"The Child Who Was Never Born"

The statue is horrible.

Jeanne's blogpost says it all for me really.

The overtly Christian imagery is off putting and the woman shaming basis of the whole piece, by a man no less, is just grim.

Creator's intention is not the only, and indeed not the key factor in assessing art or literature.

If the image is perceived as relevant/resonant/comforting by those who are deeply missing the children that never lived other than in utero, then it could (and to me should) be accepted as such.

Cwtch, the article upthread suggests otherwise, unfortunately.

From what I understand, the artist never meant it to be about abortion and that's just other people's takes on the sculpture?

I think art is very personal. It means different things to different people. To me that sculpture shows a grieving mother who's child is comforting her I think. I find it quite comforting. Like its representing my baby will always be with me, growing as I grow. I can see how perhaps it appears the child is forgiving the mother, but I know when I miscarried I felt a terrible sense of guilt that my body couldn't support my baby. I wanted forgiveness because I wanted something to ease the terrible pain and guilt I was experiencing. It feels to me that the mother's position is showing her absolute heart wrenching devastation, when your whole body aches; and the child is trying to say 'it's okay mommy I'm with you' and that brings me a lot of comfort.

Gosh don't be uncomfortable. I'd rather look at something and know all the facts.

It is rather beautiful if it was made with my interpretation of it. However, the whole forgiveness for abortion (I had a tfmr so abortion is a passionate subject for me) is utter bollocks. No one needs to be forgiven for making a choice that was either right for them or, in our case, right for their baby.

Well, that used to have meaning for me (spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage).

And I sincerely hope my dear friend who has a TFMR never reads these or similar comments, for I know she found to beautiful.

But hey, that's probably not edgy enough for an artist, is it?

A woman standing, with a transparent child hugging her round her waist would have been a better symbolisation, without any need for 'forgiveness' on the unborn child's part, but the reminder that they're always there with you.

I have a little ornament quite similar to this that my friend got for me after I miscarried my son. I think it's beautiful and represents exactly how I feel. That my son will always be with me even if he isn't here physically.

Interesting, I'd always assumed it to be about miscarriage or infertility. Hadn't realised the abortion connotations. Gone off it a bit now!

Well that's ruined it for me.

I'd always assumed it was for lost children not a judgy abortion comment.

I still like to think of it as describing how I feel about my dd2 though.

(Teaches me to rtft before commenting!)

It's recognising those children who were never born alive and lost (not anti abortion)

I have always found it very moving and lovely that someone has managed to symbolise that my dd2 will never be seen by others but that she is always with me (in a non religious way)

I'm not sure what there is to be angry about, unless the pro life brigade have started trying to use it.

I wonder how many miscarriages, still births or abortions Martin has had.

I wrote about this a while ago. Putting a link in case anyone's interested. readingmedievalbooks.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/deconstructing-the-visuals-of-martin-hudaceks-anti-abortion-memorial/

I think (as I said in the link) that it's a really manipulative piece, because it's using all sorts of visual vocabulary based in Christian art, which a lot of us will have seen and internalised, but may not consciously recognise. I dislike the implications of it.

I think it's dreadful

It feels like an unpleasant political statement in the context of abortion, and a serene work of art in the context of miscarriage. It's hard to know what to think without context.

I've had two abortions...one which upset me a lot at the time, one which didn't upset me at all.

I don't feel guilty or traumatised about either but I still don't find the sculpture offensive or upsetting. I find it peaceful.

Each to their own though.

I think if someone feels guilt or is still traumatised by an abortion then this is may be a very moving sculpture.

I do dislike the implication that guilt, trauma, forgiveness etc are a part of all abortions.

I did read the article, thanks, including the purpose of the artist, and the quotes about 'the child lost to abortion' and 'repentance' and 'forgiveness by the child'.

I stand by my opinion.

Who gives a shit whether you are over-reacting or not? You are an adult, you do not need anyone's permission to express your thoughts. Go on, let rip.

What I would suggest is to tweak the settings on your FB account so that those who express overly-sentimental pieces of twaddle are ignored.

Well, its a sculpture offering a philosophical outlook that probably won't resonate with people who aren't religious.

I think it would have been much better if he'd left out the child altogether! The grieving woman alone is wonderful. And I'd recommend he change the title too. I find it sentimental/twee but that's what people like.