A little bit NSFW (not really–no images and slightly salty language with bleeps):
You know, maybe it’s not an accident. Someone could have intentionally put some sensuality into the design. It is after all an embrace between a man and his wife.
There is nothing wrong with sensuality in art.
Personally, I am 100% ok with the notion of this art piece showing an embrace between Martin and Coretta. I just do not think the artist did a good job at it.
I went into town to see it today.
I like it. From most angles it’s pretty clearly entwined arms – there are enough clues to make it obvious – the fingers, the pearl wristlet on Coretta, the buttons on the arm of the jacket. But from the Tremont Street side (and where the surrounding wall is the highest), the upper arm of MLK is an obscure blob, and that’s what’s got people upset. But if you walk around and see it from more than one vantage point, it’s pretty clear.
It’s not even that abstract – the arms are clearly arms. It’s not like the Henry Moore sculpture Reclining Figure in the courtyard at MIT – from a certain angle, it looked like a Giant Golden Bunny Rabbit, and that’s what the students called it. (The image below is almost, but not quite, at the right angle. But I think you can see the rabbit. It even has an eye)
Actually, if the sculpture reminds me of anything, it’s the odd conjoined arms and legs of H.R. Giger’s San Gottardo
And now that I’ve introduced you to that image, try to forget it.
Thinking on this some I am not sure I agree.
Abstract art is fine. Great even. But, if an art piece is meant to portray historic characters I am not sure it makes sense to obscure who they are so people looking need to guess at what they are looking at.
In a basic sense, this is true and largely inarguable. But it also assumes that this sculpture is meant to “portray historic characters,” i.e. that someone just commissioned a sculpture of the Kings. But according to the Mass Design Group:
At the end of 2017, Embrace Boston issued a call for a permanent monument in the Boston Common representing Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Coretta Scott King’s legacy and presence within the city, creating a cultural symbol of equity and justice for Boston’s residents and visitors.
Also from that site:
The sculpture design was inspired by photographs taken during the Civil Rights movement, in moments of people joining hands and locking arms, and of the Kings walking arm in arm at the frontlines of marches and protests. One image from that period, depicting Dr. King hugging Coretta following the announcement that he had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, was particularly striking to Thomas: “I saw in that moment, how much of his weight was literally on top of her. And I thought that was a really symbolic idea: That she was literally holding his weight.” Thomas’ deep commitment to the transformative power of love and partnership elevated one idea above the others: embrace. The memorial design declares that love is the ultimate weapon against injustice. In evoking the love shared between the Kings, their commitment to each other, and their ideals, the message behind The Embrace is overwhelmingly simple and accessible: it is about what we share, not what sets us apart.
Beneath the 20-foot-high, 25-foot-wide sculptural arms of Dr. King and Coretta Scott, passersby will be reminded of our shared human connection and the ideals of inclusion that the Kings defended in their united life of activism. By enveloping visitors in the act of embrace, the memorial shifts emphasis from a singular hero to collective emotion.
In other words, this is not a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s not even a statue of King and Coretta Scott King. It’s is not meant to replicate those people, but to represent their ideals. It was commissioned by a social justice organization dedicated to equity, not by a historical society.
You may agree or disagree that it is successful in that aim, or that it is beautiful or ugly or whatnot. That’s subjective art criticism and I won’t argue. But it was never intended to be “a new Martin Luther King Jr statue” as you put it in your thread title, so judging it on those terms seems to miss the mark.
Now that is a BIG difference.
I mean, it IS a statue of Martin and Coretta hugging but now you are saying while it is based on them it is not really about them…it is just a statue of an embrace which just happens to be based on historical characters and is being sold as such…but really isn’t that. 
I am unable to parse your re-phrasing of what I said, sorry. I think I was pretty clear - not sure why you had to try to re-phrase it.
I am noting that it seems a weird dodge.
Here is a statue of Martin and Coretta hugging. It was specifically made based on a historic photo of those two people. It is being portrayed to the public as a statute of Martin and Coretta. It was unveiled on MLK’s birthday.
But really, don’t get all uppity that it doesn’t seem to look like MLK and his wife. It is actually a generic statue representing equity.
I’m not dodging anything, I am trying to explain the intentions of the artist and the group that commissioned the sculpture for those who might be interested.
You are clearly not interested, c’est la vie.
I am saying in all this discussion so far, and the articles about it, the sculpture was sold as Martin and Coretta…not generic equity. Whose fault that is…I do not know.
I typed up a whole thing to rebut this, but it’s not worth it. I think I’ve expressed the counter-argument clearly enough already for anyone who might want a differing view. I shall agree to disagree and move on.
You cannot possibly be this tone deaf.
You need to educate yourself sooner rather than later before you offend everyone who might be giving you the benefit of a doubt right now.
What is it you think I said?
It’s not about what was said, but how.
I presume you didn’t mean anything by it, but the word “uppity” has a ton of baggage from its racist history, and so using it when talking about a civil rights activist (and specifically someone defending a civil rights activist) is not the best.
To quote Dictionary.com
Uppity means “haughty” and “snobbish”—an adjective for someone who puts on airs, someone who is self-important. But, this descriptor has a very racist past, used particularly to disparage Black people as “not remembering their place as inferior.”
Given this explicitly racist past, it is a good idea to cut down on using uppity.
I actually agree with your statement—even @ShadowFacts 's link said that the purpose of the statue was to commemorate the Kings and mimic the photo, rather than focusing on generic equity. I personally think that, to go that route, they should have made it more abstract.
But the people involved are not being “uppity” when they say it’s supposed to be about generic equity.
Moderating:
Holy ####, I can’t even believe you are accusing people who disagree with you of being “uppity” in a thread about a statue of Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King. Since you seem not to have noticed, I’ll refer you to BigT’s post. Yes, that’s what people trying to keep Black people “in their place” (which is to say, in the underclass) say. That word has so much baggage you could travel for a month with it. I suggest you apologize and quietly back away, now.
And everyone else, please don’t refer to his use of “uppity” in this thread again. Thanks.
<< Removed by poster >>
<< Removed by poster >>
The Boston Globe has an article up today about the sculpture and the…varied 
reactions to it, including a salient comparison to the unveiling of Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial.