Sculpter Jean-Sebastian Raud (known to people who don't know him as "Froggy") has a new piece of art he hopes will be accepted into the National 9/11 Memorial Museum. To read from his press release, it is a moving piece of art, showing both the innocence and determination to find humanity and justice in the act of terrorism that killed about 3,000 people.
Yeah, and you won't happen to notice the naked woman.
The bronze sculpture, which actually looks artistically interesting, looks like this:
(P.S., Don't look if you're easily offended. OK, I'm sure you're still looking ... let's dispense with the formalities):
Again, art is completely subjective, and the artist himself explains
the piece this way...
"The first tower in front, facing the audience, the woman's nudity symbolizes timelessness and universality, so that the work can be read by a contemporary audience as well as by future generations. Nudity also symbolizes the fragility which is inherent to victims. The blindfolded eyes evoke the victims of blind terrorism, the bound hands represent the loss of freedom as well as the blockage of the body frozen in an ocean of concrete and material.
The second tower, pictures a man holding a sword, tightly sealed in the ground. It expresses the impossible defence against the unpredicted and coward attack. The man holds this sword firmly, with his hands tight, which also symbolizes strength and resistance. The crown evokes hope and the triumpth of freedom, as well as the links of friendship and fraternity between France and the USA."
OK. I can kind of buy that. However, just a few things, when I look at art completed 500 years ago, and there's a naked woman, I usually don't think: "Wow, nudity means A, B and C." I think, well, something along the lines of Beavis and Butthead. "Uh-huh-huh. That chick's naked." I accept it isn't the most mature thought process, but I'll go ahead and embrace it as mine. And another thing: That chick's naked.
Now, I don't think anyone should freak out about this. The nudity is explained by Mr. Raud and I'm sure, in his heart of hearts, he wasn't trying to turn someone on with art that could turn so many people off. And it's not like he should have to cover-up his lady like Mr. Ashcroft did with Lady Justice.
And I would never, ever suggest the artist Jean-Sebastian Raud has somehow tainted the tragedy of 9/11. Art is very subjective. And while I'll suggest that it seems a bit of an odd choice, I am not offended by the nudity, nor the really, really large sword. I just think that 500 years from now, our offspring are going to look at this piece of artwork and think: "Uh-huh-huh. That chick's naked."
Well maybe not your offspring. Probably mind.
(Ladies, can I have a moment to chat with you, just one-on-one? Listen, I'm sorry this always happens -- but you just have to learn that in our society for the last, oh, 7,000 years or so, your breasts are weapons of body mass index destruction. Be they your own, or artistic renderings of them. They should never be seen -- unless it is by some dude-artist who is being artistic with them [or it's an issue of BustD Magazine.] Our culture is somehow both shocked and intrigued by them -- like they are a car wreck on your chest. And it doesn't matter if it's a jackknifed semi erupting in flames or a side-street fender-bender. And I have no idea why. But I'm pretty sure Jean just added them to his art so people will look at it and say: "Wow, how expressive" while they are actually looking at breasts.)
(Dudes, can I have a moment to chat with you, just one-on-one? Listen, I know that the woman in the piece of art is naked. That doesn't mean the piece of art wants to have sex with you. It just means the piece of art is considering having sex with you -- and you might want to buy it one more shot of Jameson).
(Ladies, can I have a moment to chat with you, just one-on-one? Listen, I'm sorry this always happens -- but you just have to learn that in our society for the last, oh, 7,000 years or so, your breasts are weapons of body mass index destruction. Be they your own, or artistic renderings of them. They should never be seen -- unless it is by some dude-artist who is being artistic with them [or it's an issue of BustD Magazine.] Our culture is somehow both shocked and intrigued by them -- like they are a car wreck on your chest. And it doesn't matter if it's a jackknifed semi erupting in flames or a side-street fender-bender. And I have no idea why. But I'm pretty sure Jean just added them to his art so people will look at it and say: "Wow, how expressive" while they are actually looking at breasts.)
(Dudes, can I have a moment to chat with you, just one-on-one? Listen, I know that the woman in the piece of art is naked. That doesn't mean the piece of art wants to have sex with you. It just means the piece of art is considering having sex with you -- and you might want to buy it one more shot of Jameson).
If you'd like to learn more about Raud's artistic tribute to 9/11, here's the link to his web page... at it, you'll be able to read all the positive reviews of his 9/11 tribute.
I am checking out the images again. To see if it starts to move me in an emotional way, making me think of humanity and how we are determined to live despite the tragedy. To keep true to freedom. To appreciate our friendship with the French and how great it is to live in America..
She's still naked.
No comments:
Post a Comment