Yet another MLK statue... but check this out

[newburgh]

It's just a bust of him, but he's bare-chested. Since very few people in the community have said anything thus far, it seems as though it's being accepted. But as a friend says: "Why without clothing? Will we ever lose the slave, native mentality? I have never seen a picture of him bare chested. Have you?"

I think it's totally inappropriate, but then again, I don't know why anyone's even bothering with yet another statue of MLK when we have several local inspirational Black citizens in our history who have yet to get the recognition they deserve.


http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/Archive/MLK_bust-08Jan07.html

[Warpy]

1. It's the classical style

I've seen busts of famous men without clothing before. It's a question of the artistic vernacular of the sculptor.

I actually prefer the plainer style. It draws more attention to the subject's face. Besides, clothing styles change, and you're never quite sure what you're looking at a few hundred years down the line.

[Crunchy Frog]

2. It may be intended more as a "classical" style.

I think there's one of George Washington semi-naked too.

Edit: Yeah there is. Found it.

[jgraz]

4. Wow -- ol' George was RIPPED!

Dude must have worked out more than Bush.

[Book Lover]

3. Here is a perfect example of my (white) myopia

My first thought upon reading the first 9 words of your post was, "How cool would that look! Art-history classical, not ever done before. Neat!" Then I read the rest of your post and realized the inescapable problem with it: the bare-chested slave image. It may be a new-despite-being-classical choice of depiction, but that was a poor choice by the artist; failing to consider the other cultural meanings of a black man being bare-chested...

As for your other point: sadly, community art projects have a hard enough time getting funds together for memorial art of well-known people. A local hero is going to have a nearly impossible time of getting memorial art funded.