MLK Tribute Statue is Too “Confrontational” at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

MLK Tribute Statue is Too “Confrontational”

by Latoya Peterson

Currently on the front page of the Washington Post:

The caption reads:

U.S. Panel Wants King Statue Altered
Unhappy with “confrontational” image, powerful federal arts commission wants Martin Luther King Jr. statue proposed for a memorial on the Tidal Basin reworked. (Photo: Lei Yixin)

The associated article about the project states:

A powerful federal arts commission is urging that the sculpture of Martin Luther King Jr. proposed for a memorial on the Tidal Basin be reworked because it is too “confrontational” and reminiscent of political art in totalitarian states.

The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts thinks “the colossal scale and Social Realist style of the proposed statue recalls a genre of political sculpture that has recently been pulled down in other countries,” commission secretary Thomas Luebke said in a letter in April.

By law, no project like the memorial can go forward without approval from the commission, the federal agency that advises the government on public design and aesthetics in the capital.

Comment at will.

Trackbacks & Pings

Stern MLK isn’t taking any of your bullshit « Feminocracy on 09 May 2008 at 9:14 am

[…] Stern MLK isn’t taking any of your bullshit MLK Tribute Statues is Too “Confrontational” […]
MLK Memorial (statue) to be redisigned, causing discussion among Black Blogosphere on 10 May 2008 at 11:43 am

[…] Washington Post story and photos have black blog-sphere discussing the current controversy surrounding Dr. MLK Jr’s proposed statute design by […]
Links 5-10-08 « Aaminah Hernández on 10 May 2008 at 6:25 pm

[…] - MLK Tribute Statue is Too “Confrontational” - Heads up, I didn’t read comments on this. I’m linking for the actual story, read […]

Comments

cosmicsistren wrote:

Why is it confrontational? Is it because he’s arms are crossed? Not smiling? …..smh….

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:33 am ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

Perhaps if Dr. King were on his knees with his hands folded in prayer and his eyes caste skyward…..they would prefer it more? Or would they prefer him behind bars….

/extreme sarcasm

Kinda reminds me of the whole Statue of Liberty debacle…..waaaay back when….

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:46 am ¶
Celeste wrote:

I remember there was a whoel brehaha about this earlier with the complaints of: why wasn’t a black sculptor chosen, MLK never stood like that, the sculptr made MLK look asian. I don’t remember where I read these complaints.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:46 am ¶
Celeste wrote:

Maybe they should consult the editors of vogue for the best way to pose him. Could you imgine what that would look like? He’d have his mouth wiiiide open for sure.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 8:50 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

The issue was that the sculptor who won the design was Chinese and had made his reputation in China.

I can understand some of the objections, although some of the rhetoric veered way too closely into anti-Asian territory. I think it may have been preferable to have an American sculptor… African-American especially, Asian-American, or otherwise.

On the other side, the argument was that the hiring of a Chinese sculptor reflects the fact that MLK’s message has become international in scope.

But now that they hired a Chinese sculptor, they’re complaining that the statue is too Chinese in style?!?!?!

Personally, I think the statue is a beautiful expression of the chosen global aesthetic. And at this point, we might as well stick with it.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:03 am ¶
Slush wrote:

It’s not very big…if the scale is correct going by that guy’s head, the statute is about the size of a hobbit. That seems weird to me…

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:07 am ¶
Ali wrote:

Haha, I agree with consulting Anna Wintour for the most aesthetically pleasing way to present MLK. She’d probably have some great ideas! Maybe they could sculpt him climbing up the mountain! I know you meant it as a joke DiosaNegra1967 but I’m sure the committee would be much more comfortable with MLK behind bars than looking at them with arms folded through disappointed eyes for all of eternity.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:13 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Celeste–”He’d have his mouth wiiiide open for sure.”

Friend, you *know* that. LOL

@Ali–”I know you meant it as a joke DiosaNegra1967 but I’m sure the committee would be much more comfortable with MLK behind bars than looking at them with arms folded through disappointed eyes for all of eternity.”

True that.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:47 am ¶
turtlebella wrote:

What a load of well, you know. Can’t have a powerful black man, oh no! We’ll give him a memorial but not the appearance of power or, yeah, as Ali said, that disappointment (in us) in his eyes.

I don’t really ‘get’ the criticism that it’s too much like totalitarian state art. Those statues were pulled down not because of aesthetic reasons, but because of political ones about *who* the statues represented. Now, other people with more knowledge could argue about the aesthetic value of that particular school of art. But it never particularly bothered me.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:54 am ¶
Jeffrey Landale wrote:

I totally see the criticism against it. Seriously, do we want a statue of MLK using imagery that’s associated with dictators like Stalin? If it’s an issue to have a photo of a black man that mimics imagery of a giant ape, then it is an issue to have a statue that mimics the imagery used to glorify totalitarian mass-murderers.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:36 am ¶
Erica B. wrote:

Huh… now they mention it, he actually DOES look a teeny bit like Lenin, but I wouldn’t have thought so without them saying it was in a “totalitarian” style. But statues of dictators usually have arms raised because they’re the revolutionary leader directing their people to greatness — MLK just has his arms crossed.

Personally I wouldn’t have gone with that look, and I also don’t know what message the sculptor was trying to convey, but I’m not an artist. I’m not really bothered by the look, either.

@Slush — What is shown there is just a working model for the final version. They don’t typically make the full-scale until it’s approved (waste of money/time etc).

Posted 09 May 2008 at 10:47 am ¶
rhiain wrote:

I kind of get the totalitarian criticism. It isn’t the stance for me so much as the emerging-from-stone thing. The “confrontational” issue, though–I mean, hi, that’s the whole point.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:19 am ¶
Erica B. wrote:

Not to comment spam but, a quote from the article about the size:

… a 2 1/2 -story sculpture of the civil rights leader carved in a giant chunk of granite. Called the Stone of Hope, it would depict King, standing with his arms folded, looming from the stone. At 28 feet tall, it would be eight feet taller than the statue of Abraham Lincoln in the Lincoln Memorial.

So final version will be immense.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:25 am ¶
Molly wrote:

Given that his message was about openness and tolerance and community, I do see why the crossed arms and scowl are problematic. The scale, on the other hand? I say make it HUGE. A huge, softly smiling MLK, striding forward with a hand extended in partnership towards the viewer? Now that’d be something.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:26 am ¶
Molly wrote:

PS. That said, the sculpture is incredible. A stunning likeness; love love love the uneven background; and the folds in his suit jacket blow me away. I’m not as sure about the legs disappearing into the rock face, though.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:27 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

Seriously, do we want a statue of MLK using imagery that’s associated with dictators like Stalin? If it’s an issue to have a photo of a black man that mimics imagery of a giant ape, then it is an issue to have a statue that mimics the imagery used to glorify totalitarian mass-murderers.

I guess that black man looks too much like…….a man

What would you prefer…him kneeling in prayer…or perhaps his hat in hand with a big ol’ smile?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:31 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

CONTACT INFO

http://www.cfa.gov/contact/index.html

Mailing Address
U. S. Commission of Fine Arts
National Building Museum
401 F Street NW, Suite 312
Washington, DC 20001-2728

Telephone, Fax and Email
Phone (202) 504-2200
Fax (202) 504-2195
Email staff@cfa.gov

The public may email the Commission members at commissioners@cfa.gov. Email will be forwarded to the appropriate Commission member or members.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:34 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

As MLK was CONFRONTING undemocratic despotism within our borders, why would he not be seen as confrontational?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:35 am ¶
Molly wrote:

Have to say, the more I look at it, the more I like it. But what’s in his hand?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:45 am ¶
InJM wrote:

@Erica B.

That is big. The one pictured must be clay miniature. It’s still a pretty powerful work though, clay or stone or whatever.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:50 am ¶
Tiki wrote:

I don’t know if the study for the statue looks so much “confrontational” as it does “closed”. That was my first impression, and I can see why others might think that he looks cross. I feel like a statue of him ought to portray him as open and determined. I see that in the sculptor’s work on King’s face so I guess its the folded arms that are throwing me.

No doubt any tribute to King of this size will get a lot of attention before and after it its made and it makes sense that they should get it right the first time.

I hope the sculptor does a few more drafts.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:51 am ¶
atlasien wrote:

When it comes to the statue, I see a stance that might have something to do with social realism. However, I might be totally off-base… but I’m processing it more as a wuxia (martial arts epic) association.

There’s often a shot in my favorite Tsui Hark movies, in which the hero/heroine has resolved to set forward on a great undertaking against impossible odds, and they look up in the air a bit, firm their chin, freeze and strike a determined pose, while the camera takes a worm’s eye, slightly tilted view. The strings swell, and we know for sure that the bad guys are in for an ass-kicking. It’s always a visually striking moment.

Honestly, that’s what the statue reminds me of. The left-right asymmetry and the “loomingness” give it that feel for me.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:52 am ¶
Jeffrey Landale wrote:

Gatamala, you’re not addressing any of my criticisms. I’m not saying that a statue of MLK should be unimposing or meek, I’m saying that a statue of the man should not be using imagery that is closely associated with despotism and cruelty. That’s the opposite of what he stood for.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:57 am ¶
Anya wrote:

Having worked for a while as a muralist, these kinds of conversations are really familiar. Everyone has an opinion, and *regardless* of what we eventually decide on, the city or state is gonna want it toned down… same thing happens every year.

That said, I did immediately think of Lenin’s cult of personality sculptures when I saw the photo. This pose is jarring, I think, because there’s no famous photo of King with crossed arms. I might have sculpted him resting his chin on his hand, like a massive version of “The Thinker” in a suit. If this sculpture will be located in nature or on a cliff and not on a pedestal, I think it could be a compelling image — and it couldn’t be pulled down.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:01 pm ¶
Persia wrote:

The strings swell, and we know for sure that the bad guys are in for an ass-kicking.

That’s what I saw too. He looks ready to fight.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:04 pm ¶
brad wrote:

First, the statue doesn’t look King. Secondly, the statue is reminiscent of works depicting Stalin and Mao. Thirdly, why the hell is a statue of King being done in a non-democratic, authoritarian, dictatorial country.

Sorry, but I don’t think it honors the memory of King or others who participated in the struggle for human rights for the statue to be made by an artist who also does statues of Mao. Remember Mao, the man responsible for the deaths of 70 million human being?

Why can’t an American do the statue?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:13 pm ¶
macintyre wrote:

There’s so much powerful real-life imagery and text concerning MLK - why not use some of that for a memorial, as a way to convey actual ideas rather than images? The most moving memorials combine ideas and images - the Vietnam War Memorial with it’s shape, color, and names; the Lincoln memorial with the texts of Lincoln’s speeches engraved in the sides. Just representing King’s physical being seems a trivialization.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
Paul wrote:

The real problem is the lionization of MLK as the prime force behind teh Movement. A much more fitting memorial would include DuBois, Washington, Turner, Douglass, X, Truth, et al.. A memorial like that would point out that a People struggled and fought, not a man.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶
Feminist Punk! wrote:

Haha, made in China. LOL.

Uh, shouldn’ t the statue be designed, constructed and made in USA?

I’m sorry but that’s just… hilarious!

Posted 09 May 2008 at 12:57 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

Jeffrey, I guess I just don’t agree that it uses such imagery. I do believe that there is a mythical, appeasing MLK that makes some folks more comfortable with their understanding of the country and their role (active or inherited) in it. The man spoke truth to power, he appealed to conscience…but he did not beg.

However, I might be totally off-base… but I’m processing it more as a wuxia (martial arts epic) association.

ok, that would be fuckin’ cool! I’ve seen this stance and….considering the sculptor maybe you’re not off base!!!

Posted 09 May 2008 at 1:02 pm ¶
Sulyp wrote:

And what’s wrong with confrontational anyway? Confrontation does not always mean violent tendencies. I guess this point escapes most when dealing with the nuanced stereotypes of what a “good” black man is supposed to be.

Like Steve Biko (Denzel Washington) said to the judge in “Cry Freedom”:

Judge: ‘Asking for confrontation is asking for violence.’

Biko: ‘You and I are in confrontation, and I see no violence.’

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
Shawna wrote:

Celeste, that vogue comment had me laughing.

I find it fascinating that a sculpture can strike fear into their hearts, and sad that anyone would be wary of the message such a visionary could pass on via a strong image post-mortem.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:21 pm ¶
Divergent Dana wrote:

Wasn’t the Statue of Liberty made in France?

I agree with brad on the inherent irony of having it done in China in particular, but I don’t think that an American artist has to construct it in America.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:28 pm ¶
jet wrote:

Actually, I think it’s straight up ugly.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 2:41 pm ¶
vodalus wrote:

Sorry to be dumb, but it says that the statue will be at the “Tidal Basin”–does that mean that it might be position such that MLK is staring out across the waters? I think that the current version would not fit well with the other monuments on The Mall, but I think that it would be incredibly powerful to see it gaze over the water at the horizon. (Man, my chest gets all tight just imagining that giant presence.)

Posted 09 May 2008 at 3:05 pm ¶
DiosaNegra1967 wrote:

;^) @ Ali and gatamala!

I was using sarcasm and I’m speculating here, but the “committee” would most likely prefer that Dr. King be behind bars….

Divergent Dana: “Libby” (as I affectionately call her) was made in France as a gift to the US….waaay back when….

There has been much discussion about the original “Libby”, saying that she was a tribute to Black slaves and freedom (even having broken chains at her feet); however, there is and has been much debate about this and much has been written. IMHO, her features do look rather “ethnic” to me….

And, it is IRONIC that the statue is made/done in China….not saying that the artist is lacking in anyway….just saying that it’s ironic…..

Posted 09 May 2008 at 3:05 pm ¶
Lyonside wrote:

>Wasn’t the Statue of Liberty made in France?

It was, and made in pieces too because the US at the time was coming out of Reconstruction and couldn’t afford to pay for their share all at once. I just heard about how the torch and arm (the only parts made at the time) were placed in Philly’s Memorial Hall and opened to the public; people paid money go inside and walk tot he top of the torch, and it started the idea that public works and parks could be money-makers too.

In other words, the idea is not new, what matters is who pays for it and where the statue finally rests. Most of the arguments against come across as both xenophobic and short-sighted.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶
Folklore Fanatic wrote:

Paul @28:

I happen to think that MLKJr. does represent more than just one man, but if I had to pick one person in the entire Civil Rights movement to represent PoC? He would still be it.

It would be nive to have a statue of Loving or Parks, too, if they were going to do more than one CR-Era figure. You know, a woman? Lest we forget some of the pivotal moments that won us the victories that we have today.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶
RainaWeather wrote:

It SHOULD look confrontational, because MLK was confrontational. I think this says a lot about how people view him. Many people still think of MLK as the nice man who made the “I have a dream” speech. Not the man who was highly critical of our government and society.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 5:09 pm ¶
Wilfredo wrote:

Isn’t there a portrait in the White House of JFK in almost exactly the same pose. The difference is that JFK’s head is looking down. Am I wrong?

http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/floor1/entrance-hall.htm

Posted 09 May 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶
Merldi wrote:

But he’s chinese!!!
But he’s chinese!!!
But he’s chinese!!!

What a munch of bigots.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 5:55 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

Too Pharoah-ish, emerging from the rock like that. Reminds me somewhat of the Ramses rescued from the Aswan Dam. Somehow, I can’t see MLKJr being depicted as Pharoah when he preached about Moses and the Promised Land.

Style of hyperrealism, unless done by a great artist, is stiff and “dead”. (For good examples of workable hyperrealist portrait sculpture, I am thinking of some of the ancient Roman portrait busts and of the portrait busts of Bernini).

I’d rather have a slightly less realistic and formal sculpture - perhaps about to give a speech - that preacher stance that says, “Listen up!”. Actually, I’d like to see him in bronze, because an additive, plastic sculpturing method, allowing for some hand-built texture, seems more “live”. I see MLK as one of the defiant Burghers of Calais (Rodin - in the outdoor sunken sculpture garden on the Washington Mall). I can’t recall the name of the Italian sculptor, now dead, who made a set of bronze doors for Pope John XXIII and who did a lot of portraiture in bronze.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 6:02 pm ¶
dirkdiggler wrote:

All the complaints that the artist isn’t American is utter crap and pretext. They don’t mind that he’s not American, but they seriously mind the fact that he’s Chinese. So if the artist were a white American, I guess it would be more palatable? If we’re talking strictly in terms of race then, i guess for many “Americans,” it would be far better for the artist to be same ethnicity of the assassin of MLK than a Chinese artist.

And MLK stood for what?

That being said, that sculpture is terrible.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 9:04 pm ¶
Mogs wrote:

the statue does really remind me of a lot of statues of Soviet leaders. the resemblance is quite strong, actually. on the other hand, MLK was a strong and tenacious man in the service of his cause, so why not show him that way? on the other other hand, he was committed to nonviolence, so why honor him with a statue reminiscent of statues of Mao, Stalin, and Hussein?

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:00 pm ¶
drydock wrote:

Perhaps the social realist tradition is more fitting with Dubois than MLK.

“Joseph Stalin was a great man”
WEB Dubois

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:05 pm ¶
Juan wrote:

“RainaWeather wrote:

It SHOULD look confrontational, because MLK was confrontational. I think this says a lot about how people view him. Many people still think of MLK as the nice man who made the “I have a dream” speech. Not the man who was highly critical of our government and society.

Posted 09 May 2008 at 5:09 pm ¶ ”

Just wanted to quote that. For love and truth. =)

Posted 09 May 2008 at 11:10 pm ¶
Supafrosh wrote:

I see it two ways:

1) He’s standing firm. That’s why he’s got that solid sheet of rock behind him. He’s not going anywhere, and plus you have to face him to see him.

2) On the other hand, he has his back to the wall, representing the struggles of minorities everywhere who’ve had their backs to the wall for centuries.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:16 am ¶
Cat wrote:

=/
I have no problem with where the sculptor comes from, but I’m uncomfortable that he does the Mao sculptures. The two men stand for completely different things.

As for the model itself, it just doesn’t look like him…
I’ve always loved this image of him, but i doubt it’d translate well:

http://gosandiegocard.com/blog/files/2008/01/sandiego-dr-king.jpg

^_^. I do love the idea that it’ll stand so large over the tidal basin.

hmph. Maybe it’s perfect, maybe our government will remember all the other things he said, like, our country is the greatest purveyor of violence of our time.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:17 am ¶
Lisa wrote:

Chinese art perspective here. The sculptor is a mediocre artist with a background in social realist propaganda works. The style, and the artist, have loads of baggage. If they had chosen a more progressive Chinese artist, it would be a different discourse altogether.

I appreciate this style a lot, I like it. But it has its time and place and suitability, ie Chinese communist resistance to the Japanese. However, it’s a cheap replication of all of the 1960s Socialist Realist sculpture I see daily in China, and I think MLK deserves better.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:34 am ¶
Kendra wrote:

I’m not sure how I’m supposed to perceive his stance and expression. I see him like a disapproving father-figure or something of the sort, and that reminds me of the theme of the Civil Rights movement: turning America right-side up. You don’t let your child continue to do wrong, you fix the problem one way or another. You have to be critical and realistic, and you can be optimistic so that you remain hopeful. But you can’t just condone wrong acts, and you shouldn’t go about pointing fingers. Be an agent, be active. Do something about it. This is what MLK was about.

I’m wondering if the sculpture reflected on how MLK might consider America today. The Civil Rights movement was very unique in how it helped many groups of people start their own movements. The group helped most by the Civil Rights movement were Caucasian women, so I also think it a bit odd when people put a strictly “black” face on the movement. Maybe the Black Power movement, but not the Civil Rights movement.

I don’t see anything seriously wrong with the sculpture, given the history of its subject. But I know it would doubtlessly be changed, so I look forward to a nice revised version.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:39 am ¶
Lisa wrote:

Additionally: Please let’s not use this as one more excuse for *Bash China!!!*

China is a diverse country with wonderful but beleaguered, impoverished and getting worse, people. Not to mention some amazing albeit over-hyped art.

It would have been great if they had hired a respected but controversial Chinese sculptor, like say Liu Jianhua, to do it. No, they went with the conservative government darling. No one should be surprised by the results.

The results being: a Chinese artist reinforcing the worst stereotypes of China, rather than one who could dispell them. This guy wouldn’t even get a show at a mediocre gallery in China, what sort of government puschage was involved in his getting this gig in the first place?

Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:46 am ¶
jvansteppes wrote:

Is it fair Brad, to assume this artist is a Maoist?

Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:18 am ¶
Ruth Ferguson wrote:

First, for me it is not that he is Chinese but that once again we are outsourcing something else. However, that said aside from the history of the Statute of Liberty was a gift from France - I have no idea who made what of the other well known monuments.

Regarding the design rather than get caught up in the buzz word confontational - for me the question is that it does not fit my image of Dr. King. Yes he challenged power boldly but he also had an air of humility. For me that is not reflected in this.

No he does not have to be kneeling as somone suggested earlier - but bearing in mind he was a minister of God first and foremost nothing wrong with that. I have no artistic skill but I know this does not capture the spirit of his legacy for me.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 3:20 am ¶
Tom Head wrote:

I like the sculpture and the power it projects, but as far as I can remember MLK never actually stood like that. That’s a very macho, military posture. MLK was confrontational, but the posture just doesn’t look like him. Love the expression, though.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 4:02 am ¶
Davis wrote:

I can’t find a single photo online of MLK with his arms crossed across his chest. The most frequent pose seems to be an oratorial pose with his right hand pointing outwards/upwards. That sounds about right.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 9:21 am ¶
deb wrote:

Perhaps if Dr. King were on his knees with his hands folded in prayer and his eyes caste skyward…..they would prefer it more?

Word. (The story behind this image is interesting.)

Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶
Elton wrote:

MLK was probably the most intellectual of American heroes. Who else memorialized on the Mall has a doctorate?

In that sense, I can see why the committee is probably going to eventually force the sculpture into something more like Rodin’s “Thinker”. Something evoking his peacemaker/philosopher/orator reputation. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.

However, given the deep level of anti-intellectualism in American culture, and the fact that an educated, nonviolent negro like MLK represented the worst fears of the white establishment, I think the “stern” look of the current iteration definitely represents MLK’s legacy–striving to make America wake up to our racial problems, and reminding us into the 21st century that we have not yet reached the promised land. It’s defiant and edgy, just like MLK was. He was a peacemaker, and he advocated nonviolence, but he would have settled for nothing but our best.

Finally, he was not some gentle soul who quietly passed away in his sleep of old age after accomplishing a lifetime of work. His life was cut brutally short at a young age by an assassin’s bullet, like so many great, great people of that time. We must remember the hope and promise of the 60s, and a statue of MLK in a more defiant, stern pose would shock us into realizing how much times have changed in his absence.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:59 pm ¶
dan wrote:

“MLK was probably the most intellectual of American heroes. Who else memorialized on the Mall has a doctorate?”

That’s little bit of a stretch. Yes, MLK was very intelligent. But, Jefferson, FDR, and Einstein are also memorialized on the mall.

Don’t sleep on FDR, he graduated from Harvard. He dropped out of law school because he passed the NY state bar during studies. Didn’t really need to finish.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 3:03 pm ¶
Tree wrote:

It’s a bit intriguing that the size of the statue within the context of another work, the Lincoln Memorial, is brought up in the article but strangely absent from commentary.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s statue being larger implies the great strides taken in the 20th Century, as opposed to the 19th.

And yet…Abraham Lincoln is seated. Hmm.

The statue could be a bit larger. As for the communism aspect; at least he doesn’t look like Felix Druzhinsky. (Granted, there are better sculptors capable of creating stronger statues without strident, tetchy arm crossing.)

I’d say the biggest problem I can define in the sculpture is its repetition of the minorities-coming-out-of-stone motif (like the Crazy Horse sculpture to be built, sometime…whenever.) It seems to imply at the very least something earthy and primitive about quite intelligent, abstract people.

The Jefferson and FDR statues do not have these leanings. Given that the sculptor is a political darling, what makes you think he didn’t evaluate this statue’s conformity with images of other ethnic minorities commissioned in the U.S. recently? (China and the U.S. have very similar views on their ethnic minorities.)

Posted 10 May 2008 at 9:11 pm ¶
A. wrote:

Anger? Confrontation about being treated as second class citizens and a confrontational attitude against a system that was against PoC, through and through?

How dare Dr. King have been that way!

If it’s confrontational, so what? Dr. King wasn’t considered as being some sort of fuzzy happy figure among white people during his day, and to this day, most people only selectively read what they wish out of Dr. King.

Posted 10 May 2008 at 9:13 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

A memorial walks a fine line between art and politics and the really brilliant ones manage both. People who are looking for more one than the other will come away disappointed and criticizing who makes a memorial, its style and position within a city are the standard complaints (see: Maya Lin’s Vietnam Memorial, Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, and the endless arguing over the 9/11 memorial at Ground Zero).

As for this proposal, I like it a lot.

It has presence, which is perhaps what makes people so uncomfortable. An attitude of pious supplication would make me roll my eyes and walk right past but this…this I would stop and contemplate. And isn’t that what a memorial is supposed to do?

Posted 11 May 2008 at 11:10 am ¶
Kai wrote:

The sculpture is gorgeous, stunning, powerful, and boldly, grandly assertive. I think that’s probably what some people don’t like about it. The face is determined yet serene, with a beautifully clear, penetrating gaze. The arms are folded in a relaxed, casual manner with shoulders down. He has a pen in his hand, indicating his weapon of choice. He is emerging from the stone’s angular mass as though rising from bondage and formlessness into freedom and human form.

Statues of totalitarian leaders are freestanding and usually have one arm raised in a salute. This piece moves in a completely different artistic direction. When I look at it, what comes to my mind is King’s rousing 1957 speech “The Birth of a New Nation” about the revolution in the Gold Coast and the inauguration of Kwame Nkrumah as prime minister of the newly independent nation of Ghana, an event which King attended and which inspired him greatly. If you haven’t heard King deliver this speech, you haven’t heard King.

I can’t wait to see the actual memorial in person. I’ll probably drop to my knees at the base of the pedestal and weep.

Posted 11 May 2008 at 2:02 pm ¶
tzemingdynasty wrote:

I like his face, and the pose too. Staunch. But the body overall and sculptural style, with him rising out of the granite and such? It’s Tiananmen Square, baby. Trust me, I’ve lived in Beijing. Any Mainland Chinese sees this prototype, they’ll think it’s Mao Luther King. To really set it off though, he kind of needs a whole muscular troupe of revolutionaries following behind him, carrying sheaves of wheat and heavy industrial machinery. That would be awesome. Because socialist realist sculpture is awesome. My family suffered plenty at the hands of the CCP and I’m an avowed Chinese democracy advocate, but you know, totalitarianism wasn’t the fault of socialist realist art. The fact that Chinese socialist realism is being used to commemorate MLK is more surreal than offensive, to me. Funny thing is, Chinese socialist realist sculpture didn’t look anything like Chinese people either; it looked like Russians with slitty eyes.

And come on, you have to admit that the Russian Futurists were fucking cool.

Posted 11 May 2008 at 8:17 pm ¶
Marcus Kwame wrote:

Wow… even if you’re a black man who devotes your life to non-violent struggle some people will still see you as a threat. A non-violent man doesn’t become a totalitarian dictator with a mere gesture. It never ceases to amaze me just how feared we are in this country. I think that statue is very powerful and as an artist I would hate to see the sculptor’s vision compromised.

Posted 12 May 2008 at 10:43 am ¶
Elton wrote:

Has anyone noticed that MLK is standing in a b-boy stance? Ahead of his time, people.

Posted 12 May 2008 at 6:08 pm ¶
The D-man wrote:

I found one, I believe a particularly notable pic of MLK with his arms crossed:

http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/images/mlk.jpg

The similarities are pretty strong, particularly the pen in hand. The difference seems to be the scultpor gave him a sterner look. Though I think it would be best called a serious look.

It’s completely different from pretty much every statue of dictators which tend to have a very disinterested look and often arms raised, though Lenin statues look angry that’s because his disinterested look IS angry.

I find it interesting that people here seem to still be under the misconception that Mao was somehow a dictator, though. Mao never was the sole person with power and frequently had his power diminished or seriously threatened. Zhou Enlai, on the other hand, remained in his position from the foundation of China to his death and was never in any serious danger of being removed despite his apparent opposition to much of Mao’s policies.

Posted 12 May 2008 at 6:38 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

Official sculptures are rarely high quality art.

Lisa is right. This is Chinese socialist realism - Mao territory. And, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia had their share of hyperrealistic stiff authority figures.

MLKJr was better than that. Prophet, preacher, politician - and human.

Posted 12 May 2008 at 8:12 pm ¶
Confrontational Man wrote:

We common people need to make sure the Commission is not emasculating the “confrontational” idea that people should be treated as equal regardless of race. The establishment has always been itching to slap the label “controversial” to anything they perceive as threatful to their agenda, and definitely nothing short of having an “MLK-Lite” image (think Desmond Tutu) will appease them.

They can’t stomach the thought of having a monumental image of a strong black man stare down the national monuments of slaveowners with their hypocritical rantings they call “Bill of Rights”. I might be fantasizing, but this single “confrontational” image might just be the antidote to the poisonous crunk, hyphy, gangsta, nigglature images we all have been dying from.

The Commission knew this and would fight to the bitter end. They can’t even accept an image of him emerging from the stone. He has to still be trapped in the stone. Don’t get trapped in the “totalitarian” or “outsourcing” argument. They are afraid of the “revolutionary” aspect of this image.

Sincerely
Someone concerned about our image

Posted 30 May 2008 at 11:41 pm ¶

MLK Tribute Statue is Too “Confrontational”

Trackbacks & Pings

Comments

Post a Comment

« Home

About This Post

Categories

Interact

Subscribe to This Blog

Search

About This Blog