Britney Spears Sculpture Headlines Pro-Life Display
Here we go again:
NEW YORK(AP) A life-size sculpture of a naked Britney Spears kneeling on a bearskin rug as she gives birth will be on display next month at Brooklyn's Capla Kesting Fine Art gallery.(emphasis added)
The sculpture is to appear next to a display case filled with anti-abortion materials. It was created by Daniel Edwards, who said he never spoke to the 24-year-old pop star or met her, and fashioned her face and figure from photographs.
"I admire her. This is an idealized figure," Edwards said Tuesday in a phone interview from his home, which is near his studio in Moosup, Conn.
"Everyone is coming at me with anger and venom, but I depicted her as she has depicted herself _ seductively. Suddenly, she's a mom."
***
When some bloggers heard about the exhibit _ "Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston" _ the gallery said it received about 3,000 e-mails from around the world in just a week, split between anti-abortion and abortion rights opinions.
"We also got calls from Tokyo, England, France. Some people are upset that Britney is being used for this subject matter," said gallery co-owner David Kesting. "Others who are pro-life thought this was degrading to their movement. And some pro-choice people were upset that this is a pro-life monument."
[More]
Huh? I don't get the connection.
UPDATE:
Perhaps I should have titled this post "Hit Me Baby One More Time" or "Oops, I Did It Again".
posted by Pro Ecclesia 7:58 PM
9 comments
9 Comments:
What...no picture?
[ducking]
Well, if this is art, I'll take a pic of Adriana Lima in a swimsuit any day.
Then again, I'm one of dem dar unlearnt types.
Warning: the above link will take you to images of the sculpture of a nude, pregnant Britany Spears on a bear skin rug. But don't look. It's immodest.
Why anyone, especially a pregnant woman, would be in that position is beyond me. But don't look. It might entice you.
I mean really? If you were a pregnant chick, would you be hangin around the house naked? Kneeling on a bear skin rug? Don't look though, it's freaky.
I mean how realistic is this sculpture? Do you suppose he filled in the details? Don't look though. That would be inappropriate. And they spare us that view anyway.
sigh
Well, if this is art, I'll take a pic of Adriana Lima in a swimsuit any day.
Then again, I'm one of dem dar unlearnt types.
Well, it looks to me like it is art. Weird, freakish, bad art, but art nonetheless. Not having seen the whole thing, it doesn't seem to have the purpose of arousing the sexual appetite to sell magazines, underbritches, beer, or shampoo.
At the risk of getting a whole new debate started and getting myself into a position of defending something that I have serious concerns about, I've got to point out some things.
I find the sculpture to be far more troubling. I don't think that just because it is a scuplture it carries any more artistic value. I would call all swimsuit and underwear modeling immodest, but wouldn't consider them all remotely grave in matter. Some of the stuff depicting Ms. Lima is certainly provocative and beyond mere immodesty. However, I don't think it is without artistic merit. I think a great deal of thought and artistic talent goes into that sort of photography even if it be for nefarious purposes.
In my eyes that sculpture is pornographic and worse, because it seems to be catering to a type of sexual fetish.
If it was a sculpture of a non-pregnant women in that position, would we think it art or pornography? If it was a photograph of a pregnant woman in that position would it be art or pronography? What about a photo of Ms. Lima like that?
The purpose of art should be to give glory to God by appreciating the beauty of His creation and inspiring thought toward Him. That can be abused whether it be by oils, marble, celluloid or even words.
I'll grant that the sculpture is art - and is weird, freakish bad art - and I'll add that it is very indecent. There is absolutely nothing respectful about it and nothing to respect about it. I think it was intended to entice men with a pregnancy kink and the "pro-life message" is a bunch of hooey.
At least an immodest photograph that is intended to sell something has a purpose (albeit shallow and void of validity). That sculpture has no purpose for beauty nor for materialist utility. It's just there to shock or entice.
This trashy "art" is definitely there for shock "value".
Especially juxtaposed alongside an allegedly pro-life message (by a guy who, for all his pro-life rhetoric, doesn't seem to like pro-lifers too much).
Y'know, if I were Britney, I'd be seriously freaked out about now. That's pretty alarming.
What's with the bearskin rug?
Good point, MrsD. If I were Britany Spears, I'd offer to buy it, just to make it go away. Maybe even pay someone to carve it down into a likeness of Adriana Lima and donate it to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Yeah, that's the ticket. ;)
The fetching Mrs. Brissett commented to me that Britney had a C-section. If true, she surely wouldn't have needed to strike this pose, eh?
I don't know, I can't say I'm a big fan of this sculpture - but I really don't think it's encouraging any kind of pregnancy-kink - the rear view apparently shows sean preston's head emerging from Britany.
I agree this is bad art, but maybe it really is intended as a celebration of the miracle of birth, which is frankly a pretty immodest affair. The seductive pose might be a sylistic choice to demonstrate the serenity and grace of choosing motherhood.
Like I said, I don't really care for it, but not because it seems kinky (which it doesn't and it's a little creepy that anyone would think so).
Post a Comment
<< Home