Posted: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:55 pmEmerald Red wrote:This reminds me of the sculptures I seen of 9/11, where so called artists used the harrowing images of the jumpers set in the pose in which they were captured falling. For me, personally, and as an artist, I find that anyone who seeks to depict something as sensitive and as close to the bone as Hillsborough and 9/11 from an outsiders perspective in such a manner, is not only selfish but downright arrogant, the latter being if it's intended to be some kind of lasting memorial. Many of the most famous depictions of tragedy formed through some kind of art (like Sabre mentions the Guernica) are usually famous through some kind of accident as the artist was merely seeking some kind of personal understanding, empathy or catharsis. The work was just part of a personal body that became famous through the course of time as the artist became famous. Something like this, however, is just seeking. The artist wants attention for all the wrong reasons by chosing a tragedy like this. That's no accident and it's not art. Of course IMO.
Here's the example of the 9/11 sculpture. If the family of the poor soul made no conscent, then this is just goulish.
Spot on that ER its pretty much how I feel and btw I am no artist.I am sure the familys want to remember the best of thier loved ones not the horror that took them.
Just wondering how everone would have felt if the artist had done a sculptor is a father and son holding a liverpool scarf ? I am sure trying to remember the other side of this it might have gone down better.Seems this artist has focused on the negative side more which is shame.
