Statue to honour Wollstonecraft

[MedusasBadHairDay]

www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/10/mary-wollstonecraft-finally-honoured-with-statue-after-200-years

It's a naked woman..

Currently reading A Vindication of the Rights of Woman for an OU course, and - unless the tone changes dramatically in the second half of it - I'm not seeing how an idealised nude is the right statue to convey anything about her?

Oh I forgot about her shell at Aldeburgh - now that I liked.

Arrrggh.

That's so fucking regressive.

Once again it's all about the male gaze.

@WeeBisom

Her being naked is obviously shitty, but I also noticed she appears to be coming out of water or waves and it's ...a tad insensitive seeing as she tried to drown herself in the Thames.

Oh god

NeurotrashWarrior
Losing sight of primary aims definitely feels like a contender for what's happened here. I'd just like those who made the choice, whatever the reasons, to take a bit of responsibility for what is unfortunately a rather poor choice instead of hiding behind the artist.

It's like the Jonathan Creek episode where an artist includes him in an ensemble mural as a naked cherub and he's expected to be flattered when it's obviously totally and utterly humiliating for him. Why would anyone be flattered by being depicted as a tiny, naked person? It really is baffling what went through these people's minds.

This is so disappointing, I have contributed to the campaign for this bloody thing. There has been a graffiti stencil of her on the side of the Unitarian Church in Newington Green for years which is a much better tribute imo.

"Clothes define people and restrict people, they restrict people's reaction. She's naked and she's every woman.

Nakedness defines and restricts people - in particular women too. I've read the etymology of the word doesn't just imply a natural state , but rather not fully clothed, lacking something. Stripped.

This isn't 'everywoman'. If that was the idea, I reckon the unknown artist who created the Willendorf Venus did a better job.

I HATE it with a visceral passion and am so disappointed. My expertise is in art theory, and frankly I just think the sculpture is trash, and does not in any way fulfil the brief of public sculpture. It’s not a gallery piece or a decorative piece, it’s a commemoration and educational piece.

When you look at it, you wouldn’t even think it’s meant to represent her or her work. It just looks like any piece of budget D list sculpture, with some kind of raccoon shoved up her fanny.

I genuinely question whether the artist actually knows who Mary is, or what she did. Equally I have to question whether she gave any thought to the function and context of the work.

It’s dire. It’s an insult to Mary, and an insult to efforts to ensure greater representation of women in art—there are quite enough poorly sculpted decorative female nudes out there.

Fuxake. I was so happy when I heard about this and now I'm bursting with rage.

@BewareTheBeardedDragon

This is so disappointing, I have contributed to the campaign for this bloody thing. There has been a graffiti stencil of her on the side of the Unitarian Church in Newington Green for years which is a much better tribute imo.

They got rid of that stencil

I genuinely question whether the artist actually knows who Mary is, or what she did
I agree she's just picked some random quote from the Internet and used her imagination to say what she wants to say. It's a complete failure, embarrassing.

DH has just taught a course on Wollstonecraft to first year undergrads, mainly young women.
He was going to let them know about the statue -but then saw it and thought better...

“....it’s a porn body”
Says DH

Apparently this is not a statue of Wollstonecraft....

So can we have our money back?

They got rid of that stencil
Whaaaaaat??? F.F.S I used to walk past it daily. It was so much better, and didn't take years of debate and £100s of 1000s to create.

twitter.com/fawcettsociety/status/1326122041024655363?s=09

Beam me up Scottie I've had enough
It's trending on twtter by the way

I like this image from the bbc as it reminds me of Rodin, who I adore, but as Onjn says, that would be in the context of a gallery, or a decorative piece. Not public statue commemoration. I do find the woman at the top a little odd after the boiling exciting forms below.

I have to keep reminding myself it's "for her," and I get that, but then, why can't she have an actual image of her? Must she still be hidden?

@BewareTheBeardedDragon

They got rid of that stencil Whaaaaaat??? F.F.S I used to walk past it daily. It was so much better, and didn't take years of debate and £100s of 1000s to create.

I feel a Banksy coming on...

If anybody fancies supporting a statue of Virginia Woolf (clothed) then there is a project set up to raise funds for it.

Info here: twitter.com/VWoolfStatue

How long before she’s wearing a tiny “adult human female” t-shirt?

mobile.twitter.com/BoozeAndFagz/status/1326254221860229122

Little got there first...

See upthread!

It's ok, she's a c*s, heteronormative white vagina-haver; some white lefty dude will be along to tear it down shortly in the interests of social justice.

Oh sorry Little I failed to read the whole thread :)