Do you agree with this sculpture's rejection by a museum?

[Philosophy Explorer]

I wonder how much art has been rejected for similar reasons?:

http://www.vulture.com/2015/11/whitney- ... pture.html

PhilX

[Pluto]

What do you think of the sculpture and can you understand why the museum rejected it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

'is not only a 21st-century sculptural masterpiece, it embodies so much of America’s past and current struggles that had it been placed in the front of this museum at this time, it might have been a beacon, a lightning rod, a second Statue of Liberty. Adding layers of paradox to this tragedy is the fact that the work is a classically traditional Western figurative sculpture in the vein of the ancient Greek and Roman art widely worshipped as beautiful. '
Hmm, I thought it was a man and a boy about to have anal sex. I can't imagine why THAT would be rejected. I have a feeling the article is satirical.

[Skip]

There is no sex, no arousal or contact; just two naked figures whose relationship is ambiguous. Good, but hardly a masterpiece: naked human figures are common enough and many have been better executed.
As a museum curator in the US, I certainly wouldn't put them out on the lawn. I'd put them in back room with the standard warning about parental guidance posted at the door.

[Greta]

It's not as though the artist set up this scene innocently without ever noticing what it looks like at first glance. It's a primal shape burnt into the primate brain - the bent over, sexually receptive position. The artist would not have had a sudden moment of horror ... "Oh golly, it looks as though the standing man is about to fuck a boy while he's bending down to pick something up! Oh well, it's too late now. Gosh, I hope no one notices!".

The artist knew exactly what he was doing, and it's some kind of statement about power. The article is amusingly disingenuous in the way it "tiptoes around the tulips". No doubt the obvious anal sex interpretation is why it was rejected.

Noddy and Big Ears were, umm ... blackballed due to gay sexual connotations, so it's no surprise that some people worried about this artwork. I personally don't care but it's predictable enough. The artist must have known he was taking a risk.

[Skip]

Is that all anybody can think of anymore?
The boy is exhausted and his hands are sore from picking cotton all day; the father is saying, "Be strong! Bear up another hour, lessen you get whipped."
The boy has been whipped and his back is so tender he can't even be touched; the man is unable to comfort him, except with words.
Yah, I think maybe the artists was challenging puerile America to stop obsessing about sex for a minute.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Is that all anybody can think of anymore?
The boy is exhausted and his hands are sore from picking cotton all day; the father is saying, "Be strong! Bear up another hour, lessen you get whipped."
The boy has been whipped and his back is so tender he can't even be touched; the man is unable to comfort him, except with words.
Yah, I think maybe the artists was challenging puerile America to stop obsessing about sex for a minute.

The article is satirical. Do you have to be nauseatingly pc about EVERYTHING??

[surreptitious57]

There is no satire in that article at all that I see
So can you quote any part of it that you think is

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is no satire in that article at all that I see
So can you quote any part of it that you think is

Ummm, the entire article. It's either excellent satire, or a complete load of pretentious shit. The sculpture is hideous.

[Walker]

Is that all anybody can think of anymore?
The boy is exhausted and his hands are sore from picking cotton all day; the father is saying, "Be strong! Bear up another hour, lessen you get whipped."
The boy has been whipped and his back is so tender he can't even be touched; the man is unable to comfort him, except with words.
Yah, I think maybe the artists was challenging puerile America to stop obsessing about sex for a minute.

That’s funny PC.

According to the article, the sculpted man is Jim the slave, from the novel Huck Finn. The kneeling boy is Huck Finn. Both are on the run, they ain’t pickin no cotton.

Why they are shown naked is anyone’s guess, but you can bet sex has something to do with it. Idealized form, sex, desire for complete connection, desire transmorgified into the sustained energy to carve stone or cast bronze, it’s all intertwined.

The museum was correct to reject the sculpture. It’s a mediocre depiction of a scene from a literary work complete with the artist’s projections passing as interpretation of the work, and it does little to elevate the soul.

Why not a nude statue of Lewis and Clark gazing at the horizon? Full frontal, of course, because it will be bold and cutting edge (yawn). Two explorers, facing the unknown, with all that they are … and make them as Chinese as that statue of Martin Luther King in D.C.

The Greeks and Romans and Italians had at least one magnificent thing going for them. Technical proficiency in stone that transcended the medium and transcends time. The piece rejected by the Whitney does not have that quality, in my opinion.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I wonder how much art has been rejected for similar reasons?:

http://www.vulture.com/2015/11/whitney- ... pture.html

PhilX

Obviously what we are to take from the position of the boy and man, is one of submission and dominion. In taking on such a sculpture the obvious thought is that the museum is accepting of such a situation, as any man wishing to sexually abuse a boy could take this as encouragement that such practice is acceptable.
I can easily see why a museum would not want to display this work.

As for it;s aesthetic quality, the figures are somewhat woodenly executed.
The blurb about them in the article, is simply 500 words to avoid what every one else is thinking - this is about sex.

The only question remains unanswered is that if this is truly a commission, why did the museum not ask for a maquette for approval rather than the artist go ahead to make this 9feet tall monstrosity.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Another of his works.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.sendible ... iginal.JPG