Some of you seem to think the Britney Spears statue is actually not pro-life, but rather a mockery. None of you however have offered any evidence or critical analysis to support such a view. I'm willing to listen. But you gotta give me SOMETHING, here people.
16 comments:
I've moved these comments up here for the readers.
Liz comments this...
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?
Liz also comments:
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, thanks for the comments and the dialogue. I think your view is certainly understandable but ultimately I think it does not hold for a number of reasons.
1. Britney has not been regarding as figure promoting abstinece of family values for many years now and in fact has more recently beenregarded by the "family values" folks as being quite the opposite.
2. The car seat incident happened after the statue was completed and displayed and so to read such an incident into the interpretation of the piece is anachronistic.
3. Spears and Federline were married in 2004, and Federline was never previously married, though he did apparantly father two children with other women.
4. I continue to be surprised by how many people are unaware that while giving birth, women frequently labor in that very position. That is the very reason why the scuplture works in tying together sexuality and birth/ motherhood. Because visually the pose is indeed ambiguous enough to be either and is infact "both". As in both sexual and motherly.
5. As for the aesthetics, I personally do not find it "pedestrian" and the artist admits he was going for a stylized, idealized version of the subject matter. Second, have you done much resin scuplting or cast bronze? i guess we'll disagree on the merits of the piece's formal achievement. I've done scuplture of this sort and I find it pretty impressive.
6. How much do you know about the artist and his own words of explanation? here are some quotes:
"I admire her. This is an idealized figure," he said. "Everyone is coming at me with anger and venom, but I depicted her as she has depicted herself — seductively. Suddenly, she's a mom."
"This is a new take on pro-life. Pro-lifers normally promote bloody images of abortion. This is the image of birth," Daniel Edwards said of his work, to be unveiled at a Brooklyn gallery in Apri.
And did you know that his own mother was a seventeen year old unwed pregnant girl when she gave birth to him?
Here's the bigger point: The artist called the work "monument to Pro-life". The artist says he admires Spears and that he is offering a differenet take on pro-life imagery. Rather than bloody fetus, he is depicting birth. It is sexualized because she presents a sexualized image of herself in the media. His own mother was a pregnant unwed teen and chose not to abort. So not only do we have the man's own words, we also have knowledge of his own family history. The guy has a reason to depict pro-life imagery.
The fact that some people have chosen to disregard all of that and choose instead to interpret the work as a sly, mocking critique of thepro-life movement speaks more to the fact that we have all but abandoned ourselves to crass, undiscerning cynicism.
Until you Liz, give me a reason not to take your words at face value, and to assume you are being sincere in your communication, I choose to believe you.
It is my conviction that the only sensible thing to do is to extend the same courtesy to the creator of the artwork in question.
And one more thing, you said:
"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"
I really think this is the crux of it. I could say the same of your comments here. I could choose to read your entire line of reasoning above as a sarcastic, mocking, cynical exposure of the failure of our current hermeneutic of suspicion.
I could say "Bravo! you have quite excellently pointed out the lunacy in the very argument you've pretended to employ! This must be what you are doing, for I cannot see any true merit in your words if I take them any other way. Great job. We agree then".
But, I know that your words mean something quite independant of any meaning I import to them. And I choose to believe your words mean what you say they mean. For me to read them any other way, is to do you an injustice.
In the case of this artist, I've not found any reason to believe his piece is intended to be read as a mockery. In fact, I find evidence to the contrary in his own life and his own words.
(And by the way, I do think your comments have some merit, though I remain unconvinced. I've merely used your comments to illustrate the point).
Anyway, I enjoy the dialogue and the interaction. Thanks so much for posting.
Oh and by the way, I would like all of my readers to know that I looked up the dates of Britney's marriage to federline as well as the date of the "car-seat" incident. I don't I have all that memorized or anything. I just want to make that very clear.
I mean come on. It's hard enough for me just to remember Justin Timberlake's birthday! (January 31st).
Hi Greg,
Very glad you had to look up those dates...you were starting to worry me a little ;-)
I think we have areas of agreement...perhaps principally that this work is ambiguous and open to very different interpretations. I read it one way, you read it another...quite possibly we will never know for sure how the artist intended it (quite possibly he intended ambiguity!), and indeed once a work has left the creator it takes on a life and meaning of it's own.
But I'm interested in understanding why you are so keen to adopt this work as pro-pro-life (if I'm allowed that many hyphens!).
Can I ask whether you think Britney makes a good role model for the pro-life movement?
Only I'm thinking that usually anti-abortion arguments run on the lines of practising better family planning upfront rather than addressing issues post-conception (of course there are some that are also anti contraception and would like women bare-foot and pregnant throughout life, but let's not go there eh? ;-) ).
So does Britney represent a good example of responsible procreation?
I'm suggesting she doesn't. Principally because her choice to start a family appears to be in the face of an unstable relationship and dubious readiness on her part to assume the responsibilities of parenting.
As far as I'm aware, her decision to get pregnant was a deliberate one, so actually I'm rather bemused as to why the pro-life question is relevant. Sure she didn't terminate the pregnancy, but then that was never an issue.
The decision was made before conception.
Was it a good one? Well normally I'd say that unless the kid is at risk, it's probably not for us to judge. However, by using Britney as a role model, we are required to make that judgement I think...and to my mind she falls short.
Or has the pro-life argument moved on to suggesting people should actively look to get pregnant even if they are unready and in a rather unstable relationship set-up?
Liz
PS Thanks for explaning your terminology before - it helps to know you didn't mean to come across aggressively.
yes, the whole thing is ambiguous and not so much pro-life as it is (self) pro-motion. Between this and the ted williams head, I think the fella just knows how to draw attention.
I just do not have a clue how Brit in a doggy position is pro-life. funky, you are on your third child, but for the previous two, was your wife in this position?
ambiguity reigns and this is just another example. the artist himself said, in response to being pro-life, "You nailed me. I'm not saying that I am. I wouldn't march with either pro-life or pro-choice advocates. This is not meant to be political."
So, in saying that it is "pro-life", although culturally synonymous with the abortion debate, this work has nothing to do with that issue, but is simply a means of pro-motion.
kdny,
http://pregnancy.about.com/od/laborbasics/ss/laborpositions_8.htm
peace.
That's how your wife delivered her first two? Was she on a bear rug with a fire going too, maybe a glass Dom at her side?
Art is usually somewhat ambiguous and subtle and therefore lends itself to differing interpretations. However I still maintaint hat when an artist has spoken for his work (in this case by it's title and by the other comments he has made) I think we are obliged to take him at his word. Granted, he says it is not meant to be political, and I agree. But the non-political nature does not mean it therefore communicates nothing about a pro-life value. He even said he wishes to give "pro-life" imagery other than aborted fetuses. THis is an image of birth rather than abortion.
As per a discussion of the politics of pro-life, it was not my intention to delve into that, but neither am I reticent to give my perspectives. I believe the unborn child has full personhood and therefore ust have her right to live protected. It matters very little- correction- it matters nothing who the mother is and what her qualifications for parenthood may or may not be. Most of us would hold the same reasoning very easily after the child is born. A particular mother may not parent responsibly, but none of us would therefore suggest the life of her 6month old child can therefore be terminated. We would seek teh protection of the child through other means. In fact, the idea of protecting achild from poor parenting by killing the child is just plain silly.
Nothing here has been said about the duties of the society, the state and especially the church to provide for and offer care to women who are at risk for unwanted pregnancy or mothers who may not have acquired the skills and knolwedge for responsible parenting. This too is something I feel deeply passionately about. Perhaps someone should make a scuplture about that. For us to be fully pro-life our concern must not stop with the unborn, but should extend to the mothers and the children after the birth and even (and here's a REALLY huge blindspot) to the biological fathers of these children as well.
In my opinion, I believe that the massive, massive number of abortions performed in this nation every day is primarily a MEN'S ISSUE. That's right. I said it. Abortion is a MEN'S ISSUE.
Where are the fathers of the girls who are becoming pregnant? Why aren't they standing on the porch with a tire iron chasing away the young men who whose character is such that they would sleep with a girl and abandon her? Where were the fathers of these girls as they were growing into young women? Were the fathers living examples to their daughters of what a responsible and loving fahter and husband looks like? Or were these fathers by their absence and neglect teaching their daughters to seek love from a man wherever she can get it and to purchase it with any cost, because she sure wasn't going to get that affirmation at home from her daddy?
Then, where are the fathers of the unborn children who are at risk of being aborted by scared, lonely pregnant unwed young women? Are they standing next to the girl, holding her hand saying "We'll make it work. I'll get a second job. We'll get married. I'll take care of you". Are they saying "maybe we're too young. There are other options. We can still love our child by allowing her to be adopted by another family who will love her"?
And where are the fathers of these young men who are suppose to be dragging them out of the house by thier coat collar, over to the young girl's house to plead her forgiveness? And where are the fathers to sit both the young woman and the young man down and explain to them that there is grace and mercy and forgivenss available. And that they are loved and will be supported through the difficultied to come. But that you don't correct the mistkae of creating a life by taking a life?
Yep. It's a men's issue.
Another reason to raise our boys to be real men.
Ya know, KDNY, if you're so obsessed about finding out what my labor is like, I can call you this next time. Maybe you can catch a red eye here. You missed your chance the first time. Remember when you called and Greg was at the grocery and you offered to take me to the hospital? I had no idea you were really wanting to experience the whole thing.
FunkyWife,
I have yet to experience my own, so I figured the FP, with his understanding of vicarious atonement, federalism and the like, would not mind me experiencing this on his behalf, or something like that.
Yes, I will never forget that phone call. Actually, I will not forget calling when you were in the delivery room with your first, maybe it was right after. A serious of strange events had me calling the hospital and asking for a funky presbyterian: the hospital called earlier b/c my roommates mother was in a car accident and I just figured the missed call was Greg, who for some reason need my help with the delivery. Greg's play-by-play is worth recalling: "Hey man. Charity is doing great. She is lying...well, crawling on a bear rug, peaceful as all get-out...she looks beautiful. Her hair looks great; it is up in bun. And, much to my surprise, while I am watching her give birth, I realized that she has not put on a single pound during her pregnancy, and...oh, look at that, how cute...she is now grabbing the bear by the ears. I love her."
I love that you have me a taking a red eye in the same time zone. I picture my pilot confused as hell zipping up-and-down the coast trying to get from NY to Columbus.
Kdny - I think you hit the nail on the head - if this sculpture is pro anything, it's (self) promotion. Nicely put - lol! perfect!
Greg - I honestly wouldn't know where to start with your take on gender relations. Probably for the best eh ;-)
Funkypw - I had a friend who referred to herself as Vicar's Wife. They just separated. Kind of leaves her without a name/role...
M - shall I give you an address to send that 2 cents to? Seriously mate, you have no idea!
"Aesthetically brilliant"??? Brilliant? Seriously? Do you really think this piece even vaguely compares with something by Boccioni, Moore, Hepworth, Giacometti, Frink or Wallinger etc let alone something by Rodin or MichelAngelo. And beyond aesthetics this piece has no discernable 'soul'. A Gormly statue has more soul in its little finger than this piece...
However I agree with your point re the people planning pregnancies are not the main people considering whether or not to terminate. That's exactly why I raise it. Why use Britney, who openly talked about her plans to start a family? What has she got to do with pro-life/pro-choice?
For all this I still haven't heard a single reason as to why Britney makes a good pro-pro-life subject.
Seriously, though: Sorry to hear about your friend's marriage, Liz. I'll pray things go better for them.
Thanks Greg, though that wasn't the reason I mentioned it...
I have to confess however, that the cynic in me thinks that sometimes religous folk use "I'll pray about you/them" as a deflection technique.
Anyhoo...
Any thoughts as to why Britney makes a good pro-life poster-girl yet?
Liz,
I know that's not why you mentioned it. You mentioned it to illuminate my wife's foolish and antiquated notions of marriage and identity. I picked up on that. My wife's never been a cynic, though and I gave it up a while back. I never found it very satisfying.
Of course having given it up, I find I have a tendancy to revert to it from time to time. I alway try to remind myself that cynicism kind of wilts in the light of the body of teaching about Jesus which has been passed down to us from the first century Christian community and their earliest writings. That teaching (which the early Christians called "euangelion") preserves for Christians an inexhaustible hope in the face of every disappointment. And usually my cynicism is a direct reaction to some disappointment I've experienced. Usually beacuse I didn't get something I think I should have gotten (acceptance, affirmation, love, money, respect, success, power, etc) but sometimes it's a reaction to a legitimate injustice or suffering I've witnessed or experienced. God knows there's a lot of injustice & suffering to go around these days.
Anyway, denying myself the right to be cynical (and failing a fair bit) has become a relatively major theme in my spiritual pursuit and directly correlates to the promises I believe God himself extends to humanity through the person of Jesus. But about a year ago my family had an experience that kind of forced me to choose definitively what my response was going to be to suffering and injustice.
We'd taken in two little sisters as foster children (do they call it foster care over there?) It's basically being a temporary home and family to children whose home lives are not safe for them to be in. Then the government agency works with the children's family until it is considered safe enough for thier return. Usually it's drugs and abuse issues. Anyway, we opened our home to these two little girls (sisters ages 6 months and 19 months) who were taken from their home because the youngest tested positive for cocaine at birth. The girls' mother had been doing cocaine during the pregnancy. Well we had these little girls in our home for fourteen months when the agency decided it was safe for them to return. We had come to know the parents and the home situation and everyone involved admitted the home was probably still not safe but because of the way the legal system works here, it became increasingly difficult to prevent their return home. As foster parents, our opinion does not enter into the equation, which I fully understand. Never the less, fourteen months in a healthy home had created all kinds of personal improvements in the girls' emotional, physical and mental development, much of which was retarded due to drug exposure and neglect. Charity (my wife) worked with the girls every single day and had therapists visiting the home several times a week and was taking the oldest to a speech and hearing therapist regularly. It was like a full time job. And then after fourteen months they returned to their own home.
Because we had developed a realtionship with the parents, and sincerely wanted to provide any support we could, we offered to babysit for free. After six weeks the parents brought the girls to us to babysit for a day. The youngest girl (not yet 2 years old) exhibited unambiguous behavior that is a classic sign of sexual abuse. Six weeks is all it took for her to become victimized and robbed of her innocence. We were angry and devestated.
We had a choice to relegate ourselves to a cynical view of the world, or we could fight against that temptation and choose to hold to the hope that is ours in Christ.
We chose hope. So all of that to say, I don't know what other people have meant when they offer to pray for a situation, but I really mean it. And by the way, if you don't have anybody in your life who prays for you, I'd be willing to do that, if you'd like. It's no bother and it couldn't hurt, so if there's anything you want someone to pray about, feel free to let me know.
My views on Britney and pro-life were pretty well exhausted in all of my above comments on the statue, in the comments section and in my original post.
Peace.
Hi Greg,
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the statue then ;-) Thanks for the dialogue thus far anyway.
Re fostering - yes we call it the same here. I have friends who are foster parents and my 'significant other' works as a child protection officer. I have nothing but admiration for the work he and my friends do. Fostering is a wonderful, generous gift - God bless you for doing it.
Your story…so sad…so tragic…I feel greatly for you and all concerned. Stories like this break my heart. A couple of my best friends were sexually abused when younger and the scars and damage go so, so deep and last a lifetime. Few things make me as angry as abuse.
Bless you for being there for these kids. It can't be easy. Did you manage to get the kids back to a place of safety?
On other matters, I'm not sure I'd equate a concern about the subjugation of married women as cynicism...
My reference to cynicism was in relation to 'religious folks', something I'm sad to say your comments about "if you don't have anybody in your life who prays for you" (such an assumptive question) isn't helping overly.
So you cynicism wasn't doing if you huh? Condescension working out any better?
Unbelievable. Your cynicism is eating you alive. My words were nothing other than a sincere offer of compassion and friendship. I wish you the best.
Peace.
Post a Comment