quote:

---

South Carolina just ended a big fight over whether to erect a statue of a fetus on the state house grounds to honor aborted babies.

---

Honor them for what? Sometimes people are just weird. Maybe honor isn't the word you should have used. Perhaps 'mourned'? That I could see.

As for the statue, I think it would have gone a long way towards fairness (and better propaganda) if the soldier was shown mourning the loss of not only his fallen comrades, but the loss of Iraqi life, as well.

[ February 19, 2004, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
 
Not my word stormy, That's the actual purpose of the statue. I didn't understand it either, but whatever.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
I thought the person who griped about the cost of the statue ($18,000) was off base. I can't imagine getting a large bronze like that for anywhere near that cost here in the states.

I thought the soldier's face looked pudgy and his right hand is odd.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
FG,

I don't care what anyone says, that hat DOES look phallic.


 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
But it doesn't look any more phallic than other tall, pointy hats.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
It does to me! Look closely at the top! I've never seen a pope who's hat looked like THAT.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, it's pretty clearly designed to more closely resemble a phallus -- which is ironic, because mitres are supposed to symbolize the phallus ALREADY.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I think as art the thing doesn't work. Instead of making you think "mourning" it immediately makes you think "propaganda". I think it's the hokiness of having the little girl in there that does that, but even without her it's too obviously a play on the heartstrings. It's sentimental and bombastic, saying "you should look at this and weep".

The reason stuff like that makes me mad is because there is real tragedy there, and true sorrow, for all involved. Soldiers are really dying, young people with all their lives in front of them, who choose to serve our country. The children of Iraq have truly suffered. War does suck, even just wars that accomplish good things. So this statue mocks our real anguish and pain, by painting a picture which rings so contrived and false.

However, think about this guy who has been paid to produce schlock all his life by the old regime. Now for the first time he can be a real artist doing the work he wants. Does he instantly know how not to produce schlock? Does he necessarily even want to make real art, that's true to the complexity of the moral universe in which we live? Is most of the art produced in a free country for mass consumption even rather schlocky? Is he not giving the customers what they want?

The process of liberating a people involves anguish and pain on many levels by all involved. One of the hardest parts of the process is in learning how to be free. I'm not sure we know how ourselves, we are still trying to learn. Now the Iraqi people have joined us in that learning process. Perhaps the statue is a fit memorial to that.
 

---

Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
 
I once had a drama teacher that taught us that we can do all of the 'art' that we want. However, until someone buys it, it's not 'real' art.

A few years later, I can testify that this is absolutely true. In video production, I can be as creative as I want. But, until I give the customers what they want, they won't buy it. Maybe this is his way of paying the bills so he can build what he wants on his own penny.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
Wait a minute, ak. Art that reflects a sentimental feeling that you might not share doesn't count as "real art" in your eyes?
 

---

Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
 
ak, aren't you assigning some of your own politics to it? The statue itself doesn't suggest who is right or wrong, it merely depicts a mourning soldier, and a little girl with him. Maybe they are weeping because the soldier's friend died. Maybe they are weeping because the soldier accidentally blew up the little girl's house. The point is, you assign your own value to it, don't blame the sculptor for supporting some motive which is not definable in the statue. He seems to be expressing some emotion, which someone who has survived a war is likely to do.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Art that is sentimental schlock is inferior in that it is untrue to the full complexity of human experience. It revels in old oaken buckets. It is didactic and contrived and false. It is smug and too pat.

I'm not attacking the emotions it portrays, I'm defending them against its assault. Sentimental schlocky art is an offense against the real feelings it tries, and fails, to evoke or convey.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
(Edit to remove snarky comment-- BEFORE anyone comments on it, BTW)

It's sweet. The only thing that kind of bothers me is that the little girl appears to be an American girl rather than an Iraqi.

[ February 19, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
If she were an American little girl she'd be dressed in low rise jeans and a midriff shirt.

I see a girl who doesn't have to cover her hair or wear clothing that would keep her from running or playing. The girl is representing freedoms gained by Iraqis through the sacrifice of the man's friend.

Those who think it is propaganda... what phrase did OSC use about the PC left? Spoiled ignorant babies?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Those who think it is propaganda... what phrase did OSC use about the PC left? Spoiled ignorant babies?

---

quote:

---

It would be clear to most everyone that it was something real and good and true.

---

Please define what is not:

Real

Good

True

about the statue.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I am starting to see your point, ak. I'm certainly embarrassed by some of the heavy-handed, annoying art produced within my own culture

But there is an audience for that kind of thing — some people DO find it moving, and that kind of art can serve a valuable purpose for them. People should be free to make what they find an audience for, even when it annoys some of us. We just need to make sure that it isn't the ONLY art anyone produces Provide an audience for something better, and artists will oblige.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 

quote:

---

We have to admit that Brittney Spears, while it's not our cup of tea, appeals to a lot of people and so must have a great deal of artistic merit?

---

quote:

---

We have to admit that while big-eyed children and gambling dogs, and portraits of Elvis in oils on black velvet aren't as meaningful to us personally as some of the things at the Guggenheim, still they mean a lot to the people who obviously buy them in large numbers, so we don't have any business saying they aren't good art? I know you can't mean that.

---

No, that's precisely what I mean. I hate Picasso, but I'd never say that it's not art or that it's bad art. Even if I think that it is bad art, that's simply my opinion.

Heck, I don't like that statue, either. I think it's overly sentimental, too. But I wouldn't say that it offends good art. Maybe that's the best art that the sculptor can make. Maybe he doesn't know how to make anything else. Whatever it may be, it's still a genuine expression of his feelings, and those feelings are not an offense to "good" art.

[ February 20, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
 

---

Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
 
Hey, the Poker-playing Dogs are awesome!

*secretly covets a poker-playing dogs painting*

And I don't like Picasso One Bit.

But I concede that it is art.

I also don't like many authors that are considered masters of their art, most especially Dickens and Joyce. Lordy, how I hates me some James Joyce! I don't deny, however, that they are...um...word artists (?). Okay, yes I do. Dickens never says one word when he can use three instead (he was paid by the word), and James Joyce just Makes No Sense. I try to see the artistry in their words, though. Every now and then I open my lit textbook from ten years ago and bash my head against "The Dubliners" (Joyce) or an excerpt of "David Copperfield" (Dickens). Ugh.

Art is subjective.

I like the soldier statue. I like (especially) the story behind the soldier statue. I'm a bit of a sap. I'm okay with that.

(However, Precious Moments figurines should be smashed against the wall repeatedly until their big eyes are dust on the floor. I'm just sayin' )
 

---