Nude statue lamp a Vermont debate

[RuBert]

MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) -- A group preparing to celebrate the life of a Vermont-born sculptor is petitioning Gov. James Douglas to leave a replica of Hiram Powers' most famous work -- which portrays a nude chained woman -- on his Statehouse desk.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/ALLPOLITICS/12/14/governor.statue.ap/vert.lamp.ap.jpg
The petitioners, who include the wife of U.S. Sen. James Jeffords, say "The Greek Slave" is one of the most important pieces of art ever created by a Vermont native.

The governor wants the lamp that incorporates the replica removed from his office desk during the upcoming legislative session. Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs said last week the governor was concerned the statue could be broken, but he also said there was concern that school children would see the nude.

Gibbs said Monday the lamp would remain on display at the Statehouse while the Legislature is in session, but not on the governor's desk.

"This wonderful piece of art will continue to enjoy public prominence on display at the Statehouse," Gibbs said. The home of the statue during the session will be determined by the Statehouse curator, Gibbs said.

"We're leaving it to him," Gibbs said.

Liz Jeffords and Polly Billings, wife of a retired federal judge, said they're launching a petition drive to have the governor leave the lamp on the Statehouse desk.

"He was worried about the effect on school children? What better way to teach them about our Constitution, which outlaws slavery," Billings said. "This speaks to Vermont history, abolition and the horror of slavery."

Gibbs said the governor was not concerned about school children seeing the statue. He said his comments last week that it might be hard for the governor to explain a nude statue to schoolchildren were an attempt at levity.

Billings said she was unmoved by the governor's decision to have the statue displayed elsewhere in the Statehouse.

"I am going to carry on," she said.

A one-day celebration of Powers' art is planned for his 200th birthday July 29 in Woodstock.

Powers sculpted six versions of "The Greek Slave" between the early 1840s and the late 1860s. The work became a symbol of the abolitionist movement before the Civil War.

[fritchie]

Russ - I consider this "news" a bit of trivia. I've seen an excellent, lifesize version of this piece, in marble, in Washington, at the Corcoran Art School and Gallery, where it has (or had at my last visit about 15 years ago) a room of its own, possibly excepting paintings, but this lamp, from your photo, is a piece of kitsch, and is not art at all.

This “movement” is an example of propaganda and hypocrisy, and is not based on an understanding of art in any way.

[ironman]

Hi, fritchie's right about that! Hey fritchie, I think it's the first time we've ever totally agreed on anything sculptural! How do you like that?
Have a great day,
Jeff

[fritchie]

This is worth a cross-continental handshake, right? Have a great day, yourself.

[JAZ]

Whether it's art or kitsch doesn't matter as much as the fact that people are arguing about it, because it's an indication that people have passionate feelings about what they consider art and what effect it has on all of us.
Seems to me I've heard someone say "art is provocation" and in this case, the original was meant as such and now its contemporary use is also.
But the disturbing thing to me is that the original sculpture was converted into a lamp. What are people thinking? Mousepads, coffee mugs and other stuff with art works emblazoned....slave girl holding lightbulb? I assume that the artist was trying for something that had the potential to change society and also a form that energizes space. Wouldn't he be disappointed to see that lamp?

[fritchie]

JAZ - This may be worth a bit of serious research. I'm not sure he had an intent to change anything, though he may have. American sculptors, as American artists in general at this time, simply were trying to prove to their British compatriots that they could do work comparable to what was being done in Europe.

Nude works were the norm for figuration. This work, or at least the original, (originals, according to the post - the only one I have seen is in Washington) was especially provocative in its depiction of an enslaved woman. It shows a Greek girl, I believe, enslaved by Turks, possibly in reference to the conquest of Athens by Persia about 350 B.C.

I don’t think it had anything to do with the American Civil War and surrounding social issues, though it may have, and it seems to have been coopted by those forces.

I consider the piece I’ve seen a reasonably decent work, though it would be described as Genre today.

[fritchie]

Here’s (http://www.iath.virginia.edu/utc/sentimnt/grslvhp.html) a link to a University of Virginia web discussion on Hiram Powers’ Greek Slavegirl. The page includes an image of a fullsize marble version of the piece.

I was wrong about suggesting the subject may have been inspired by the Athenian - Persian conflict in ancient times (as I myself realized shortly after posting). It was about the then-current war of independence by Greece against the collapsing Turkish, Ottoman Empire. Powers added Christian-versus-Muslim overtones through symbolic details, according to this website.

To complete my confessions, this work, done in the 1840's, came close to a century after U. S. artists had anything to prove to their British compatriots. American painting and sculpture were well-established by this time, and Powers mainly was demonstrating his individual ability and building a reputation.

I was right, though, that the incipient American Civil War with its own slavery issues was a minor point. A few Northern publications made the connection, but it should be remembered that even Abraham Lincoln, twelve or so years after this work was completed, said in the prelude to war, that he would accept either continued slavery or its end; his primary goal was preserving the Union.

[JAZ]

Fritchie,
Thank you for the research and thoughtful comments on Russ' posting. I still do think that, in spite of the intent of the artist and the particular societal role the original sculpture played in terms of contemporaeous viewers, that seen now, many people would broaden its interpretation not only to include a wider swath of enslavement issues, but also the role of women in general as it relates to particular time periods or areas of the world.
The fact that this is a lamp raises two other issues: the concept of turning artworks into other kinds of objects the artist never intended (does that mean it reaches a wider audience, therefore extending its value, or does it demean the original?) and secondly, that even a lamp can raise hackles and motivate people to debate about visual issues.
JAZ

[oddist]

Oooooo, a nude woman! PORNOGRAPHY!!!!!

Oooooo, a nude woman in chains! S & M!!!!!

I think the posting had to do with the (oh my gosh!) still puritanical bent of our society.

[anne (bxl)]

Why is there a debate? for a kitshy lamp? adaptation of an artwork? Would any of you appreciate one of your work transform/modify into a kitschy object?? The original have the power of a real deep debate, the poor adaptation doesn't.

Having a dinner a few weeks ago by wealthy friends, I found on the table small original female nude bronze created by an artist as glass pedestal and knife support, in addition of the kitshy result, the "soumission" image makes me uncomfortable, so I put them away and ask for another glass... My friends were surprised and after explanation annoyed. From now they will just exhibit them as sculptures.

[oddist]

Anne,

About your dinner..Something is lost in translation...

soumission -- meekness
soumission -- submissiveness
soumission -- subordination
soumission -- subservience

I can understand your describing these table items with all four meanings.

Which is your closest intent?

[anne (bxl)]

submissiveness?
the non-respect of the human condition (human "slaves" carrying knives and glasses for dining people)

[oddist]

Anne,

Merci, je comprend maintenant.

This could possibly be more towards the "subordination" of others. :(

[sculptor]

much ado about nothing

a lamp fercrizzakes......jeezz

I say place a nude statue in the capitals rotunda, and aim water jets at it and call it a fountain.

as re "women in chains" ----the standard explanation is that it was improper to show a woman willingly nude in the bizarre victorian prudish(wanging it in the john) sensibilities-----so, if she was in chains, she was a lot less brazen in her unclothed beauty---and normally shown in a submissive posture-----no "victory" with her arms outspread and her naked breasts proudly thrust forward, toward the bayonettes of the enemy-----

as/re kitsch
atleast, they didn't bend her over and place a rotating blade in her mouth and a crank up her ass and use her as a pencil sharpener

perhaps bad press is better than no press?

rod

[bignick]

as/re kitsch
atleast, they didn't bend her over and place a rotating blade in her mouth and a crank up her ass and use her as a pencil sharpener

perhaps bad press is better than no press?

rod

Now that would have been art. (or perhaps if you cranked the arm and put the pencil up her arse).

[sculptor]

........"...there was concern that school children would see the nude."

all censorship is at the least misguided, and bespeaks a psychological projection from a diseased mind.

A few years ago, Mona Shaw and my sculpting mentor arranged a joint show for John Kroll and my works at the public gallery under Mona's control.
ISIS was in the show, and a school teacher was concerned that the "nude" might disturb the children----so she wanted ISIS breasts covered----Mona said ..."No" The teacher played her trump card with ..." it might upset the parents....Mona trumped that with-----"well, covering the sculpture might offend the artist and it would certainly offend me, so we won't do it."
The teacher, her principal, and an involved parent then approached Mona's boss to apply pressure there-----and Mona (god bless her moral standards) said-----"You hired me to do this job, and if you do not like the way I do it, fire me and find someone who will do it your way."
ISIS remained uncovered.....
Then the day of the childrens visit came
and.......
the children ignored ISIS as they ran giggling to pat the enormous butt on John's copper covered sculpture..."The Rainy day Bear"

in retrospect it was much ado about nothing, full of storm anf fury and signifying nothing more than the perversion of the would be censors

I personally find censorship, crude, distastefull, and bordering on evil to hide knowledge in an atempt to foist the censor's views on any public.

[steponmebbbboom]

Wow, some people really underestimate the capacity of free thinking children possess. There IS a latent sense of right and wrong inherent in children, you know. It is not all up to the parent. And it is naive to think that one can protect children from "offensive" or objectionable thoughts and images in any meaningful way. How soon we all forget the things we saw and heard as children and how well we turned out regardless.

[ironman]

Hi Sculptor, We need more Mona Shaw's in the world!
Yes, censorship is awful, people wanting to control what others see and read is the worst kind of dictatorial behavior.
I recently had a reason to write the local paper about a censorship issue. Two college students (married couple) at NMSU in Las Cruces wrote about having to view PORNOGRAPHY in ART101. The pieces they complained about, Richard Hamilton's pop art piece, titled "Just What is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing", done in 1956 and a photo of one of Yves Klein's happenings with the (God forbid) nude women covered in paint being dragged across the canvas which I think was done in the early 60's.
This couple dropped out of class (good riddance to them) and wanted the filth removed from the walls and the curriculum so that they could go back to class. CAN YOU IMAGINE!
What planet are these people from! I wonder what they'd do if confronted with some of Robert Mappelthorpe's images, Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" or Chris Ofili's "The Holy Virgin Mary". Not to mention Michelangelo's "David"!
I wrote the newspaper and the president of the university and was reassured by him that no changes would take place to appease these 2 students!
I suspect that most of this stuff is coming from the evangelical christian right wing and we'd better watch out or they'll take us back to the puritan days.
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[JasonGillespie]

(It seems that the kneejerking continues.)

If there is a problem with some perceptions on the part of potential viewers of said statue/lamp, is it constructive to turn around and then exhibit equally intolerant attitudes in reply? Some people, for whatever reason are offended by nudity. They get bent out of shape, but there seems to be others who get equally bent out of shape at their discomfort.

In some part this discomfort is due to a lack of understanding of the context of when nudity is appropriate. That would be ignorance on their part and I can forgive someone for ignorance.

Personally, I don't find much of Mapplethorpe's work, any of Serrano's, or the mentioned version of the virgin Mary to be of great artistic value, but to each their own. I won't, however, be trying to excise them from galleries/museums, etc...and I won't harangue those that do like them.

And there are tasteless and tasteful displays of the nude form.... I certainly wouldn't lump Michelangelo in with the aforementioned artists.

I know that as artists we are supposed to be defenders of the new, shocking, and cutting edge, but I think that we are also defenders of ART as something other than "anything goes". We devalue our own efforts when we support "anything" in the name of some mistaken idea that everything is permissable and those that want responsibility to exist among the art community are tyrants. I'm not saying put fig leaves on the statues, but don't we have some point at which we say "ok, we're responsible for where this society is going too?"

[fritchie]

Good middle view, Jason, and very thought-provoking. I've never had a problem here in New Orleans, and a suburban venue where I have exhibited for the last dozen or so years has gone from no nudes, even in paintings, to a reasonable representation over that time. People will accept nudity if it really is that and not a test case in pornography or simple shock.