Sorry folks but contemporary artists do have skill - they are moving back to painting what is recognizable. And re this: There were notable exceptions to all of this — sculptors like Frederick hart who continued to produce powerful and deeply human works of art like the Three Soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, or the magnificently beautiful Ex Nihilo at the National ...... no the Three Soldiers is at best kitsch. It should be removed and destroyed. I say this as a trained artist. It is fair to lament much of post Ww2 art, but art follows trends and those trends are over.
The three soldiers was an unfortunate reaction (racist reaction) to the Vietnam War memorial which was far more evocative of grief and sorrow than any realistic sculpture.
If you look at even the best portraiture, well here is how John Singer Sargeant summarizes it: A Portrait is a Likeness with something wrong about the mouth.
The new sculpture may not get it right. But even the most realistic image can miss the mark - most do.
Nobody goes to to the Vietnam Memorial to see the " Three Soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial," they go to see The Wall. Which is perhaps the greatest piece of public art from the 20th century.
It is hard to get the impact of a large public sculpture in a picture. But just from the picture it is apparent that this is a very good piece of public art. It along with the people viewing it very much capture the essence of the civil right movement.
And yes twitter will be rude and crude in their comments and "conservatives" wanting "real art" will struggle to understand. Both btw are part of the normal reaction to any new art.
Actually, some of that ICU art sounds pretty cool.
"By 1982, no ambitious artist was going to display skill, even if he had it." That's spot on. And it was happening much earlier than that. Some of Picasso's work has grown on me, but the man, as early as his teens, had completely mastered realistic draftsmanship, and he just got bored with it, I guess. But some of what passes for great contemporary art, like Basquiat, just looks like what came home from the Kindergartener, which mom sticks on the fridge to make the little tyke feel accomplished and talented.
I've always loved the realistic art from before all of this "too sophisticated to care" stuff that popped up in the twentieth century, because it's beautiful, and because the care, time, and skill that went into making it shows that humans are capable of creating things almost miraculous.
I don't think the sculpture is so bad in the history of weird statement modern art like the famous crucifix in a jar of urine. The world definitely deserves not hearing Megan Kelly's take on it.
I have read a number of opinion pieces about "The Embrace". An interesting one is by Phil Boas in the Arizona Republic, Jan 18, 2023. I appreciate his sentiment that the artist is asking the viewer to complete the image. If people are completing the image based on their own cognitive abilities and seeing sexual innuendo, that is where their mind takes them.
The scale of the sculpture is such that people will be able to interact with the piece unlike another life size sculpture depicting MLK and CSK's likeness.
I applaud the artist for his vision and believe that others will learn to appreciate the beauty of the work in time. Look forward to a trip to Boston to see this new and thoughtful piece of art.
Charlie, your piece today is very similar to the art piece you talk about. Both seem to be missing pieces.
You have an easy way to fix this and add thoughts about Santos that you want to highlight. The artist on the other hand has to lay everything out there and just take all the critiquing
Read TPW 40 years ago or so to try to get a handle on why most Modern Art was the way it was. . . delighted to hear you reference it (and Ms. Charen, Mr. Scruton) yesterday. Do I recall correctly that fear of being thought literary motivated some? Rhetorical question, I surely will not revisit it. Nuts about Norman Rockwell.
No, my underwear is not in bunch over the MLK statue. They hated the Vietnam Memorial, until they didn't. Haters--both of modern art AND progress in civil rights--will hate. And these are two distinct groups of haters. Let's give the work of art the same period of reflection that the Vietnam Memorial got and let's see what people say (it's about 200 yards from my office, I'll have a chance to see how people react--and my reaction--in the Spring when we'll have a better idea. Past all the angst that has flooded the media.)
This seems to follow a pattern of unfortunate memorial sculptures in recent decades. Near the National Mall in DC, we have the MLK Memorial that looks like a Maoist Chinese propaganda piece; the FDR Memorial emphasizing his hated wheelchair that he wanted private and a section about New Deal programs that is indecipherable, and it takes up an inordinate amount of acreage; the Korean War Memorial with a wonderful design of soldiers on patrol, but purposely grotesque faces; and the new Eisenhower Memorial which is mostly just a large concrete pad with weird large columns to nowhere. One side is Ike as president with a group of indistinguishable White House advisors in 1950s suits; the other side a wonderful depiction of Gen Eisenhower meeting with 101st Abn troops in the hours before D-Day - although the real faces are replaced with generic ones. All are poor relative to the wonderful 19th and early 20th century memorials to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.
Wow. I am so disappointed in this commentary. I seldom comment, ever. But, I have to today. I have been faithfully following your commentary for several years now. I thought this was the place where reason could always be found. This young black artist created a modern art piece that symbolizes Love, A Universal Embrace, which was what MLK was all about. The artist dedicated this piece to his grandmother and his solid upbringing that was founded on the principles that MLK lived. And here you have given space for all the attention getting perverts who are trying to sexualize this beautiful interpretative piece. It passed a lot of scrutiny before it was placed. Oh boy, get back on the real, important issues and apologizes to the artist.
Turning comments off this version of todays’s Morning Shots. Corrected version of this edition here: https://morningshots.thebulwark.com/p/mlk-deserved-better-hes-not-alone-879/comments
Sometimes I get duplicate emails of Morning Shots - maybe the Santos part is in the duplicate I've yet to get? . . . And HERE IT IS! :-)
Sorry folks but contemporary artists do have skill - they are moving back to painting what is recognizable. And re this: There were notable exceptions to all of this — sculptors like Frederick hart who continued to produce powerful and deeply human works of art like the Three Soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, or the magnificently beautiful Ex Nihilo at the National ...... no the Three Soldiers is at best kitsch. It should be removed and destroyed. I say this as a trained artist. It is fair to lament much of post Ww2 art, but art follows trends and those trends are over.
The three soldiers was an unfortunate reaction (racist reaction) to the Vietnam War memorial which was far more evocative of grief and sorrow than any realistic sculpture.
If you look at even the best portraiture, well here is how John Singer Sargeant summarizes it: A Portrait is a Likeness with something wrong about the mouth.
The new sculpture may not get it right. But even the most realistic image can miss the mark - most do.
Nobody goes to to the Vietnam Memorial to see the " Three Soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial," they go to see The Wall. Which is perhaps the greatest piece of public art from the 20th century.
It is hard to get the impact of a large public sculpture in a picture. But just from the picture it is apparent that this is a very good piece of public art. It along with the people viewing it very much capture the essence of the civil right movement.
And yes twitter will be rude and crude in their comments and "conservatives" wanting "real art" will struggle to understand. Both btw are part of the normal reaction to any new art.
Actually, some of that ICU art sounds pretty cool.
"By 1982, no ambitious artist was going to display skill, even if he had it." That's spot on. And it was happening much earlier than that. Some of Picasso's work has grown on me, but the man, as early as his teens, had completely mastered realistic draftsmanship, and he just got bored with it, I guess. But some of what passes for great contemporary art, like Basquiat, just looks like what came home from the Kindergartener, which mom sticks on the fridge to make the little tyke feel accomplished and talented.
I've always loved the realistic art from before all of this "too sophisticated to care" stuff that popped up in the twentieth century, because it's beautiful, and because the care, time, and skill that went into making it shows that humans are capable of creating things almost miraculous.
The scultur has earned all the invective hurled his way!
I don't think the sculpture is so bad in the history of weird statement modern art like the famous crucifix in a jar of urine. The world definitely deserves not hearing Megan Kelly's take on it.
I have read a number of opinion pieces about "The Embrace". An interesting one is by Phil Boas in the Arizona Republic, Jan 18, 2023. I appreciate his sentiment that the artist is asking the viewer to complete the image. If people are completing the image based on their own cognitive abilities and seeing sexual innuendo, that is where their mind takes them.
The scale of the sculpture is such that people will be able to interact with the piece unlike another life size sculpture depicting MLK and CSK's likeness.
I applaud the artist for his vision and believe that others will learn to appreciate the beauty of the work in time. Look forward to a trip to Boston to see this new and thoughtful piece of art.
Charlie, your piece today is very similar to the art piece you talk about. Both seem to be missing pieces.
You have an easy way to fix this and add thoughts about Santos that you want to highlight. The artist on the other hand has to lay everything out there and just take all the critiquing
Read TPW 40 years ago or so to try to get a handle on why most Modern Art was the way it was. . . delighted to hear you reference it (and Ms. Charen, Mr. Scruton) yesterday. Do I recall correctly that fear of being thought literary motivated some? Rhetorical question, I surely will not revisit it. Nuts about Norman Rockwell.
No, my underwear is not in bunch over the MLK statue. They hated the Vietnam Memorial, until they didn't. Haters--both of modern art AND progress in civil rights--will hate. And these are two distinct groups of haters. Let's give the work of art the same period of reflection that the Vietnam Memorial got and let's see what people say (it's about 200 yards from my office, I'll have a chance to see how people react--and my reaction--in the Spring when we'll have a better idea. Past all the angst that has flooded the media.)
"Plus: The Santos story keeps getting worse"
Is it just my subscription, or are others wondering where this story is?
Martin wept.
This seems to follow a pattern of unfortunate memorial sculptures in recent decades. Near the National Mall in DC, we have the MLK Memorial that looks like a Maoist Chinese propaganda piece; the FDR Memorial emphasizing his hated wheelchair that he wanted private and a section about New Deal programs that is indecipherable, and it takes up an inordinate amount of acreage; the Korean War Memorial with a wonderful design of soldiers on patrol, but purposely grotesque faces; and the new Eisenhower Memorial which is mostly just a large concrete pad with weird large columns to nowhere. One side is Ike as president with a group of indistinguishable White House advisors in 1950s suits; the other side a wonderful depiction of Gen Eisenhower meeting with 101st Abn troops in the hours before D-Day - although the real faces are replaced with generic ones. All are poor relative to the wonderful 19th and early 20th century memorials to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.
Wow. I am so disappointed in this commentary. I seldom comment, ever. But, I have to today. I have been faithfully following your commentary for several years now. I thought this was the place where reason could always be found. This young black artist created a modern art piece that symbolizes Love, A Universal Embrace, which was what MLK was all about. The artist dedicated this piece to his grandmother and his solid upbringing that was founded on the principles that MLK lived. And here you have given space for all the attention getting perverts who are trying to sexualize this beautiful interpretative piece. It passed a lot of scrutiny before it was placed. Oh boy, get back on the real, important issues and apologizes to the artist.
Mr. Sykes, is it possible the main piece is missing a paragraph? Like around where the image of the book by Tom Wolfe has been inserted?