Nude Statue Honoring Mary Wollsonecraft Sparks Controversy

[janterry]

Arguments abound:

How many of our important male writers are depicted naked in their statues? You never see Charles Dickens with his balls out, do you? https://t.co/hL8XzcjmKp
— Dr Laura Wood (@cooksferryqueen) November 10, 2020

The sculptor says: She's everywoman and clothes would have restricted her. Statues in Historic costume look like they belong to history because of their clothes."



?width=982&height=726

[Botany]

1. Gee they only have been doing nudes in art for like a billion years. What is the problem?

n/t

[janterry]

3. She was an important thinker, a philosopher

Creating a nude statue is not a problem.

But is this how we want to remember a writer and scholar?


And, of course, she would have hated it.

[Ztolkins]

9. Also mother to Mary Shelly...

Of Frankenstein fame.

Vindication of the Rights of Women was such an amazing work!

[soothsayer]

2. Don't think Maggi Hambling has really read the room with this statue. Tiny naked woman on a big wave

Link to tweet

?s=21

Hari Kunzru
@harikunzru
Don’t think Maggi Hambling has really read the room with this statue. Tiny naked woman on a big wave/blob is more ‘spirit of Soviet agricultural endeavour’ than feminist foremother

Mary Wollstonecraft finally honoured with statue after 200 years
theguardian.com
https://t.co/b17a2fUZEh?amp=1

[janterry]

5. Now that you mention the wave,

it almost looks - to me - like she should be on the prow of a ship

[eShirl]

4. looks even worse from further away

Link to tweet

[janterry]

6. oh, geez

[eShirl]

7. someone said she's emerging from a fatberg and I can't unsee it

[janterry]

17. had to look that up

and yes, it does look like that

[mopinko]

8. ok this is where it is fucked up.

whattheactualfuck.
not only naked, but tiny, and overwhelmed by the base.

[Ferrets are Cool]

10. It's a piece of art.

Some people hate Pollock, some love him. Sometimes art sparks controversy.

[janterry]

11. sure, but it's a statue commissioned to honor her and her work

n/t

[Ferrets are Cool]

12. And the artist thought this was the best way to do it.

And may have been correct. Would we even know it existed IF he had created a "normal" sculpture of her?

[eShirl]

13. She, and yes.

[janterry]

15. I would have

but I do think we should at least contemplate why a statue of a woman needs to be naked - the history of women is fraught with objectification. "Prettifying" Wollstonecraft and then depicting her naked -

it is something that would have horrified Wollstonecrafts sense of feminism. (It does mine, too)

[3catwoman3]

14. "Statues in historic costume...

...look like they belong to history...”

Does she not belong to history?

[OneBro]

16. One would either assume Wollsonecraft was a nudists, or . . .

Oh, that’s Lady Godiva, I think, but why did they do that to her horse?

Maybe the horse part is sorta, you know, abstract. I think it represents how we are all being swallowed by fossil fuels.

Lady Godiva was against fossil fuels?

Way, way ahead of her time.

[demmiblue]

18. Thread:

When I went to see the Mary Wollstonecraft statue yesterday, two members of the committee who chose it were also there. They were lovely and well meaning. You could see on their faces that they knew it looked awful, and that a terrible mistake had been made. When I asked why 1/

Link to tweet

they voted for this design over the other, they looked embarrassed and said that said that it was felt the other statue - which showed Mary Wollstonecraft clothed, with a stack of books, was too ‘prosaic.’ They also thought people would criticise them for choosing the male 2/

sculptor over the female. So in other words, out of an intellectually muddled notion of equality, the committee chose the woman sculptor at all costs - regardless of the merits of the design - and prioritised perceived artistic edginess over any of the following: 3/

A) actual meaning/ impact of the statue for the average person
B) the promises made to the thousands of people who donated money for a statue OF Mary Wollstonecraft (not ‘for’)
C) the suitability of the statue for the setting (the shiny silver finish - ?!!!) 4/

It’s actually just very sad: sad for the campaign and committee who were obviously trying to do a good thing but got this very wrong; sad for the many people - men and women - who were excited about this and have been let down; sad for those who donated and now feel cheated 5/

... And finally, sad for those of us who now have the misfortune to live in such close proximity to this mad silver thing. What is to be done? I hate the idea of tearing down a statue but can’t help but feel we need to do better. Any ideas? (Ends)

One more point: for me this is a huge lesson in engaging with what’s going on in the community. I knew this statue was coming, was pleased, wanted it but I was also busy and knew ‘other people’ were campaigning for it. So, didn’t bother getting involved. Obviously, now wish I had

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[janterry]

19. I saw a closeup of the statue

and the anatomy is really weird (close up it looks kind of masculine).

I saw somewhere that the artist wanted the statue not to be of mary wollstonecraft but FOR her. I don't know. I still hate it. I think it would be nice to have a statue OF Mary Wollstonecraft. Why can't women lionize one of our own (and not make her a 'universal' thing).

Wollstonecraft was one of a kind