Artwork experts have criticized Mona’s admission that the gallery had defrauded Picasso as “childish” and “unprofessional”, giving the ultimatum that this should prevent the crowd from feeling “duped or deceived”. Will be able to go.
Tasmania’s Museum of Ancient and Intriguing Artifacts revealed on Wednesday that the Picasso that was hung in the women’s toilets in protest was actually painted by the museum owner’s wife, artist Kirsha Kachele.
Arts experts contacted by Parents say Mona’s antics are more mischief than performance art, and a development of the infantile extremes of the Australian art world.
Christopher Heathcote, art critic and author of In the Art Marketplace, says, “The whole episode is childish, unprofessional and reflects poorly on Mona.”
“What is being passed off as an arts activist’s statement is a standard excuse used for attention-seeking sensationalism.”
9’s art critic John MacDonald says: “This time, he may have outdone himself.
“It’s all very well for the artist to go online and say it was all a big joke… but I think the general public will feel as if they’ve been duped by this. Once a museum starts deliberately defrauding its own constituents, it gets into an odd situation, because we actually think of the museum as a place where you go to see such things. Which have some kind of market authority and authenticity.
When Caechele posted a video of “Picasso” poking around in women’s toilets, parents started asking questions. It took two emails and three telephone calls to the museum to be surprised that the authenticity of the paintings had not been addressed. On Wednesday the museum contacted the father and informed him that the artist was planning to submit a full confession later that afternoon.
Caechele’s comment, titled Let Me Explain, was sent to parents before the artist’s crowd.
The women’s toilet was not the fraudster Picasso’s primary home. Caechele has acknowledged that she created these creations more than three years ago, when she established the Girls Front Room at Mona, a women-only area. A man was then refused access to the living room, in a case in which Tasmania’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal ruled in May that the arrangement was discriminatory. In exchange for admitting men, Caechele closed the Living Room, converted some of the museum’s unisex toilets into women-only facilities, and moved his paintings into it.
Mona is appealing against the decision in the Supreme Court.
In his defense at the tribunal, Caechele argued that the entertainment of the men in the Girls’ Front Room – that is, the feeling of exclusion – was a part of the pictures. It was a feminist commentary, the artist said, about the exclusion of women from certain crowd areas for centuries.
The complainant, Sydney resident Jason Lau, argued that he had paid $35 to consult Mona like everyone else, and that his exclusion from part of the museum was discriminatory based on gender.
The women paid $250 each for top tea in the Girls’ Front Room, where they were pampered by male butlers and viewed “priceless” artworks in a male-free scenario.
“It’s been an intriguing story so far,” says Elizabeth Fortescue, a veteran artwork critic.
“Kirsha is obviously a very skilled provocateur… but I feel very uncomfortable about her admission that she has faked these Picassos and displayed them in a museum.
“It wouldn’t surprise me if the public feels duped or deceived in this case, they may feel that Mona has tried to fool them.”
In Keuchele’s lengthy comments released on Wednesday, he highlighted the reviewers of the BBC, The Untouched York Occasions and Traveller’s Girls Front Room and expressed delight at how such prestigious publications fell for the deception.
“But in a museum there is an expectation of trust and an assumption that curatorial ethics apply,” says Fortescue.
nearest publication promotion
“Museums have a kind of sacred quality, they put a lot of effort into integrity, into provenance, into protocol, into providing genuine articles to the public, which usually have a lot of scholarship. In light of all this, I think what he did three and a half years ago, lying about Picasso and not coming clean in a timely manner, was very ill-advised.”
Associate Professor Donna Brett, Chair of Art History at the University of Sydney, says that while many of her colleagues were proud of the fact that Caechele’s actions were “problematic” and “a bit childish”, it was remarkable considering the book would have fallen foul of the rules. has been violated.
Picasso is a fraud, although the false artwork is fraudulent because the artist did not struggle to create fake provenance for the works, nor did he struggle to promote them.
“The Mona is famous for being sensationalist, and I think in many ways that’s the reason for it… But in terms of ethics, I’d be interested to hear what the Picasso Foundation actually says about it, because they “We take these things incredibly seriously.”
In a comment sent to parents, Paris-based Picasso management said that when it issued a “please explain” request to Mona, the museum expressed regret and declared itself ready to take the artwork back.
“While we can only regret this situation and the current over-performance, we believe this matter is now closed,” the comment said, adding that even though the institute had Or have expressed wrongful complaint towards Kachele, the museum will have to take this into consideration. That intellectual and inventive expansion rules applied to everyone.
The comment read, “Mistakes are also part of learning and we have no doubt that in the future Mona will make sure to work with creators when needed.”
McDonald believes that Mona has provided a crushing blow to his personal world reputation in the art world.
“A museum can’t do this kind of work and expect to maintain a lot of respect from people around the world,” he says.
“If this kind of thing becomes a generally accepted practice, the entire basis of trust in public and private museums will be destroyed. Mona may think it’s a big joke, Mona may think it’s a very subversive act, but what they’re breaking is their own audience.
Heathcote says that Mona’s move could have a major impact on the surrounding domestic and world tourism trade. Moana is listed one of the top 10 points of interest on several web pages, including the Tasmanian Executive’s Uncovered Tasmania and Rejected Planet.
“You don’t travel abroad or interstate just to show off a fake Picasso,” says Heathcote. “This is serious and will impact tourism.”
MONA and Tourism Tasmania did not respond to Father or Mother’s requests for comment.
Discover more from news2source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
