Trafalgar Square's fourth plinth

Originally Posted by punky

Question for the women. Would you find it equally beautiful, and equally as good as a work of art, if it was a man with no arms instead of a woman?

Be honest.

All the women when talking about this art work don't mention its creation, or its conception, they just think all about femininity and female empowement/superiority and 'bravery' (yeah, give her VC ) of the subject. Makes me feel like I am at a feminist rally really.

How can i comment on something's quality/beauty when it doesn't exist? Show me the piece of artwork and i'll give you my opinion.
You're suggesting by your question that my criticism was only dictated by my gender....... whereas i'm perfectly capable of having a more objective opinion.
I can't offer an opinion on the beauty of a male, statue with no arms since i haven't seen it If you're asking if i think it could have the same value, then yes, it can....... depending on what the work is depicting and how it is depicted.

Let me see..... you're actually asking if we/i only heap praise on the statue because it's of the female form, suggesting that we wouldn't if it was of a man....... armless or not........ obviously not pregnant then
If you feel that you're at a femininist rally....... particularly on this forum..... then i believe it's one of your own making. I certainly haven't mentioned 'superiority' and as far as 'bravery' (yeah, give her VC ) is concerned...... any disabled person willing to go through childbirth and bring up a child IS brave (i'm not specifically referring to the model)...... but as you well know, they wouldn't be eligible for a VC....... various benefits no doubt. Your bitterness is tanglble...... shame.




PS... actually....... i'm off...... have a rally to attend.....

Originally Posted by Graham

Attached are two pictures of a sculpture by Rodin: "She who used to be the beautiful Heaulmiere."

Think about her.

Now, Rodin really knew how to make a sculpture 'live'.

[punky]

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.

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.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by punky

Nelson's column is totally different. [...] 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.

Well, unless you consider David Blaine, it would be a bit difficult...

But the point is that it's what the statue *represents*, be it Nelson, Busby or Lapper.

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.

So why not restore it? Glue a set of arms back onto it? Surely it would be even better, then...?!

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.

Nonsense! The subject is entirely relevant.

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.

Ah, this seems to be verging on the old "Politically Correct" arguments again. "We think the statue is wonderful because we can't *not* agree since it features a disabled woman".

Nope. Wrong.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

So why not restore it? Glue a set of arms back onto it? Surely it would be even better, then...?!

Same reason Grade I and Grade II listed buildings aren't demolished with brand new shiny buildings.

Ah, this seems to be verging on the old "Politically Correct" arguments again. "We think the statue is wonderful because we can't *not* agree since it features a disabled woman".

Nope. Wrong.

I didn't say its because people can't agree, I just think that some people are putting undue emphasis on her gender. To me, she is a disabled person, to some others, she is a disabled woman.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Translation: Something that Ramrod considers beautiful

Other people have opinions too.

Now there's a turn up for the books....graham lecturing on other peoples opinions
I have stated many times in this thread that it's my opinion I am on about......but that hasn't sunk in yet it seems.

Great, let's have a sculpture of the surgeon on the Victory sawing off someone's leg!!

Now you're being silly m8

Why *shouldn't* we be the ones to push the boundaries?

Because it always seems to be us?

What's *wrong* with something that makes you think about your prejudices?

What prejudices of mine are you on about?

Why do you not consider this to be "uplifting"? Personally I think that this woman has managed to succeed against the odds and I feel that's more uplifting than glorifying war.

I'm not glorifying war (see my ideas for what else could have been better placed on the plinth)
This is only uplifting if you know about the models story.........the vast majority of people passing it will just see a pregnant thalidomide victim......
edit--not thalidomide-'Phocomelia'

Which do you think is better? A statue of someone who *takes* lives, or a statue of someone who *produces* life?

Hmmmmm.............that sounds like one of the false argument methods you are keen to trundle out.....which one is it? An appeal to sympathy or something like that....Perhaps you can tell me it's name?

[Ramrod]

Hold everything! I have to partially retract what I said a few pages back..she isn't ugly....she's really rather nice! (but her statue is ugly)
I'm sure the mods will let me post partial nudity this once!

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hold everything! I have to partially retract what I said a few pages back..she isn't ugly....she's really rather nice! (but her statue is ugly)
I'm sure the mods will let me post partial nudity this once!

I thought we had established that this was art not nudity.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I thought we had established that this was art not nudity.

I'm not commenting on her breasts! It's her overall impression thats nice....

[Graham]

Originally Posted by punky

Same reason Grade I and Grade II listed buildings aren't demolished with brand new shiny buildings.

Err, nope. Nobody's talking about "demolishing" anything and you've rather shot your own argument in the foot because listed buildings *are* restored, ie fixed up in their original condition and missing bits glued back on.

I didn't say its because people can't agree,

Sorry, I think you missed that one too. It's not that they "can't agree" it's the implication that (cf the Emperor's New Clothes) some people can't bring themselves to *disagree* because they feel they'd be risking not appearing "Politically Correct".

I just think that some people are putting undue emphasis on her gender. To me, she is a disabled person, to some others, she is a disabled woman.

Well she *is* a disabled woman...! But for some people it seems her disability is what is getting "undue emphasis", *not* that she is a woman.
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Now there's a turn up for the books....graham lecturing on other peoples opinions

Are you trying to get this thread closed again?

I have stated many times in this thread that it's my opinion I am on about......but that hasn't sunk in yet it seems.

On the contrary, I'm well aware of the fact. Unfortunately what you're writing and what you claim to be thinking seem to be somewhat at odds.

Now you're being silly m8

But it's in the right "historical context" for the rest of the square, isn't it?!

Because it always seems to be us?

I'm glad to hear it. I'd prefer people push at boundaries, rather than try to impose/ enforce them because "that's the way we've always done it and we don't want things to change".

What prejudices of mine are you on about?

See our PMs.

This is only uplifting if you know about the models story.........the vast majority of people passing it will just see a pregnant thalidomide victim......
edit--not thalidomide-'Phocomelia'

So some people will make an (incorrect) assumption and miss the point. Doesn't mean that everyone will, nor that, because of it, we shouldn't put the statue up there.

Hmmmmm.............that sounds like one of the false argument methods you are keen to trundle out.....which one is it? An appeal to sympathy or something like that....Perhaps you can tell me it's name?

I think you're thinking of "Appeal to pity", but that would be in the form of "we must have this statue because this woman has suffered so much" (the suffering is not a valid reason).

There again, you could go for "false dilemma" (putting up two options as if they're the only ones).

Of course actually what I was using was simple irony, but I'm pleased to see that people are actually thinking about the potential fallacies of certain arguments
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hold everything! I have to partially retract what I said a few pages back..she isn't ugly....she's really rather nice! (but her statue is ugly)

Ah, oops.

Apropos of my comments above you might want to check out "Special Pleading" or perhaps "Begging the Question"...

[marky]

oops

Please shall we play nicely? Otherwise this thread will be closed-again, and for once I really would like to avoid that.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'm not commenting on her breasts! It's her overall impression thats nice....

When did you last have your eyes tested?
Sorry, but in my opinion she is unattractive.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

When did you last have your eyes tested?
Sorry, but in my opinion she is unattractive.

Thankfully beauty is in the eye of the beholder, otherwise every street would have it's own plastic surgeon!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Angua

Thankfully beauty is in the eye of the beholder, otherwise every street would have it's own plastic surgeon!

Have you seen what a beholder looks like? yeugh!



Personally, I'd have opted for something by H R Giger, would have kept the shock value, but would also have been a better bit of art