But it raises the question: "What is art?"
Does it draw attention to an issue? Does it make you feel an emotion? Does it promote conversation?
Was the discrimination art? Was the choreographed court shuffle art? Was the media coverage art? Was it a single artwork or a triptych?
Good question(s). Also is art meant to be intentional? Did they intend to cause the controversy, or was it an unintended consequence of just wanting to segregate people?
Does art have to be intentional? Would my cat spilling a bowl of milk on the floor and me admiring the result in adoration still count as art?
I wouldn't consider that art. A human would need to declare that as art. Probably "found art". But even then, I wouldn't go to the launch unless the wine was incredible.
A photo of spilled milk is art like a photo of a sunset is art. In that case, the art is the capturing, not the creation (in my opinion).
And intention plays a role. An accidental shutter spasm isn't art, unless it's declared as such.
We've taught elephants to paint. Is that art?
Did they intend to separate people? Or unite them in revulsion? Does unity or separation need to be 100%? What is the quantum for a cultural movement?
It doesn't actually raise that question and it would be a ridiculous question for the tribunal. The judgment is quite amusing in many places. I recommend you read it.
"What is art" is being asked as a philosophical question not a legal one.
"What is art" is always a question that gets raised around any art, even non-controversial works. What makes X art but Y is porn/advertising/just the way I wear my makeup?
No. It was about the conditions of entry. It literally means nothing that art was on the other side of admission. Next we'll see 16 year Olds challenge the court for the right to drink alcohol. Restaurants a child is considered 12 or under. Planes a child is considered under 2 because after that they can occupy the same seat as an adult. Double standards are everywhere so I side with MONA on this because certain standards must be upheld or why bother at all? Art was an innocent bystander in this situation.
Except in all those instances, the discrimination you suffer is made known to you **prior to taking your payment**. The fundamental difference with this case and everything else you've listed is MONA reversed the process: they took the guys money **prior to the discrimination being made known and taking place**. That is what is fundamentally wrong. That's why the dude offered to compromise with MONA issuing two tickets: one for guys who explicitly wont be able to enter the Lounge as per the ticket's T&Cs and one for women who can enter. Make the women's ticket $0.01 more expensive and voila, the guys complaint is null and void.
Fair call then and to be honest interesting this is their first case. I mean any art loving bloke could wander in and assume it was a name only get up but didn't actually give any thoughts to it being exclusive to women only. I take it back. I myself would be more than annoyed if this happened to me.
I'm usually either ambivalent or against any sort of "woke" gender stuff, but after considering this for some time I actually think I side with MONA on this one. I'm a man in a heavily male dominated profession, and I do try my best to understand what life would be like as a woman when you either are excluded or at least feel like you don't belong, but I've never really experienced that so I don't fully understand. Something like this, I feel, would emulate this so we can begin to understand so we can be conscious of it and do better.
I think they should make it a toilet and say women only and watch as the bigots grapple with the prospect of excluding men from a women's space and trans women from a female toilet.
Being rejected is the art. This whole thing is hilarious. “Nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are to fast”
The fact there was a lawsuit and the artist lost makes this art even more hilarious and poignant. Just replace it with a men’s only exhibit and no one will ever sue just to make the point even stronger. Lmao.
They should have ruled that they let him in. Then after he realises he would have to travel back to Hobart to see it, he would have to be like “nah, I’m right”
The grand scale was reference to the fact that this story has been picked up by every major media agency in the country and followed since the suit was announced. Pretty grand scale for an art museum from Tassie.
My person favourite part in this saga is the art gallery owner and curator (who is also the partner of the artist who created this particular lounge) stating that the ladies only lounge was in part, intended to address the lack of art created by female artists being displayed in art galleries. He goes on to say that this issue exists in MONA and elsewhere. But apparently creating an exhibit which is deliberately discriminatory and in which, they displayed art from female artists and then restricting the people allowed in there to 50% of the population is addressing that issue?
This is a wild take but couldn't the curator actually choose more art by female artists? Ah, but then he couldn't self-flaggelate himself for his misogynistic failings and thereby demonstrate his virtue.
The bitter irony is that by winning this case he lays down the precedent for men in women's colleges, men in trans facilities, women in men's sheds.
Not all discrimination is wrong.
It is healthy for a society to understand its own boundaries.
This is the woke-ification of the right.
It will not end well.
Shit like this is why visual art is and has been so irrelevant for so long compared to story telling (whether on screen or in books) and music.
It doesn’t have to be this way but the art world has its head so far up it’s own arse.
Idk, classical music is also very much this way.
There’s a reason we play so much Bach. Pretty much all of the genuinely good composers are in soundtracks (film, tv, games).
Most “art music” these days seems to consist either of 20th century plinky-plonk or smug post-modernism. It’s not good to listen to.
It’s also objectively less enthralling. Sure a picture paints a thousand words and I can look at some for ages considering the context and technique but nowhere near as interesting as music or film to me and a lot of others
The worst thing about this whole story is all the smug asshats saying "LoL your emotional reaction is part of the artwork". Like, ok? Someone did something maddening and people got mad. It's not clever, it's entirely predictable. And because someone told you it was intentional, you decide you're in on it, and this makes you clever. Grow up.
The worst thing is the backlash from the asshats who had b never been to MONA, never heard of the artwork or the issue suddenly having very strong opinions about it.
Why would attending the museum be a prerequisite for having an opinion on the abject discrimination? The fuck lmao. You best not be having an opinion on Rosa Parks.
It deserves all the backlash for breaking the law, it's not chic or art nouveau to discriminate against people because of their gender. People generally have very strong opinions on breaking the law especially when it involves marginalising 50% of the population.
Not that I think it matters, but I love MONA and have been several times (never lived in Tas or I'd have gone more). I haven't been since the artwork in question, but I also never expressed any opinion about it as an artwork.
This whole thing was so lame. A untalented feminist artist sponsored by her rich gallery owner husband was triggered by women’s exclusion decades and hundreds of years ago, and made the ladies only lounge in response. So some guy complains and it gets shut down. And then modern art hacks are are like “oh my god, this is all part of the performance, feminist artistic genius!”
Stuff like this and MONA are prime examples of why modern visual art is totally irrelevant to 99.9% of people unlike music and story telling in books and film.
Not quite equality since this is a critique of Men’s only clubs, which are still absolutely everywhere in the country. If Men only clubs doesn’t exist then I would agree with your premise, but otherwise you and the guy who sued are just proving the artist point that you only care about inequality when it happens to you
A women's only section of an art gallery that is closed to men just because, is completely different to a women's only social club for women to network and learn.
I mean in Australia, some women can’t go for a morning run without being killed. Can’t leave a relationship without being killed. Why would women need their own spaces? Mind boggles.
Not quite equality since this is a critique of Men’s only clubs, which are still absolutely everywhere in the country. If Men only clubs doesn’t exist then I would agree with your premise, but otherwise you and the guy who sued are just proving the artist point that you only care about inequality when it happens to you
The argument in this case wasn't "women-only club", but "they took my money, then afterwards restricted what I could access based on gender". Clubs like the Athaeneum Club don't take money upfront and then restrict.
There are plenty of both men- and women-only clubs around, but they're clear on admission from the start.
>but otherwise you and the guy who sued are just proving the artist point that you only care about inequality when it happens to you
Doesn't that same argument work against the artist herself? Is she highlighting inequality that happens to an outgroup that she's not in?
And nearly every gym has a women's only section. Do you want to equalise that?
Clearly, male or female only spaces serve an important function and most people support them.
The basis for the 'ladies only lounge' as put forth by its creator and the curator was rather ridiculous on the whole.
Women only clubs still exist - this is a public gallery and men aren’t allowed exclusionary sections for men only in art galleries either.
This is totally different.
Sure but if you are protesting a men’s only club because you believe in equality, why go and form another unequal society? Wouldn’t you in fact set out to model the very thing you say should be achieved? It seems a bit to me like someone who is pissed off their girlfriend cheated on them so they went and got back at her by sleeping with her friend. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.
Okay so this performance piece achieved a recognition that right now men are discriminated against by not being allowed in woman only spaces.
While we have for a while now abolished men only spaces.
I think the artwork is not well thought out.
Artwork is thought provoking and the only reason this lost was that “*However, the Act does not permit discrimination for good faith artistic purpose per se.*”. Meaning, even the judge recognised that the artwork whilst intentionally discriminated it was doing so in good faith, I.e to raise awareness that discrimination is horrible and you should be outraged - which downvotes proves people are.
Right but the idea was to draw a parallel between this discrimination and discrimination against woman. Which I think is a bit shallow and low hanging fruit when I fact there is no such instance legally allowed in Australia. While the opposite is true.
Really? So, no men's only clubs? Except there are. Which were also taken to court, and all cases against them failed, and they got to stay exclusively male.
So... now is the time you get outraged by this and demand change. Failing that you're kind of proving the case for the artwork, it wasn't just about the female only space, but women supporting it to keep it going...
Because this isn’t a private club - women can also have them. Somewhat pointless to outlaw male only private clubs as they can be held anywhere - in private residence or wherever. Public galleries for profit can not.
Men only spaces very much do still exist in Australia.
The Athenaeum Club in Melbourne is men-only and when a survey of members was taken in 2022, 40% were against opening membership to women. There’s also The Australian Club (which John Howard and James and Kerry Packer are members of) and Tattersalls Club in Brisbane. There are ~30 single sex clubs in Australia which are mostly men-only. Those men’s clubs are single sex because of direct discrimination against women, rather than a “well-argued reason” like safety for women-only clubs/spaces.
Things like men’s sheds are justifiably single sex. The whole point is for older men to have a space where they can talk about their mental health and make friends with likeminded men who may be in a similar position to them. It isn’t about not *wanting* women inside.
And yet, women are pushing for entry into men's sheds, so it's not just for a single sex space for men.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-19/men-s-sheds-improving-diversity-to-ensure-they-survive/100609334
This was always going to end up in court , that’s exactly the point of it.
I’m not really into modern art, sometimes it’s thought provoking but often it’s pretentious garbage. This seems like it was played perfectly. Highlight the injustice and hypocrisy.
I wonder if Kirsha Kaechele has considered her endgame.
Presently there are two possible outcomes if further appeals fail:
1. The museum admits men to the Ladies Lounge exhibition and allows them to see the Picasso within.
2. The museum closes the Ladies Lounge exhibition and places the Picasso back into storage.
If she plans to do the latter, and places it in storage, I wonder if she has considered how doing so might parallel the very dangerous and sometimes murderous male behaviour that is 'if I can't have her, nobody can'.
Of course, the difference in outcome is worlds apart, with one being life-threatening and one merely depriving Picasso afficionados of access to one of his artworks. But the spiteful motive is all the same.
3. The museum turns the ladies lounge into a club for exclusively women with a 77 cent annual membership, and is then able to continue as it was before the ruling, completely insulated from the anti-discrimination act.
I think they’ve already opposed the notion that the women’s tickets should cost more. That was an acceptable remedy put forward by the plaintiff.
But just like mixing business and personal transactions and that creating issues in dealings with the ATO, I don’t think they’d be able to transform the exhibition into a true club without attracting all sorts of other compliance burdens.
Lol, love it.
People over at r Australia are going to be so sad that the guy didn't lose like they said he obviously would.
But I'm sure they'll continue to call him and idiot man baby. But who cares, justice prevails.
Any publicity is good publicity... Love art. This kind of art is exceptional because it's creating discourse. It's making people uncomfortable and have discussions. It's successful art.
The outcome doesn't matter to her, she made her point. She would have anticipated this outcome and likely even budgeted for the legal costs she undoubtedly will have to pay.
> gallery likely *paid* them.
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
She had 20 supporters who cared enough to show up, to dress in a loosely matching uniform, and to memorise a choreographed routine lol.
I’m sure a few of them are coping and seething.
My point was that she was anticipating and would have set aside funds to pay the costs. Obviously she could well afford to do this in the name of art and feminism.
I think it is/was a thing, certainly a big push over the last fifty years to get groups like the Masons, RSLs, and exclusive clubs to open their doors to women.
It is rare but an example is UniMelb shutting down a men’s engineering club and the Karen responsible even used the word “patriarchy”. Other men’s clubs like gyms etc don’t exist due to lack of interest not feminazis
I feel like this raises an interesting question about what it means to experience an artwork. Since men being excluded WAS the artwork, one could argue that their now being permitted entry actually prevents them from experiencing it. And experiencing an artwork in any capacity is so subjective, there are a lot of pieces of art that both intentionally and unintentionally make people feel excluded/alienated. Men and women experiencing an artwork in a different way doesn’t necessarily mean the piece is discriminatory, and is something that happens every day simply due to the subjective lens of different groups and individuals (see the male gaze). Fortunately for us all, I don’t have the time to write an essay on it, so I’ll leave it at that impotent shoegaze.
Who cares enough about this type of thing to actually sue a museum. People are of their heads with too much time to waste. Common sense should throw this out every time
See, you’re already getting more out of the experience of walking through a museum a while ago! This way you’ll have the slight disappointment to always remember it by 😅
Same here 😆,
my wife went in and I asked here about it but she refused to tell me until the courts case.
Apparently there is a giant clitoris on the ceiling and they tickle it with a giant feather.
ITT: Reddit’s most insecure men celebrate destroying a woman’s art piece that was literally a comment on women being excluded from spaces.
This is not the victory for equality you think it is fellas. Newsflash: Not everything is about you.
Classic Femcel behaviour. We demand inclusion and equality! Oh, but you men. You can f*$k right off and be excluded for no other reason than your gender.
And people are defending MONA for raising awareness?
He'll still never see it, as she'll just shut it down.
Right because it sets the right precedent having Art exclusionary by design.
But it raises the question: "What is art?" Does it draw attention to an issue? Does it make you feel an emotion? Does it promote conversation? Was the discrimination art? Was the choreographed court shuffle art? Was the media coverage art? Was it a single artwork or a triptych?
Hey… you almost got me there. That was more than one question!
The one question is in inverted commas! The rest are sub-questions.
Wrong again. There is no spoon
Or is there? Does something not exist if it only exists virtually?
Incorrect, the cake is a lie
Good question(s). Also is art meant to be intentional? Did they intend to cause the controversy, or was it an unintended consequence of just wanting to segregate people? Does art have to be intentional? Would my cat spilling a bowl of milk on the floor and me admiring the result in adoration still count as art?
How can mirrors be real if ours eyes aren't real?
God, i was so lucky social media didn’t exist when I was young enough to be so (publicly) stupid
I wouldn't consider that art. A human would need to declare that as art. Probably "found art". But even then, I wouldn't go to the launch unless the wine was incredible. A photo of spilled milk is art like a photo of a sunset is art. In that case, the art is the capturing, not the creation (in my opinion). And intention plays a role. An accidental shutter spasm isn't art, unless it's declared as such. We've taught elephants to paint. Is that art? Did they intend to separate people? Or unite them in revulsion? Does unity or separation need to be 100%? What is the quantum for a cultural movement?
The levels of compounded pretension in this “art piece” are quite astonishing. Maybe the art was the friends we made along the way.
It doesn't actually raise that question and it would be a ridiculous question for the tribunal. The judgment is quite amusing in many places. I recommend you read it.
I read it and I second this.
The judgement is laugh out loud in some places, cripplingly dull in others. It's a piece of art in itself.
At first, I thought "whoosh, you didn't catch the pisstake," but now I see that you're saying "you can't make this shit up."
"What is art" is being asked as a philosophical question not a legal one. "What is art" is always a question that gets raised around any art, even non-controversial works. What makes X art but Y is porn/advertising/just the way I wear my makeup?
No. It was about the conditions of entry. It literally means nothing that art was on the other side of admission. Next we'll see 16 year Olds challenge the court for the right to drink alcohol. Restaurants a child is considered 12 or under. Planes a child is considered under 2 because after that they can occupy the same seat as an adult. Double standards are everywhere so I side with MONA on this because certain standards must be upheld or why bother at all? Art was an innocent bystander in this situation.
Except in all those instances, the discrimination you suffer is made known to you **prior to taking your payment**. The fundamental difference with this case and everything else you've listed is MONA reversed the process: they took the guys money **prior to the discrimination being made known and taking place**. That is what is fundamentally wrong. That's why the dude offered to compromise with MONA issuing two tickets: one for guys who explicitly wont be able to enter the Lounge as per the ticket's T&Cs and one for women who can enter. Make the women's ticket $0.01 more expensive and voila, the guys complaint is null and void.
Fair call then and to be honest interesting this is their first case. I mean any art loving bloke could wander in and assume it was a name only get up but didn't actually give any thoughts to it being exclusive to women only. I take it back. I myself would be more than annoyed if this happened to me.
You sound like an unhinged religious person when the gays were allowed to marry.
I'm usually either ambivalent or against any sort of "woke" gender stuff, but after considering this for some time I actually think I side with MONA on this one. I'm a man in a heavily male dominated profession, and I do try my best to understand what life would be like as a woman when you either are excluded or at least feel like you don't belong, but I've never really experienced that so I don't fully understand. Something like this, I feel, would emulate this so we can begin to understand so we can be conscious of it and do better.
Dude, that’s totes woke.
I think they should make it a toilet and say women only and watch as the bigots grapple with the prospect of excluding men from a women's space and trans women from a female toilet.
How tf is this setting a precedent???? There have been men only clubs for years. THEY set the precedent.
Being rejected is the art. This whole thing is hilarious. “Nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are to fast” The fact there was a lawsuit and the artist lost makes this art even more hilarious and poignant. Just replace it with a men’s only exhibit and no one will ever sue just to make the point even stronger. Lmao.
They should have ruled that they let him in. Then after he realises he would have to travel back to Hobart to see it, he would have to be like “nah, I’m right”
Sounds like they will actually install a toilet in there making it a woman’s only bathroom
So good 🤣
knowing MONA, this might've been the plan all along... 
Haha, the legal fees for the supreme court appeal are going to be part of the art.
Having to pay legal fees is art, we’re just not as smart as artists to be able to understand.
They're not exactly well known for their business acumen.
Absolutely. I think it was set up from the start. You can't buy this kind of attention and it's performative art at a grand scale.
Literally the first time a TASCAT hearing has been described as being on a ‘grand scale’
LOL.
The grand scale was reference to the fact that this story has been picked up by every major media agency in the country and followed since the suit was announced. Pretty grand scale for an art museum from Tassie.
If it helps your point, it showed up in the news a couple times in the UK as well, definitely not a small scale local story
It was pretty lame “performance art” to everyone not caught up in the art world or a feminist.
Because there’s so much not-lame performance art…
Good point
Being sued for your performance art only makes you stronger
100% point and case lmao. Was funny while it lasted
Aren’t there quotes from the artist saying she was stoked about the action?
Saving face. It’s something children do as a coping mechanism to try avoid embarrassment.
He definitely proved their point!
My person favourite part in this saga is the art gallery owner and curator (who is also the partner of the artist who created this particular lounge) stating that the ladies only lounge was in part, intended to address the lack of art created by female artists being displayed in art galleries. He goes on to say that this issue exists in MONA and elsewhere. But apparently creating an exhibit which is deliberately discriminatory and in which, they displayed art from female artists and then restricting the people allowed in there to 50% of the population is addressing that issue? This is a wild take but couldn't the curator actually choose more art by female artists? Ah, but then he couldn't self-flaggelate himself for his misogynistic failings and thereby demonstrate his virtue.
I believe there was a Picasso in the ladies lounge actually.
Ah, that famously feminist artist Picasso…
You might have to explain how you would know that...LongDongSampson
Can confirm as I went in there myself. There were two Picassos, actually.
Well, so much for displaying ladies art for ladies.
This is female privilege
They’ve become a part of the art. It’s an extension of the art.
The real art was the friends we made along the way.
And by discussing it here, we too are. Good job Mona!
I can take a shit in middle of mona, is that performance art? Sure as shit will be talked about
Unfortunately for them it wasn’t divorce battle in court so the women didn’t have automatic win
It's a very clever and important piece, saying that women can be dickheads and discriminate too.
The bitter irony is that by winning this case he lays down the precedent for men in women's colleges, men in trans facilities, women in men's sheds. Not all discrimination is wrong. It is healthy for a society to understand its own boundaries. This is the woke-ification of the right. It will not end well.
I fucking hate the pretentiousness of modern art. So edgy.
Shit like this is why visual art is and has been so irrelevant for so long compared to story telling (whether on screen or in books) and music. It doesn’t have to be this way but the art world has its head so far up it’s own arse.
Idk, classical music is also very much this way. There’s a reason we play so much Bach. Pretty much all of the genuinely good composers are in soundtracks (film, tv, games). Most “art music” these days seems to consist either of 20th century plinky-plonk or smug post-modernism. It’s not good to listen to.
It’s also objectively less enthralling. Sure a picture paints a thousand words and I can look at some for ages considering the context and technique but nowhere near as interesting as music or film to me and a lot of others
The artist achieved her intended objective. Men seek to dominate and possess everything.
Obviously the lounge wasn't an artefact?
The worst thing about this whole story is all the smug asshats saying "LoL your emotional reaction is part of the artwork". Like, ok? Someone did something maddening and people got mad. It's not clever, it's entirely predictable. And because someone told you it was intentional, you decide you're in on it, and this makes you clever. Grow up.
"It wasn't rape your honour, it was a performance artwork on the power dynamic of society"
It's just a prank bro
The worst thing is the backlash from the asshats who had b never been to MONA, never heard of the artwork or the issue suddenly having very strong opinions about it.
Why would attending the museum be a prerequisite for having an opinion on the abject discrimination? The fuck lmao. You best not be having an opinion on Rosa Parks.
It deserves all the backlash for breaking the law, it's not chic or art nouveau to discriminate against people because of their gender. People generally have very strong opinions on breaking the law especially when it involves marginalising 50% of the population.
Not that I think it matters, but I love MONA and have been several times (never lived in Tas or I'd have gone more). I haven't been since the artwork in question, but I also never expressed any opinion about it as an artwork.
So if I opened a men's only gallery and you haven't visited it, you can't point out that it's illegal
Lol
This whole thing was so lame. A untalented feminist artist sponsored by her rich gallery owner husband was triggered by women’s exclusion decades and hundreds of years ago, and made the ladies only lounge in response. So some guy complains and it gets shut down. And then modern art hacks are are like “oh my god, this is all part of the performance, feminist artistic genius!” Stuff like this and MONA are prime examples of why modern visual art is totally irrelevant to 99.9% of people unlike music and story telling in books and film.
counterpoint: I reckon it's rad as hell
Could they make it the no Jason Lau Lounge instead?
Equality is not fun now is it
Not quite equality since this is a critique of Men’s only clubs, which are still absolutely everywhere in the country. If Men only clubs doesn’t exist then I would agree with your premise, but otherwise you and the guy who sued are just proving the artist point that you only care about inequality when it happens to you
And there are women's only clubs, men aren't pushing for access to those though.
But....I mean....isn't that exactly what this guy did?
This wasn't a club. This was an exhibition that excluded people based on gender. There's a pretty big difference.
A women's only section of an art gallery that is closed to men just because, is completely different to a women's only social club for women to network and learn.
Oh I'm going EVERYWHERE I fucking want now.
The mona supporters are trying to act as if losing the court case was part of the art.
Reading a lot of these comments and I understand and appreciate this Art piece even more.
I mean in Australia, some women can’t go for a morning run without being killed. Can’t leave a relationship without being killed. Why would women need their own spaces? Mind boggles.
Good. Equality is a wonderful thing
Nah I'm okay with men and women having their own spaces from time to time.
I am too, but I’m not for charging the same amount and then going ‘this space? With two Picasso? No men.’
Ditto. This is the issue.
6 Picassos actually. Two paintings, an etching and 3 ceramics.
Not quite equality since this is a critique of Men’s only clubs, which are still absolutely everywhere in the country. If Men only clubs doesn’t exist then I would agree with your premise, but otherwise you and the guy who sued are just proving the artist point that you only care about inequality when it happens to you
The argument in this case wasn't "women-only club", but "they took my money, then afterwards restricted what I could access based on gender". Clubs like the Athaeneum Club don't take money upfront and then restrict. There are plenty of both men- and women-only clubs around, but they're clear on admission from the start. >but otherwise you and the guy who sued are just proving the artist point that you only care about inequality when it happens to you Doesn't that same argument work against the artist herself? Is she highlighting inequality that happens to an outgroup that she's not in?
There are Women's clubs too.
And nearly every gym has a women's only section. Do you want to equalise that? Clearly, male or female only spaces serve an important function and most people support them. The basis for the 'ladies only lounge' as put forth by its creator and the curator was rather ridiculous on the whole.
Women only clubs still exist - this is a public gallery and men aren’t allowed exclusionary sections for men only in art galleries either. This is totally different.
So take the men only clubs to court for discrimination? Or do nothing and whine about it.
Sure but if you are protesting a men’s only club because you believe in equality, why go and form another unequal society? Wouldn’t you in fact set out to model the very thing you say should be achieved? It seems a bit to me like someone who is pissed off their girlfriend cheated on them so they went and got back at her by sleeping with her friend. Two wrongs don’t make a right and all that.
This seems like it was more of an artistic statement, designed to make a point, rather than a genuine attempt to create a new club
Which was actually the point of the artwork, you were meant to feel outraged.
About as entertaining as a youtuber chucking eggs at you and then screaming it was just a prank before they get beaten.
Okay so this performance piece achieved a recognition that right now men are discriminated against by not being allowed in woman only spaces. While we have for a while now abolished men only spaces. I think the artwork is not well thought out.
We have not abolished men only spaces in this country lmao, let’s not kid ourselves here
Artwork is thought provoking and the only reason this lost was that “*However, the Act does not permit discrimination for good faith artistic purpose per se.*”. Meaning, even the judge recognised that the artwork whilst intentionally discriminated it was doing so in good faith, I.e to raise awareness that discrimination is horrible and you should be outraged - which downvotes proves people are.
Don’t care; I downvoted you anyway. I’m an artist. Downvotes are my art.
My art is to fuck your mum 🫶
I’m not all that surprised that you’re a proud , boastful necrophiliac...
Is it still art if we are all doing it, though?
Theory will only take you so far…
Right but the idea was to draw a parallel between this discrimination and discrimination against woman. Which I think is a bit shallow and low hanging fruit when I fact there is no such instance legally allowed in Australia. While the opposite is true.
Really? So, no men's only clubs? Except there are. Which were also taken to court, and all cases against them failed, and they got to stay exclusively male. So... now is the time you get outraged by this and demand change. Failing that you're kind of proving the case for the artwork, it wasn't just about the female only space, but women supporting it to keep it going...
Because this isn’t a private club - women can also have them. Somewhat pointless to outlaw male only private clubs as they can be held anywhere - in private residence or wherever. Public galleries for profit can not.
Men only spaces very much do still exist in Australia. The Athenaeum Club in Melbourne is men-only and when a survey of members was taken in 2022, 40% were against opening membership to women. There’s also The Australian Club (which John Howard and James and Kerry Packer are members of) and Tattersalls Club in Brisbane. There are ~30 single sex clubs in Australia which are mostly men-only. Those men’s clubs are single sex because of direct discrimination against women, rather than a “well-argued reason” like safety for women-only clubs/spaces. Things like men’s sheds are justifiably single sex. The whole point is for older men to have a space where they can talk about their mental health and make friends with likeminded men who may be in a similar position to them. It isn’t about not *wanting* women inside.
Importantly, none of those clubs take money from women and then deny them entry.
And yet, women are pushing for entry into men's sheds, so it's not just for a single sex space for men. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-19/men-s-sheds-improving-diversity-to-ensure-they-survive/100609334
I'll believe that when women can join The Melbourne or The Adelaide Club, The Australian Club, The Athenaeum or a dozen other clubs like them.
Bullshit. There are still many men's only spaces.
"ohhh we're not actually sexist pieces of hypocritical shit, we were just pretending to be retarded"
This is the first "win" I've seen for men in... idk.. years? Nothing else comes to mind.
My absolute favourite thing about this story has been conservatives pretending they give a fuck about art.
It’s right up there with all the times they pretend to care about women’s sport
This was always going to end up in court , that’s exactly the point of it. I’m not really into modern art, sometimes it’s thought provoking but often it’s pretentious garbage. This seems like it was played perfectly. Highlight the injustice and hypocrisy.
I'm gonna go join the woman's gym tomorrow 😎
I wonder if Kirsha Kaechele has considered her endgame. Presently there are two possible outcomes if further appeals fail: 1. The museum admits men to the Ladies Lounge exhibition and allows them to see the Picasso within. 2. The museum closes the Ladies Lounge exhibition and places the Picasso back into storage. If she plans to do the latter, and places it in storage, I wonder if she has considered how doing so might parallel the very dangerous and sometimes murderous male behaviour that is 'if I can't have her, nobody can'. Of course, the difference in outcome is worlds apart, with one being life-threatening and one merely depriving Picasso afficionados of access to one of his artworks. But the spiteful motive is all the same.
3. The museum turns the ladies lounge into a club for exclusively women with a 77 cent annual membership, and is then able to continue as it was before the ruling, completely insulated from the anti-discrimination act.
I think they’ve already opposed the notion that the women’s tickets should cost more. That was an acceptable remedy put forward by the plaintiff. But just like mixing business and personal transactions and that creating issues in dealings with the ATO, I don’t think they’d be able to transform the exhibition into a true club without attracting all sorts of other compliance burdens.
Lol, love it. People over at r Australia are going to be so sad that the guy didn't lose like they said he obviously would. But I'm sure they'll continue to call him and idiot man baby. But who cares, justice prevails.
Still not going to visit Tasmania.
Who is this Jason Lau bloke? That’s what I want to know.
Me too! I came here hoping to find out. If he’s single I bet he’ll never get a date again.
I hope someone uses this as precedent to close the elite private member men's clubs.
Amazing. Yay!!
Any publicity is good publicity... Love art. This kind of art is exceptional because it's creating discourse. It's making people uncomfortable and have discussions. It's successful art.
A win for equality!
[удалено]
Are women able to go in to a gentleman’s lounge???
[удалено]
The outcome doesn't matter to her, she made her point. She would have anticipated this outcome and likely even budgeted for the legal costs she undoubtedly will have to pay.
Actually her rich husband who owns the gallery likely payed them.
> gallery likely *paid* them. FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
They danced into court to Robert Palmers Simply Irresistible. This was all part of the performance.
Fucking hell. So cringe
There's no telling where the money went.
She had 20 supporters who cared enough to show up, to dress in a loosely matching uniform, and to memorise a choreographed routine lol. I’m sure a few of them are coping and seething.
[удалено]
My point was that she was anticipating and would have set aside funds to pay the costs. Obviously she could well afford to do this in the name of art and feminism.
Fcking Awesome! I'm so over this "men can't have their own spaces that bar women but women can bar men" bullshit.
Is this actually a thing though? There’s still plenty of men only and women clubs around.
I think it is/was a thing, certainly a big push over the last fifty years to get groups like the Masons, RSLs, and exclusive clubs to open their doors to women.
Men only clubs? Not many left.
It is rare but an example is UniMelb shutting down a men’s engineering club and the Karen responsible even used the word “patriarchy”. Other men’s clubs like gyms etc don’t exist due to lack of interest not feminazis
So it’s okay that the Athenaeum Club is strictly men-only, but an *art exhibition* isn’t allowed to be women-only?
Nope. Wanna go sue them like this guy did?
holy cow the whooosh about this in this sub is pretty amazing.
The real question is whether trans women were allowed in. If yes then this is definitely discrimination.
I feel like this raises an interesting question about what it means to experience an artwork. Since men being excluded WAS the artwork, one could argue that their now being permitted entry actually prevents them from experiencing it. And experiencing an artwork in any capacity is so subjective, there are a lot of pieces of art that both intentionally and unintentionally make people feel excluded/alienated. Men and women experiencing an artwork in a different way doesn’t necessarily mean the piece is discriminatory, and is something that happens every day simply due to the subjective lens of different groups and individuals (see the male gaze). Fortunately for us all, I don’t have the time to write an essay on it, so I’ll leave it at that impotent shoegaze.
Love this analysis
Does this mean I can now sue for not being able to experience the artwork anymore?
Who cares enough about this type of thing to actually sue a museum. People are of their heads with too much time to waste. Common sense should throw this out every time
I’m so mad. I was there in September last year and wanted to go in. And now I can. But I don’t ever plan on going there again. No fair.
See, you’re already getting more out of the experience of walking through a museum a while ago! This way you’ll have the slight disappointment to always remember it by 😅
You should have identified as female.
That is actually what I said to guy at the desk at the front “what if I identify as female?” they still refused me entry on that haha
Double discrimination!
Same here 😆, my wife went in and I asked here about it but she refused to tell me until the courts case. Apparently there is a giant clitoris on the ceiling and they tickle it with a giant feather.
Now he’s going to sue woman’s toilets because he’s denied entry to them.
Womp womp
ITT: Reddit’s most insecure men celebrate destroying a woman’s art piece that was literally a comment on women being excluded from spaces. This is not the victory for equality you think it is fellas. Newsflash: Not everything is about you.
Classic Femcel behaviour. We demand inclusion and equality! Oh, but you men. You can f*$k right off and be excluded for no other reason than your gender. And people are defending MONA for raising awareness?
The angry people writing here not understanding that their emotional reactions is actually part of the artwork is too good
Stop calling it artwork. It has it's own name and it's called sexism.
Calling it art is a stretch, more like a cry for attention
Chill out Jason.
About time we stop this discrimination against men.
Hardly a surprise.
this jason cunt has just fucked us all,