Favorite Statues? (Boston: homes, live, cost)

[RogueMom]

Originally Posted by Mayei

I don't think the MLK one is so bad! Yeah it looks kind of awkward at certain angles, but I think people are being a bit dramatic about it. It could be so much worse.

..

Really? How much worse could it be?

[msRB311]

It looks pretty bad from quite a few angles. Looks like a penis of a piece of poop. how someone didn't realize this as they were creating it (or had others view it as well) is beyond me. It's ugly and all over the news:

https://nypost.com/2023/01/17/megyn-...e-giant-penis/

[BostonBornMassMade]

Its makes a nice art angle when you're looking east from the west. Its alright, The significance of it is great. I don't hate it. I think overall its successful it has got eyes on Boston and talking about the city, and I see people saying they want to come see it or they just want to visit in general

[BostonBornMassMade]

My favorite is actually the Phillis Wheatley Statue, I like the position of her body and the inquisitive look. Really gives off "writer". And the clothing is great and appropriate for the time.

Then Id say that its followed by the big black head in front of the National Center for Afro American Arts. Formally its John Wilsons "Eternal Presence" Just bold- and a fixture of my childhood Ids see all the time.


George Washington was a slave owner and I really dont know many other anthropomorphic statues Im aware of besides Bill Russel Wayne Gretzky and Harriet Tubman.. Bill is a little awkward, Waynes is cool but im not a hockey fan and i really dont care much. Harriet Tubman's is really nice and would be top 3.

The duckilings are boring, and i find statues of things boring.

[lrfox]

So I saw "The Embrace" for the first time in person this morning. I don't know if the overload of memes and negative press on the design has me prepared for worse, but it didn't look nearly as phallic or fecal as I expected it to based on the pictures that have circulated. I thought it looked pretty good in person, even. Jury's still out on my overall feeling about the statue because it's certainly different and "different" public art is often not well-received initially. So we'll see.

[BostonBornMassMade]

There was a lot of negative spins, because-the internet.

I could tell from the size, color, and concept itd look nice IRL. look forward to seeing it.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by lrfox

So I saw "The Embrace" for the first time in person this morning. I don't know if the overload of memes and negative press on the design has me prepared for worse, but it didn't look nearly as phallic or fecal as I expected it to based on the pictures that have circulated. I thought it looked pretty good in person, even. Jury's still out on my overall feeling about the statue because it's certainly different and "different" public art is often not well-received initially. So we'll see.

Yeah, the people I've known that have seen it in person either really like it (an embrace from every angle/and a heart) or are indifferent/undecided.

Not shocked that people hate it. Any statute / art that is anything beyond a basic "this is what the person looked like, here is a statute looking just like that" or anything "different" gets panned, usually by non artists/non art historians/non art critics. Heck, even the Obama's portraits (Natural Portrait Gallery) were panned by many online as they were different from a typical portrait, but they sure seem to get a lot of love when you read authorities on the subject (though youi'll always find detractors) or in person (lines were crazy when I went).

[msRB311]

When I heard there was a new MLK statue in Boston I expected it to just be of MLK. It just seems like a bizarre spin, sometimes people should keep things simple.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by msRB311

When I heard there was a new MLK statue in Boston I expected it to just be of MLK. It just seems like a bizarre spin, sometimes people should keep things simple.

Originally Posted by timberline742

Any statute / art that is anything beyond a basic "this is what the person looked like, here is a statute looking just like that" or anything "different" gets panned .

Yeah, no, that results in boring blah art. Good art is rarely if ever just a straight reproduction / depection of reality. (The art of photography can be a bit different in that respect, sometimes.)

If they just did a basic bronze statue trying to be a reproduction of the image (in 3D), it would be dull. There is a good reason why none of the finalists went that route.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Yeah, the people I've known that have seen it in person either really like it (an embrace from every angle/and a heart) or are indifferent/undecided.

Not shocked that people hate it. Any statute / art that is anything beyond a basic "this is what the person looked like, here is a statute looking just like that" or anything "different" gets panned, usually by non artists/non art historians/non art critics. Heck, even the Obama's portraits (Natural Portrait Gallery) were panned by many online as they were different from a typical portrait, but they sure seem to get a lot of love when you read authorities on the subject (though youi'll always find detractors) or in person (lines were crazy when I went).

Not shocked at this response. Any opinion that differs from you or the far left establishment elite is surely because the critic is less sophisticated, less intelligent, or just not up with the times. Must take lots of energy to be so smug. Lmao

BTW, if the only people who are qualified to render an opinion on the piece are "art professionals" then it belongs in a gallery, not in the public square with all the riff raff (including Coretta's cousin).