The Off Topic Topic

[Sheilbh]

Really pleased there's a new sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft - very deserved and long overdue.

The sculpture:



This feels like one of those pieces that is far more about the artist than the subject. I can see an argument that it's Wollstonecraft representing women general and her impact yadda-yadda-yadda. But I just feel like it wouldn't have been bad to just have a fully clothed statue of Mary Wollstonecraft rather than this

[grumbler]

Yes, nudity has its place in art, but portraiture is not the place.

Plus, the statue does not look like her portraits at all.

[Maladict]

Yes, nudity has its place in art, but portraiture is not the place.

What's wrong with nude portraiture?

Paolina Borghese would beg to differ, for one.

[The Brain]

There's a nude statue of August Strindberg in Stockholm with... enhanced physique. Just sayin'.

[crazy canuck]

There's a nude statue of August Strindberg in Stockholm with... enhanced physique. Just sayin'.

I get it, made it look like he never skipped a leg day?

[grumbler]

Yes, nudity has its place in art, but portraiture is not the place.

What's wrong with nude portraiture?

Paolina Borghese would beg to differ, for one.

I don't consider painting or sculpting classical figures/gods with the faces or heads of current people to be portraiture.  If you do, then clearly nude portraiture is fine by you. 

[Sheilbh]

I would actually just like a sculpture dedicated to Mary Wollstonecraft to be her (and probably full clothed).

I've got no issue with having a sculpture to the progress of women/to feminism which might have an abstract female nude like what we've got. But that's a different thing.

It's the old conservative in me. If we're making a statue of someone let's make it of them; if we're making an abstract scuplture let's use that for an abstract memorial

[Valmy]

There is something disturbingly 1930s to have idealized nudes representing abstract ideas to me. Like we are seeing a celebration of the Aryan race or the advance of women in world socialism or something. It seems very old fashioned and a little odd in the 21st century.

Anyway yeah I don't really understand how a statue obviously of somebody else is a celebration of Mary Wollstoncraft. I mean surely she was a person beyond some symbol of identity for other people.

[Maladict]

Yes, nudity has its place in art, but portraiture is not the place.

What's wrong with nude portraiture?

Paolina Borghese would beg to differ, for one.

I don't consider painting or sculpting classical figures/gods with the faces or heads of current people to be portraiture.  If you do, then clearly nude portraiture is fine by you.

You said nudity has no place in portraiture, without the qualifier of actual likeness. What's wrong with it?

[Sheilbh]

There is something disturbingly 1930s to have idealized nudes representing abstract ideas to me. Like we are seeing a celebration of the Aryan race or the advance of women in world socialism or something. It seems very old fashioned and a little odd in the 21st century.

I mean, it reminds me of the Rolls Royce angel.

The statue is to Mary Wollstonecraft as the "mother of feminism" and I cannot emphasise enough how tiny the woman is in this statue:


And in fairness the artist, Maggin Hambling, has form for this. This her memorial to Benjamin Britten:


And her one to Oscar Wilde:


I just think they're all a bit too much about the artist and not enough about the person being memorialised (fearfully conservative view)

[Richard Hakluyt]

The Britten one is presumably at Aldeburgh so it does make sense to me, his music is related to that place and the sound of the sea.

The Oscar Wilde one just makes me wonder what he would have to say about it 

The Wollstonecroft one, well I'm not keen. It is also a bit small and vulnerable looking; how will it get on in the rough and tumble of Islington life?

[grumbler]

Yes, nudity has its place in art, but portraiture is not the place.

What's wrong with nude portraiture?

Paolina Borghese would beg to differ, for one.

I don't consider painting or sculpting classical figures/gods with the faces or heads of current people to be portraiture.  If you do, then clearly nude portraiture is fine by you.

You said nudity has no place in portraiture, without the qualifier of actual likeness. What's wrong with it?

  I've stated my opinion.  I'm not going to try to convince anyone else, so save the third degree for someone else.

[11B4V]

Really pleased there's a new sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft - very deserved and long overdue.

The sculpture:



This feels like one of those pieces that is far more about the artist than the subject. I can see an argument that it's Wollstonecraft representing women general and her impact yadda-yadda-yadda. But I just feel like it wouldn't have been bad to just have a fully clothed statue of Mary Wollstonecraft rather than this

Nice bush....er I mean nice statue.

[Tamas]

Somebody should do a nekkid statue of the artist and/or whoever sponsored this.

[garbon]

I had often wondered who made that terrible Oscar Wilde piece. I wonder why she still gets commissioned.