IтАЩm 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 тАЬclassicalтАЭ small c, not Classical as I was referring to the age of the style and not itтАЩs origin. But your info is correct to be sure. If the original photo is needed, perhaps the sculpture isnтАЩt.
IтАЩm sorry, I do see other peopleтАЩs points, but it doesnтАЩt 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 тАЬI donтАЩt like itтАЭ
I presume you are mystified and offended by the Washington Monument.
All art can be boiled down to тАЬI donтАЩt like itтАЭ but thatтАЩs not what IтАЩm 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.
IтАЩm 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 тАЬclassicalтАЭ small c, not Classical as I was referring to the age of the style and not itтАЩs origin. But your info is correct to be sure. If the original photo is needed, perhaps the sculpture isnтАЩt.
IтАЩm sorry, I do see other peopleтАЩs points, but it doesnтАЩt 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 тАЬI donтАЩt like itтАЭ