Read the article below and then watch a video about a controversial sculpture by Robert Arneson. Post your response: Do you think Arneson's "Portrait of George" should have remained at it's original site? Explain why or why not. (for video click here).
Portrait of George, 1981, by Robert Arneson "is a bust portrait of George Moscone, a popular mayor of San Francisco in the late 1970s. Moscone's big smile, with crooked teeth and squinting eyes, is distinct and alive, and the surface of splattered colors animates the face. The bust sits on a column casually covered, graffiti-like, with phrases recalling Moscone's background, some of his more memorable sayings, and events from his life and death. Arneson's piece was to have been placed in the Moscone Center, a new civic center in San Francisco named after the deceased mayor. Moscone and another politician had been assassinated three years earlier by a disgruntled San Francisco city supervisor named Dan White, who had disagreed with Moscone on most political points, including issues concerning homosexuals.
"Arneson's Portrait of George departs from the status quo of bland, bronze portrait heads of political leaders that are common in parks and in lobbies of many public buildings. This sculpture is irreverent, colorful, and very large, and the viewer cannot pass by without noticing it. It was the pedestal below the head, however, that caused the greatest controversy. Among the words, bullet holes apparently pierce the column, making a comment on the ubiquity of guns in the United States today. A yellow, phallic Twinkie is prominent. Dan White received a light sentence of voluntary manslaughter for his crimes. His lawyers claimed that he had been unbalanced at the time of the shootings because he had eaten too many Twinkie snack cakes. Many San Franciscans protested the lighter sentence, and there was a night of rioting. Arneson's Portrait of George was a vivid, permanent reminder of the circumstances that surrounded his death, the recent riot, and the tensions in the city. (Margaret Lazzari & Dona Schlesier, "Exploring Art," p. 360. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.)
17 comments:
I think that this sculpture should be public, and should be able to be presented anywhere instead of one set location. Art is for everyone.
I also think it should be public it is an integral part of the city's history and is a great example of the power of art.
The bust was commissioned by the city to memorialize George Moscone's life. Arneson's sculpture included details about the mayor's death. Because of this, the piece is not appropriate for use as a public memorial. Even if the city wanted Moscone's death to be memorialized, the manner in which Arneson represented the mayor's death was juvenile and trivializing.
I think that his work should have been alowed to stay because it is important in my view to take in and be open to an artworks full image. This includes all of the artworks image the bad and the good because the artist put in those detailed for a reason.
I think the bust should have stayed in the original site. Part of the reason it was provocative and had so much controversy was due to the fact that it was depicting truths about what happened to Moscone and Milk. People were upset that the bust was colorful and had bullet shots, but I don't see how that is disrespecting Moscone or anyone since it's merely showing society issues of that time. This is Arneson's commentary on what happened and I think it should get displayed to the public as it is.
I believe the work should remain at the original site. The fact that it garnered such attention shows that it has enough influence to make a statement about the controversies surrounding the event. The public's reaction and backlash that followed really shows how little power an artist has over his right of interpretation.
I can respect the statue for presenting a unique and realistic depiction of Mayor Moscone. However, after watching the video posted and doing some external research, I think it is important to take the thoughts of Moscone's family into consideration. According to an article, Moscone's family saw the statue as an "outright attack", and his son George is quoted saying that he saw the statue as "demeaning". While the artist's intention was to provide a backstory to the bust, Moscone's family saw it differently, and therefore, I think they have a right to having the statue taken down. An artist has the freedom to make whatever they want, but when being placed in a public space, they should be aware of potential backlash, and the possibility of their art being removed.
The article mentioned in my comment: http://sfist.com/2012/06/01/portrait_of_george_a_controversial.php
I think that the statue should have been kept at the original site. The controversy resulting from the piece simply meant that the artist did a good job at using the sculpture to convey a message. That message should have been left as Arneson originally intended, even if there was disagreement from the people who received it.
I do not believe that Arneson's "Portrait of George" should have remained at its original site. Arneson consciously withheld information on the status of the work. This would be completely fine-- had he not been paid to create the work in a specific way for a specific purpose. It is undoubtedly a beautiful work, but it was done without keeping society's needs in mind, and Arneon knew that it was a sculpture meant to go in public. Because Arneson did not seek to discuss the piece with the rightful owners before it was put in public, he put his work in jeopardy of being revoked, and so it happened. He could have easily created a similar sculpture for his own purposes and publicized it through a museum, or something of a similar nature. He should not have manipulated those that were paying him to get what he wanted. There were other ways to go about it, but he didn't follow them. The owners had every right to remove the bust from the original sight.
I think the work should have been kept in it's original location because this work represents George Mascone and his life. It is a beautiful piece and because it touches on such delicate matters of his death, it enhances the purpose. A bust is usually made to idolize and worship a person, which is what Arneson did, but he evoked emotion about Mascone. When people look at the "Portrait of George" they will see all the work and milestones of his life, along with how it ended. It's more than just a bust it is a memoir of his life.
Arenson was livid about Moscone's death, and wanted people to have to forever remember and be angry about the incredible loss caused by none other than bigotry. The incredible liveliness of the bust, expressed through his odd facial features and eclectic color usage, juxtaposes the violent events of his assassination. The goal of the artist was to demonstrate the enormity of the loss, and to commemorate a fallen soldier fighting for civil rights -- the phalic twinkie serving as a brutally ironic symbol. People of the time got upset because Arneson was incredibly successful in showing how irrational and painful his assassination was, because we can viscerally understand the humanity of his life.
I like the idea of putting George Moscone's life into the sculpture, but I don't believe this piece should stay in the original site. The sculpture's details on Moscone's assassination will forever remind the nation of the tragedy that took their leader's life. This piece is not appropriate for a memorial and should be features elsewhere.
Arneson's sculpture of Moscone was a public display of art, commissioned by a board well aware of Arneson's prior pieces of artwork and style, to commemorate the life of a beloved and personable mayor of San Francisco. Although he may not have disclosed exactly what the piece would look like in its finished state, he did not incorporate any overtly rude or derogatory statements about the mayor. In fact, I would argue that the graffiti-like etchings on the pedestal that many raised objections to actually added to the overall positive message conveyed by the artwork. George Moscone was a mayor who worked directly with communities to fight for LGBT rights and other pressing social issues; this was not a bronze effigy to commemorate a glorified war hero, but a sculpture that aimed to capture the pressing issues of the time while remembering the life and death of a man who aimed to bring these issues to the table in a pragmatic and locally-motivated way.
I enjoy the piece. It is a representation of one artist's take away from an event. I don't think it should be taken off of display simply because some people saw it as disrespectful. Memorials are supposed to remind people of a tragic event, this piece just happened to be a little more literal in its representation of the details of the event. Artist's through history have made controversial pieces that have been allowed to stay on display, why should this piece be treated any differently??
(This is Echo :))
I don't think that this piece was offensive. I really believe that the base of the structure captures the chaos and government dissonance that happened at the time of his death, and it captures everyone's emotions into something colorful, ultimately building his bust upon something that made him stronger. He's still smiling!
hi this is jack i for got it was due
But i think the piece was not offensive because of the fact that it showed the history that lead to his death. In that respect it is a tribute to his life and there for it did its job. also i think it should of stayed because the institute that hired him should of know what his work usually was made of.
Post a Comment