Controversial artist depicts Barbaro in a horrible position :eek:
Yeah, we’ve been discussing it on the Barbaro thread…
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.
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…
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:
OMG, that is HORRIBLE. I wonder what everyone connected with Barbaro think?
In very poor taste, and I would hope the public hue and cry will discourage NYC from allowing it.
Truly dreadful. 
Absolutely Repugnant…
I simply cannot conceive of Michael Bloomberg allowing this…
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.
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.
That is horrible.
:no: Disgusting.
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.
How stupid. I’d say the artist has neither talent nor imagination.
Blech
I’m not a fan, either.
[QUOTE=PineTreeFarm;2962341]
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.[/QUOTE]
That was beautifully said. 
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;2962749]
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.[/QUOTE]
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.
