So far, I’ve heard it referred to as, “The Moebious Dick” and, being in Boston, the “Big Hug.”
How ridiculous! First of all, I can’t make head or tail out of it. Second of all, I hate it.
Silly question but, who knows, we have so many educated people here that one or more of you might actually know about city planning. Okay, when a city engages an artist to create a sculpture for it, don’t the people tasked with that assignment ask for a sketch showing what the sculpture is going to look like? If so, isn’t that sketch shown and discussed at a meeting of the city’s governing body?
I just don’t get it.
I posted the exact process for this particular commission, along with a link to the website for the memorial that explains it, earlier in this very thread. Scroll up and be informed 
This is what makes the piece seem off to me… it’s hard to envision the people when there are significant anatomical impossiblities to the sculpture.
Maybe it’s not meant to be a literal representation, but then so much of the hands and arms are literal… I think it’s mix of modes causes understandable disparities in responses.
I look at it in a certain way, and I hear:
Hot dogs, Armour Hot Dogs…
I am very sorry for my use of that word. I was ignorant about the baggage it carried but that does not change how people rightfully feel about it nor excuse me for using it. I have been schooled on this and will certainly try to be better in the future.
I apologize unreservedly to the SDMB and its readers.
Leslie Jones weighed in (hilariously):
(edit: I see it’s been posted already, whoops!)
Thanks!
And this is good enough to be worth posting again.
I wonder if anyone has asked the sculptor for a comment on Leslie Jones’ comments?
Honestly, I don’t think she has said anything that I—were I the creator—would want to comment on. She never outright gave it a bad review. She essentially said only: (1) white people butt out, and (2) it reminds her of cunnilingus. Should anyone ask em to react, I’d advise em to refrain from comment.
I could definitely imagine a small sketch of this not having the same reaction. Part of the issue is that it’s very large, so the eye can only focus on a part of it at a time, and sometimes that part is reminiscent of something unexpected. In a drawing, or a rotating image on a computer or something, you would take in the whole thing, and probably with the right context, because the artist would start with the best angle.
Don’t be disrespecting the extant art in Boston Common.
Saint-Gauden’s memorial to Bob Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts is also a part of African American history, and was pretty darn radical artistically for 1897.
It is a hug: Hands, arms, shoulders.
If you see something else: that says something about you, not about the art, the artist, or the people that commissioned it.
(The fact that a bronze of MLK would generate 100+ posts here, inane as they are, says something about the quality of the work.)
I think it says that the design is controversial, to say the least. What do you think it says? I mean, we have threads with hundreds of posts about crappy music, stupid songs, terrible ads, etc.
It is a lifelike representation of something completely mundane (a hug). Somehow the artist has stylized it in such a manner that many people have to do a double take. Apparently it grabs your attention.
Some see a gentle greeting between friends, others are reminded of the porn they watched: It generates a response. That is a indication that it is doing what art is supposed to do.
I’d be surprised if that’s the reaction that the artist was going for, but sure.
I think the issue is not that it is ugly, or suggestive.
In any major city there are lots of weird sculptures. There’s sometimes a bit of a hubbub, then people get used to them, then they’re even liked as they get some kind of funny nickname.
The issue is that it’s dedicated to MLK and is supposed to be a representation of him embracing his wife. For which, it sits in an uncomfortable middle place: something purely abstract (a big monolith or whatever), fine. A statue of MLK, fine.
Half-abstract, half-real was always a risk with a dedication, and it was poorly executed.
And if a person supposes that perceiving resemblance to a sexually intimate act implies a recollection of porn that also says something about a person.
I agree. For me, it works and is something I’d love to see in person. A purely bog standard sculpture of the moment, not so much. For my tastes, this is an excellent piece of public art.
Come on man, I cannot believe that after that superb setup you flubbed the punchline. There is still time to edit out the “l” in “public”.