Today a friend emailed me expressing disapointment that I had not yet commented on the new pro-life monument that was recently unveiled in Brooklyn. It is a scuplture of Britney Spears. Naked. And giving birth. You can click the title of this post to read an article about the work, and you can keep reading this post to hear my two cents.
Here's what I love about it:
First it's pro-life, which is great. Second it is a very well executed sculpture. The Pro-Life movement is of course linked with the political right, which is not known to be a friend of the arts, so to a see a pro life work that has actual artistic merit is encouraging to me as a pro-lifer and as an artist.
In addition, I especially love that the work is mildly provacative. It would have been so easy for someone to have done a nice safe sculpture of a fully clothed mother cradling her child (ala Mary Cassat or whatever). But what would be the point of that? The fact that this work is mildly provacative removes it somewhat from the sphere of the political right & especially from the "Christian" right. Let's face it. Minature models of this statue are not going to be sold as pewter bookends in any Chrisitian bookstore, with the proceeds going to a pro-life organization. So the very nature of the work cleanses the pro-life message from the ideologue stigma often (unfairly or fairly) attached to it by more liberal opponents. Ralph Reed ain't making naked statues of Britney Spears.
Which is the other thing I love about this piece. The fact that it is Britney Spears works fantastically on a number of levels. First, if the provacative nature of the work removes the accusation of "conservative ideologue", identifying the woman as Britney Spears removes the whole "frou-frou- too-cool-for school-artsy-fartsy-wine-and-cheese-pretense" from a work that could otherwise be seen as merely high culture sophistication. Britney is as low culture, as pop culture as it gets. Even better, Britney is pop culture icon ten minutes past her prime, which is the worst of all possible crimes in our culture.
The fact that the scuplture is Britney Spears also works to make it accessible to folks who aren't artsy fartsy. Everybody knows who she is and everybody knows she had a baby. So the work maintains it's creative integrity while becoming completly accessible at some level to everyone from 12 year old girls to gallery curators in soho. Virtually everyone can engage with the work on some level. So in that sense it is absolutely brilliant as an apologetic for the pro-life position.
The other thing I love about it being Britney Spears is that she has in recent years become the whipping girl of the family values set, who seem to be relieved to have found a replacement for Madonna- ever since she got married and started writing children's books. So for the pro-life movement to honor her for making the surprisingly counter-cultural and potentially costly decision to become a mother rather than aborting, despite the fact that the conservative evangelicals (the Pro-Life movement's primary constituency) have demonized her (for dancing naked with snakes on MTV or whatever it was) is a particularly courageous & admirable choice on the part of whomever commissioned the work.
The last thing I love about this statue being of Britney Spears is that it connects with those whom the pro-life message needs most to connect. Even more so than with voters and law makers. That's girls. We need to contunally lift up examples of women making life decisions for our daughters to see. We need to herald those decisions for our daughters to hear. This statue does that.
A last, slightly more delicate point we could discuss is the way in which child birth and motherhood are shown to be sensual and even sexual in nature >blush<. This is a healthy message as well. Motherhood does not remove sexuality! Healthy images of sexuality should be encouraged and applauded wherever we find them. Here is an image of sexuality that actually demonstrates that conception and child birth are the natural prducts of active sexuality! This is a piece of art that does not live in the land of sexual makebelieve like most sexually charged artwork in our culture does- this piece doesn not divorce sexuality from relationship, from commitment, from parenthood, from personhood, or from the beauty of birth and the costly changes it brings to career and lifestyle. This statue is NOT pornography. Also this work argues that the choice to give birth does not transform a woman into an undesirable, asexual, being. How many girls contemplating abortion, or being pressured into abortion by their boyfriends, need to hear that message? How many mothers need to hear this message? Who else is saying it?
Not the conservatives. Cultural conservatives want to protect the unborn, but give the impression that sex is bad or dirty.
Not the liberals. Cultural liberals promote sexuality, but it is a "liberated" sexuality of radical individualism that refuses to acknolwedge that sex is inherently a communal act with communal repercussions that range from the conception of other human beings to societal issues like an overabundance of fatherless children.
Not the church. We mostly pretend like sex doesn't exist, except for the times we are telling people not to have it.
This statue will have none of it. Sex is relational. It has consequences. Sex and parenthood are necessarily linked. They are beautiful and difficult and expensive and fascinating and invigorating and ought to be celebrated.
Hooray for naked statues of Britney Spears.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Brilliant!
AWE.SOME.
Yes I remember. I pride my self on having invented the worst game ever created by humankind. It is intensely painful, there is no point and everyone who plays loses.
I either invented it at Taylor or with Donahoe, Zumbahlen and Daniels... well, not with Daniels. While we were playing, he was shaking his head and saying "man, white people f@#*in' goofy". I loved that. He said that all the time.
But yes I remember the game. We should revive it and put together a tournament or something.
Who's in?
The worst was when you'd get a hanger with that little plastic spike on the inside, right under the hook part. There weren't too many hangers that had that, but MAN when they did... how much did THAT suck?!?!
I always felt that you were at a distinct disadvantage, on account of your head is so huge. But then I guess that's the nature of the game.
oh yeah. Scenario was a pretty awful game too. Of course rule number one of scenario is: you must play.
Britney had a C-Section.
Artistic license I guess.
Can I quote this post for my apologetics class?
sure. If you think it would be helpful. I'd be interested to know the context.
Maybe I am missing something, but how is this pro-life? I suggest this will not change a single mind if they have ever watched a child birth. Granted, I have only seen them on the t.v., but no woman ever looked that peaceful during child birth and, correct me if I am wrong, but I have never seen a wild animal in the room, especially not a bear. That is just dangerious. Again, I know nothing, but how many times has a woman given birth in that position? I have a hunch that the dog-like position will not catch on.
It remains to be seen that this has ended her career, but the potential death of the pop culture status of Brit, as I like to call her, will be an apologetic against child birth and the "well, she has millions and millions of dollars" is an easy retort to the single mother.
All in all, I think the Funky's assessment is darn good, but I am less optimistic despite my postmil tendencies.
I do not know how related this is, but just as Brit drop a baby K-Fed is about to drop his first album. It must be an exciting time for the Spears'. Check out the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060329/ap_en_ce/people_federline
I love K-Fed's confidence, I quote, "My album is sure to set the dance floors across the world on fire!" K-Fed is the bomb.
1. First, I am surprised at how many men are ignorant of the fact that women often labor in this position. Probably not on bear skin rugs, however.
2. Most anti-abortion advocates aren't very artistically literate.
3. You've not respond in a critically significant way to any of the points in my post.
JDG did however seem to understand the mocking nature of the piece, which appears to have flown right over your head.
But hey, carry on trumpeting about how you think this art piece supports the very thing it's having a dig at, it's highly amusing for spectators!
Best laugh I've had for ages.
Greg you commented on my blog: "Liz, you posted on my blog soncerning the Britney Spears statue. I'm willing to listen to reason, if you actually have any reasons. You didn't give me any in the post. Willing to have at it?"
Firstly - can I politely request that if you want to discuss it, that we do it here in the appropriate place rather than scatter-gun comments across unrelated posts on other blogs.
Secondly - "Have at it?"?????
Errrr...have I misread the tone there? Exactly how old are you? Shall we go out in the playground and have a little scrap?
However...giving you the benefit of the doubt...you ask for reasons, so let's start at the beginning of why you say you like this sculpture:
"Here's what I love about it:
"First it's pro-life, which is great. Second it is a very well executed sculpture."
So my first two reasons are that I disagree with both your points.
I don't read it to be pro-life at all.
The choice of Britney is deliberate. Poster Girl (formerly at least) of the No-sex-before-marriage, Pro-Life, Family Values etc supporters; turns out to not be saving herself for marriage quite so much after all, trades on her sexuality to an amazing degree, hooks up with a guy who leaves his pregnant wife to be with her, she gets pregnant, bangs on about how important baby/family is to her, whilst the popular conception as portrayed (and we are talking about public perception her when using a 'celebrity' in art like this) is that hubby is an unsupportive, partying, irresponsible wide boy and her parenting skills (hmmm never heard of a car-seat love?) are being debated at large in the media.
The perfect image of chaste little family values girl or chav-tastic car wreck in motion?
The pose itself is also clearly deliberate - echoing the flaunting of sexuality that has so dominated her career. The tasteless rug - a swipe at trashy poor taste.
So here we have it, says the artist, here's your monument to pro-life. Sexually provocative to excess, trashy, apparently faltering family set-up, dubious care-giving...here you are... Britney Spears, doggy fashion on a bear skin rug.
He's playing. As we would say on this side of the pond, he's taking the piss.
Ok point 2 - it's not a particularly good sculpture. It's pedestrian in craft/execution and frankly if you weren't told would you really have know it was Britney?
I don't actually think that matters overly though. This is the type of art where the 'message' portrayed is more important than the aesthetic achievement.
Ok so maybe it was cruel of me to laugh at seeing someone not notice that someone is tipping the wink and taking the piss out of 'their crowd', I apologise. There was probably a gentler way of saying "dude, it's not saying what you think it's saying".
Is that better?
Sorry, lost a bit of that post:
This is of course speculation as to the artist's intentions. Is he sincere in his cloaked staements to the press, or is that part of the game?
Myself I think it's a game. I'm not alone.
I do accept that other's may read it differently, but even so they should be aware that there is great ambiguity in regard to this work and the sort of interpretation that I've written above is prestty widespread. Therefore either side of the debate 'claims' it at their peril (and it was your 'claiming' it that amused me).
For my tuppence worth, if it really is pro-life and as *obvious* as it first appears, then I actually think it's a pretty banal piece of work - not greatly accomplished aesthetically or conceptually.
Maybe that's partly why I'm disposed to read it the way I do - for me it's the only way in which it has an notable merit or real depth of interest.
Liz, please check the latest post on my blog where I've relocated this conversation.
A few things I'll say here about our correspondance.
1. I'm 31. Thanks for asking.
2. I posted on you blog because when I checked your info on blogger, there was no email address and I didn't know if youwould check my blog again to continue the dialogue.
3. My words "have at it" were in no way to imply a fight or anything like that. I meant "have a go at it" or "let's hear your reasons" that sort of thing. It's like if my wife is trying to open a jar and the lid is stuck, I might say "Here, let me have at it". So what I meant, was I gave my explanation and you've found it unsatisfactory. Why don't you then "have at it", twist the lid of the jar, maybe you can get it to "open". Again, no violence or fight or aggressiveness was intended at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
So read the latest post for my response.
Art is truly in the eye of the beholder, all our art is hand made in the US, much of our nude male statues and nude female
statue art is from the Roman and Greek period. The Roman Statue and Greek Statues are very tasteful and elegant. We at Neo-Mfg.com
can not discount this art as it is very well done, just can not see it on display in someone’s home. Art is in the eye of the beholder and we are sure it is just a monument.
Always remember American Freedom to express yourself
Post a Comment