RSS

Anti-Christian, feminist pornographic ‘art’ displayed at Ontario government art gallery

17 Jul

Incredible…

femporn

Censored closeup of Rosalie Maheux piece titled “Sacred Circle XII.”


A Queen’s Park art gallery is seeing more action than usual because of local artist Rosalie H. Maheux’s racy piece called Sacred Circle XII.

From afar, the 33-square-inch work looks like a stained glass rose fit for a church. But upon closer inspection, it’s a collage of hardcore pornographic images involving women engaging in oral and anal sex.

Ah, porn and anti-Christian dogma. Displayed in a government building. Thanks, Liberal premier and lesbian grandma Kathleen Wynne! Figures

Naturally, the Conservative critic is only concerned with the ‘sexual objectification’ in the piece, not the obscenity nor the anti-Christian tweaking of it:

Ontario PC women’s critic Laurie Scott said she’s “disappointed” a publicly owned government building, Macdonald Block, has chosen to display graphic and sexually explicit images of women.

“Regardless of the aims or intent of the artist, Ontarians expect their government to lead by example in combating the sexual objectification of women,” Scott said in a statement Thursday. “The fact that a publicly housed gallery has been allowed to not only display but to sell images of this nature is very worrisome.”

Figures

Maheux’s psychedelic mandala-like piece, priced at $1,100, is part of the 30 Under 30 exhibit that runs until July 24 at the John B. Aird Gallery.

The artist couldn’t be reached for comment, but told CityNews her goal was to create a reaction. She said Sacred Circle XII is a feminist comment because she’s using other women’s bodies to form flattering geometric shapes.

Naturally.

The gallery falls under the jurisdiction of the province’s Treasury Board Secretariat, but its minister, Deb Matthews, deflected questions to an independent board of directors that operates it.

The gallery’s art director, Carla Garnet, hung up on the Sun Thursday.

“Sorry, don’t want to talk, bye,” she said.

Two other co-presidents of the gallery board — Jowenne Herrera and Sarah Morison — couldn’t be reached.

Of course they won’t talk; that would mean having to defend their decision, which they can’t / won’t do…

No word whether the piece will be removed.

Let’s pray it will be, but I doubt it.

Gary Michael Dault, the curator of the exhibit, which showcases 30 Canadian artists under 30 years old, said he’s surprised people get upset over issues that “are 100 years old.”

“The images are so small, that in order to peer at them and be offended by what you see, you really have to inspect closely,” Dault said in a phone interview from his Napanee home. “What’s the fact that it’s located in a government building got to do with anything? The government’s so squeaky clean it can’t even imagine the world sometimes looks at pornographic images on the Internet?”

Ah, people are free to do so at home; their government shouldn’t be subjecting them to it, in a public space.

Dault said as far as he knows, the government didn’t pay the artists in the show. He said he chose Maheux’s piece because of its intricate technical qualities.

“All she’s doing is downloading what’s already there, like going to a library and taking out a book,” he said. “What she did is she sanitized the pornographic images by making them into a mandala — a transcendental image used in some religions as an aid to meditation. What she’s saying is human beings are trivial, but maybe they can be made to see a brighter, stronger ambition for themselves.”

Yes, no doubt the ‘artist’ sees humans as trivial. And the opinions of those of us who object to this bullshit as even more trivial…

Curious visitors perused the piece Thursday morning. Some were shocked, others simply shrugged their shoulders.

“I think people are too sensitive,” Dave Stirling, 53, said. “It’s art. If you go to any galleries in Europe you’re going to see some degree of nudity, so suck it up. A lot of art galleries are government owned or sponsored.”

As if this collage is comparable to the great paintings and sculptures, etc. of yesteryear…

A disclaimer at the entrance reads: “Warning: Exhibit contains images intended for a mature audience.”

‘Mature audience’, as if the adult-age folks who enjoy this stuff are in any sense mature…

An OPP officer said he often walks through the gallery, but has never seen “so much excitement.”

Yeah, real ‘mature’ reaction, getting ‘excited’ about it rather than outraged…

Art experts at Toronto universities say a controversial collage depicting hardcore pornography is indeed art.

Which simply shows how debased so-called ‘art’ and ‘art theory’ has become…

Rosalie Maheux’s Sacred Circle XII has raised plenty of eyebrows while on display for a few weeks at the John B. Aird Gallery in Macdonald Block at Queen’s Park. But why is it art?

“If it’s in a gallery, that seems to be a pretty controlled space, but art has always been a forward-thinking medium and artists tend to explore ideas that expand certain notions about what is acceptable,” said Natalie Waldburger, Ada Slaight chairman of contemporary painting and print media at OCAD University. “The context is appropriate.”

She said the piece “can be quite a feminist statement.”

“In the time and place we’re at where female artists are asserting their voice and their own sexuality, it’s a really important piece for that. She’s making the choices and she’s honestly savvy about the role of sexuality in a woman’s life.”

Blah blah blah…

Matthew Brower, a lecturer in museum studies at the University of Toronto, who is familiar with Maheux’s work, said it’s a relevant commentary on society’s relationship with porn.

“Of course it’s art,” he said. “Art needs to talk about things that are affecting people’s lives. It’s reflecting that with the Internet, images of hardcore porn have gone from things on the top shelves, hidden away, to things that are relatively prevalent in the culture.”

Sadly, that is all too true…

And yet the ‘artist’ herself sees it as a good thing, to be celebrated, as do her feminist supporters. (While the equally feminist opposition sees it as exploitation, rather than obscenity, per se.)

Advertisements
 

26 responses to “Anti-Christian, feminist pornographic ‘art’ displayed at Ontario government art gallery

  1. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Reblogged this on Will S.' Culture War Blog.

     
  2. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Reblogged this on Will S.' Anarcho-Tyranny Blog.

     
  3. AmicusC

    July 17, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    I don’t know why this is news worthy? “artists” always have and always will degrade Christians. call me when they do this with some muslim art (if that even exists) or with the pedoprophet. that will be news.

     
  4. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 12:17 pm

    It’s newsworthy because it’s being displayed at Queen’s Park!

    If it were in a private Toronto gallery, it wouldn’t be. But it’s in one funded by Ontario taxpayers, and at the very place where our Ontario government meets, no less!

     
  5. AmicusC

    July 17, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    no I know that, but I meant why put it there its not like its the piss Christ which I think was really the start of this whole genre and took it to the extreme. (no i am not condoning that horrible piece of trash) this is just some chick that likely breached copyright laws printing images off her first google search.

    I don’t understand why the gallery or anyone thinks this is special. its the art equivalent of a knock off Louis veton (sp?)

     
    • Will S.

      July 17, 2015 at 12:31 pm

      Ah. Agreed.

      It’s only special because it serves their purposes: to be a sacrilegious, offensive display of their values, to shove them in our faces, because they can.

       
  6. ddswaterloo

    July 17, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Nah. Its derivative anti-Christian attention seeking art. It doesn’t stand for anything– its just against something. Every one of their ideas here is just a reaction to something they can’t control but want to despise.

    Why do feminists always insist on objectifying and sexualizing themselves for attention?

    Oh yeah: They have nothing else.

    While this is offensive. What it is really is Laughable. Just laugh at it. And dismiss it as the infantile resentful garbage that it is.

     
  7. Senghendrake

    July 17, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    Surprised they hadn’t already done this.

    Wynne is a cultural marxist on steroids (possibly literally).

     
  8. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    @ dds: True.

     
  9. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    I just don’t like it being promoted by the government; that’s my main beef. Not that such is surprising, today, esp. given the administration and its head…

     
  10. Prince LaQroix

    July 17, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    As I always say, feminists cannot create, all they can do is destroy. Destroyed art? check. Destroyed literature? check. Destroyed the family? Check. Destroyed the civilization that makes their whining possible? Currently in progress.

     
  11. RICanuck

    July 17, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    Maheux created art. Bruce Jenner is a woman. Rachel Dolezal is black.
    I am a Klingon. joH tIch chaH!

    Use the Bing translator to see that in English. Enough of Christian cheek turning. Turn your cheek to those who insult you, but fight those who would turn your children from the Faith without mercy.

     
  12. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    @ Senghendrake: Exactly!

    @ PLQ: Yep!

    @ RIC: Indeed.

    My favourite Klingon saying has long been:

    Heghlu’meH QaQ jajvam!

    Now that’s a battle cry! 🙂

     
  13. RICanuck

    July 17, 2015 at 9:42 pm

    @Will S.

    That’s also the last speech of Tecumseh before the battle of Moravianton. “My brothers, it is a good day to die”.

     
  14. Will S.

    July 17, 2015 at 9:47 pm

    Ah; I didn’t know that.

     
  15. Mark Citadel

    July 18, 2015 at 11:37 am

    When ‘P*** Christ’ was displayed in Australia, some youths took claw hammers to it in the gallery. This is exactly what needs to happen to this abomination.

     
  16. Take The Red Pill

    July 18, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Where are other displays of modern so-called ‘art’ — like crucifixes in jars of urine, and pictures of men with bullwhips sticking out of their rectums?
    Just another example of Leftist dogma — just like how they scream for “tolerance” for their views when they are criticized, and call for their critics to be fired from their jobs, financially ruined, imprisoned, or murdered.

     
  17. Will S.

    July 18, 2015 at 7:08 pm

    @ Mark: It wouldn’t bother me in the least to see such occur!

    @ TTRP: Yep.

     
  18. feeriker

    July 19, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    I guess my reaction is “the display venue for this abomination (i.e., a government facility) couldn’t be more appropriate. What, after all, is more abominable, obscene, and ungodly than temporal government in the 21st Century?”

    We should thank God that this same temporal government –y’know, the one that gleefully subsidizes “artists” like Mizz Maheux– didn’t force this piece of “art” at gunpoint upon some hapless church.

     
  19. infowarrior1

    July 21, 2015 at 10:15 am

    @Will S.

    Considering the vandalism of modern architecture already in its ugliness(Of which even the most rich cannot get any better architecture than kitsch) it seems that at least temporarily people have lost the ability to create art endowed as it were inherently with the soul of beauty. I can’t see why this is any different.

     
    • Will S.

      July 21, 2015 at 12:46 pm

      Propaganda in art school is at least partly responsible for that. A friend of mine who went through that, once told me ‘As an artist, I feel it’s my duty to stir things up.’ But whence this notion that art must needs be controversial? I’m sure it’s the just leftist slant of the profs that influenced my friend into thinking that art must be ‘challenging’, ‘provocative’, etc. Certainly, that seems to also be the mindset of this Miss Maheux.

       
  20. infowarrior1

    July 22, 2015 at 2:32 am

     
  21. Will S.

    July 22, 2015 at 2:34 am

    Good essay.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s