found5dollar
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 401
And we made it onto the Daily Show: Starts at 5:00.
And we made it onto the Daily Show: Starts at 5:00.
There has to be a balance between attention-getting outrageousness and good art. There could be a statue of a giant hand with an upraised middle finger, which would be the talk of the nation and get plenty of tourists, but what would be the point?And furthermore, if they had just put up a statue of MLK people would have been wondering more loudly why Boston has a statue of someone only tangentially connected to the city, funded by brahmins looking to assuage their guilt in the face of the city's "racist" image.
Now, everyone is talking about MLK in connection to Boston and the antiracist columnists of The Globe sang the monument's praises.
View attachment 33207
There has to be a balance between attention-getting outrageousness and good art. There could be a statue of a giant hand with an upraised middle finger, which would be the talk of the nation and get plenty of tourists, but what would be the point?
And we made it onto the Daily Show: Starts at 5:00.
That's a really good point about love being exhibited in public statues. I hadn't thought about that one, but it's important. Power and conquest have been the primary themes of statues in western civilization for the past many centuries, so it is good to have a public statue that is about love for a change.
When they mention that in this country love is never shown in the public square I think that rings so true. All of our monuments are about power, strength, capital, resources etc and it really permeates down throughout our whole society. All of the biggest heroes and people that are looked up to are the people who can gather the largest sums of money or power. We have rockefeller center the monument to
That was hilarious!
Philadelphia is waay ahead of you.That's a really good point about love being exhibited in public statues. I hadn't thought about that one, but it's important. Power and conquest have been the primary themes of statues in western civilization for the past many centuries, so it is good to have a public statue that is about love for a change.
I don't hate it like some posters, but I'm not going to go out of my way to defend it either.
The simple fact is that it is a national and even international laughingstock. The bar for not being the world's punchline is exceedingly low, and yet Boston somehow tripped right over it and landed on its collective face. No amount of impassioned soliloquies in here is going to change the public perception out there, and that perception isn't good.
I don't hate it like some posters, but I'm not going to go out of my way to defend it either.
The simple fact is that it is a national and even international laughingstock. The bar for not being the world's punchline is exceedingly low, and yet Boston somehow tripped right over it and landed on its collective face. No amount of impassioned soliloquies in here is going to change the public perception out there, and that perception isn't good.
As thoughtfully discussed by an op-ed columnist in Phoenix, of all places:
Everyone hates Boston's new MLK sculpture. Everyone is wrong
The new Martin Luther King statue in Boston that everyone hates does what art does best. It confounds.www.azcentral.com
DZ, always respect your thoughts... but does this really make us a laughingstock? Worldwide?
I don't think it has to be a slow news week to cover this story.
I think it can be somewhat objectively argued that MLK was the last American (and one of the last world) heroes ever.
What I mean by that is our country and our planet have become so cynical that whenever a great man or woman rises to the top, there are 1000s of news outlets looking to tear them down. If MLK were alive today, certain news outlets would be looking into MLK's extramarital affairs, and not the causes he actually stood for.
I think that so many people in the country truly care about MLK stood for that they expect one of the most prolific art projects completed in his name to be of the highest quality. For many, myself included, the sculptor and the city fell short.
He also was very likely assassinated by the US government itself.During his life, Martin Luther King was SAVAGELY taken down by both the mainstream media and the majority of white America that it catered to. He was constantly accused of inciting hatred and violence; the FBI viewed him as a national security threat and tried to blackmail him; he was vilified for his opposition to the Vietnam War, his condemnation of American militarism, and his support for union workers. When he was killed, some polls revealed he only had about a 25% approval rating.
Who killed Martin Luther King Jr.? His family believes James Earl Ray was framed.
Until her own death in 2006, Coretta Scott King, who endured the FBI’s campaign to discredit her husband, was open in her belief that a conspiracy led to the assassination. Her family filed a civil suit in 1999 to force more information into the public eye, and a Memphis jury ruled that the local, state and federal governments were liable for King’s death. The full transcript of the trial remains posted on the King Center’s website.
“There is abundant evidence,” Coretta King said after the verdict, “of a major, high-level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband.” The jury found the mafia and various government agencies “were deeply involved in the assassination. … Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.”
Along with JFK, RFK, Marilyn Monroe, and Dorothy Kilgallen (an investigative reporter who died not long after interviewing Jack Ruby, who had killed Lee Harvey Oswald).He also was very likely assassinated by the US government itself.