I'm a great fan of the Bulwark and of you, Charlie, but this is hands-down the most reactionary thing you have written since I started following your newsletter a few years ago. Where to start?
I write from Boston, and I can report that The Embrace--like most sculptures--is meant to be experienced in three dimensions. Judging its effect f…
I'm a great fan of the Bulwark and of you, Charlie, but this is hands-down the most reactionary thing you have written since I started following your newsletter a few years ago. Where to start?
I write from Boston, and I can report that The Embrace--like most sculptures--is meant to be experienced in three dimensions. Judging its effect from a few cropped images is unfair. Once again, step away from Twitter.
In the context of the art of the past 80 years, The Embrace is actually a very conservative work. It is monumental, bronze and redolent of exactly the kind of figurative detail that your boy Frederick Hart revels in.
THIS is when you side with Karen Attiah? You, of all people, are on Team Attiah in asking that a sculpture placed in the heart of a publicly owned space celebrate one person's anti-capitalist, radical views? Really?
There are genuine problems with contemporary art. The art world long ago (as in, before you were born) stopped valuing craft over concept, but this was a natural response to a world where mechanical tools like photography could perform work formerly done by artists. We can't turn back the tide of ideas, but we can ask that art demonstrate both skill and meaning. The best contemporary art manages to do that. I would urge you to put down your Tom Wolfe and get out to some galleries to see for yourself.
If I were to just walk up to this on the street and without seeing any signage or knowing what it was about, would you have connected it in any way to Dr King? I wouldn’t. I have an idea. Let’s replace the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial with one that shows just his beard. That’s in keeping with this school of thought.
I’m not offended by anything. The obelisk is about as classical a sculpture as there is. It can be enjoyed in its own right. But both art objects fail to honor anybody or anything without being told what that thing is. If George were buried underneath it, there would at least be some linkage. Why do you think creating art in which a curator has to tell you what it is is great art?
The Boston piece is a potentially nice piece of art that requires way too much background explanation to understand the point for which it was commissioned.
Actually, the obelisk is not a classical structure. It's Egyptian, rather than Greek or Roman. It's ancient, but it is, in fact, not particularly appropriate for Washington, whose public persona was shaped on Roman models. I don't think anybody cares about that or should--I don't. But there is a pretty reactionary flavor to the idea that abstract forms we're all familiar with from the distant past are fine, but newly conceived forms (abstract or not) are unacceptable because they aren't part of our existing image vocabulary, and so require explanation.
Is a short paragraph "way too much" explanation? That's all you need here, and it can be super short if the original photo is mounted beside it.
I did say “classical” small c, not Classical as I was referring to the age of the style and not it’s origin. But your info is correct to be sure. If the original photo is needed, perhaps the sculpture isn’t.
I’m sorry, I do see other people’s points, but it doesn’t work for me.
Craig, that is not a bad point, and I really like the comparison in the abstract as a thought exercise. There is always the question of bias in the thinking, and I don't exclude it. However, I will point out that there are a lot of statues of Martin Luther King around the US, so the non-representative nature of this particularly piece may have more to do with aesthetic preferences than a two tier system. I can't remember when the most recent statue of Lincoln was put up, but it's possible we were honoring him today it would be in a non-representative way. Furthermore, both the artist who executed the statue is Black, and the son of MLK, Jr. approves of this statue, so I think the comparison is not necessary.
I’m not sure what the artist’s skin color or the fact that the subjects’ child likes it has to do with much of anything (maybe the child has as bad taste in art as maybe I do after all (yes, I am glad he likes it though)). Are you saying it’s bad art if a white guy did it? I don’t think that’s what you mean but I do see that as a defense that people are throwing up to justify the artwork which is a bad take. The artist’s physical traits should have nothing to do with the appreciation (or lack thereof) of a piece of art.
In the discussion of a statue of MLK, Jr., you were bringing up Lincoln. I thought you were making a comparison on the basis of race, that your argument was that we might be more reluctant to "depersonalize" a statue about a white famous person than a Black famous person. I was arguing that the "depersonalization" was likely not racialized (because the artist was of the same race as the depicted person), but more likely to be a factor of aesthetics and the times.
The reason I bring up the son is because, in my opinion, the best art is contentious and makes people think. As a result, for any piece of art, the reception is often mixed, because it takes time to tame and become familiar with a new piece of art. I am not surprised we can find people who don't like this statue, and not surprised to find people who do. So I don't think we can cite any person's opinion and declare it authoritative... except another way to assess the value of this statue besides aesthetics, is to ask: "Would MLK, Jr. have approved?" Obviously this statue is intended to honor him, so if he feels honored mission accomplish. It's hard to know the wishes of someone who has been dead for so long, but I think the son's opinion is probably the closest we have to knowing MLK, Jr.'s opinion on this.
Sorry you misunderstood my Lincoln reference. No, I was merely making a statement that a statue of Lincoln’s beard made as little sense in honoring Lincoln as this MLK one did to me. I understand that knowing the back story makes it somewhat more relevant but I’m still not a fan. Like you, I’m glad his son likes it.
I live near Chicago and am very familiar with the head scratching Picasso in Daley Center. Nobody knows what that is supposed to be either but we really weren’t meant to. That doesn’t bother me. It isn’t the abstract that turns me off with the MLK statue. I just don’t see this as a statue honoring the man. Matter of taste for sure.
I'm a great fan of the Bulwark and of you, Charlie, but this is hands-down the most reactionary thing you have written since I started following your newsletter a few years ago. Where to start?
I write from Boston, and I can report that The Embrace--like most sculptures--is meant to be experienced in three dimensions. Judging its effect from a few cropped images is unfair. Once again, step away from Twitter.
In the context of the art of the past 80 years, The Embrace is actually a very conservative work. It is monumental, bronze and redolent of exactly the kind of figurative detail that your boy Frederick Hart revels in.
THIS is when you side with Karen Attiah? You, of all people, are on Team Attiah in asking that a sculpture placed in the heart of a publicly owned space celebrate one person's anti-capitalist, radical views? Really?
There are genuine problems with contemporary art. The art world long ago (as in, before you were born) stopped valuing craft over concept, but this was a natural response to a world where mechanical tools like photography could perform work formerly done by artists. We can't turn back the tide of ideas, but we can ask that art demonstrate both skill and meaning. The best contemporary art manages to do that. I would urge you to put down your Tom Wolfe and get out to some galleries to see for yourself.
If I were to just walk up to this on the street and without seeing any signage or knowing what it was about, would you have connected it in any way to Dr King? I wouldn’t. I have an idea. Let’s replace the statue of Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial with one that shows just his beard. That’s in keeping with this school of thought.
I presume you are mystified and offended by the Washington Monument.
All art can be boiled down to “I don’t like it” but that’s not what I’m doing here. Making two statements here.
1. Neither the Washington Monument nor the Embrace can be understood to be honoring anybody without you being explicitly told that at one point.
2. The WM is recognizable as a beautifully formed art object. The Embrace, not so much by me.
Either statement can be taken alone and do not depend on the other. No special pleading involved.
I’m not offended by anything. The obelisk is about as classical a sculpture as there is. It can be enjoyed in its own right. But both art objects fail to honor anybody or anything without being told what that thing is. If George were buried underneath it, there would at least be some linkage. Why do you think creating art in which a curator has to tell you what it is is great art?
The Boston piece is a potentially nice piece of art that requires way too much background explanation to understand the point for which it was commissioned.
Actually, the obelisk is not a classical structure. It's Egyptian, rather than Greek or Roman. It's ancient, but it is, in fact, not particularly appropriate for Washington, whose public persona was shaped on Roman models. I don't think anybody cares about that or should--I don't. But there is a pretty reactionary flavor to the idea that abstract forms we're all familiar with from the distant past are fine, but newly conceived forms (abstract or not) are unacceptable because they aren't part of our existing image vocabulary, and so require explanation.
Is a short paragraph "way too much" explanation? That's all you need here, and it can be super short if the original photo is mounted beside it.
I did say “classical” small c, not Classical as I was referring to the age of the style and not it’s origin. But your info is correct to be sure. If the original photo is needed, perhaps the sculpture isn’t.
I’m sorry, I do see other people’s points, but it doesn’t work for me.
This feels like an awful lot of special pleading as to why one abstract object is ok while another is not that really boils down to “I don’t like it”
Craig, that is not a bad point, and I really like the comparison in the abstract as a thought exercise. There is always the question of bias in the thinking, and I don't exclude it. However, I will point out that there are a lot of statues of Martin Luther King around the US, so the non-representative nature of this particularly piece may have more to do with aesthetic preferences than a two tier system. I can't remember when the most recent statue of Lincoln was put up, but it's possible we were honoring him today it would be in a non-representative way. Furthermore, both the artist who executed the statue is Black, and the son of MLK, Jr. approves of this statue, so I think the comparison is not necessary.
I’m not sure what the artist’s skin color or the fact that the subjects’ child likes it has to do with much of anything (maybe the child has as bad taste in art as maybe I do after all (yes, I am glad he likes it though)). Are you saying it’s bad art if a white guy did it? I don’t think that’s what you mean but I do see that as a defense that people are throwing up to justify the artwork which is a bad take. The artist’s physical traits should have nothing to do with the appreciation (or lack thereof) of a piece of art.
In the discussion of a statue of MLK, Jr., you were bringing up Lincoln. I thought you were making a comparison on the basis of race, that your argument was that we might be more reluctant to "depersonalize" a statue about a white famous person than a Black famous person. I was arguing that the "depersonalization" was likely not racialized (because the artist was of the same race as the depicted person), but more likely to be a factor of aesthetics and the times.
The reason I bring up the son is because, in my opinion, the best art is contentious and makes people think. As a result, for any piece of art, the reception is often mixed, because it takes time to tame and become familiar with a new piece of art. I am not surprised we can find people who don't like this statue, and not surprised to find people who do. So I don't think we can cite any person's opinion and declare it authoritative... except another way to assess the value of this statue besides aesthetics, is to ask: "Would MLK, Jr. have approved?" Obviously this statue is intended to honor him, so if he feels honored mission accomplish. It's hard to know the wishes of someone who has been dead for so long, but I think the son's opinion is probably the closest we have to knowing MLK, Jr.'s opinion on this.
Sorry you misunderstood my Lincoln reference. No, I was merely making a statement that a statue of Lincoln’s beard made as little sense in honoring Lincoln as this MLK one did to me. I understand that knowing the back story makes it somewhat more relevant but I’m still not a fan. Like you, I’m glad his son likes it.
I live near Chicago and am very familiar with the head scratching Picasso in Daley Center. Nobody knows what that is supposed to be either but we really weren’t meant to. That doesn’t bother me. It isn’t the abstract that turns me off with the MLK statue. I just don’t see this as a statue honoring the man. Matter of taste for sure.