The concept of a restricted space for an art experience that works for both the admitted and refused parties as a different experience is pretty damn intriguing. The execution of it in this case arguing after refusing admission to someone seems to defeat the purpose to a small degree, but that's nitpicking.

The core concept is, I think, something that should be expanded. Other locations, and other dichotomies. I don't know if it would pass legal muster here in the states, but I'd love to have a seat and watch how it played out in a busy place here.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Don't quote me on this but I think the complainant can appeal to other courts here in Australia, so the legal shenanigans might not be over.

While it's not explicitly stated anywhere, I think the whole thing is part of the artwork. From the original exhibition, to the legal complaint (I don't think the complainant is a plant for publicity) to the various court hearings and media circus.

Pretty clever.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I recall reading at the initial hearing the artist had several women dressed identically in attendance performing choreographed movements in the courtroom. She sounded absolutely delighted at the idea of being sued over this, because her entire point was putting men in a position that usually only women are in, and vice versa

Edit: From the BBC

As the parties sparred, the museum's supporters were somewhat stealing the spotlight. They had periods of complete stillness and silence, before moving in some kind of subtle, synchronised dance - crossing their legs and resting their heads on their fists, clutching their hearts, or peering down their spectacles. One even sat there pointedly flipping through feminist texts and making notes.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

I think there have been performances at most of the hearings, in and outside the court.

[–] scrion@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Kirsha Kaechele is delightful. Unfortunately, I don't know how much of her old Ayahuasca - consuming self is left, she mentioned herself she became a lot more conservative.

Still, she did a bunch of interesting projects: Eat the Problem, 24 Carrots, a rap themed gun buyback in New Orleans...

Now that I think of it, this post is mostly me reflecting what I think of her as an artist these days. I was having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that success in the art world often forces the artist to adapt and conform, and I could see some of that in her as well. I have to say though, she is probably doing a good job and I shouldn't be complaining.

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

just put a toilet in the middle. say it's the ladies room. ez

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Oh man, if they designed it that deeply, that's genius

I got the impression from the article that the claim of the exclusion being part of the art, to create the sense of being the target of sexism was being made after the fact. But if it was part of the plan from the beginning, that takes it to another level. Setting it up to face legal scrutiny as mirror of how women's rights had to be won, that's next level art.

[–] maniacalmanicmania@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I haven't checked any sources but I thought exclusion being part of the artwork was a part of the original intention.

Again without checking any sources I don't think they expected legal issues, but who knows. When the legal issues arose the fact that they chose to lean into them to extend the work is what makes it clever.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere 3 points 1 week ago

Isn't that fundamentally the idea behind 'separate but equal', which has been pretty thoroughly smacked down in the US? It very quickly turned into (always was) separate and not equal.

Doing it in an ironic, performative way for art is one thing, but I'm not sure it's a great blueprint generally.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The execution of it in this case arguing after refusing admission to someone

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That the claim of the exclusion of men from the art being part of the art itself was made after someone complained rather than being something that was stated from the beginning.

Mind you, I'm basing it off of the article.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Oh I see what you mean. I dunno, it kinda seemed obvious to me that that was part of it?

[–] observes_depths@aussie.zone 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It was reopened because section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 allows discrimination on the grounds of promoting equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group of people.

Obviously women are a disadvantaged group, but can anyone tell me how this space promotes equal opportunity?

Interesting that there are still groups excluding women and I hope they get challenged soon too, but I don't think that answers my question.

[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

can anyone tell me how this space promotes equal opportunity?

It fosters empathy. There are centuries worth of examples of positions of power that were nominally open to men and women, but lo and behold, through some weird coincidence (most certainly not structurally ingrained and unquestioned sexism) only men were selected and hired while women were most certainly equally entitled to apply, BUT just in this particular case, the man was chosen for some reason - once again: not sexism. Coincidentally every single of those cases went that way.

This art installation makes it easier to imagine what it's like when there's unfortunately only a limited amount of space in the exhibition that's nominally open to men and women alike and -due to some strange coincidence- the visitor ticket went to the woman who wanted to visit instead of the man (once again: certainly not due to sexism, but some other absolutely not sexist reason that happened to justify why it turned out in favour of the woman). Just in this particular case. Which coincidentally led to the same result as in every single other case.

[–] DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago

Yawn. This whole court case is just a publicity stunt for the exhibition and the artist. Don't give it oxygen.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 0 points 1 week ago

You just know if men are excluded from it, you are going to get some cooker escalate things by faking that he identifies as a woman...

[–] bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net -2 points 1 week ago

Wow good