Trafalgar Square's fourth plinth

[Martin]

I hope i'm misreading this... but do some think it shouldn't be there because the statue is of a disabled lady?

[punky]

I think its naff, and for that reason shouldn't be there, but not because its "offensive", although there are still taboos about it all. Topless girls aren't allowed on here, but if they are in a classical painting... would it change things?

2 points on why I think its naff:

1. The artist thinks disabled people are underrepresented in art. That isn't equal to oppressed. I remember Sharpton or Jackson went on one of his racist rants about how no black people were nominated at an award show and how the show was racist and oppressing black people. Chris Rock came on and did a comedy skit and said there were no midgets nominated either, so the awards show must be midgetist and oppressing midgets. Just because they aren't doesn't mean they should be forced into there to even up numbers, they should be there because they deserve to be there. Because they earned their place amongst all others, not because it is rare.

2. Those stupid comments about "feminity" and female empowerment and/or superiority. Posing naked is a definition of feminine now? Hmm. And feminine empowerment? Give me a break, she's trying to compare herself with Emmeline Pankhurst. Anyway, its nothing of the sort. Its really bland and uninventive. Its nothing that hasn't been done a million times before, except the artist has tried to make it get publicity/shock value and praise via that backdoor, which he shouldn't be earning.

If the author wants to know what a real decent work of art is, tell him to go look at Munch's "The Scream". Well, he could if some toerag hadn't nicked it.

Originally Posted by andy 1

just because this woman is disabled is no reason for putting up a statue in trafalgar square

And just because she's disabled is no reason NOT to!

In any case, the statue is not in honour of her - she was only the model for it.
__________________

Originally Posted by Martin

I hope i'm misreading this... but do some think it shouldn't be there because the statue is of a disabled lady?

Sounds that way.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

So tell - what's so 'disgusting' about it?

in my opinion its disgusting to have any statue of a naked women in trafalgar square.if people want to see this sort of thing they should go to art gallery's to see it.not have it put in front of them on a plinth.

and if the artist wanted to do a statue like this why did he have to make it a naked statue why couldn't he have done a clothed statue ie wearing a maternity dress.

[marky]

they should get rid of nelson then, was he not blind in one eye and only had one arm

Originally Posted by punky

I think its naff, and for that reason shouldn't be there,

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by punky

but not because its "offensive", although there are still taboos about it all.

Taboos?!?!? If female nudity or public display of disability was a 'taboo' in this country, then we'd have no FHM and we'd still be putting disabled people into institutions.

Originally Posted by punky

1. The artist thinks disabled people are underrepresented in art.

And he's totally right. Unless, of course, you can point me to many more works of art depicting disabled people?

Originally Posted by punky

2. Those stupid comments about "feminity" and female empowerment and/or superiority.

No mention of 'superiority', but I believe the work does promote femininity and hence empowers women.

Originally Posted by punky

Its nothing that hasn't been done a million times before, except the artist has tried to make it get publicity/shock value and praise via that backdoor, which he shouldn't be earning.

Show me just ONE other piece of art (shocking or otherwise) that depicts a disabled person.

Originally Posted by punky

If the author wants to know what a real decent work of art is, tell him to go look at Munch's "The Scream". Well, he could if some toerag hadn't nicked it.

Highly overrated! (IMHO)
__________________

Originally Posted by marky

they should get rid of nelson then, was he not blind in one eye and only had one arm

LOL!
__________________

Originally Posted by andy 1

in my opinion its disgusting to have any statue of a naked women in trafalgar square.

That's just prudish.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

A temporary statue - only there till March next year.

Then they're putting something truly horrendous up there!

http://www.fourthplinth.co.uk/thomas_schutte.htm

Strong, capable and expectant in every sense, it is a potent symbol of resilience and hope

They have got to be joking us!! What were they smoking? What planet are they on?
Whats wrong with a nice collection of shapely multicultural nudes?
__________________

Originally Posted by marky

they should get rid of nelson then, was he not blind in one eye and only had one arm

But he still looks heroic and dashing.......she just looks fat, unnatractive and odd.....

Originally Posted by marky

they should get rid of nelson then, was he not blind in one eye and only had one arm

if it wasn't for nelson you would probably now be speaking spanish or french.
and i for one would certainly look at nelson anyday than this crappy statue that as been placed on this plinth for it's shock value.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Martin

I hope i'm misreading this... but do some think it shouldn't be there because the statue is of a disabled lady?

No, I disapprove because she is unattractive.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

<snip>


Show me just ONE other piece of art (shocking or otherwise) that depicts a disabled person.


<snip>

Does photography count?

http://www.brentstirton.com/projects/disabled/

BTW: I have no problem with the sculpture

[Ramrod]

Public works of art should be uplifting, majestic, grand or at he very least, just beautiful...........I'm sure her partner sees her like that but the rest of us struggle to see it
__________________

Originally Posted by danielf

http://www.brentstirton.com/projects/disabled/

Put that up in Trafalguar Square and I'll bitch about it as well!

[punky]

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

And he's totally right. Unless, of course, you can point me to many more works of art depicting disabled people?

I can't think of any names off the top of my head

Show me just ONE other piece of art (shocking or otherwise) that depicts a disabled person.

Just because a subject isn't in art very often, doesn't mean that when it is, its automatically praise-worthy. There are no pictures of the skin between my toes, but that doesn't mean if I produce one it is pushing the boundaries of art or (in my words) "being inventive or creative".

The guy is making up for that lack by exploiting a disabled woman, and that IS rather sick, IMO. Being disabled ISN'T a defining characteristic. Go up to any disabled person and ask them what is the most important thing about them. The fact they are disabled? Or their personality? Resilience? Spirit? Things that should be captured in art, not a disability, which is a characteristic of disabled people but not THE characteristic. Would they say they are a person or a disabled person? If you think its the latter, you haven't met any/enough disabled people.

Take away the disabled side of it, which was put in for shock/promotional value, and what do you have? A plain, white, marble sculpture of a nude woman. Like that hasn't been done before.

Originally Posted by punky

If the author wants to know what a real decent work of art is, tell him to go look at Munch's "The Scream". Well, he could if some toerag hadn't nicked it.

Highly overrated! (IMHO)
__________________

Originally Posted by marky

they should get rid of nelson then, was he not blind in one eye and only had one arm

LOL!
__________________

Originally Posted by andy 1

in my opinion its disgusting to have any statue of a naked women in trafalgar square.

That's just prudish.[/QUOTE]

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by punky

That's just prudish.

Seconded! Nothing wrong with a nice nude......

[Martin]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

No, I disapprove because she is unattractive.

Hmmm so if it was a bimbo then that'd be ok?

Originally Posted by Ramrod

she just looks fat, unnatractive and odd.....

Fat - Pregnant (i.e. NOT fat)

Unattractive - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Odd - Yeah, maybe. But is that somehow 'wrong'?