well-temperedforum.groupee.net The Well-Tempered Forum Off Key Instead of removing a Confederate statueGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Instead of removing a Confederate statue | Login/Join |
Has Achieved Nirvana |
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/1...id-this-instead.html
| ||
|
Has Achieved Nirvana |
Nashville news station Was in Franklin about 100 years ago to see a famous horse. The horse was over 20 years old and did not look good. Think I would like to hear the conversations of the local whites.
| |||
|
Minor Deity |
I always like to hear of clever ways of salvaging memorial statues, now doomed because they represent something on the wrong side of history. Some of them are great works of art. I applaud this town's attempted solution to their white Confederate memorial by "balancing inspiration" by displaying a new statue of a Black Union soldier. However, I have serious reservations - why I say "attempted" solution. This is a situation that called for a statue in the heroic mode - and at least as visible as the first one, and frankly, a better statue. I don't know what they have in mind for a base, but as depicted, its life-size rendering is not only uninspiring but kind of "measly" (see photo in CHAS' link.)  I can see why many (most?) black residents of the town remain dissatisfied. To date, we have what appears to be a four story monument (white marble?) with a white confederate soldier which dwarfs the new bronze. I can't see the scale or details of the white monument, but there's no certainly no balance between the towering monument (stalwart, regal) white soldier atop it, and the life-sized rendering of the bent over Black solder. The new one is decidedly unheroic (what is called for). Nor is it inspirational. If they insist on retaining that immense white Confederate state as is, move it to a distant park. That, or cut it down to size. It completely dwarfs the whole town, not just the folksy black soldier. Also, make sure, the bronze of the black soldier has an elevated base - and for heaven's sake, redo it as a handsome man in a heroic stance, while having decidedly "race" typical features. Above all, a plain better rendering - and perhaps at least 1.5 scale instead of life-size which comes across as diminutive. (I'm torn abound the scale and height. On the one hand, I'd like it to be one children could climb on and embrace, but I am cognizant of the fall risk if it were upright with a stronger, taller base.) Above all, redo this brave soldier's bronze representation!
| |||
|
| "I've got morons on my team." Mitt Romney Minor Deity  |
Most are completely forgettable as "art." | |||
|
| Minor Deity |
I don't really like counter-poising marble and bronze, but if I were a Black parent raising my kids in that town I'd NOT feel the message of my people's heroism was adequately presented - the contrary. I like the museum aspect of how their story was told by other parts of the memorial, but the depiction of the Black Union soldier is embarrassingly "meh". Get a better sculptor and have him/her do this heroic figure justice. Note, the Black pastor himself would be a worthy model, though to be timely, he he should be made younger.  PS What's with saying the monument's to "Colored" soldiers?? That's Jim Crow lingo. Here's where we can we can upgrade historical terminology - at least, put its title on a separate plaque so as to change it with the times.
| |||
|
| Minor Deity |
PD, I don't see any point in zeroing in on a trivial hypothetical statistic instead of my broader point. True, that (especially in non hub-areas), historical statues tend not to be the greatest in the interests of speedy production. So what? I said "some" are great works of art for a reason. Sacrificing such works for modishness, is tragic, IMO. Shrady's Grant is an instance of the latter. He spent 20 years on it, dying upon completion and there are many other examples. Statues have rights too, IMO. In any case we can't commission Rodin for a commemorative today (if he'd even have agreed to), but this town could and should have done better especially given the intended purpose. It's not true that any statue is better than none.
| |||
|
| "I've got morons on my team." Mitt Romney Minor Deity |
Because the "don't mess with history" argument is often bolstered by the "art" contention. That's why, and I'm sticking with it. Most of the "heroic" confederate generals on horseback are neither "art" nor "heroic," and we can dispense with them from public spaces. If the Daughters want to put up the statues on some right wing evangelical church's property, fine with me.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it wasn't up to you and I doubt the townspeople care much about what forumites think. | |||
|
| Minor Deity |
Of course, they don't give a hoot. OTOH I care what they think, and my reasoning is strengthened by knowing (per article) that most of the Black residents aren't happy with this "solution". What message do local children get about the issues in this terrible war, contrasting the two memorials? (I noticed googling a bit on the subject that this is far from the only town to add rather than subtract a statue to cope with this problem.) The issue is actually much more complex than it appears at first glance. Namely, how to deal with art work - I include literature - when its premises conflict with current mores? The broad issue I've been struggling with for much of my life is what, if any, rights do the creators retain (alive or dead) pertaining to their creations. It's easier in most ways, dealing with literature (it can be reprinted if banned or even destroyed). The complicated angle here is about censorship. How do changing attitudes apply to written contents and/or illustrations if only one or the other are controversial? (Thinking of Dr. Seuss' work where only the drawings are currently deemed offensive; likewise, controversy about Sendak's little boy nudes.). All of which are quite different, from Tom Sawyer where the written contents are what draw ire. In either situation, censorship comes into play. Putting a figleaf on statues' genitals constitute censorship but make next to no difference in the artistic effect, at least, if the work is anatomically representative. (Some sculptors, even painters, would just as soon deliberately figleaf genitals - male, at least - because they are basically after-thoughts aesthetically, however important, functionally. The ultimate Creator was definitely focussing on function rather than form in sculpting that organ.  )The greatest unanswerable question about selling artwork, though, to me, is can one truly buy original artwork? I can think of good arguments for claiming one is only renting pieces, with enduring rights adhering to the creator even after death. The most often puzzled controversy I ponder is re portraiture, most of all, the famous issue of Churchill's detested portrait commissioned by the national organization. It was detested because it was a warts and all, rendering him unflatteringly in dotage. It was known to be deeply depressing to him not only because it hurt him to be confronted with this reminder of his mortality and failing strength, but because he knew it was to stand as a permanent record of him in history, viewed by posterity. (His wife solved - sort of - the problem by incinerating it one night after it had been used as a dartboard for some time.) The artist - known for his expressionistic rather than purely representational style, expressed his satisfaction with how his painting was treated. I believe differently overall. That the artist retains rights despite a sale, though they would be more ethical rights than legally enforceable ones. What if the purchaser of a privately owned portrait elected to touch up aspects of it, for cosmetic reasons? How is the issue different if a portrait were commissioned without the model's permission, and that model (a significant historical figure) knew the results were to be a lasting record for posterity? I can certainly sympathize with Churchill and his wife! I have no conclusion here - just wanted to raise the question of artistic "ownership". Are there rights that over-ride a financial transaction. Is there any such thing?
| |||
|
| Minor Deity |
Follow-up on previous discussion about Civil War commemorative art.
As referenced below, now "they" ARE destroying a great work of art to be on the right side of history today. That is the brilliant sculptor's cast equestrian depiction of Robert E. Lee - the one he died completing. (Shrady is also famous for his equestrian bronze statue of Ulysses Grant which WILL be allowed to survive certainly in part because it was erected in the North). Makes me sad that the Robt E. Lee statue (yes, the one that had stood in Charlottesville at the time of the infamous riots), is to be melted down. The melted material is to be used on some new work which somehow stands for the new attitudes the old one supposedly reinforced. No way is the new work apt to be anywhere near as worthy artistically! While sympathizing with the sentiments behind the decision, I still emphatically believe this is very wrong - that the previous work on which the sculptor spent years of his life - deserved to be preserved, albeit in a very different public arena (and perhaps with a plaque noting something of the war in which the model fought.)  A beautiful work of art is to be melted down because of its symbolic value
| |||
|
| Has Achieved Nirvana |
+1
| |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
well-temperedforum.groupee.net The Well-Tempered Forum Off Key Instead of removing a Confederate statue