Artist Kirsha Kaechele arrived at the Tasmania courtroom alongside 25 women dressed in navy business attire, all of whom made a show of reading feminist texts in the courtroom.

Not sure if this was already posted.

The article describes the referenced court case, and the artist’s views and intentions.

Personally, I both loved and hated the idea at first. The more I think about it, the more I find it valuable in some way.

  • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
    4121·
    9 months ago

    The museum this exhibit is at only allowed men until 1965. Today, there’s a single, temporary exhibit within this museum that’s only allowing women, with a stated intention to make people reflect on that previous time. That this single exhibit draws international attention speaks volumes to the reality of sexism in western society, and it’s not the sexism you’re talking about

    • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      365·
      9 months ago

      It wasn’t right in 1965, and it isn’t right today. Creating inverse discrimination to draw attention to historical discrimination is still a form of discrimination, even if it is temporary.

      This was just a poorly executed concept that could have been done better.

      • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
        1618·
        9 months ago

        The fact that it’s not right is the point. That people across the entire planet are talking about this Australian art exhibit and sexism demonstrates this exhibit was executed really well

        • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          173·
          9 months ago

          Agree to disagree then—we’re both entitled to an opinion, as is the way with art.

          The execution left me with a negative impression of the event, and has not really broadened my awareness. I hope it had its intended impact on others so it isn’t a total wash. I’m glad you found it more inspiring than I did.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      9 months ago

      Maybe the museum should take it up with the people still alive in 1965 who created the policy.

      The guy paid to be admitted and they took his money. He gets to see all the art. If they didn’t want to let him see all the art they should have charged him nothing.