Slog - Comments on Statue of Martin Luther King Jr. Looks Kind of Uppity

Comment by Andy Niable

Andy Niable — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:57:13 -0800

Hmmm. While we're at it, can we add a few changes to Rushmore?

Comment by Anon

Anon — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:57:32 -0800

A 3 page article without pictures? Worthless!

Comment by Mike

Mike — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:00:37 -0800

The statue is totalitarian looking. I think a more humanistic representation would be better. (I am not a trained critic or play one on tv.)

Comment by Apsaras

Apsaras — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:00:56 -0800

Just get out and let Dr. King have the car. It's not worth losing your life over.

Comment by Karlheinz Arschbomber

Karlheinz Arschbomber — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:06:01 -0800

I think the commission is correct. The current version looks more Kim-Jong-Il than MLK.

Comment by NapoleonXIV

NapoleonXIV — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:06:04 -0800

Whoa--I clicked on the picture, prepared to be outraged by this, and after seeing it, my first thought was

pudgy Lenin.

Comment by Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:10:34 -0800

Why are we out sourcing publicly funded art to the Chinese??

Comment by Lesley

Lesley — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:12:09 -0800

"Commissioner Jose L. Galvez III said he thought the sculpture lacked a sense of King's power."

Bullshit. That sculpture radiates power.

I like the current design, it makes me think that he's watching over all the crazy fucks in Congress and the White House.

Comment by Uppity

Uppity — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:15:53 -0800

It really is a butt-ugly statue.

Comment by LMSW

LMSW — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:16:31 -0800

this was the kind of picture they wanted, right?

http://z.about.com/d/afroamhistory/1/8/M/R/martin_luther_king_gallery8.jpg

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:24:02 -0800

I think they should make the statue bigger and put GWB's head beneath his foot.

Comment by Drew

Drew — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:29:54 -0800

Their comments are poorly phrased, but they're basically right. That statue sucks.

Comment by elswinger

elswinger — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:01:21 -0800

This is a no-win situation. I would have used an image reminiscent of him giving his speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Comment by Kristen

Kristen — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:04:22 -0800

I think the problem a liberal like me would have with the quote is in the arts commission's sloppy choice of "confrontational," as the word to describe what's wrong with the statue. The folded arms suggest that, perhaps, but what they should have said was "as art it's laughably dated(HEROIC REALISM? For crap's sake....)and as as a political statement, it suggests an unfortunate deference to just the sort of oppression that Dr. King gave his life to fight."

Comment by Hernandez

Hernandez — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:11:47 -0800

He looks so...disappointed, and angry with us.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:57:25 -0800

Dr. King's statue should be confrontational. That's the whole Goddamn point. It would be a great insult to his memory to construct a statue that's comfortably banal, probably as great an insult as most public MLK day events, where we hear platitudes mouthed from podiums to assuage our collective white guilt so we can pretend for one day that we give a shit about black people.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:00:28 -0800

The thing is, I want a confrontational, intimidating statue of Dr. King staring at Capitol Hill 24/7. I think it would do a lot of good.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:15:23 -0800

I agree with Greg.

Comment by -B-

-B- — Sat, 10 May 2008 10:37:45 -0800

Ahhh! Public art and politics.