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.”
I’ll take Degas over this “artiste”. :no:
This so called “artist” has zero taste and skill IMO. It seems everything he does is completely distasteful.
[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]
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…
[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]
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.
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.
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
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 
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?
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.
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:
It’s ugly, and just stupid. Hopefully Barbaro, while in heaven, will drop some horse angel manure on it!
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
