Monument to Life
The most famous contemporary sculpture in the English speaking world (at least for today ) is Daniel Edwards' "Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston" -- which has buzzed around the internet and the newspapers because it's a nude portrait of Britney Spears -- the (formerly) teenage pop-star -- with a very public life -- giving birth to her first son.
The art gallery's website shows the above -- well chosen to be rather formal, rather sedate professional photographs of figure sculpture - taken from it's best views in its best light.
The above is an amateur's shot from a less flattering angle.
And this is the POV that, rather obviously, generates the most interest around the internet. (note: this was probably taken in the studio -- while the broken pieces of the cast were being assembled)
So what are we to make of this famous work ?
I think it's skillfully done -- i.e. assuming that the artist was also the sculptor (unlike Jeff Koons) -- Daniel Edwards has skills at the level of those who design the life-size figures that are found in casinos or McDonalds parking lots.
But the good views are boring - while the bad views are terrible --- i.e., when placed in a room , it makes that room ugly -- so it does not serve to honor/elevate/sanctify its subject matter -- but only to sensationalize it. (am I just stating the obvious ?)
I would like to see a real "Monument to Life" -- using a similar pose -- that would decorate/sanctify the waiting rooms of birthing centers -- but our top-trashed culture has prepared neither sculptors to make it nor buyers to recognize it.
I've seen good sculpture that depicts childbirth -- but don't have a picture to show. Here is a sculpture, however, using a similar pose:
The sculptor is Arturo Martini -- the piece is also lifesize -- and was done in 1930.
The art gallery's website shows the above -- well chosen to be rather formal, rather sedate professional photographs of figure sculpture - taken from it's best views in its best light.
The above is an amateur's shot from a less flattering angle.
And this is the POV that, rather obviously, generates the most interest around the internet. (note: this was probably taken in the studio -- while the broken pieces of the cast were being assembled)
So what are we to make of this famous work ?
I think it's skillfully done -- i.e. assuming that the artist was also the sculptor (unlike Jeff Koons) -- Daniel Edwards has skills at the level of those who design the life-size figures that are found in casinos or McDonalds parking lots.
But the good views are boring - while the bad views are terrible --- i.e., when placed in a room , it makes that room ugly -- so it does not serve to honor/elevate/sanctify its subject matter -- but only to sensationalize it. (am I just stating the obvious ?)
I would like to see a real "Monument to Life" -- using a similar pose -- that would decorate/sanctify the waiting rooms of birthing centers -- but our top-trashed culture has prepared neither sculptors to make it nor buyers to recognize it.
I've seen good sculpture that depicts childbirth -- but don't have a picture to show. Here is a sculpture, however, using a similar pose:
The sculptor is Arturo Martini -- the piece is also lifesize -- and was done in 1930.
posted by chris miller at 6:53 AM
7 Comments:
I find it hard to imagine a depiction of britney spears raising the tone of any room.
partly because I know why most people who care about it care about it.
I was wondering why the backside wasn't posted before. Now I know.
I don't know whether to thank you or scald my eyes now...
But a very nice blog you have!
I wonder about that wolf (?) skin on which the model poses/gives birth. I can't for the life of me figure out what it is about -- obviously it's there for a reason, someone has thought about it -- the animal skin (is this politically correct?), the animal being a wolf (why? why not bear, or antilope, or boar, or hoppo?), the wolf growling (why? is she giving birth to a half-beast? is it an act of aggression?).
and you are right, sanctify it does not.
of course, nothing seems to do these days. why?
Thankyou for your comment, Rudolph -- I hope you weren't offended. I think the rear presents the best view of that particular piece -- but, like the group-sex scenes in some Hindu sculpture -- it needs to be placed in a proper context not to be offensive.
Good question, Gawain -- I think it's a bear skin -- and in the context is pop culture -- I think a bear skin is more related to conception than birth. But as I recall -- birthing stools are pieces of furniture in various cultures -- and sometimes they are ornamented with various animals.
I think what kills me about this sculpture is how perfect her body is, except for the bulging belly. No swollen ankles, no varicose veins (although I guess you can't show that in sculpture), no grimace of pain - like childbirth is some pleasurable occupation. In my opinion, she looks a little sexualized to be having a baby. On a bearskin rug? Come on, why didn't he just sculpt a big, roaring fire behind her as well?
I'm not offended at all, actually! Her posterior is done well, and the sculpture is a piece of art, tacky as it may be.
Post a Comment
<< Home