What Can I Give My Dog For Tooth Pain?
Animals & Nature3 mins ago
That Statue - again!
I suspect I'm going to get hammered here, but don't really care - the woman with no arms or legs who has a statue in Trafalgar Square (cant be bothered to remember her name) has said (paraphrasing) that at least she's managed to get in Trafalgar Sq without killing or maiming anybody.
How dare she. How dare she take a swipe like this at Nelson - he has earned his place, she hasn't. She was born without arms or legs, which is very sad and I do feel sorry for her (although a bigger part of me thanks god it is her and not me - as does everybody else if they are honest with themselves), but she hasn't done anything of note, she hasn't had to adapt (you don't need to adapt if you know no different) and is only famous for having no arms and no legs and having a baby.
I'm not particularly bothered that she's on the plinth (although I think an art gallery would be more appropriate), but I am bothered that she has the temerity to reduce Nelson's achievements to 'killing and maiming'.
Am I the only one who thinks she needs a reality check - and needs to be taken down a peg or two?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Ding-Dong. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think Spinchimp very nearly hit the nail on the head.
The other statues in Trafalgar square are there as a tribute to those people they represent and not because of the artistic merit of the statue.
By placing this statue there those involved are implying the subject should be considered "heroic" in a way that wouldn't be implied if it was say outside the National Gallery.
As for abstract perspex plinths, you can't press the heroic interpretation onto that so no uproar - replace with a naked disabled woman - big news story.
The environment that a piece of art is placed in has a really strong effect on the way that it's percieved
It's a bit like the statue of Oliver Cromwell - not particularly contentious until you see that it's placed outside Parliament.
I agree with jake-the-peg, that statues should be raised to those who made a positive contribution by means other than warfare (justified or not). However, I believe that Howard Florey should get more praise than Alexander Fleming for the Penicillin thing. It was Florey who drove the innovation of penicillin and ensured it was used to save millions of lives in WWII. You can read about Florey here:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/florey/story.htm
That does not mean we should be raising statues to people who have birth defects! I have struggled with male-pattern baldness for much of my life. Where's my statue?!
all of you who are saying "I know a disabled person, why isn't there a statue up there for the" or "I have male pattern baldness where is my statue" are spectacularly missing the point. That statue IS there for you - it is for anyone who has struggled with anything in life, be it physical disabilty, baldness, mental handicap, absolutely anything. It shows how tough the human spirit is to overcome these things - it is a representation of this, can none of you understand that art does not have to be literal to have meaning?
The idea of the statue of Alison Lapper, the disabled artist, armless, pregnant and nude, is in my opinion not a very nice thing to fathom. Someone said the statue is not a tribute to her, neither does a piece of art have to be beautiful - that is true. This, however is not the point.
It is acceptable that war heroes are commemorated. A piece of art does not have to be literal, kags post mentioned. This is also true. But, although personally I'm against killing, however defending one's country is a heroic act, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to have a statue dedicated to Nelson. He deserves to be given prominence in one of the most famous squares in the heart of London.
It is admirable that Alison Lapper has survived in spite of her disability. But to have a armless, nude, pregnant statue of a woman who has gained recognition just for being an artist in spite of her disabity, in a central spot in London, doesn't seem appropriate somehow. This is more appropriate for the Tate modern gallery.
correction: the word "however" in line 9 of my previous post should be deleted.
To add to my previous this situation is, I feel similar to the subject of dwarf throwing that raised much controversy on this site some months ago. All humans have a right to respect, including those people with disabilities. But using a person's handicap as a gimmick to attract controversy is not in good taste. Dwarf throwing makes a mockery of little people. Similarly a woman with no arms who is an artist is placed on a plinth in Trafalgar Square, for what reason?
(1) why single out this lady when there are other disabled people who have achieved similar things - midgets have given birth to children of normal height, and people without arms have produced pieces of art with their feet (though in Alison's case she draws with her mouth)
(2) Why does she have to be nude, can't she wear clothes?
I agree with Ding Dong - I feel sorry for the lady who was born that way, and she had had to overcome a lot in her life there is no doubt, but I don't see the point of putting a statue of her up. Especially alongside a great man such as Nelson, who we all owe a great debt to. It sort of demeans the meaning of the whole Square to me. (Mind you he had one eye and one arm - so maybe there is some sort of disability thing going on in Trafalgar Square). I guess some people will say its art and its got you talking etc. but that's a load of b******s. Art is crap nowadays.
It doesn't seem right for her to say that. I never saw the interview where she said that so I can't be sure on what was said and meant.
I understand what people are saying about it not being a tributre to Ms Lapper but I see why some people would be confused. I have seen a number of interviews with her but I haven't seen any with the artist, surely he/she would be the one who could explain his piece of work the best?
I love it because it p1sses people off, gets people talking, and allows people to feel a bit of emotion (good or bad) on their dull grey trudge to the office. It's always good fun to see the trendy liberals fighting the PC cause against the indignant anti PC brigade. One section always seems so hideously embarrassed to be white and able bodied, and the other is frantic with fear that we're about to be taken over my an army of disabled asylum seekers. Fight Fight Fight.
If people haven't got the common sense to be born without arms and legs then do they deserve a place in society?? Methinks not. Surely somebody so foolish as to forget to develop such vital limbs are a danger to themselves and others???
Whatever next?? Turn Buck Palace into a lesbian drop in center???? I think not.
I think this lady is on a big ego trip. I seem to remember a tv prog with Sir Robert Winston about disabled mothers. I remember that she was very opinionated and seemed to dominate the whole programme, suspected that her son was a trophy to show everyone and say look what I have done, and on my own and my son is so clever and well adjusted and I can paint (with my disability)
It's like fat people who insist they are happy, sexy, and don't want to be slim.
We can all see right through them.
Oh! and she gave her son a really stupid name.
Even though I think the statue is ghastly and in the wrong place, I do agree that something positive has come out of it being there: debates like this. Also, it has drawn attention to other statues so people have gone off, looked them up and so learnt some history. As for the particular statue of Alison Lapper, I don't like it, but I'm not too bothered even by her preposterous claim (relying on Ding-Dong for this info) that she has 'managed to get in' to Trafalgar Square (as though it were some tawdry Hall of Fame or High Score table) because I know that the statue will only be there for 18 months, whereas the others will last for hundreds more years to come. As they should.
Has anyone yet proved that she hasn't killed or maimed people? This may be an elaborate cover.
This entire thread has certainly maimed my sense of reason, and may yet be set to end me. In which case she would deserve to be up there. On a plinth. Not a sculpture of her, you understand, but her real personage. Also, Stephen King in a bra.
