On a technological and artistic level, the statue of Jen Reid is an absolute masterpiece.
Read how they did it, it is basically a 3D photograph.
Look at it close up, they've managed to capture every curl on her head and every stitch in her jacket.
If I were in the area, I'd definitely make a detour to see it.
(Knowing me, I'd completely trivialise the whole thing by getting Mrs W to take a photo of me standing in front of it with my black-gloved fist in the air, but hey. Art is about provoking a response and that would be my response).
Thursday, 16 July 2020
I hope that Bristol council puts that statue back up again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
I reckon the slave owner statues should only be allowed up again if they add a whip and a statue of slaves next to them
M, that would be borderline gloating and difficult to do tastefully. Just leave them down.
@MW absolutely, there's no tasteful way to leave the statues of slave owners up. Really sad all the arguments about keeping them there
The real giggle is that all the tech used to realise this 'art work' is the result of 'capitalism' and property rights. Things the BLM avowedly despise...
L, that is what makes good art, inherent tension.
MW Like the Fighting Temeraire say?
L, yes, that one is very clever. What it appears to be at first glance is not what it actually is.
Or like Andy Warhol, who had the basic idea and got his team to crack on and actually produce the physical art work. It was so catchy but bland that people thought it 'meant' something. I don't think it did. So he was taking the piss out of art critics as much as anything.
@mombers “@MW absolutely, there's no tasteful way to leave the statues of slave owners up. Really sad all the arguments about keeping them there.“
It’s not really about slave owners, it’s about white men. The Left starts with slave owners or people peripherally involved in slavery because there’s a broad consensus that slavery is bad, so mainstream conservatives will not fight for statues of people involved in slavery. With that principle established, they’ll move on to Churchill and Nelson in a few years‘ time—perhaps sooner. The basic idea has been conceded so it’ll be easier to do; it’s a classic salami strategy. Once you’ve agreed slave owners should go you don’t have much of a case defending men like Churchill, a man who certainly thought other races should be subject to the English or white people more generally. Anyway, it’s not about humanitarianism or a rational discussion about historical cruelty and injustice, it’s about a mob, whipped up by envious agitators, waging an eliminatory campaign against a particular group—it’s not worth reasoning with.
if it is three dimensionally printed why did they use that particular colour resin?
Nah. Put Colston back up. Judging people in the past by today's standards is a hate crime IMHO. We shouldn't be encouraging that sort of thinking.
benj. Quite
Coulston is an early example of reputation laundering. In the same category as the Sacklers IMHO (opioid pushers and patrons of the arts to distract attention). Churchill did many, many, many great things so in a completely different category.
TH, speaking as a white, north-European bloke, I'm not worried at all. The Guardian columnists and PC brigade can moan and self immolate all they like, they are a tiny minority. So sod them, and calm down a bit. Clearly, if anybody was stupid enough to pull down a statue for Nelson, it would be put straight back up again. He's safe.
SOK, you're not supposed to ask questions like that. It's racist.
B, L, nope. Judged by the standards of HIS time, he was a bastard. Clue - he was a 'philanthropist' i.e. he had something to be ashamed and needed to buy respectability. I think the western Africans being led off in chains would have had a very dim view of slave traders (Arab, African or white).
M, agreed. Nobody's perfect, not Nelson, Churchill, King Arthur or Robin Hood. But we remember them for their great deeds, real or mythical. That's different to some rich bastard paying the local council to put up a statue to him.
"B, L, nope. Judged by the standards of HIS time, he was a bastard. "
The salient thing about the statue of Colston was that it was not a contemporary statue, it was the result of later revisionism, so in a different vein to the monument to Sir Thomas Picton, which was contemporary, and was erected by public subscription, and that was even though he was such a bastard that the was prosecuted for it.
However, the main thing to remember about statues, is that, unless they are famous people, no-one gives them a second glance, all these Victorian generals and politicians (and slave traders) whose names were long since condemned to the dustbin of history. Nearly everyone knows who Nelson was, but who knows who General Sir Charles Napier was?
Nelson is actually an interesting case, because he was the darling of the people and of the Navy, but not of the Establishment. That's why his statue is on a column so tall that you can hardly see him.
B, on Trafalgar Square is a small bust of the genius of Battle Rutland, Jellicoe, right next to small bust of his arch-nemesis and all-round arsehole, Beatty. But apart from that, I have no idea who most statues are for.
Like so many things, LVT could go a long way to solving the issues that have given rise to BLM. There is no fair or efficient way to issue reparations for things that happened well before anyone living today was around. But if the injustice of private land rent collection is greatly reduced, everyone has an equal share of what the universe gave us. Going forward all efforts to improve one's life and one's family's life can then be retained instead of being sucked up by landowners
M, yup. There won't be a 1% to get angry about any more.
@MW
"Judged by the standards of HIS time, he was a bastard."
Was he? I've not been able to read anything other than his contemporaries thought him a generous benefactor.
" Clue - he was a 'philanthropist' i.e. he had something to be ashamed and needed to buy respectability"
His statue was pulled down because he was a slave trader, not because he was a 'philanthropist'
"I think the western Africans being led off in chains would have had a very dim view of slave traders (Arab, African or white)."
Oh I'm sure they did. But was it because they didn't agree with the slave trade as a principle, or they just happened to be at the wrong end of it in their instance? Big difference.
Point is, every property owner, owned slaves. If you weren't a property owner, you aspired to be one. And that probably went for every human on the planet at the time (save a few outlier do-gooders).
And its not just slavery. It's a litany of norms that we now find abhorrent. In effect, to judge people in the past by today's standards would be to write off every human being before year X as wicked, evil etc, etc.
Come back in 200 years time, how do you think we are going to be judged? If its not by today's standards there's little point honouring awayone. Jen Reid included. I wonder if she is a homeowner?
B, it's only a statue, don't take it too seriously. I was just pointing out that I really like the new one.
They can leave the old statue up or take it down, I personally am not fussed. It might be a nice idea to change the plaque so that it is clear he was a slave-trader who bought respectability.
For Jen Reid, the plaque will say "She is famous for having this statue made of her" So the statue ends up being a tribute to itself.
I know this is an outrageous suggestion, but how about deciding what statues to demolish or erect on the basis of a DEMOCRATIC vote?
RM, that's already happened in the case of statues that were put up by public subscription.
Post a Comment