The artist, Maggi Hambling, has vigorously defended the statue. "The point is that she has to be naked because clothes define people. We all know that clothes are limiting and she is everywoman. As far as I know, she's more or less the shape we'd all like to be. Statues in historic costume look like they belong to history because of their clothes. It's crucial that she is 'now'."
This seems to me a bizarre explanation. People aren't defined by their clothes but by their personality and achievements - in this case her passionate pursuit of feminism. Neither is she everywoman, it was specifically Mary Wollstonecraft that campaigners for the statue wanted to memorialise.
Caroline Criado-Perez, who helped campaign for a statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square, said the decision-making process had been "catastrophically wrong. This representation is insulting to her." She argued that, as a piece of political art, it should have depicted a recognisable Wollstonecraft, as less than 3% of UK statues were of non-royal women.
The writer Caitlyn Moran said "Imagine if there was a statue of a hot young naked guy 'in tribute' to Churchill. It would look mad."
It would look totally bonkers. Personally, I think the Hambling statue should be replaced with a fully-clothed, clearly identifiable statue of Mary Wollstonecraft.
I suspect Maggi Hambling knew very well that her statue was bound to be controversial, and she's enjoying all the fuss and attention. Two other Hambling statues, Conversation with Oscar Wilde and Scallop, were equally contentious when first erected in 1998 and 2003.
Mary Wollstonecraft deserves better.
PS: The statue was commissioned by the Mary On The Green Campaign, which unanimously chose Hambling for the sculpture. Jude Kelly, Patron for the Campaign and Artistic Director of the Southbank Centre, said "She is a wonderful choice to capture the spirit and strength of Wollstonecraft."
PPS: A crowdfunder has been launched for an alternative statue of Mary Wollstonecraft by Martin Jennings. This statue would be of Mary Wollstonecraft herself.
Pic: the statue
I do like it, tits and all
ReplyDeleteJohn: A bit of an insult to Mary Wollstonecraft, though, don't you think?
DeleteIt’s a product of its time as she was.
DeleteI think it’s not been thought through
Imagine how MW would feel about this.
ReplyDeleteAlso excellent analogy to Winston.
Feast for male eyes, as always.
XO
WWW
www: Exactly, just a feast for male eyes. What was Maggi Hambling thinking?
DeleteBizarre is a good word for that.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: I've heard plenty of idiotic explanations from artists, but that one is really off the scale!
DeleteWith her record, who engaged her to make this travesty of a tribute?
ReplyDeleteFly: That's what I was trying to find out, but the media stories are silent on that aspect.
DeleteIt looks like a silver sprayed Barbie doll aloft an abstract feminine flow. I am not keen. From the pictures the Woman on top looks small and insignificant, so I don’t think it works.
ReplyDeleteSx
Ms Scarlet: Good description. It does indeed make her look small and insignificant. It looks more like a child's toy than a serious artwork.
DeleteIt's just wrong. I have no problem with nude statues but this is NOT Mary Wollstonecraft! I would not pay that artist since this is not what she was hired to create.
ReplyDeleteLinda: Exactly, who would ever guess it was Mary Wollstonecraft? Some people might have a stab at who it's meant to be, but I don't think Mary Wollstonecraft would come to mind.
DeleteI agree, the people who ordered the statue messed up.
ReplyDeleteJean: They totally messed up. And now it looks like they're desperately trying to hide and hoping nobody will ask them any awkward questions.
DeleteSee my post script which explains who commissioned the statue.
ReplyDeleteWow. I imagine that if I were a writer and after I died someone put up a hot young naked statue in "tribute" to me, I would surely come back and haunt them. That's insane and insulting.
ReplyDeleteAgent: I can only imagine what she would have said about the statue if she were still alive. She'd be apoplectic.
DeleteI totally agree with you. The statue is appalling, ugly and an insult.
ReplyDeleteI am certain MW will be turning in her grave...
hyperCRYPTICal: I'll be surprised if it stays there for long. So many people have passionately criticised it.
DeleteI don't know what the fuss is all about! It is a work of art. No one objects to a statue or a copy of David in the nude! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)
ReplyDeleteRamana: But this statue is meant to be in memory of Mary Wollstonecraft, yet it bears no resemblance to her. David is a mythical figure whose appearance is anyone's guess, so the Michelangelo version is as valid as anyone else's. And the nakedness doesn't matter.
DeleteI will admit my ignorance in not knowing much about Mary Wollstonecraft before reading this post. However, after some online reading or her life and learning Mary Shelley was her daughter, this statue definitely does not seem to honor her despite the artist's claims. The purpose seems more to have shock value vs. respect for Wollstonecraft and her ideals.
ReplyDeleteBeatrice: Yes, shock value is about right. Maggi Hambling is know to court controversy, and she's certainly done so here. Someone opposed to the statue is crowdfunding an alternative statue suggestion that's actually of Mary Wollstonecraft and not "everywoman".
Delete