PDA

View Full Version : BARBARO Statue...Distasteful or what?



Nijinsky
Jan. 24, 2008, 07:41 PM
http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2008-01-0123-004.shtml

Controversial artist depicts Barbaro in a horrible position :eek:

WWW.CALIFORNIARACEHORSE.NET

VirginiaBred
Jan. 24, 2008, 07:45 PM
Yeah, we've been discussing it on the Barbaro thread...........

One Star
Jan. 24, 2008, 09:05 PM
The artist is an asshat. :mad: The sculptor, Daniel Edwards, is the same controversial artist who had the brilliant idea of depicting Britney Spears giving birth squatting on a bear rug. :eek:

I can't think of a less tasteful and inappropriate "tribute" for the beloved Barbaro.

The Jacksons and Michael Matz must be spinning like tops with rage and frustration.

texang73
Jan. 24, 2008, 09:17 PM
Yep, that's distasteful... horribly so... Ugh. I have a feeling once people get wind of it, it won't happen, at least not as a public sculpture... Or, one can hope...

Petstorejunkie
Jan. 24, 2008, 10:08 PM
As an artist *I* can't figure out what the he// dude is going for other than disgust.
wow, If i had the opportunity to sculpt tribut to Barbaro he sure as heck wouldnt be flailing on his back :mad:

Lori T
Jan. 24, 2008, 10:18 PM
OMG, that is HORRIBLE. I wonder what everyone connected with Barbaro think?

hitchinmygetalong
Jan. 25, 2008, 08:38 AM
In very poor taste, and I would hope the public hue and cry will discourage NYC from allowing it.

War Admiral
Jan. 25, 2008, 08:41 AM
Truly dreadful. :(

Irish Ei's
Jan. 25, 2008, 09:36 AM
Absolutely Repugnant....
I simply cannot conceive of Michael Bloomberg allowing this...

monicabee
Jan. 25, 2008, 10:17 AM
Personally I am counting on New Yorkers to greet it with a huge collective yawn.

I will be unveiling my sculpture "Portrait of the Artist Daniel Edwards Desparately Trying to Get Attention" on the other coast.

He'd like to whip you all into a frenzy, get petitions going, etc. He is the product of a phenomenon at the end of the last century where the "talk about the art" became more important than the art object itself. I thought Postmodernism had expired with a whimper... guess I was wrong.

citymouse
Jan. 25, 2008, 10:33 AM
Is their not some legal action that could be taken against this parasite (i can't even call him a man or a human or artist as I'm sure he would like to be called for creating something like this)? I mean he is calling it the "Barbaro Memorial" and it is not connected to nor has anything to do with all of the people that are/were truly associated with Barbaro.

There must be something we can send to the parks department or Michael Bloomberg to stop this from ever ever appearing.

Marney
Jan. 25, 2008, 10:41 AM
That is horrible.

WindyIsles
Jan. 25, 2008, 10:42 AM
:no: Disgusting.

PineTreeFarm
Jan. 25, 2008, 11:15 AM
The Art Commission of the City of New York may be the group that would have to approve installation on public land.

NYC has a history of controversial art. Same issues as any major city that supports the arts.

In 1999 there was an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum that was designed to be 'sensational'. It included a portrait of the Virgin Mary that used elephant dung as media in addition to conventional paint. Mayor Rudy tried to stop the exhibition by cutting off funding to the museum. He was opposed by the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton (who was running for Senator at the time). The exhibition was allowed to continue and drew supporters as well as protestors.
In 2007 there was a similar situation. This time the issue was a chocolate Jesus figure. There is something similar almost every year.

Generally exhibits of this nature are allowed to be shown. Just my opinion but they should be allowed. Art is about expression. It can be an expression of images, ideas or yes, social protest. This has been the nature of art throughout history. Some of the most famous artists in history used art for protest. Picasso's Guernica is an example. Sometimes the definition of art is difficult to get a handle on. Many artists who produce provocative works are also winners of many awards. The idea is to create a reaction, positive or negative.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, support it or go see it. But suppression is cenorship. You don't like to be censored on this BB do you? That's pretty much the position that the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton took. Free speech, free circulation of ideas.

Given that the production of the statue is not being commissioned by a public museum I'd think the statue will be shown. Perhaps not in a public park but certainly in a gallery.

If you object to the statue being shown on public property I think contacting the Art Commission would be the place to start. They can point you in the right direction.

grayarabpony
Jan. 25, 2008, 11:25 AM
How stupid. I'd say the artist has neither talent nor imagination.

johnnysauntie
Jan. 25, 2008, 11:32 AM
I'm not a fan, either.

Mao
Jan. 25, 2008, 12:29 PM
The Art Commission of the City of New York may be the group that would have to approve installation on public land.

NYC has a history of controversial art. Same issues as any major city that supports the arts.

In 1999 there was an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum that was designed to be 'sensational'. It included a portrait of the Virgin Mary that used elephant dung as media in addition to conventional paint. Mayor Rudy tried to stop the exhibition by cutting off funding to the museum. He was opposed by the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton (who was running for Senator at the time). The exhibition was allowed to continue and drew supporters as well as protestors.
In 2007 there was a similar situation. This time the issue was a chocolate Jesus figure. There is something similar almost every year.

Generally exhibits of this nature are allowed to be shown. Just my opinion but they should be allowed. Art is about expression. It can be an expression of images, ideas or yes, social protest. This has been the nature of art throughout history. Some of the most famous artists in history used art for protest. Picasso's Guernica is an example. Sometimes the definition of art is difficult to get a handle on. Many artists who produce provocative works are also winners of many awards. The idea is to create a reaction, positive or negative.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, support it or go see it. But suppression is cenorship. You don't like to be censored on this BB do you? That's pretty much the position that the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton took. Free speech, free circulation of ideas.

Given that the production of the statue is not being commissioned by a public museum I'd think the statue will be shown. Perhaps not in a public park but certainly in a gallery.

If you object to the statue being shown on public property I think contacting the Art Commission would be the place to start. They can point you in the right direction.

That was beautifully said. :)

CiegoStar
Jan. 25, 2008, 12:58 PM
I agree with PineTreeFarm one hundred percent. I also don't find the statue to be that repulsive - frankly I was expecting worse when I clicked on the link. And I do believe that the organization's mission is worthy, and that there should be transparency about racehorse injuries. While I supported the Jacksons' decision to try to save Barbaro, catastrophic injuries on the racetrack are all too common. Something needs to change. I find myself unable/unwilling to watch racing at all anymore, not just because of Barbaro but because of numerous other high-profile breakdowns.

edited to add: I read a little on the website of Barbaro's Law and it seems the group is a more "right to die" kind of organization, which is really murky and it doesn't seem too likely they will be able to make any real difference (how can you measure when an animal wants to die?). However, I still feel like I can't in good conscience support racing anymore... my heart is sick of it.

Barnfairy
Jan. 25, 2008, 01:09 PM
How does a hideous statue stop injuries on the track?

Should we also propose a law that requires farms nationwide to reveal the number of catastrophic injuries that occur on pasture?

I don't believe in censoring art, either...but call the piece a racehorse, not Barbaro. It doesn't capture him at all. They are just using his name for publicity. How original.

Laurierace
Jan. 25, 2008, 01:59 PM
How does a hideous statue stop injuries on the track?

Should we also propose a law that requires farms nationwide to reveal the number of catastrophic injuries that occur on pasture?

I don't believe in censoring art, either...but call the piece a racehorse, not Barbaro. It doesn't capture him at all. They are just using his name for publicity. How original.

I agree completely. I don't have a problem with the statue itself, but I don't see how they have the right to use Barbaro's name without permission. I bet there is a PETA whackjob behind this somehow.

Giddy-up
Jan. 25, 2008, 02:58 PM
If this one is going in Central Park (and for how long?), I wonder where his other pieces have been placed or displayed?

"Edwards's previous sculptures include a nude Britney Spears giving birth on a bearskin rug, an interactive autopsy of Paris Hilton with removable organs, and a war dead Prince Harry clutching the cameo-locket of his late mother Princess Diana."

JSwan
Jan. 25, 2008, 03:54 PM
I'll take Degas over this "artiste". :no:

hunter-jumper-rider
Jan. 25, 2008, 05:12 PM
This so called "artist" has zero taste and skill IMO. It seems everything he does is completely distasteful.

Sandy M
Jan. 25, 2008, 05:22 PM
The Art Commission of the City of New York may be the group that would have to approve installation on public land.

NYC has a history of controversial art. Same issues as any major city that supports the arts.

In 1999 there was an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum that was designed to be 'sensational'. It included a portrait of the Virgin Mary that used elephant dung as media in addition to conventional paint. Mayor Rudy tried to stop the exhibition by cutting off funding to the museum. He was opposed by the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton (who was running for Senator at the time). The exhibition was allowed to continue and drew supporters as well as protestors.
In 2007 there was a similar situation. This time the issue was a chocolate Jesus figure. There is something similar almost every year.

Generally exhibits of this nature are allowed to be shown. Just my opinion but they should be allowed. Art is about expression. It can be an expression of images, ideas or yes, social protest. This has been the nature of art throughout history. Some of the most famous artists in history used art for protest. Picasso's Guernica is an example. Sometimes the definition of art is difficult to get a handle on. Many artists who produce provocative works are also winners of many awards. The idea is to create a reaction, positive or negative.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, support it or go see it. But suppression is cenorship. You don't like to be censored on this BB do you? That's pretty much the position that the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton took. Free speech, free circulation of ideas.

Given that the production of the statue is not being commissioned by a public museum I'd think the statue will be shown. Perhaps not in a public park but certainly in a gallery.

If you object to the statue being shown on public property I think contacting the Art Commission would be the place to start. They can point you in the right direction.

Sadly, I have to agree. Freedom of expression and all that. Vote with your feet - don't go see it. One would think that he MIGHT (?) need approval from Barbaro's owners, but I supposed that would only be if he were using copyrighted material, i.e., a copyrighted photo that he was working from. I do have agree with others, though, that this can hardly be be considered a "tribute." Granted, traditional equestrian sculpture is conventional and safe - think Seabiscuit's statute at Santa Anita, the Man O'War statue at KHP or the Secretariat at full gallop statue (is that at Belmont, I think?). In a more traditional mode, if one didn't want to do a standard, uninjured portrait type statue, one would think an alternative would be a statute of him standing, head up, with the leg in its cast - drawing attention to his struggle to survive, the plight of injured racehorses in general, etc., etc. etc.

This, of course is "art" (and I don't mean that sarcastically), but obviously, it bears little or no resemblance to the actual horse. I don't like it, but I suppose if it a version of the injured/dying Barbara brings attention to NTRA's programs for retired racehorses and veterinary research and the like.......

grayarabpony
Jan. 25, 2008, 05:38 PM
The Art Commission of the City of New York may be the group that would have to approve installation on public land.

NYC has a history of controversial art. Same issues as any major city that supports the arts.

In 1999 there was an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum that was designed to be 'sensational'. It included a portrait of the Virgin Mary that used elephant dung as media in addition to conventional paint. Mayor Rudy tried to stop the exhibition by cutting off funding to the museum. He was opposed by the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton (who was running for Senator at the time). The exhibition was allowed to continue and drew supporters as well as protestors.
In 2007 there was a similar situation. This time the issue was a chocolate Jesus figure. There is something similar almost every year.

Generally exhibits of this nature are allowed to be shown. Just my opinion but they should be allowed. Art is about expression. It can be an expression of images, ideas or yes, social protest. This has been the nature of art throughout history. Some of the most famous artists in history used art for protest. Picasso's Guernica is an example. Sometimes the definition of art is difficult to get a handle on. Many artists who produce provocative works are also winners of many awards. The idea is to create a reaction, positive or negative.

Doesn't mean I have to like it, support it or go see it. But suppression is cenorship. You don't like to be censored on this BB do you? That's pretty much the position that the Civil Liberties Union and Mrs Clinton took. Free speech, free circulation of ideas.

Given that the production of the statue is not being commissioned by a public museum I'd think the statue will be shown. Perhaps not in a public park but certainly in a gallery.

If you object to the statue being shown on public property I think contacting the Art Commission would be the place to start. They can point you in the right direction.


Well, personally I didn't say anything about censorship. I'm using my freedom of speech to say that I think as a work of art it's well..... not. The symbolism is about as subtle as a blow to the head.

grits
Jan. 26, 2008, 11:49 AM
I am the loudest advocate anywhere for free speech and controversial art. But this planned statue is just plain ghastly and memorializes agony in an inappropriate public space. What's next? The marbled bodies of those who leapt from the WTC?

After a full day of being too appalled to think, I recalled that the NYC Park Commissioner (Adrian Benepe) is a former student of mine. I have written him to ask that he try to stop the project.

hipsdontlie
Jan. 26, 2008, 04:19 PM
amazing what passes for "ART" although i have my own thoughts on the care and decisions made for barbaro by his connections which i have stated and will not say again i do think this "artwork" is in extremely poor taste. HORSE SHOW DIVA DOT COM

Amber_M
Jan. 26, 2008, 04:42 PM
Its art. You don't have to like it. For every person on this thread claiming the statue is an abomination there is probably some hipster in SoHo raving about it.

And I think a statue of Britney Spears squatting on a bear rug would be extremely entertaining. Something I'd go see :D

Buffyblue
Jan. 26, 2008, 06:07 PM
I live here and haven't heard a thing about it until I read this! It doesn't sound like something they'd want in the Park, but what do I know?

JSwan
Jan. 26, 2008, 06:48 PM
Its art. You don't have to like it. For every person on this thread claiming the statue is an abomination there is probably some hipster in SoHo raving about it.

And I think a statue of Britney Spears squatting on a bear rug would be extremely entertaining. Something I'd go see :D

You're right. It's "art". And there is no doubt about the raving hispters. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

But it's not a memorial. Real memorials are tasteful and respectful of the animal/person/moment in history they portray. Yeah, some of them can be over the top and a bit romantic.... but usually memorials to horses are within the bounds of decency.

CharingHounds
Jan. 26, 2008, 07:29 PM
Next time we go to the city, I won't be using that part of south Central Park for any of my photography moments. Can't even imagine something like that in the background of a shot.:no:

JerseyHorseLover
Jan. 26, 2008, 11:09 PM
It's ugly, and just stupid. Hopefully Barbaro, while in heaven, will drop some horse angel manure on it! :D