Pregnant Nude On Plinth Provokes Puking

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by MosesPresley

Camille Paglia in Sexual Persona says the Greek ideal of beauty was homoerotic. They idealized the beautiful boy. This concept carried over into the Renaissance and into contemporary advertising. We now have the ideal of the beautiful girl. I suppose this is due to the liberation of women. Maybe someone can help me out with this one.

There are certainly female nudes before modern times. I suppose their features varied somewhat over time, but there were certain commonalities.

Welll-formed sexually appealing youths are the accepted cultural definition of human beauty. Ugliness begins when form departs from the youthful ideal.

youth is a time of health and strength. Of maximum physical ability, if you will.

I think abstract art ultimately failed, because of its inherent lack of humanity.

I can think of few things more humane than a Calder mobile.

Over time it became little more than pretty designs used to augment dehumanized architectures.

I also think the assault on modern architecture is a tad overdone. And any "pretty" public sculpture can be used to augment architecture.

I saw a woman on Jeopardy last night. She appeared ugly to me, but that was because of she had a Monica Lewinsky hairdo and was wearing a bizarre short-sleeved military styled blouse complete with epaulets. I am sure with a different hair-do and outfit; she would appear much more attractive.

This is why artists use nude subjects. Fashion is of the moment and confuses the issue. Nudity shows the truth. Past fashions become absurd by contemporary standards. Can you imagine Michelangelo’s David with a pair of pantaloons?

Is David the truth? Or an ideal?

I do not think it is so much about disability as it is about the sexual acceptance of the disabled. This sculpture challenges accepted definitions of beauty and sexuality.

And i would suggest that people who want their definitions of beauty and sexuality challenged can go to a museum or gallery for that. Someone in a public square has the challeng thrown at them, like it or not. Again, that gets to the role of public sculpture - to express SHARED values. The problem becomes when artists, and public authorities, use public art to challenge and subvert peoples values (quite apart from whether you or I like those established values) If we dont have any shared values any more (which is quite possible) then using public art decoratively may be the best we can hope for.

[The Mad Viking]

People have some strange ideas about sculpture.

Sculpture has been deliberately contentious for centuries. The sculpture in the main piazza in Bologna, for example, right in front of the cathedral was installed in the Renaissance, but is outrageously sexy, with a naked (pagan) Neptune standing over 8 naked, cavorting nymphs, four of which are holding their large water-gushing breast up for closer display.

I think "Alison Lapper Pregnant" is a terrific work, and I think it says even more by its placement alongside military heroes.

I would say that we have more than enough military history, and not nearly enough "mothery" history.

If you are disturbed by the sculpture, that is fine. But you should ask yourself "Why?"

Don't just assume that since you are disturbed, therefore, "The sculpture is wrong and I am right, QED."

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by The Mad Viking
People have some strange ideas about sculpture.

Sculpture has been deliberately contentious for centuries. The sculpture in the main piazza in Bologna, for example, right in front of the cathedral was installed in the Renaissance, but is outrageously sexy, with a naked (pagan) Neptune standing over 8 naked, cavorting nymphs, four of which are holding their large water-gushing breast up for closer display.

Would that be controversial - from what I understand of the Renaissance church, such a sculpture could well have been commisioned by the Bishop

I would say that we have more than enough military history, and not nearly enough "mothery" history.

I dont think this Allison Lapper is actually a historically famous mother, is she?

If you are disturbed by the sculpture, that is fine. But you should ask yourself "Why?"

I didnt say I was disturbed. But clearly (and unsurprisingly) some people are. Again, I dont know that public sculpture is the right medium to proselytize for new values.

[lord of the mark]

actually I suspect there are as many images of a certain historically famous mother across the continent of europe, as there are of all the military heroes combined.

[Immortal Wombat]

I have realised why I take issue with this. Trafalgar Square is not (or at least, should not, IMO be) an art gallery. It is a place where we have statues. And yes, Ozzy, the statues may not be of people who are very famous (now), or even particularly worth honouring and remembering, but they are there as representations of that person. Put a sculpture representing the beauty of two-limbed motherhood in a gallery, or by all means put a statue of Alison Lapper on the plinth, if anyone thinks she deserves it, but put her up there in bronze and with some clothes on.

[C0ckney]

Calling a person ugly dehumanizes them.

I would say that we have more than enough military history, and not nearly enough "mothery" history.

my, my, we've got some delicate little flowers here at 'poly ain't we

[Ben Kenobi]

I have to disagree with LoTM with the 'shared' cultural values. I actually agree with the idea that the sculptor is trying to put out, the acceptance of the sexuality of disabled folks. It's a controversial topic to acknowledge.

actually I suspect there are as many images of a certain historically famous mother across the continent of europe, as there are of all the military heroes combined.

Yeah, the blessed virgin, eh?

[Hueij]

Again, that gets to the role of public sculpture - to express SHARED values.

?? Does that mean we have to replace public sculpture every 30 years or something? Over here we have some statues of people who would be in jail by today's standards.

And for what it is worth, I like the trafalgar Square statue.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I have to disagree with LoTM with the 'shared' cultural values. I actually agree with the idea that the sculptor is trying to put out, the acceptance of the sexuality of disabled folks. It's a controversial topic to acknowledge.

Well in one article the sculptor indicated its about courage (which makes it fit the square better) I certainly know some physcially challenged people who are excellent models of courage. Of course I think of them in terms of what they do in their work life, political life etc as exemplifying courage, though I can see how being pregnant with certain challenges could be seen as exemplifying courage as well. So im not sure it really is about sexuality.

Yeah, the blessed virgin, eh?

"So what this about a Holy Spirit???"
"Dad, at least He's Jewish!!"




Obligatory plug for friends advocacy group

http://www.freeourpeople.org/aar/

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Hueij

Again, that gets to the role of public sculpture - to express SHARED values.

?? Does that mean we have to replace public sculpture every 30 years or something? Over here we have some statues of people who would be in jail by today's standards.

And for what it is worth, I like the trafalgar Square statue.

well in the Baghdad and eastern europe theyve taken some statues down

Id be willing to take down the Jefferson Davis statue in Richmond, but I dont think the legislature will go for it. So you add other statues to drown it out (like Arthur Ashe, another great Virginian) and try to "reintreprate" it.

So yeah, CHANGING values ALSO makes public sculpture problematic. Another reason to stick with abstraction, Id say. But I still dont think its the place to challenge and shock.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by C0ckney




my, my, we've got some delicate little flowers here at 'poly ain't we

Isn't he cute. He can type too.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I can think of few things more humane than a Calder mobile.

I was referring more to the abstracts that came after Pollock's time. The pretty little designs that you see on the walls of most offices and restaurants. Although I find very little that is human in a Calder. Calder's work is cold and intellectual. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I don't know about where you live, but the office buildings here have very little imagination. The exception being the Hercules building.

http://www.maypinska.com/pages/projects/buildbodyherc.htm

Originally posted by lord of the mark
And i would suggest that people who want their definitions of beauty and sexuality challenged can go to a museum or gallery for that.

In a free society, if freedom is to have any real value, you have to have the right to say things that people will not like.

This sculpture is not simply a sexual agitprop. It rises above that. We are killing any beauty this piece might have by talking it to death. Art should not be over intellectualized.

The subtext is sexual. On the surface it is simply what it portrays: a deformed pregnat woman. I am sure most people are not, consciously at least, sexually responding to it.

Art is now inherently a public phenomenom.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The problem becomes when artists, and public authorities, use public art to challenge and subvert peoples values

I hardly call an honest and non exagerated depiction of a deformed pregnant naked woman subversive. What values are being subverted here exactly? The right to hate and hide people with deformities?

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If we dont have any shared values any more (which is quite possible) then using public art decoratively may be the best we can hope for.

What shared values are being violated by this sculpture?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
Isn't he cute. He can type too.

there, there little moses, come on, wipes those tears away, big boys don't cry now

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by C0ckney


there, there little moses, come on, wipes those tears away, big boys don't cry now

Would you tell this woman that she was ugly to her face?

[C0ckney]

much as i hate to make a serious post...

no.

would i tell her that i don't think much of the sculpture, and that it doesn't belong there? yes.