Trafalgar Square's fourth plinth

[punky]

Originally Posted by handyman

I looked at this thread and wondered why this sculpture is considered art yet the one in trafalger is being frowned upon?

Well speaking for myself, its not that I don't consider it art, its because I consider it to be crap art. A sculpture of a woman isn't new innovative, creative, or even hard to do. Just because the woman is disabled, it doesn't make the art any better. It isn't the subject that's important, the artwork itself is, and how its concieved.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by marina

Is that because it doesn't pander to your own sense of what's beautiful or art? Or because you don't think Trafalgar Square is the place to be making socio-political statements?

Both......btw....linky is wrong....
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Well speaking for myself, its not that I don't consider it art, its because I consider it to be crap art.

Whereas I don't even think it's crap art......I think it's ok as art.

[punky]

Actually, it would be nice if Trafalgar wasn't the place for socio-political artwork. socio-politics is the one big wedge that tends to force the right and the left apart and leave the centrists languishing in the middle. It does us all no good. Why can't it just be a piece of artwork, then everyone can come together in unity and say "That's really nice, I like that...". Why does everyone always have to be rabble-rousing?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by marina

This statue is just a tiny blimp in it's history........ i say let it be

Absolutely.....but why can't we have something beautiful or in keeping with the rest of the square and european capital city historical art in general. Why do we have to be the ones who push the boundries or make people think about disabilities/womens rights/pc issues........whats wrong with something uplifting or conventionally beautiful?
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Why can't it just be a piece of artwork, they everyone can come together in unity and say "That's really nice, I like that...". Why does everyone always have to be rabble-rousing?

Exactly!

[Halcyon]

I dont think its wrong at all to display such a statue. It shows that people who have disabilities have as much rights as anyone else in the world.
I do however think it may be better in an arts museum or eg. The Tate, as it doesnt seem to fit in with the other things on the square.

[punky]

OK, so listening to some people: If someone made a statue of me, it be ok art. If someone chopped off my arts and then did a similar statue of me, it would be better art? We're supposed to be judging the artist and artwork here, not the person who inspired it.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Absolutely.....but why can't we have something beautiful or in keeping with the rest of the square and european capital city historical art in general. Why do we have to be the ones who push the boundries or make people think about disabilities/womens rights/pc issues........whats wrong with something uplifting or conventionally beautiful?

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever........ apart from having to pander to convention.... in this case yours

I haven't seen the statue in person....... i will do, one day no doubt..... i have preconceptions about beauty and art in the same way that you have, however, i don't feel the need to impose my values on others..... the statue will come and go....... whether it's beautiful or not....... when i stand to look at it, it will make me think........ many things probably, one of them perhaps being 'Mmmmmm........ that looked a whole lot better in the photo' But at the same time, i'm sure i'll spend at least a moment delighting in the transient speck in time when Trafalgar Square had a large, rounded vision of femininity and motherhood that didn't aspire to the unnatural conventions of beauty that abound today......... Art isn't just something to look at, it's something to see........ to interact with......... to make you think....... it has the capacity to show us what we were, what we are and what may be........

If all this statue does is to encourage me and you, ramrod, to meet under it, in a few weeks time...... and stare it and debate it's value....... then it's achieved something in my eyes

I'm not here to argue my opinion of beauty or the value of art....... i'm only posting to say that the statue is here....... will be gone...... but in the meantime........... i salute her

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Absolutely.....but why can't we have something beautiful or in keeping with the rest of the square and european capital city historical art in general. Why do we have to be the ones who push the boundries or make people think about disabilities/womens rights/pc issues........whats wrong with something uplifting or conventionally beautiful?
__________________


Exactly!

Perhaps it is time to re-assess what is CONVENTIONAL beauty?I'm sick of a world where only the conventionally featured and figured get positive attention.Where if you are between 0 and 25 and are what is traditionally known as a classical beauty your phizzog and opinions matter more than than some one who is considered to be ugly or physically less than perfect.If you look at some of the sketches Da Vinci did as his research for his characters in his artwork you would see that he did not regard the plain or common place as being unworthy as subjects.He saw them as having real character.If one only ever sees one type of figure or looks as beauty how boring art is going to be.

Now remember I hate Tracy Ennim and Damien Hurst's so called art work not because of the subject matter but because they have not actually done anything particularly artistic.Using chemicals to preserve a dead animal or sleeping in a bed are not an expression of art to me.They are just activities that anyone can do.At least the statue of Lapper is a work of art.

Plus you have yet to see what else is going to be on display after THIS particular piece of artwork.You will have lots to complain about then.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I dont think its wrong at all to display such a statue. It shows that people who have disabilities have as much rights as anyone else in the world.
I do however think it may be better in an arts museum or eg. The Tate, as it doesnt seem to fit in with the other things on the square.

Thats what I've been saying all along.....
__________________

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Plus you have yet to see what else is going to be on display after THIS particular piece of artwork.You will have lots to complain about then.

I've seen it and bitched about that piece of sh*te already!

I know da vinchi portrayed all sorts of figures in his art but in the main (especially the stuff he sculpted) it was all uplifting, 'heroic' stuff. This ain't it.......
__________________

Originally Posted by marina

If all this statue does is to encourage me and you, ramrod, to meet under it, in a few weeks time...... and stare it and debate it's value....... then it's achieved something in my eyes

That would probably be an interesting conversation.....

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I've seen it and bitched about that piece of sh*te already!

I know da vinchi portrayed all sorts of figures in his art but in the main (especially the stuff he sculpted) it was all uplifting, 'heroic' stuff. This ain't it.......
.

Well if you regard the Mona Lisa as a great beauty ....I think she is a wonderful example of the plain and ordinary pitched as a great beauty which Da Vinci was sooo excellent at doing.

[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 a VC ) of the subject. Makes me feel like I am at a feminist rally really.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Well if you regard the Mona Lisa as a great beauty ....I think she is a wonderful example of the plain and ordinary pitched as a great beauty which Da Vinci was sooo excellent at doing.

iirc......she was the shape that was all the rage at the time.........

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

iirc......she was the shape that was all the rage at the time.........

You remember those times?

Of course, she (mona) could be a he

[Angua]

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 a VC ) of the subject. Makes me feel like I am at a feminist rally really.

The best looking chap I saw at work this week was also a thalidomide victim. Nice well spoken fellow too. His nickname was baldy.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Absolutely.....but why can't we have something beautiful

Translation: Something that Ramrod considers beautiful

Other people have opinions too.

or in keeping with the rest of the square

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

and european capital city historical art in general. Why do we have to be the ones who push the boundries or make people think about disabilities/womens rights/pc issues........whats wrong with something uplifting or conventionally beautiful?

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

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by punky

OK, so listening to some people: If someone made a statue of me, it be ok art. If someone chopped off my arts and then did a similar statue of me, it would be better art?

A friend of mine was doing a course on Art and Media and for one talk he showed a picture of the Venus de Milo and then a photo of a woman in a very similar pose but with her arms photo-shopped away.

A lot of people found the second one disturbing, but they were unable to explain why apart from "it's wrong".

But it make them *think*.

We're supposed to be judging the artist and artwork here, not the person who inspired it.

In which case what's the big deal about this bloke on top of the column? He only *inspired* the thing, he didn't *make* it...!!
__________________

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Perhaps it is time to re-assess what is CONVENTIONAL beauty?I'm sick of a world where only the conventionally featured and figured get positive attention.Where if you are between 0 and 25 and are what is traditionally known as a classical beauty your phizzog and opinions matter more than than some one who is considered to be ugly or physically less than perfect.If you look at some of the sketches Da Vinci did as his research for his characters in his artwork you would see that he did not regard the plain or common place as being unworthy as subjects.He saw them as having real character.If one only ever sees one type of figure or looks as beauty how boring art is going to be.

Well said!

For everyone else...

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

Think about her.