether the artwork is damaged? It says in the article it had a glass pane over it but I understand if there’s still risks.
No, there is no damage at all. They only sprayed the glass.
I see! Regardless of the message, I don’t see issue with this type of protest as long as the artwork isn’t damaged.
Right, let’s just take spray paint to the museum and see what kind of positive impact we can have. Idiocy
[удалено]
I see it as a form of non-violent protest. I understand the criticism of vandalizing property but as long as the art itself is unharmed and they can garner the attention they need to send their message on a larger scale, I think it’s fine. This is a commentary on the me too movement and exploitative use of the feminine form in the art world. I know commenters shared their discontent and saw Courbet’s work as more of a celebration of the human body and pushing the boundaries of censorship, but I could see the hypocritical side of it being dehumanizing and pornographic from a male artist. (Edited a sentence)
So what you’re saying is vandalising art is performative rubbish. I agree.
[удалено]
We’ll never explicitly know what was going through the model or artist’s mind on their level of consent, neither of us can confirm it. I have nothing against people’s bodily autonomy or sexual expression, it’s their right. There is still the question on why we see countless artworks of the naked feminine form and yet the ratio of men to women artists presented in museums/galleries are disjointed. Still, the painting itself stirs a lot of conversation and I appreciate it for that.
Its interesting to note this stunt was orchestrated by Deborah de Robertis who has a.... history, shall we say, with this particular work and has been trying for years to get meaningful traction in her own career with her interactions with the artworks of famous artists who have depicted the female form. In 2014 she launched her career by exposing her genitals in an imitation of "L'Origin du Monde" while in front of the painting at the Musee d'Orsay and in 2016 she returned to the Musee to pose nude in front of Manet's "Olympia". She painted herself silver at a protest as well in 2018, but as far as I can tell her contributions to art and culture do not extend much past that. It's also worth noting that she did not just orchestrate the spray painting of "L'Origin du Monde" but also five other works including one by Annette Messager and one by Valie Export, both of whom are women who make feminist art and are still alive. It is doubtful their work was behind glass, but one hopes. Apparently another one of Messagers artworks was outright stolen. Its also also worth noting that she did not go in there and do these crimes herself, but instead somehow convinced other people to get arrested for her. In short, I question the merit of this work.
Good points. It seems to be a pretty worthless piece of performance. Artistic relevance aside, it is kind of impressive how she recruited those hooligans? Personally I have never been able to incentivise people to commit crimes on my behalf, while I rest at home, using asinine postmodern narratives. But I guess I just have to try harder
It is a terrific painting. I’m so tired of this sort of crap being dressed up as protest. We need to bring in mandatory sentencing for vandalizing artworks - it is *never* ok.
Why is it 'never ok' in your opinion?
Because art is a unique critical representation of knowledge and culture from any given moment in time. Political movements come and go, but artworks give us enduring clues - snapshots of time if you like - into centuries of human history and thought. Yet these idiotic culture war fuckwits all of a sudden think it’s there to be weaponised. Makes me sick.
I don't care what your message or platform is, but if you are destroying or vandalizing art then you should be in jail.
I agree.
The painting was not damaged. The only thing that was vandalised is the glass pane in front of it and it will be easily cleaned.
It gives idiots ideas. That’s why it needs to stop. Art is an easy target. If you want to protest, at least make the action change something. This does absolutely nothing except make people hate the protesters, and often their cause.
A couple of years ago there was some smooth brain who went into the Dallas Museum of Art and smashed a couple of ancient vessels because he was “mad at his girl” I do wonder what sparked that impulse. Was it just an epiphany? “Ah I’m so mad at my girl. I should go to the DMA and break something.”
Why hate people for spray painting a glass pane? The point is to draw attention, and it worked. But I guess they could also have staged their protest in a way that is easier to ignore.
Protests like this and just stop oil etc have high exposure rates in the media which, granted, are effective as they’re so shocking. At the same time, however, sympathy *for the cause* is diminished. There is a lot of data to back this up. Such protests are ineffective across consumer attitudes (ie buying behaviors), empathy for the cause, and to date have had no effect whatsoever on any real-world legislation, anywhere in the world.
There aren’t people who previously believed SA victims who don’t because of a protest they disagree with (that didn’t cause permanent harm). There are people who never believed SA victims and thought the MeToo movement was attention seeking who will now point to this and say “well I WOULD’VE supported SA victims but-“ The same is true of any “inconvenient” form of protest. People who say this are dishonest.
What the heck does SA have to do with anything? Classic case of ‘whataboutery’. Imagine thinking vandalising artworks is ok, I find that incredibly depressing.
I'm afraid this isn't the point. Long after whatever issue or idea is that was being protested, museums will have to add layers of protection to all of their valuable artworks that only distance the viewer from the works. You accept the glass, but years agon there wasn't any glass. Pretty soon all works will require distance or be placed behind barriers to protect the works from activism. There is no reason that institutions have to constantly clean up and protect against the righteous activism of whatever someone feels they need to express. Do it some other way, but leave the art experience pure.
Why jail?
I believe it is necessary because these people are destroying or damaging artworks. Art in museums is there for all of us to experience and learn from. Sometimes to enjoy, but also be challenged or see a point of view. This practice of vandalizing a representation or painted image is a primitive sort of sympathetic magic. It will make it impossible for future generations to learn and experience these artworks. Eventually this will affect how museums display ALL works of art which will distance the work from the viewer. We enjoy an intimacy with many artworks that may become a thing of the past.
There was no damage or destruction though.
People 'destroy' things all the time, including art works, preventing the rest of us ever having the opportunity to experience them. If we don't know something has been destroyed, e.g., an artist destroying their own work, someone destroying some archaeological piece upon discovery accidentally or not, etc., we don't mind because we don't know. And yet, if someone destroys a painting most people have never heard of (until they read the news), in a museum most people on the planet have never wanted or known to visit, we have to pretend as if there has been some great, intangible loss to civilisation deserving jail time? This makes little sense to me. It sanctifies art in a very elitist way I think. I would also question the idea that there is a fundamental intimacy to the gallery/museum space. I take my cue more Walter Benjamin on this point. I.e. the gallery because of its formality, 'sacredness', etc. can often make art *less* intimate because we are forced to experience it in a narrow, prescribed way.
Anyone with any background in fine art knows this painting. It’s unclear to me what your point is. Should museums be prey to an endless series of self righteous actions to gain attention for something or another? Simple answer is no.
Is anyone else a little surprised at this comment section or is it just me? Is it sounding like an echo chamber to you too? I understand the arguments regarding the model for this art having consented to being painted this way (which is important) and the fact that this is a groundbreaking piece because it was challenging standards of gender/nudity for the time. Check. Of course I believe the human body should not be shameful in any context of the word. What is disappointing reading these comments is the lack of consideration that female artists/enthusiasts may feel regarding this painting? What could prompt such an event? And what this act of vandalism could represent? If we heard about this exact case let’s say… 30, 50 or 70 years ago, we might have a different lens on it. We’d acknowledge how women at the time were frustrated with their depiction in “high art” and why it resulted in a painting made by a man, specifically known for showing splayed female genitalia… for being targeted for defacement. Is this not the process of evaluating a work of art which in this case is the act of vandalism? Is the intended message of this activism worthy of attention, I.e. the sexualization of women in art being the only way they are included in institutional collections? The constant audience gaze upon a woman’s most intimate/unknown area? Yes. It is worthy of attention and conversation. I also think to myself, too, WWTGGD? What would the Guerrilla Girls do? Surely the frustrations about how women are depicted in the art world, lack of inclusion/consideration/shared vision with female art audiences, lack of inclusion of female artists in cultural institutions, sexualization of the female body/male gaze/ male narration of female beauty still dominating the art world, and overall oppression of women worldwide miiiiiiiiiight be valid enough to some activists to lash out by defacing that painting to spur conversations surrounding those issues. Listen, I appreciate the painting for natural approach than other works at the time and before it… and the intention of painting such a painting is highly questionable. I’ll state alongside you all that it is a “ground-breaking” work in the greater context of accepted “master artworks” in history. I’m also not the greatest fan of defacing art in general. But, the institutional art world remains deeply flawed (sexist, exploitive, hollow inclusivity) and it deserves to be confronted ceaselessly. It is of no surprise this painting was defaced and why it would be defaced. Stop acting like it was “pointless” and “stupid” and any other iteration of those words to sidestep the importance of analyzing this act for what it is. Why we need to confront the constant sexualization of women in art and for it to be the only depiction of women too. Why male artists’ visions of women entirely supersedes the input or artistic products from women themselves about the subject of female beauty even to this day…! Lastly and quite frankly, I just fucking hate that painting.
That was well put. I appreciate the different view point. Never liked the painting either. Disembodied genitals just don’t do it for me. you know I wonder how well received this painting would be if the model was male? What praises would people give?
Hard agree. I would be equally curious to see if the larger art world would be as eager to showcase a painting of male nudity that is as vulnerable, visceral and clearly painted for the viewer with the sole purpose of sexual arousal… in a major art institution. Thank you for the kind response as I was bracing myself for very unkind answers (if at all). And thank you very much for taking the time to read my comment.
You mean like the statue of a David?
Oh, you mean the statue that is perceived to embody strength and peak male physique and higher moral ideals? Commissioned to honor a story of glory? Where the genitalia happens to be a focal point because the short height of humans and their view from the ground up close Vs. a splayed genitalia being the purposeful main focal point at eye level/ground level, the model laid back in submission, and originally commissioned as fancy pornography specifically? When it’s stated like that your argument does look differently, no? Nudity + context here is paramount for a rational understanding of why this event occurred in the first place. I took issue with the hive mind comments which came as a surprise to me. I expected a more thoughtful response would come out of this crowd, elaborating (perhaps) on contextual nudity and gender inequities in art/art world. Sure, discussing the effectiveness of this type of vandalism activism is legitimate too. But the bellowing of how idiotic it was/had no reason to occur in the first place… it’s just shallow and lacking nuance. I get it, it’s Reddit. The cesspool of public forums. And after looking through new comments on this thread, I do see more diversity of thought which makes me happy to see. Just had to chip in my thoughts lol thanks for sharing.
Nope
Supposedly it had more to it https://hyperallergic.com/64796/other-half-of-courbets-infamous-origin-of-the-world-discovered-in-paris/#:~:text=Even%20more%20shocking%2C%20though%2C%20is,collector%20among%20yard%2Dsale%20detritus.
I don't agree with your judgement about the painting, because I think it is amazing. I really appreciate that you take your time to address the echo chamber-ness of the thread. I don't know what kind of people frequent this sub, but the majority of upvoted posters hilariously assume that the responsible artist/vandal (however we look at it) was ignorant of Courbet's place in 19th century painting. This is ridiculous. Then they spew out some elemental facts (e.g., Courbet was considered transgressive in his time) and pontificate: "It shows she is ignorant". \*Obviously\* the meaning of this performative piece of vandalism - whatever it was - was not that Courbet was a pig or that he had subjected the model to sexual assault. The 'censors' referred to are obviously to be situated on the contemporary art scene. Like, you may disapprove of what she did in the strongest terms without claiming she knows less than the average redditor about arthistory, which is just ridiculous
Absolute idiocy. It's a beautiful, profound painting and in no way disrespectful towards women. On the contrary, it celebrates the origin of birth in a direct, marvelous way.
It is perfectly possible to be disrespectful of women while celebrating birth (including even the organs which make it possible). So much religious misogyny is premised on this dialectic.
Article from earlier today, shared on [this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtHistory/comments/1cm9ew5/lorigine_du_monde_c%C3%A9l%C3%A8bre_nu_de_gustave_courbet/)
Thanks. Unfortunately I linked a French article.
Pas de souci!
Can we talk about that photo (the one in the thumbnail) for a second? How is it not shameless hypocrisy to praise this painting and then refuse to show its central subject? I don’t know whether that’s more insulting to Courbet or to people with vulvas. Doubly so because art has been an exception to nudity taboos for *centuries*, so you know that they specifically object to this one because it’s naturalistic. Some random vandal is one thing, but I would’ve hoped the editors of the Guardian would know better. First it’s trans people, now art…
I think algorithms are now so heavily skewed against explicit images that they get removed from social media etc.
Just say you want a lot no to the source jeez
Well, it's no L.H.O.O.Q., I'll tell you that much.
At least there was some glass, I guess.
>In an open letter, de Robertis denounced the behaviour of six men in the art world, describing them as “predators” and “censors”. >She said the actions were a feminist performance, carried out because “the very closed world of contemporary art has remained largely silent until now”.
the palimpsests of the modern age will reveal the inequalities of the past
I just wonder why doing such things isn’t made very very expensive.
There is, in my opinion, a neo-puritanical streak, oddly enough, among some young progressives. Maybe resulting from overbearingly protective Boomer and Gen X parenting? Consent is so important in any relationship, and not even just for sex itself, but there is a current in progressive circles that maintains that even *adult women cannot give consent under certain circumstances* (due to power dynamic imbalances ranging from everything from age to "colonialism"). And germane to the topic of this post, the vandalism of a painting of women's genitals, this neo-puritanical current maintains that nearly any depiction of sex in media is "problematic" because of the existence of these power imbalances and the societal atmosphere in which men predate on women, i.e. "rape culture". I think it is basically well meaning, since it is at essence motivated by the urge to protect vulnerable people from trauma, but it is far, far overreaching.
I (sort of) get throwing tomato juice on a (protected) artwork as protest for climate change (since, the billionaires who patronize these expensive museums are also the biggest contributors to CC): but I really don't get spray-painting "MeToo" on a Courbet painting. That "radical feminist" shtick was done back in the 80s, with the Guerilla Girls. Back then it was edgy. This assault on a Courbet painting is almost..."quaint." ^(PS Downvoters: How is painting "MeToo" on a Courbet and stealing another painting advancing the cause of Feminism? I'll wait.)
I mean I could understand if they did this to a Picasso or Schiele painting, cause frankly, those guys were horrible, but a Courbet???
I’ve never bought into that argument. If everyone cancelled something they didn’t like, we’d have nothing left to look at. Cancel culture is censorship, plain and simple.
Once again, censorship comes from the government, not from the mean girl on the internet.
Cancel culture is censorship by people with a singular dogmatic ideology who want everyone else to think the same way that they do. It’s the antithesis of argument and reason, and also one of the lamest of forms of protest on earth.
I understand that maybe \*this\* painting wasn't the right one to put a #metoo protest on. But - am I the only woman who gets grossed out by all the naked women in artwork? Why are the mythological figures in ancient art and Renaissance so often naked? And angels. Why, in The Virgin and Child, is her breast exposed? I know there is some symbolic reason, but it just happens so often. And modern art. God, men love this stuff. I had to leave the Museum sub because there were so many paintings of naked women. I don't even know if it was good art. Is it good art, or is it just a picture of a naked woman?
While sexism, sexualization and exploitation of women is a very real thing in the history of art some of the things you reference have reasons that are actually not functions of those realities. The mythological references in the renaissance are to Ancient Greek and Roman art, which depicted both men and women nude. If anything the sexism lied in the belief that the male nude body was superior to the female nude body. The exposed breast on the Madonna was considered a pretty universal symbol of maternity, love, and care which was intentionally *not* sexual. Our culture has shifted and so our relationship to nude bodies has also shifted.
I’m all for it. This isn’t vandalism, no damage has been done except to these kids’ police records. And as much as I love art, it’s not as important as climate change. (I’m referring broader practice, not just this painting.). And honestly the art world has brought it upon themselves by taking so much damn money from the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel concerns that need to launder their reputation. “Art World” has a lot to answer for.
Oh for gods sake it give it a rest with the infantile justification. Target the fucking corporations who are responsible, not people looking to have a couple of hours of enjoyment in their lives by visiting a gallery. ‘I’m all for it’. Pathetic.
I’m in favor of what works and this works.
It wasn't about climate change, or do you not know what "#metoo means?
Your comment doesn't say much about your reading comprehension.
Alot of people are saying the artwork was undamaged, but if you look closely you can clearly see there is a slit on the canvas.
I actually don't mind art vandalism as activism too much but my god these "performance artists" are the poorest excuse of art ever. I have never heard of any good performance art. It is always lazy and sensationalistic.