New statue in Trafalgar Square

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Anonymous User
Friday 16 September 2005 8.39am
Anyone seen it yet? What do you think of it?

To mind mind it just doesn't look right in that location. I'm quite glad it's not a permanent fixture there.
Friday 16 September 2005 12.29pm
Marc Quinn's Alison Lapper Pregnant on the Fourth Plinth

I saw it yesterday between showers.

IMO it doesn't work as public sculpture - not least because Quinn stupidly failed to realise that when scaled up the statue would appear to be avoiding our gaze and looking at Canada House rather the centre of the square! Set high up on the plinth, the Italian marble could just as well be polystyrene.

I thought the version at maquette size (shown during the competition in the National Gallery lobby two years ago) was more effective, because you were forced to confront the model (and whatever questions it poses about your attitudes to beauty and disability) at eye level.

Edited to add: I do find the notion that Quinn has three copies for sale at 500,000 each somehow repellant - just hope that Ms Lapper gets some portion.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 16 September 2005 12.31pm by Lang Rabbie.
Friday 16 September 2005 12.51pm
Lang Rabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I do find the notion that Quinn has
> three copies for sale at 500,000 each somehow
> repellant - just hope that Ms Lapper gets some
> portion.
>

That seems odd IMHO. If it was a sculpture of, say, me or you, would it be any more or less repellent (saving the obvious aesthetic challenges of getting anyone to buy a sculpture of me)?

And why should anyone be concerned for how the model arranged their fees? The woman's an artist herself (so she said when I heard her on the radio yesterday), so presumably she's quite well-versed on negotiating a model's fees.

[Only my two penn'orth]



...if you press it, they will come.
Friday 16 September 2005 12.54pm
Brian Sewell said it made him want to vomit. My reaction wasn't quite as severe but I do think it's
the most unattractive piece of 'art' I have ever seen. It could just be the location. I wouldn't mind
seeing it in a gallery but to be confronted with it while out on a sunny day in a good mood would
put the dampers on. The artist and Lapper said it is meant to make us question our attitude
towards disability. Does this mean we could be seeing sculptures of people with mental health problems,
Down's Syndrome, Alzheimers and suchlike!
My re-action is, let's speed up stem cell research and eradicate faulty genes. I think large sums of
money should be spent on conquering tha ageing gene and working on brain transplants so you
could go to the Body Shop and chose a new body and have your brain transplanted.
I want to live forever
Friday 16 September 2005 1.04pm
I was just wondering if it qualified as a 'statue'

http://www.dictionary.co.uk
statue

noun {C}

an object made from a hard material, especially stone or metal, to look like a person or animal:

To look like ?
Friday 16 September 2005 1.54pm
Ivanhoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lang Rabbie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I do find the notion that Quinn has
> > three copies for sale at 500,000 each
> somehow repellant - just hope that Ms Lapper gets
> some portion.
> >
>
> That seems odd IMHO. If it was a sculpture of,
> say, me or you, would it be any more or less
> repellent ?

I think I feel uneasy because - however much the artist claims that his intentions were to challenge conceptions of beauty, or wider attitudes to disability - when the work is sold to modern art museums it will be probably because it has "shock value".


Friday 16 September 2005 1.56pm
I think it looks out of place in such an historic setting ( although I guess it does make you take notice of it because of this)

i think it would be good to have statue more in keeping with the surroundings but it would be even better to have a statue of a famous female to even things up (please not Diana!!)
Friday 16 September 2005 2.39pm
phoney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brian Sewell said it made him want to vomit.

Brian Sewell makes me want to vomit..and no mistake


> My re-action is, let's speed up stem cell research
> and eradicate faulty genes.

and knock natural selection and survival of the fittest on the head once and for all ;-)


Friday 16 September 2005 3.02pm
I enjoyed Sewell's series the Naked Pilgrim.

Are you suggesting we have 'survival of the fittest' now? If we had, Lapper would probably not have
survived this long.
I heard an interview with a blind man some time ago and he said he was so happy being blind, that
if he was offered an operation to allow him to see he would turn it down.
I say if we have an opportunity to repair or eliminate genes that cause disability or disease we should
proceed with enthusiasm. I'm not saying we should bump off anyone who doesn't fit the bill.
Friday 16 September 2005 3.22pm
I see (Rabbie). Thanks for the explanation.

I think I feel less uncomfortable about the shock aspect than you. I think I think I see it as both a representational work and as a shock. Simply, I am shocked (perhaps too strong a word. Perhaps "surprised" is more accurate) if I see someone with no arms.

Given that I know, or have met, precisely no people with no arms, it is definitely a surprise to see a statue of one. People with no arms exist, but they are so rare in my experience that I'd be surprised to see one.

...if you press it, they will come.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: