Nude Britney Spears Giving Birth Statue - Monument to Pro-Life

[Portoro]

Originally Posted by philpraxis

Why is human sculpture so much associated with ugly treatment of surfaces and old-fashioned looks as this sculpture is?

Yes, my first reaction was to the surfaces. Ugly, lacking any interest in the stone, any sense of a maker. The whole thing is itself over-designed too. An idea in stone, no more.

Old-fashioned? Well, most great sculptors since the Renaissance have chosen their medium carefully, and, if stone, which particular type to work in and exploit. This piece need not be in stone at all, it could be in resin, and resin may even be more appropriate, given the lack of interest shown in the material.

As for 'monument' and 'pro-life' - assertions.

[Portoro]

Black Cat - if you're referring to me about symbolism - Yes, the bear has to be symbolic. But I come from a literary background, and artists have to have a pretty profound understanding of how symbolism works to pull it off. (like writers), and writers, of course, can spend a LOT of time doing it badly in the learning process. The bear is BAD symbolism because it can be NOTHING ELSE but symbol. I also see nothing here to suggest that the symbolism of the work adds to its status as sculpture. In fact, if anything, it diminishes it by turning the work to 'text', inviting the audience to 'puzzle'. Symbolism, in any case, should not be a 'puzzle', it is used by the great writers to add complexity to the text that, in any case, should stand on its own two feet as art. I also see a lot of young artists taking up symbolism as if it adds a kind of intellectual dignity to the work. (What does this mean? What does that mean?). This kind of symbolism is also very old hat (like that metaphor) and leads not to a fuller response to the work but to separation from it (puzzle, puzzle). Unfortunately Hirst has indulged in this too, to the detriment of his best work. My advice would be to steer clear of symbolism. You could get away with it in the religious periods in art history, where art was a kind of illustration (of stories and text). Quinn is returning art to illustration here (of some kind of POINT), and after the 20th century suceeded in releasing us from all that, it's a pity, and a retrograde step on his part.

Personally, I also see no deep relationship between the bear as pure symbol and the rest of the work, although I do think that the pose Spears is given offers various readings (it is of a childbirth, but is also clearly suggestive of the pose of a female seeking either anal sex or penetration from the back). This set of readings of the pose may relate to the bear, which must at least be read as representative of sexuality (bears take females from behind, as do most creatures in the animal world). Reinforcing this is the particular weight given to the way the hands hold the head of the bearand the manner in which the eyes are directed to it (affectionately? Invitingly?). The bear as rug or as trophy? The bear as female? There are issues here too - puzzle, puzzle. A bit of a tangle, and, in any case, the meaning may lie elsewhere. Personally I think it is the piece of stone that's got f****d.

[Zophia]

this is some good shtuff

[evaldart]

I suppose, just me mind you, that this things is not Art at all...its a mere cultural antagonizer and Art needs to be way better than just that. Popular culture, human rights and even sexuality are not worthy subjects...they are good beginnings, maybe, but not good endings. Sorry. There are far bigger things to be gained by aesthetic exploration. When we've owned up to that it will be time for the real rewards.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by Portoro

Personally, I also see no deep relationship between the bear as pure symbol and the rest of the work, although I do think that the pose Spears is given offers various readings (it is of a childbirth, but is also clearly suggestive of the pose of a female seeking either anal sex or penetration from the back). This set of readings of the pose may relate to the bear, which must at least be read as representative of sexuality (bears take females from behind, as do most creatures in the animal world). Reinforcing this is the particular weight given to the way the hands hold the head of the bearand the manner in which the eyes are directed to it (affectionately? Invitingly?). The bear as rug or as trophy? The bear as female? There are issues here too - puzzle, puzzle. A bit of a tangle, and, in any case, the meaning may lie elsewhere. Personally I think it is the piece of stone that's got f****d.

Well the bear has his eyes looking forward (cut off from view) and she is covering its ears, so that would indicate to me that she is cutting off any remaining sensory perception to exclude the bear (whatever it may or may not represent) from experiencing or sharing in her event. It's strangely empowering for the female, while at the same time she is in a very subjugated pose. I suppose that is the rug she was poked on to begin with, everything goes round full-circle and all. Unless,.. of-course,....The bear represents the father? Hmm, I couldn't tell whether or not there was any fur on the baby's skull, but I'm sure I detected a faint smile on Yogi's face..

[Portoro]

Evaldart's got it right for me (as he often does, given that his artistic instincts rule his head). As for 'puzzling art is just another medium' - my instincts scream 'bollocks'. I go to the Times Crossword for my puzzles, not to great art.

[Portoro]

Black Cat - I can see that you’re going to be very easy to wind up, and if you are I’d stay clear of forums like this! Please note: Quinn has been dealt with at some length elsewhere by most of us, and this new thread is only of interest at the level of idle entertainment – it may be worth keeping that in mind when you get all stroppy.

However, there are a couple of issues raised here that do interest me:
1) Symbolism. Symbolism is a tool, a technique. It can be used by poets, novelists, sculptors, painters, political speech writers, ad men – you name it. It isn’t something that is intrinsic to any medium (as, say, stone is to sculpting or paint to, well, painting, and as line, form, mass and space are to both). Symbolism can be exploited by practitioners in these various media, but it can also be completely absent. So, when we spend ages discussing the symbolism of Quinn’s work we are not discussing it as sculpture – we are merely discussing the use the sculptor has made of a particular generic technique that is NOT intrinsic to its value as sculpture. So, let’s hear what you think of his work as sculpture, or is the work’s symbolism IT for you? If so, then you’ve misconstrued everything.
2) Getting beyond Symbolism. I’m a Brit, as is Quinn. We come from that old European culture that has historically made everything VERY complex and intricate (like our history and just about every object in the culture, all LAIDEN with deeply-layered levels of significance and ‘meaning’), and hence we have LOVED our symbolism. Read your Henry James. European culture is a TRAP into which naïve and usually BETTER Americans have often fallen, to their detriment. Classic American naivety, in the Jamesean sense, is a wonderful thing. It springs from the fact that your culture is at most a few hundred years old (depending when you think it started), and you have had the wonderful opportunity to START AFRESH. All that old European s**t could be set aside, and new beginnings pursued. Wow! In the 20th century American culture had the courage to do this (although people like Whitman, Hawthrone and Thoreau also did it in the 19th century). In the 20th century, it starts with writers like William Carlos Williams, who decided that all that symbolism, metaphor, etc only destroyed the IMMEDIACY of the work (in his case, the poem). Americans were in the novel position to be able to look at life afresh, without the weight of culture we Europeans have, and Williams felt that it would be ‘American’ in the best sense to reject all this European complexity (which draws us away from the ACTUAL, the vividness of reality and experience). Hence his fresh, vivid works, that ping off the page into the brain – no puzzle, puzzle. Hemingway later did something similar with the novel. And American artists have done something similar for art. Art possibly went abstract, in some sense, with Turner and Cezanne, followed by Picasso/Braque and their cubist experiments. However, Turner is still a symbolist (he’s a Brit); Cezanne got close to pure abstraction, although he never could quite give up representation. Picasso went sorta abstract, but he’s European too, and ended up toying with Greek mythology, neo-classicism and clowning around for 30 years of his artistc life. It actually took the Americans to really GET RID of the symbolism and all that. And that’s because of the tradition in America of SEEING ANEW. American practitioners of abstract/non-objective art taught us Europeans to re-think, and that’s why we Brits get Antony Caro eventually (a Brit who had the courage to go back to the artistic principles of form/line/mass and their relationship to space – NO SYMBOLISM). This is what was achieved in the 20 century, and America took it on as only America could. SO, don’t talk to me about symbolism. It’s a death-trap, and Quinn’s work DIES in its grip.

[cheesepaws]

Hi all - just for clarification - the Britney sculpture is by American sculptor Daniel Edwards - not Quinn.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by cheesepaws

Hi all - just for clarification - the Britney sculpture is by American sculptor Daniel Edwards - not Quinn.

Spears, Moss, whatever, they all look alike and once you've seen one you've seen em all anyway.

Nonetheless, I did watch this guy's youtube vid and he seemed like a nice enough chap with a genuine interest in something more than mere commercialism. I guess I just couldn't get all that excited about sitting down with a fresh new block of marble and thinking to myself; Gee, I think I'll carve brittany Spears on a bearskin rug delivering a baby.

[Portoro]

Not Quinn - my apologies to Quinn, then. Now I feel sad that Americans are doing this too!

Steven - you comment that they all look alike in interesting. On reflection, I don't recall any Quinn works that are so laden with symbolism and 'meaning'. But I agree that this sculptor's work looks remarkably like that of Quinn's. In other threads I have referred to the hackneyed sculptural forms that Quinn's work displays and the bland impersonal nature of the carving. We know that Quinn uses studio artists in Italy to actually make the works (at least, the ones we discussed on those threads). And this, I've argued, is why we get these cliched forms (for instance, the styling of the hair, as in this Britney Spears piece), as well as the complete lack of interest in the stone (the MEDIUM, for goodness sake). Here the medium is not only NOT the message, it is irrelevant. So, I would be interested to know if this sculptor is actually doing his own carving, and if he is, what he thinks he is doing at the level of carving. I have to say, from a personal point of view, that I would hate to see sculpture being reduced to the statements that can be driven through it. Sculpture is more than that, better than that.

Black Cat - have you trayed in from some trashy alley somewhere? Don't you know how to debate or discuss? Take part, don't get into a 13-year old strop all the time (unless, of course, you are only 13).
And quoting - don't you know what 'quote means', i.e. a PART of the text?

[StevenW]

I think you're being rough on the Italian carvers. Impersonal is an understatement and mechanical is more apt. Pay your 3D modeler a few hundred bucks and he'll have the model in your hands within a few days, probably in France and then strike a deal with Dremmel so they can advertize that the tools were used on it and they'll knock one of these off for you on a mill in a day or two right down to the pores and eyelashes...

[evaldart]

Poor Edwards...another artist lost in the silly quagmire or pop culture and nostalgia. He's in a terrible comfort zone with his figuration...not reaching, not aggressing...not achieving. And as he gets more and more encouraged in these matters he is likely to only set himself deeper in that cozy hole. They'll genius him and bury the poor guy in dollars. Another one bites the dust.

[StevenW]

I'm still trying to figure out exactly who is "deeply hurt" here... I suppose the Italian carvers would be my first guess.

[GlennT]

Originally Posted by StevenW

I'm still trying to figure out exactly who is "deeply hurt" here... I suppose the Italian carvers would be my first guess.

It could be the sore finger from constantly hitting the lol buttons, trying to generate laughs like the laugh track on a sitcom.

[cheesepaws]

Originally Posted by GlennT

It could be the sore finger from constantly hitting the lol buttons, trying to generate laughs like the laugh track on a sitcom.

What you talkin' 'bout GlennT? - this thread is filmed before a live studio audience.

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

lol! I bitch slapped some dude on his blog who ...blah blah blah

"Aegles non captat muscas" old boy.. An old Latin phrase meaning Eagles do not chase flies.. Bitch slapping an audience member on American Idol may provide a momentary sense of one upsmanship, fleeting at best, but when you do that, do it for the right reason. These works ARE the real American Idols...

[StevenW]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

I'm bitch-slap blocked and can't forcibly improve(but only not, i.e. teach a man to fish cliché') the thief on this topic :/ oh well..

Imagine the nerve, however could this have happened?

[underfoot]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

thread stats
replies
52

Views
388,626

that sure is a lot of views,
wonder if the "nude Britney Spears" tag had anything to do with it
wonder if all the viewers are sculptors
wonder how this could have happened

[grommet]

a snarl of rubber-neckers is probably not the "traffic" one hopes for.