Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial | Boston Common | Downtown

This thing has gone beyond viral. Ive heard it talked about by family members, came across it multiple times on reddit, twitter, and it even made mentions in a couple podcasts I was listening to at work.
 
Last edited:
It's a slow news-cycle. In a week nobody will think or say anything about it.
 
Yup, you got it. Well done. The "crappy" is, of course, subjective and plenty already don't feel that way about it.
 
People will be talking about this for years. The reaction to the statue reminds me of "The Emperor's New Clothes" story in which the emperor shows up basically in his underwear, but everyone acts like he looks wonderful, just because they are supposed to.
 
chrisbrat said:
It's a slow news-cycle. In a week nobody will think or say anything about it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrDee12345 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The city didn't design this, a private fund did. And of course, you know that Parisians wanted the Eiffel Tower taken down when it was new because it was "ugly". I'm sure people in DC felt the same way about the Washington Monument (or any other monument in the District, many of which are less distinguished).

Bottom line: there's no such thing as public art that is both interesting and inoffensive. This isn't like that statue of Lucille Ball - it's fine.

And again, it doesn't look like a sex act in person. That's just internet trolls saying that.
 
Many of us could quote Noah Cross - "... get respectable with time..."

This memorial swings for the fences. I don't think we do that enough in Boston.

How many of us over time have come around on buildings we didn't really care for when they first went up. I know I have. Too many to count.

I forecast this will be a top draw for tourists.
 
Last edited:
Equilibria said:
The city didn't design this, a private fund did. And of course, you know that Parisians wanted the Eiffel Tower taken down when it was new because it was "ugly". I'm sure people in DC felt the same way about the Washington Monument (or any other monument in the District, many of which are less distinguished).

Bottom line: there's no such thing as public art that is both interesting and inoffensive. This isn't like that statue of Lucille Ball - it's fine.

And again, it doesn't look like a sex act in person. That's just internet trolls saying that.
Click to expand...

As thoughtfully discussed by an op-ed columnist in Phoenix, of all places:
www.azcentral.com

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
 
Thank god for all this attention. Before the media and internet blew up I saw and thought the phallic things but as more and more pictures and different angles besides that 1 this piece of art has grown on me and shown me more and more beautiful sides to it.

Let this blow up so people will visit Boston to find out it's only 1 of many things great about this city. :)
 
Ruairi said:
Yea, tbh I'm kinda sick of people ripping this to shreds from pics and video online.
Come and have a look and if you hate it in person, then fine.
Click to expand...

That's what a lot of people have said to me, and it's a fair argument.

But for those of us who can't get to Boston, we have no choice but to look on line. And what we see in pictures does not meet our expectations and standards.
 
Equilibria said:
The city didn't design this, a private fund did. And of course, you know that Parisians wanted the Eiffel Tower taken down when it was new because it was "ugly". I'm sure people in DC felt the same way about the Washington Monument (or any other monument in the District, many of which are less distinguished).

Bottom line: there's no such thing as public art that is both interesting and inoffensive. This isn't like that statue of Lucille Ball - it's fine.

And again, it doesn't look like a sex act in person. That's just internet trolls saying that.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware that the sculpture was privately funded, but the city had to approve it.
 
stefal said:
Should they design a sculpture for your online experience?
Click to expand...

No, but it should look good in pictures. I mean, you can see a picture of the mona lisa and have a pretty good idea of what you'll see if you actually went to see it in person. Why/how is this any different?
 
Ruairi said:
Come and have a look and if you hate it in person, then fine.
Click to expand...

I've seen it in person. It's a tad too large for what it is (something of equal mass but with torsos and heads would seem more proportional) and the disembodied arms look David Cronenberg-esque. The color of the statue, a dull matte brown instead of the reflective bronze of the renders, is muddy and unappealing - I couldn't see it at first at a distance against the bare trees on the Common. The approach angle from Boylston Station highlights two of the least-flattering angles. Most frustratingly, the artist seems to have done a rush job - part of the reason the "turd" or "penis" is getting that moniker is because the limbs have subtle lumps that seem to be careless artefacts from the original model presumably being made in something like clay on a small scale, and then scaled up and cast without any refinement. A fabric sleeve on an arm doesn't have smooth lumps like that, so the statue looks more like lumpy skin. Many artists have successfully replicated the flow and texture of fabric in harder materials like stone or metal, but this isn't successful. Perhaps that aspect is helping to trigger the "uncanny valley" effect that is causing so many people to have a negative reaction or see other things.

Look at this image: can you tell what is supposed to be fabric sleeve and what is supposed to be skin?
1674098988831.png
 
kingofsheeba said:
This. Art dated to be different. It gets people chatting. It did its job.
Click to expand...

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.

1674134365624.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top