Chris Beckwith writes: > what > the Mary sculpture demonstrates is that we don't > need a Jeff Koons anymore, nor the ironic > quotation marks that bracket so much of Pop art. > Some of the more "elitist" types might mentally > put the quotation marks back when they view the > Mary sculpture - as a matter of comfort - but for > most viewers, the Mary sculpture is what it is, > and they discern no irony (becase it generates > none) nor underhanded critique. In short, there is > no joke. It's purely affirmative. And that's > what's so damn strange about it. It invites no > critical or reflective capacity at all. It may as > well be a TV screen instead of a sculpture - I > simply stare back at it.
I think Chris has hit upon a great "blind spot" of art critics - the disdain, or perhaps disorientation, of "affirmative" art. It's always confused me that we want art to reflect the breadth of human experience yet art insiders (and I'm not accusing Chris of being one in this case) only want the colors that reflect subversion, joke, irony. Now, I love those things more than the next guy, but I don't see why there isn't room for populist art that's just...populist. Fun. Affirming. Not much more. I disagree that Mary invites no critical or reflective capacity (my wife, just yesterday, issued this critique: "the face doesn't look very much like Mary Tyler Moore." Her other criticism: it shouldn't be in the middle of the sidewalk, but more to the curb. But I digress and jest). Certainly, the critiques have flowed with or without invitation, but I think Chris is really wrong about the reflective aspect. I went to the unveiling as a statue skeptic (more on that later), and came away a believer. There were so many - dare I say it? - happy faces in the crowd. Sure, there was the star-power factor, but more than that, there were so many women who were Mary's age and are Mary's age who clearly resonate with this character - it reflected something important in their lives, their awareness as single women discovering their power, or as a touchstone of an incredibly optimistic time (early '70s) in Minneapolis history. Yes, Mary Richards is ersatz. But the meaning is real. My biggest problem with the Mary statue is context. She deserves her place, but so do so many other real Minneapolitans who have done real things - we need *more* statues, not to get rid of this one. Just the other week, I was biking back from Art-a-Whirl along Marshall Street and I came by a statue I'd somehow missed before. The base simply read "Pioneers." It was cool. It caught my eye because of its size, and because there's a modern rambler behind it whose picture window is pretty well blocked by the thing (what's it like to see the butts of Pioneers every day from your picture window? Paging Chuck Haga.). We need more statues to prominent Minneapolitans, to inspire the reflection, or maybe the curiosity, and even I suppose the subversion in certain circumstances. There are serious doubts we could get a true rainbow of contributions (I foresee the p.c. police versus the rigid classicists resulting in gridlock), but heck, let's try anyway. By the way, I still love Sheldon Mains' Hall of Activists idea - I just think the statues should be out on the streets, where good activists are supposed to be. David Brauer King Field Who still dreams of building a arch decorated by local artists over a King Field intersection _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
