September 19, 2002

9:43 AM

This sculpture was removed or otherwisre covered. Now, I understand the sensitive nature of the subject matter, but art is art, and censoring it is wrong. Isn't it?
posted by folktrash (8 comments total)

Let's ask these folks what they think.
posted by yerfatma at 9:45 AM on September 19, 2002

I don't have a problem with the sculpture, but putting it in a public plaza wasn't probably the best idea... At least right now. In a museum would be more appropriate, I'd think...
posted by mattpusateri at 9:45 AM on September 19, 2002

My first fpp without a typo!


ahem.

on preview - god damn it.....
posted by folktrash at 9:46 AM on September 19, 2002

censoring it is wrong. Isn't it?

Yes.
posted by interrobang at 9:49 AM on September 19, 2002

"I don't think it dignifies their deaths," said Paul Labb. "It's not art. It is very disrupting when you see it."

I'm starting to think that anytime someone says "it's not art", you can be assured that it definitely is.
posted by interrobang at 9:52 AM on September 19, 2002

unfortunately, censoring art has been around for some time.
posted by plexi at 9:53 AM on September 19, 2002

Quoth Bertolt Brecht:

"Art is not nice."

I think that we Americans get offended way too easily...
posted by tommyspoon at 9:54 AM on September 19, 2002

"I don't think it dignifies their deaths," said Paul Labb. "It's not art. It is very disrupting when you see it."

Interesting definition of what is and isn't art Paul has there. Whole movements don't exist in his eyes. I can't imagine a world without "disruptive" art -- Precious Moments figurines and landscapes?

I think the sculpture would be much more moving if it were mounted on a wall, the better to express the downward motion of the figure. Right now it looks like she's falling sideways.
posted by me3dia at 9:59 AM on September 19, 2002