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 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 month ago

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

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

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

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month 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 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.