New MLK Statue Erected
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
Maybe I'm the one with the broken brain, I can't see any of the things you guys are seeing.
Joined
·
2,566 Posts
Oh please Max Danger 🤣🤣🤣🤣
From the bad angles it looks like a giant turd to me, not much phallic but maybe coz I have a dog...
I like the idea but the execution could have been better, maybe, at least if they care to not make it look phallic or turdy.
I like the idea but the execution could have been better, maybe, at least if they care to not make it look phallic or turdy.
Joined
·
2,566 Posts
Yeah, it does look a little turdy.
Please get your mind out of the gutter...literally!I'm sorry, but this is all I see:
![]()
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
I see the beauty of the current statute but I still feel his image should go on. We have statutes with George Washington and stuff - why do we feel the need to muffle a human rights activist as if he isn't as important.
Most people will just not even understand the symbolism to be frank, and those concretistic people are the very stubborn ones who need to be affected the most.
Joined
·
23,927 Posts
I guess, to write my own view:
I do see the lack of anatomy as disturbing, but at the same time I think a lot of the volunteer work with people who've been harmed in their lives can be disturbing. King was not one to shy away from damage or disfigurement.
In some ways I really like how love conquers disgust in this sculpture, because I think that's the key to doing real healing work in the world.
Sometimes things are bad--sometimes people are missing limbs or teeth or parts of their life--that's a natural result of trauma like slavery and racism, and the violence that accompanies them.
But ultimately it is love...loving through the disgust, the fear, the pain, the sadness, the desperation--that is where the true strength and healing lies.
And so I really do like that in many ways--the ugliness of social justice work has been exploited by those who seek to demonize it, and yet it's reality. Pain and suffering are ugly, and they leave ugly marks on society as well as individual's bodies.
But here, we also see the embrace...the humanity in the hands...we see that even in something that seems grotesque at first glance, there can be beauty, so long as there is love.
Because love is the antidote to the grotesque horrors of abuse and racial violence...and underneath the most disfigured figure is a humanity that persists in the form of human love and care...that is more important than the state of one's body or looking perfect.
Ugliness and love can coexist, simply because love is love--no matter what you look like.
I do see the lack of anatomy as disturbing, but at the same time I think a lot of the volunteer work with people who've been harmed in their lives can be disturbing. King was not one to shy away from damage or disfigurement.
In some ways I really like how love conquers disgust in this sculpture, because I think that's the key to doing real healing work in the world.
Sometimes things are bad--sometimes people are missing limbs or teeth or parts of their life--that's a natural result of trauma like slavery and racism, and the violence that accompanies them.
But ultimately it is love...loving through the disgust, the fear, the pain, the sadness, the desperation--that is where the true strength and healing lies.
And so I really do like that in many ways--the ugliness of social justice work has been exploited by those who seek to demonize it, and yet it's reality. Pain and suffering are ugly, and they leave ugly marks on society as well as individual's bodies.
But here, we also see the embrace...the humanity in the hands...we see that even in something that seems grotesque at first glance, there can be beauty, so long as there is love.
Because love is the antidote to the grotesque horrors of abuse and racial violence...and underneath the most disfigured figure is a humanity that persists in the form of human love and care...that is more important than the state of one's body or looking perfect.
Ugliness and love can coexist, simply because love is love--no matter what you look like.
Joined
·
23,927 Posts
love this photo! They both look so beautiful together, but I guess if you remove the identities, like as in the sculpture, it is something that is much more impersonal, and perhaps that is also a little disturbing.
I don't know what the artist was thinking, but I can see the value of showing the beauty of love, without the focus on being lovable, which I think the statue shows.
Because love in that form is impersonal, and it may reach into disturbing places that many individuals can't handle--but it's just that powerful.
Joined
·
17,150 Posts
The scale of The Embrace is off putting. Then the proportions of the shoulders overall seem to overtake sight from the forearms and hands, which obviously causes distraction. I’m thinking the artist wanted to expound on love in a huge in your face way as MLK did—he was a force to be reckoned with any way you look at it. Leads me to believe the artist hit his mark. I, also, see that the shoulders could possibly be so large because they had to have been so to carry the weight of the world during the era of Martin and Coretta—the strength. Then the arms and hands slimming in comparison suggests an essence of tenderness and love supporting the weight. If only the overall scale were a bit toned down, it still could be large but not as large—the size of it is too larger than life, as that’s what the artist wanted to portray.
Joined
·
17,150 Posts
What gives you the impression of phallic?
Joined
·
17,150 Posts
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
You know...some have mentioned the lack of anatomy. This art could be sending a subliminal message of
"Even with human relationship and love, we took him out."
There's something about having a faceless statue that makes a statement "your movement has no face."
As humans, for human revolutions to be successful they almost require a face by law. Every great humanistic event had a face to be projected on and a hero to capture the movement. It's as if that is the way the human brain stores data.
This art seems to "erase" more than "face" the issue.
I really do get the artists intentions with this design, but marketing and branding are real - and this is not an overall positive message for the movement. The movement is bigger than on person for sure...but humans don't work that way. They need a face, they need a brand and they need a log.
There's a reason why Coca-Cola and companies make billions and their brands are worth billions more than the historical cost of their assets, and the label itself millions more than the sum of its processes.
"Even with human relationship and love, we took him out."
There's something about having a faceless statue that makes a statement "your movement has no face."
As humans, for human revolutions to be successful they almost require a face by law. Every great humanistic event had a face to be projected on and a hero to capture the movement. It's as if that is the way the human brain stores data.
This art seems to "erase" more than "face" the issue.
I really do get the artists intentions with this design, but marketing and branding are real - and this is not an overall positive message for the movement. The movement is bigger than on person for sure...but humans don't work that way. They need a face, they need a brand and they need a log.
There's a reason why Coca-Cola and companies make billions and their brands are worth billions more than the historical cost of their assets, and the label itself millions more than the sum of its processes.
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Yeah but if all art is seeking to be provocative and thought provoking in any era, then it's not provocative and thought provoking to be provocative and through provoking in said era, now is it?
You just get lost in the noise of everything else...like staring into cold black empty outer space...nothing there all the same.
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Now this is a fucking tribute that carries forward the message.
Joined
·
2,497 Posts
Just my opinion, it's pretty bad, generally the same criticism I make against certain contemporary art, if you take out everything related to MLK, what's left?
By itself it hardly has any aesthetic experience... I don't see a good style, symbolism or other interesting factors.
When they tell you this work of art represents the human experience broken down into 5 dimensions to achieve an energetic transformation, and the elevation of social and cultural systems... and you see something ugly is simply not art.
By itself it hardly has any aesthetic experience... I don't see a good style, symbolism or other interesting factors.
When they tell you this work of art represents the human experience broken down into 5 dimensions to achieve an energetic transformation, and the elevation of social and cultural systems... and you see something ugly is simply not art.
Joined
·
1,276 Posts
Seems to be the general consensus. It's ugly, it looks like a turd, it's disturbing, etc..
I guess if art is to be disturbing and provocative maybe we can paint Marilyn Monroe's face in dog shit but make her nose a draw bridge into Alabama, and make her eyes two giant butts?
And then tape it to a statute of John F Kennedy's penis?
But instead of a penis it's his mom's spatula?
I guess if art is to be disturbing and provocative maybe we can paint Marilyn Monroe's face in dog shit but make her nose a draw bridge into Alabama, and make her eyes two giant butts?
And then tape it to a statute of John F Kennedy's penis?
But instead of a penis it's his mom's spatula?
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
