In my opinion, his article The top 10 sexiest works of art ever in today's Guardian represents a very masculine oriented perspective and some gruesome choices from a female perspective!
Maybe he needs an education on what women think about his choice? Or his definition of sexy?
Which work(s) of art would you not have included?
Would you have even found the need to create a list?
I'd argue that "sexiness" is as (if not more) subjective than artistic tastes.
ReplyDeleteSo why try to make a one size fits all list?
Yes, I agree. All a bit meaningless. Perhaps a better title for Jonathan would have been ' My top ten works of art showing a bit of sex'. Would I have left any out? I'm not sure I would have put any of them in, save possibly Egon Schiele, but not this piece. It's a ll a bit obvious and 'sexy' goes far beyond this.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that lists like this are a predominantly male thing. Possibly a (male) journalist thing.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I agree with all the above comments!
ReplyDeleteI can also think of a few women (and male) journalists on The Guardian who might want to "enlighten" him.
This tells us a lot more about Jonathan Jones than we want to know. I hope I don't ever meet him.
ReplyDeleteThat was my other (unvoiced) thought!
ReplyDeleteWe need to know this why? Must have been a very slow news day.
ReplyDeleteYes , if Duchamp is right and the spectator "completes" the artwork, the process of compiling a list like this is basically all about the author. And i'm afraid that Maureen's comment was my first thought.
ReplyDeleteMy sentiments entirely. My guess was that it was his version of "doing something for Valentine's Day"
ReplyDeleteOne or two galleries got it spectacularly wrong too - in terms of the paintings they promoted on Facebook (crotch shots minus head!!!)
I think men ought to be kept away from marketing for Valentine's Day - they reveal a bit too much about their primary motivations.......