Apropos of absolutely nothing, I want to talk briefly about this picture of Bea Arthur naked images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-05-14-Lot… by John Currin.
Bea Arthur never sat for that picture, posed for it, or—I believe—gave anyone permission to create her likeness.
When it was sold recently for $2 million, spokesman Koji Inoue said, "It’s radical to sexualize someone people think of as asexual."
John Currin is an interesting figure - you can read all about him in this profile in the Independent: independent.co.uk/arts-entertain…
John Currin has embraced his sexism, and said that "I don’t think [it being sexist] affects the goodness or badness of the painting".
John Currin talking about his sexism has said, "When you’re a young, attractive man, it’s easier to get away with that kind of stuff."
"Obviously, I have a pretty sexist effect … I guess I am that way. I don’t say it’s a good thing to be, but it’s not controllable."
Art Critic Kim Levin of the Village Voice wrote of Currin's "awful" work in 1992, "Boycott this show".
She said later: "Currin’s subsequent oeuvre reveals an artist whose work is something other than merely misogynistic, sexist, and ageist."
So there is debate on whether Currin's work is purely misogynist or whether it has qualities that redeem it.
Still, another quote: "Whether I like it or not, I’m probably very sexist. I try not to be completely lazy about it."
My point, I suppose, is that it would be quite reasonable for someone to complain that the prominent display of that picture was sexist.