The Case of the Ladies Who Lounge

August 15, 2024

Winslow Homer, Two Ladies, 1880, 6 15/16 x 7 15/16 in, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/11144.

By Helen Boone

Curator, conceptual artist, and now performance artist, Kirsha Kaechele has turned an Australian museum exhibit into an international debate surrounding gender inequality. The Museum of Old and New Art’s (“MONA”) “Ladies Lounge,” a section of the museum only available to people who identify as women, is at the center of a discrimination lawsuit and a forgery controversy. At the intersection of art and law, this installation work has evolved into an ongoing performance piece, staged in both the museum and the courtroom.

The Space

Behind sweeping velvet curtains lies an exclusive sanctuary known as the “Ladies Lounge.” This opulent space, unveiled in 2020, invited female patrons into a realm of old-world elegance fused with contemporary flair.^[1] Filled with emerald velvet and illuminated by a Venetian Murano chandelier, the lounge featured a curated selection of masterpieces that spanned continents and centuries — Pablo Picasso and Sidney Nolan alongside a collection of Pacific Island ceremonial spears and rare mid-century ceramics.^[2] Upon entry, women were greeted by a concierge who set the stage for the opulent and provocative experience, but most importantly, made sure no men were allowed to enter.^[3]

Any woman, for the price of a museum ticket, was welcome to enter the lounge and see the hidden works. Those seeking a more immersive experience could opt for the $500 “High Tea for Two.”^[4] Limited to two ladies per sitting, guests could dine amidst the extravagant atmosphere.^[5] Catherine Marshall, from the Sydney Morning Herald, reports she was served a twelve-course meal designed by MONA’s head chef, Vince Trim, in a dining area adorned with a Carrara marble table and Italian velvet chairs.^[6] Here, women were both observers and observed while enjoying their meal, reflecting MONA’s approach to social commentary with this exhibit.

Kaechele claims she was inspired to create the exhibit after it was suggested she moved to the “Ladies Lounge” of a pub on Flinders Island.^[7] In creating the exhibit, she provocatively addresses historical exclusions, challenging the tradition of male-dominated spaces. As Hannah Ritchie reports in BBC News, the lounge itself is a space “designed to take the concept of an old Australian pub . . . and turn it on its head.”^[8] The lounge subverted a space women were not welcomed in until 1965 by creating a haven of champagne and attractive male butlers accessible exclusively to female attendees.^[9]

The Tribunal

Jason Lau, a male patron, visited the MONA on April 1, 2023, and sought entry to the “Ladies Lounge.”^[10] Despite purchasing a full-priced ticket, Lau was excluded from the exhibit due to his gender.^[11] In response, Lau lodged a complaint with Equal Opportunities Tasmania, the office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, which was subsequently referred to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.^[12] Lau’s claim asserted that this denial constituted direct discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (ADA).^[13]

The tribunal convened to address the dispute between Jason Lau and Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd., MONA’s operator, in April 2024 to examine the legal arguments presented by both parties.^[14] During the hearing, Lau’s representatives contended that the refusal of entry to the “Ladies Lounge” constituted a clear instance of direct gender discrimination in contravention of the ADA.^[15] They claimed that the exclusion was not justified under any permissible exceptions within the Act.^[16] Conversely, MONA argued that the “Ladies Lounge” fell within an exception of the ADA because it was an artistic installation deliberately designed to promote gender equality.^[17] Under Section 26 of the ADA, gender discrimination is permissible if it is part of a program designed to promote equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group.^[18] MONA contended that “Ladies Lounge” fell within this exception by creating a space specifically for women, a disadvantaged group, to promote equal opportunity by addressing historical disadvantages.^[19]

The tribunal evaluated whether the exhibit could legitimately claim this exception, considering the broader implications of gender-based discrimination and the specific intent behind the “Ladies Lounge.”^[20] They found that the exhibit was a deliberate effort to redress gender imbalances and thus justified the exclusion of men, asserting that this approach was in line with the ADA’s exceptions for promoting equal opportunity for disadvantaged groups.^[21]

MONA’s “Ladies Lounge” did not qualify under this exception. While “Ladies Lounge” was a structured arrangement, it did not satisfy the criteria outlined in Section 26:

A person may discriminate against another person in any program, plan, or arrangement designed to promote equal opportunity for a group of people who are disadvantaged or have a special need because of a prescribed attribute.^[22]

The tribunal found that the exhibit did not directly address or alleviate specific opportunities or disadvantages linked to gender-based historical exclusions.^[23] The exhibit was not promoting female artists and, according to Judge Grueber, “There was no evidence of any relevant existing or contemporary exclusion of women from spaces, either formally or substantively, other than bare reference to men-only clubs, and Ms Kaechele’s experience on Flinders Island.”^[24] The exhibit was a form of artistic expression and historical commentary, without a clear connection to promoting substantive equality for women.^[25] As a result, the tribunal issued an order requiring MONA to cease its discriminatory practice.^[26] The ruling mandated that, within 28 days, by November 7th, 2024, MONA must either allow men to enter the “Ladies Lounge” or close the exhibit.^[27]

While the order ended the exhibit, it broadened the scope of the “Ladies Lounge.” The tribunal was used as a part of an ongoing performance piece. On the morning of the hearing, Kirsha Kaechele led twenty-five women dressed in navy power suits, pearls, and red lipstick into the courtroom.^[28] In a blog post, the artist describes how they “moved in silent synchronicity, crossing and uncrossing their pantyhosed legs [pause], leaning forward in their navy suits [pause], peering over their tortoiseshell spectacles [pause], and applying lipstick” for two hours straight.^[29] Even the judge noted their behavior in his ruling, stating that “at the very least it was inappropriate, discourteous, and disrespectful, and at worst contumelious and contemptuous.”^[30] However, because it was not disruptive to him nor Lau, it did not interfere with the hearing.^[31]

Kaechele claimed she intended to appeal the tribunal’s decision, arguing that they interpreted Section 26 of the ADA too narrowly. In the interim, she moved some of the work previously exhibited in the “Ladies Lounge” into the ladies’ room.^[32] “You are allowed to discriminate in the toilet,” says Kaechele in her July Blog post.^[33] By moving three of the most coveted works from the previous exhibit into the newly redecorated women’s restroom, Kaechele’s exclusionary gallery persisted.^[34]

The Illusion

This summer, four years after the exhibit opened, Kirsha Kaechele reportedly received a letter from the Picasso Administration in Paris asking her to explain the forged Picasso’s hanging in the museum.^[35] Her response:

I knew of a number of Picasso paintings I could borrow from friends, but none of them were green and I wished for the Lounge to be monochrome. I also had time working against me, not to mention the cost of insuring a Picasso—exorbitant!^[36]

This was part of a full tell-all style blog, “Art is Not Truth: Pablo Picasso,” Kaechele posted to the MONA website, where she revealed that the exhibited objects were fake.^[37] The objects were not treasures from her grandparents’ collection. The “New Guinean spears,” supposedly taken by her grandfather exploring with Michael Rockefeller, were fake.^[38] The “Mink Rug,” which claimed to be made by Princess Mary’s royal furrier, was polyester.^[39] The precious jewelry, presented as family heirlooms, was plastic.^[40] Finally, the “Picasso” was painted by Kaechele and her niece.^[41]

As of 2024, Kaechele’s lounge was recast as a forgery, but still a conceptual experiment. She writes in the blog that she intentionally filled the space with “stories intended to raise questions around gender, freedom, power structures, authenticity, and value.”^[42] For example, Pablo Picasso and Sydney Nolan, two of the most acclaimed artists purportedly shown in the gallery, were both famously misogynistic.

Kaechele ended her witty blog post with an apology to the Picasso Administration.^[43] Within two days, Claudia Andrieu, head of the administration’s legal affairs, told The Art Newspaper that they would not take legal action. She wrote, “We don’t hold it against either the museum itself or the artist because the drive to create an artwork sometimes makes people forget that there exist rights which protect the interest of authors, which apply to everyone.”^[44] According to Andrieu, the case is closed.^[45]

Conclusion

The public’s response to this body of work has been, to say the least, disparate. Commenters on the r/MensRights and r/feminism subreddits, predictably, take opposing stances on the quality of Kaechele’s statement. Additionally, the comment section on Kaechele’s blog post offers a platform for the discourse. Some pass it off as “A-grade trolling” while others praise it as “a glorious prank on the patriarchy!”^[46] Still, the tribunal considers it discrimination.^[47]

What started as a provocative installation piece in Hobart has spiraled into a high-profile legal drama on the global stage that challenges our notions of discrimination and artistic expression. While the Tasmanian tribunal’s ruling dismantled this gender-exclusive installation, it ignited a spirited debate on the boundaries of artistic expression and legal compliance.

In hindsight, the “Ladies Lounge” was a provocative illusion designed to highlight and question the very constructs it sought to critique. The faux Picassos and faux fur rugs were all part of a grand narrative designed to question authenticity and value, both in art and in gendered spaces. By blending artifice with artistry, Kaechele mocked a history of exclusion.

​​Still, the exhibit violated the local law. The forgery and discriminatory practices pushed legal boundaries in harmful ways. Those who spent $500 for the “High Tea for Two” experience might have felt duped by Kaechele’s false promises, all so a wealthy woman, who had access to other genuine Picassos, could hang the painting that matched the drapes. Additionally, those who do not identify as women certainly felt left out when the woman married to the museum owner restricted their access to the space.

The ultimate legal decision highlighted a crucial lesson: while challenging societal norms can spark necessary debate, adhering to legal frameworks may avoid harm. Did the artist need to revert to fabrication of luxury to simulate the experience or is there unintended commentary on the art that takes a life of its own once the artist invites the audience to experience and comment? The case underscores the intricate balance between artistic innovation and compliance, reminding us that the exploration of new ideas must respect legal and ethical boundaries. “Ladies Lounge,” therefore, transcends its immediate context, reflecting the complex and often contentious relationship between artistic vision and the law.

Update: 

As of Friday, 27 September 2024,  the Tasmanian Supreme Court ruled in favor of MONA’s Ladies Lounge, overturning the prior decision that found the women’s-only exhibit in violation of anti-discrimination laws. Justice Shane Marshall stated that the law allows for exclusion if it promotes “equal opportunity” for marginalized groups, emphasizing that the lounge provides women with a unique experience of being “advantaged rather than disadvantaged.” This ruling reinstates the lounge’s purpose of highlighting historic misogyny and gender inequality. The case now returns to the Tasmania civil and administrative tribunal for further consideration.

About the Author

Helen Boone is a legal intern at the Center for Art Law and a rising second-year student at the University of Colorado School of Law.

Sources:

1. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT ¶ 5 (Austl.); Mona Has Launched a Ladies-only High Tea with Butler Service, Delicious.com, https://www.delicious.com.au/eat-out/latest-news/article/mona-hobart-launches-ladies-lounge-high-tea-two/ajjl9nn8 (last visited: Aug. 5, 2024). ↑
2. E.g. Kelly Burke, Tasmania’s Mona to Challenge Decision to Let Men into Ladies-only Art Lounge, Guardian (May 6, 2024), https://www.theguardian.com/culture/article/2024/may/07/tasmanias-mona-to-challenge-decision-to-let-men-into-ladies-only-art-lounge; Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT (Austl.); Delicious.com, supra note 1. ↑
3. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT ¶ 14 (Austl.). ↑
4. Burke, supra note 2. ↑
5. Delicious.com, supra note 1. ↑
6. Catherine Marshall, MONA Ladies Lounge High Tea: Inside the Secretive New, Women-only Experience, Sydney Morning Herald (Jun. 3, 2022), https://www.smh.com.au/traveller/inspiration/mona-ladies-lounge-high-tea-inside-the-secretive-new-womenonly-experience-20220530-h243zx.html. ↑
7. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT ¶ 15 (Austl.). ↑
8. Tiffanie Turnbull, Mona: Australian Art Museum Sued Over Women’s-Only Exhibit, BBC News, Sydney (Mar. 20, 2024), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68572280. ↑
9. Id. ↑
10. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT ¶ 6 (Austl.). ↑
11. Id. ¶¶ 6–7 (Austl.). ↑
12. Id. ↑
13. Id. ¶ 7. ↑
14. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT (Austl.). ↑
15. Id. ¶ 22. ↑
16. Id. ¶ 32. ↑
17. Id. ¶ 39–41. ↑
18. Id. ¶ 39–41. ↑
19. Id. ¶ 39–41, 52–60. ↑
20. Id. ¶ 45. ↑
21. Id. ¶ 64–66. ↑
22. Id. ¶ 33. ↑
23. Id. ¶ 64–66. ↑
24. Id. ¶¶ 66, 73. ↑
25. Id. ¶ 60. ↑
26. Id. ¶ 81–85. ↑
27. Id. ¶ 87. ↑
28. Kirsha Kaechele, ‘Art is Not Truth’: Pablo Picasso, MONA (Jul. 10, 2024), https://mona.net.au/blog/art-is-not-truth; Turnbull, supra note 8. ↑
29. E.g. Turnbull supra note 8; Kaechele, supra note 28. ↑
30. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT ¶ 66, 78 (Austl.). ↑
31. Id. ¶ 80. ↑
32. E.g. Kelly Ng, Women-Only Exhibit to Become a Toilet to Keep Men Out, BBC News (May 7, 2024) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd1wpegrnrxo; Kaechele, supra note 28. ↑
33. Kaechele, supra, note 28. ↑
34. Kathleen Magramo, These Picasso Pieces are on Display in a Ladies’ Restroom Inside a Museum. Here’s Why, CNN (Jul. 11, 2024). https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/25/style/australia-mona-museum-picasso-restroom-intl-hnk/index.html. ↑
35. Kaechele, supra, note 28. ↑
36. Id. ↑
37. Id. ↑
38. Id. ↑
39. Id. ↑
40. Id. ↑
41. Id. ↑
42. Id. ↑
43. Id. ↑
44. Elizabeth Fortescue, Picasso Estate to Take No Further Action Over Forged Paintings at Mona, The Art Newspaper (Jul. 12, 2024) https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2024/07/12/picasso-estate-to-take-no-further-action-over-forged-paintings-at-mona. ↑
45. Id. ↑
46. E.g. Laura, MONA (Jul. 10, 2024), https://mona.net.au/blog/art-is-not-truth (comment on ‘Art is Not Truth’: Pablo Picasso). ↑
47. Lau v Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd. [2024] TASCAT (Austl.). ↑