• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MLK Hug Statue Controversy

It's definitely ******* ugly there's no doubt about that. I can't imagine someone stepping back after sculpting that and thinking, "yup, nailed it."

Woke or not, it's still ugly.
 
Puppycow said:
Two sets of disembodied arms just look weird.
Click to expand...

I remember hearing somewhere a long time ago that seeing body parts instead of complete figures in Rorschach blots correlates with sociopathy or psychopathy or something. Dunno if it's true, but reducing real people to a tangle of disembodied limbs seems decidedly non-awesome.

ETA: It might be a mitigation if the limbs in question were in an iconic pose more widely recognized and appreciated in popular culture. Like Dillon's and Dutch's arm-wrestling handshake.
 
Last edited:
I saw this work as well, and I have to say that it is rather well done and that it is rather weird.

However, I also know that famous works of art often have an inauspicious beginning.

For example, Vincent Van Gogh only sold two paintings during his lifetime, and now his art is some of the most valuable art in the world.

Alternately, in his time, the works of Michaelangelo Buonarotti were often criticized for his use of nudity, but now he is considered to be one of the best artists of all time.

And so on.

Therefore, with luck, great artists will continue to ignore the loud critiques of stupid people.
 
Crossbow said:
I saw this work as well, and I have to say that it is rather well done and that it is rather weird.

However, I also know that famous works of art often have an inauspicious beginning.

For example, Vincent Van Gogh only sold two paintings during his lifetime, and now his art is some of the most valuable art in the world.

Alternately, in his time, the works of Michaelangelo Buonarotti were often criticized for his use of nudity, but now he is considered to be one of the best artists of all time.

And so on.

Therefore, with luck, great artists will continue to ignore the loud critiques of stupid people.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the art world version of the science crackpot's "they laughed at Galileo, too!"
 
Abbott: "That's crazy!"

Costello: "Oh, yeah? The said Galileo was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!"

Abbott: "Who's Luigi?"

Costello: "Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy."

Artwork to please a committee: guaranteed road to success.
 
theprestige said:
ETA: It might be a mitigation if the limbs in question were in an iconic pose more widely recognized and appreciated in popular culture. Like Dillon's and Dutch's arm-wrestling handshake.
Click to expand...

Maybe if it were just some random piece of art entitled "The Embrace", but this is supposed to say something about Martin Luther King. In all the plaudits I've ever heard for Dr. King, I've never heard him lauded for his abilities at embracing. (Not saying he wasn't good at it. Just saying I've never heard anyone say, "Martin Luther King? Girl, that man could HUG!")
 
*Shrugs* It's public art. Public art is always a coin toss from getting something that isn't just stupid, but that weirdly specific kind of stupid.

You can't do art via committee and if you try you wind up with something is 45% of the time is bland, 45% of the time is "we have no idea what art is so we'll just pick the thing that's most confusing and controversial" and 10% "good."
 
My primary objection to this monstrosity is that it takes up valuable space on my Common - you know, the area that was to be saved for the use of all? If we memorialize all the worthies in this way, the Boston Common will someday be a landscape of bronze and granite surrounding a square foot of turf where there will be a marker reading: IMAGINE THIS ONLY 50 ACRES LARGER
 
Somewhere I read the line, "most public sculpture looks like a metal giant took a **** in front of a building."
 
"You know who had a good idea for memorializing the dead? The Romans. A lifelike bust that was both honest about the subject but also portrayed them nobly."

"So you're going to make a bust of Martin Luther King, in the classical style?"

"Sort of. See, instead of using the traditional head-and-shoulders subject, I'm going to use a different body part."

"Which body part did you have in mind?"

"The elbow, probably. Maybe his penis. Maybe someone else's body parts, too."

"Sounds a little too risky."

"I can keep one shoulder, as a nod to classical sensibilities."

"That works. Let's talk about funding."
 
"It's great art! Note the amorphous sensuality, bordering on the subliminal sexual suggestion and-"

"It looks ******* stupid, like some Vo-Tech drop out welder went on a bender and couldn't find any tools to finish it except a grinder."

"Dude, glass half full. Do you have any idea how much we paid this cat for this POS?"
 
Crossbow said:
I saw this work as well, and I have to say that it is rather well done and that it is rather weird.

However, I also know that famous works of art often have an inauspicious beginning.

For example, Vincent Van Gogh only sold two paintings during his lifetime, and now his art is some of the most valuable art in the world.

Alternately, in his time, the works of Michaelangelo Buonarotti were often criticized for his use of nudity, but now he is considered to be one of the best artists of all time.

And so on.

Therefore, with luck, great artists will continue to ignore the loud critiques of stupid people.
Click to expand...

Yes, the views of all art can change over time. That being said, just because people critique it and don't find it appealing doesn't mean they're "stupid". Different people like different things, and maybe this will turn out to be the sculpture of the century, but I'd bet it's just as, if not more, likely that most people will look at that a few years from now and say, "Seriously, what the **** is that?"

If you like it, rock on. That's the cool thing about art, not everyone likes the same thing. If you're big into arms holding dicks\turds\eels then this is your jam.
 
catsmate said:
The Usual Suspects, most notably the NYP, Bitchute and WT, don't like it, ergo it's "woke".
Click to expand...

I an a long way from being woke, and I think it's a lousy statue.
I can't see it had a damn thing to do with MLK.
And if the cost was Ten Million dollars, as is being quoted, man somebody just took somebody to the cleaners.
 
It almost like somebody did a wierd abstract statue, and then tacked on it being about MLK just to sell it.
Call me a philistine, I don't care. I long ago decided that alleged intellectuals..or intellecutual wannabes, are often full of crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom