Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
We're supposed to be judging the artist and artwork here, not the person who inspired it.
|
Nelson's column is totally different. It isn't supposed to be a work of art in its own right, encouraging merit upon the artist (who did it anyway?), but its an act of tribute, of respect to someone. If you want to want to critically appraise that as a piece of art, than its rather bland and unimaginative too.
I mean... Winston Churchill's statue in Woodford, Matt Busby's statue in Manchester, are they all works of art too because they are sculptures accurately depicting the subject? Probably not, which means people are judging the subject, not the artwork. All I keep hearing isn't the woman beautiful, isn't she feminine, isn't she empowered... But she isn't up there, a statue is.
Anyway, comparisons to the Venus de Milo (near as damnit the same as Lapper's statue, done 2100 years ago, how original!) are false anyway, because the Venus de Milo had arms originally. People didn't fall in love with it because it was found without arms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marina
How can i comment on something's quality/beauty when it doesn't exist?
|
Wouldn't take much imagination. Just shrink the breasts a bit.
The point I was trying to make is that people are ladling praise on Alison Lapper, about how wonderful/brave/etc she is, when really we are supposed to be talking about her statue, and the artist that created it. The subject is irrelevent.
Bitter? Not bitter, its too strong, but I feel some people are a bit too easily swayed. Because they think Alison Lapper is wonderful, the statue must also be wonderful. Wether I am right on this, I doubt we'll know, but just my thoughts - I don't mean to offend anyone,
honestly.