Shock gender ruling for iconic destination - news.com.au

The old saying goes that life imitates art, and in a bizarre legal battle surrounding an Aussie museum experience, the row has become an “artwork” itself.

At least, that’s according to one eccentric artist.

The Mona museum, a major tourist in the Tasmanian city of Hobart, has been ordered to allow men into its women’s only art instillation after complaints of discrimination.

The Ladies Lounge has been in the museum since 2020, created by artist Kirsha Kaechele, and allows only women to enter where they are served champagne by male waiters and allowed to view art privately.

But after a theatrical legal battle, Mona was on Tuesday ordered to allow men into its opulent, female-only exhibit within a month.

The conflict began when Jason Lau, a visitor from New South Wales, purchased a ticket for the museum but was unable to view the artwork curated by Ms Kaechele.

Ms Kaechele said that men feeling rejected from the exhibit was the entire point of it, as it had been built after an experience in a pub where the artist and a female friend were directed towards the ‘ladies lounge’ by men.

But after discovering that he would be unable to experience the exhibit, Mr Lau filed a complaint with Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. This complaint led to a legal dispute that eventually reached the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

During a Hobart hearing last month, as reported by The Mercury, she mentioned that the Ladies’ Lounge was created in response to women being forbidden from entering certain spaces throughout history.

“The men are experiencing Ladies Lounge, their experience of rejection is the artwork,” she said.“OK, they experience the artwork differently than women, but men are certainly experiencing the artwork as it’s intended.”

Its owner, eccentric professional gambler, art collector, and businessman David Walsh, who is married to Ms Kaechele, describes it as “a subversive adult Disneyland”.

But in his published decision, tribunal deputy president Richard Grueber summarised the dispute as a “conflict between an artwork which deliberately and overtly discriminates for artistic purpose and legislation which has the objective of prohibiting discrimination”.

“From Caravaggio to Jeff Koons, artists and their art have at times had a difficult relationship with the law. This is not surprising,” Mr Grueber’s reason for the decision said.

As Mona’s legal team argued, Mr Gruber noted the Ladies’ lounge “is itself an artwork, but it contains other significant artworks.”

“The attendant permits entry to the Ladies Lounge only by ladies. Although the term lady maybe a loaded one, for the purposes of this case it is interchangeable with woman.

“The reason that Mr Lau was not permitted entry into the Ladies Lounge was because of his gender, specifically because he is a male and is not a ‘lady’.”

During last month’s hearing, Mona’s lawyer Catherine Scott argued that the Ladies Lounge was covered by section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

This act allows discrimination in any program, plan, or arrangement designed to promote equal opportunity for disadvantaged people.

It was a reportedly theatrical hearing as Ms Kaechele’s large entourage left the hearing dressed predominantly in blue power suits and pearls, with her supporters performed a synchronised exit to the rhythm of Robert Palmer’s “Simply Irresistible”.

Mr Grueber’s decision went on to state women generally experience some “broad societal disadvantage” adding, “women artists as a group experience disadvantage in respect to display of artworks”.

However, he said he could not find that blocking men from the Ladies Lounge achieved improvement.

In questioning whether the Ladies’ Lounge actually promotes equal opportunity, Mr Grueber wrote: “The relevant opportunity that the Ladies Lounge is intended to promote to achieve equality is not readily apparent from Ladies Lounge itself, in the way that, say, a gender-based scholarship or a quota system for the appointment of women to particular positions or a women-only medical clinic might self-evidently point to purposes of addressing systemic gender-based inequality of opportunity in education, employment or access to medical services.”

Mona, both during and after the heading, noted that it would likely close the exhibit should the ruling favour Mr Lau.

During a hearing last month, Mona’s lawyer Ms Scott noted that the museum would need to close the lounge altogether rather than allow men, given it would alter the very nature of the women-only exhibit.

“Mona’s position is that wouldn’t work,” she told the tribunal at the time, as reported by The Mercury.

Despite this, Mr Grueber ruled for ultimate inclusion.

“Moorilla (Mona) says that refusal of entry to men is an intrinsic aspect of the Ladies Lounge artwork and that it therefore cannot be modified to permit entry by men,” Mr Grueber’s determination read.

“If an order is made requiring Moorilla to permit entry by men then Mona would cease to exhibit the artwork. I accept that the Ladies Lounge would cease to have the artistic character that defines it if men are permitted entry.”

Mr Grueber also criticised the theatrical conduct of Ms Kaechele and her large group of supporters during the hearing.

“After I retired at the conclusion of the hearing, the group left the Tribunal in a single line in a slow march led by Ms Kaechele to the sounds of a Robert Palmer song,” he explained

“I understand that attempts were made to film that procession, contrary to s 11 of the Court Security Act 2017.”

He labelled the display “at the very least it was inappropriate, discourteous and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous” adding the display may have warranted referral to the conduct to the Director of Public Prosecutions if it was aimed to influence Mr Lau or the determination of his complaint.

Mr Grueber, who did not witness the display, added that it did not impact the decision but warned that it “may well have done so had Ms Kaechele been a party rather than a witness, or if her evidence had been contradicted.”

After being ordered to allow men into the exhibit, Mona expressed deep disappointment in the decision, according to a spokesperson for the museum.

More Coverage

“We will take some time to absorb the result and consider our options,” they told The Mercury.

“We request that the artist’s privacy is respected at this time.”

Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd (Mona) was ordered to cease refusing “persons who do not identify as ladies” within 28 days.

Adblock test (Why?)

https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiqQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9uYXRpb25hbC9jb3VydHMtbGF3L21vbmEtbXVzZXVtLW9yZGVyZWQtdG8tYWxsb3ctbWVuLWludG8tbGFkaWVzLWxvdW5nZS1leGhpYml0LWJ5LXRhc21hbmlhbi10cmlidW5hbC9uZXdzLXN0b3J5LzcyYzIzMjg3OTA1MGUyZTZlOTZmNmFkN2M0YjZlZTVm0gGtAWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5ld3MuY29tLmF1L25hdGlvbmFsL2NvdXJ0cy1sYXcvbW9uYS1tdXNldW0tb3JkZXJlZC10by1hbGxvdy1tZW4taW50by1sYWRpZXMtbG91bmdlLWV4aGliaXQtYnktdGFzbWFuaWFuLXRyaWJ1bmFsL25ld3Mtc3RvcnkvNzJjMjMyODc5MDUwZTJlNmU5NmY2YWQ3YzRiNmVlNWY_YW1w?oc=5

2024-04-10 06:38:18Z
CBMiqQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5uZXdzLmNvbS5hdS9uYXRpb25hbC9jb3VydHMtbGF3L21vbmEtbXVzZXVtLW9yZGVyZWQtdG8tYWxsb3ctbWVuLWludG8tbGFkaWVzLWxvdW5nZS1leGhpYml0LWJ5LXRhc21hbmlhbi10cmlidW5hbC9uZXdzLXN0b3J5LzcyYzIzMjg3OTA1MGUyZTZlOTZmNmFkN2M0YjZlZTVm0gGtAWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5ld3MuY29tLmF1L25hdGlvbmFsL2NvdXJ0cy1sYXcvbW9uYS1tdXNldW0tb3JkZXJlZC10by1hbGxvdy1tZW4taW50by1sYWRpZXMtbG91bmdlLWV4aGliaXQtYnktdGFzbWFuaWFuLXRyaWJ1bmFsL25ld3Mtc3RvcnkvNzJjMjMyODc5MDUwZTJlNmU5NmY2YWQ3YzRiNmVlNWY_YW1w

Bagikan Berita Ini