Restricted Stephen Foster Monument Pittsburg, Pennsylvania

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Actually, it's not.
Ok, so if you now claim people aren't entitled to form their own opinions about a piece of art.....it's noted.

Personally I recognise others have that right, even when it's making unfounded accusations of it's intent based on their own racial preconceptions....... again I have seen no evidence presented that the statues intent was to demean african americans instead of being to honor Foster.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Ok, so if you now claim people aren't entitled to form their own opinions about a piece of art.....it's noted.

Personally I recognise others have that right, even when it's making unfounded accusations of it's intent based on their own racial preconceptions....... again I have seen no evidence presented that the statues intent was to demean african americans instead of being to honor Foster.
As I asked earlier, state your own opinion and stop mischaracterizing mine.

This specific statue controversy has little or nothing to do with the intent of the sculptor.

If you don't agree with what I said in post 13, that's fine. We'll just have to disagree.
 
Last edited:

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Foster was anti slavery and no disrespect was intended by depicting a shoeless black banjo player below his figure.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
As I asked earlier, state your own opinion and stop mischaracterizing mine.

This specific statue controversy has little or nothing to do with the intent of the sculptor.

If you don't agree with what I said in post 13, that's fine. We'll just have to disagree.
If a statue wasn't intended to be racist.....the only racism is being introduced by the viewer today.....so it reflects their racist ideology not the statues......as it has none.

I would agree the intent wasnt to be racist.

I agree a piece of bronze didn't suddenly form racist attitudes of it's own.....as it is incapable.

So that leaves some of the viewers today...
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
If a statue wasn't intended to be racist.....the only racism is being introduced by the viewer today.....so it reflects their racist ideology not the statues......as it has none.

I would agree the intent wasnt to be racist.

I agree a piece of bronze didn't suddenly form racist attitudes of it's own.....as it is incapable.

So that leaves some of the viewers today...
An average person can perceive a piece of art as racist without themselves being racist. They can perceive a photo as obscene without themselves being obscene. They can perceive a painting as violent or frightening or foreboding, without themselves being any of those things. They can perceive art as blasphemous or disturbing or creepy or whatever. All it shows is that they’re a human with eyes, and a brain that can process and interpret art.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
An average person can perceive a piece of art as racist without themselves being racist. They can perceive a photo as obscene without themselves being obscene. They can perceive a painting as violent or frightening or foreboding, without themselves being any of those things. They can perceive art as blasphemous or disturbing or creepy or whatever. All it shows is that they’re a human with eyes, and a brain that can process and interpret art.
I agree with this post Dan. I think you've articulated this well. It may be a small nuance but, it is something we can agree on, provided that you can acknowledge the same is true on the other side of the debate. It doesn't make someone racist because they interpret or favor a monument that others find objectionable.

Too often, we (people in general) make assumptions about people's character, based on their politics, or interpretations of historical artifacts, monuments, issues, etc. Those assumptions only divide us further, & contribute to the nastiness in our current climate.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I agree with this post Dan. I think you've articulated this well. It may be a small nuance but, it is something we can agree on, provided that you can acknowledge the same is true on the other side of the debate. It doesn't make someone racist because they interpret or favor a monument that others find objectionable.

Too often, we (people in general) make assumptions about people's character, based on their politics, or interpretations of historical artifacts, monuments, issues, etc. Those assumptions only divide us further, & contribute to the nastiness in our current climate.
Thanks, and agreed. The more we understand where other people are coming from, the easier it would be to work out solutions.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
Should art that offends be removed from public view? That's a question I've been pondering the past few days, reading this thread.

Because I find troubling the issue of removing public art that offends some, but not all, people, I've have been doing some reading on the question this morning. As always, there are multiple viewpoints to think about -- not just one. One very general article on interpreting and responding to art was this: https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-art/The-interpretation-of-art, and another here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics/Emotion-response-and-enjoyment. Another, more specific article, was this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/arts/design/emmett-till-whitney-biennial-schutz.html. Some of you also will remember the controversy surrounding a certain work of art that involved a crucifix, which many Christians found terribly offensive. There are books, writers, songs, movies. If the "perception" of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" is offensive to some people, for example, should the play be made unavailable for people who choose to read it? What about the song "Over the Rainbow"?

This is not a political statement. It's philosophical. Sculptures and statues are works of art as well as historical records -- and not just a record of the subject. They are records of historical eras, as well. Demanding removal of art from view because your perception of that art offends you places "you" as the arbiter of what others can view, which to me is repressive.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
Tourists visit Italy to see the history. They go to see the art and the beauty of the country. As they view the stained glass window, they dont ponder the notion that the kings that is shown positioned in the art standing over the others ruled his subjects as servants/slaves. The Foster statue is a work of art. I can interpret the positioning of him and make any 'woke' conclusion I desire. In Italy it is about the art but in American it is about interpretation based presentivism history. In other words, TODAY it is bad and should be removed because the current trend tells me it bad.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Tourists visit Italy to see the history. They go to see the art and the beauty of the country. As they view the stained glass window, they dont ponder the notion that the kings that is shown positioned in the art standing over the others ruled his subjects as servants/slaves. The Foster statue is a work of art. I can interpret the positioning of him and make any 'woke' conclusion I desire. In Italy it is about the art but in American it is about interpretation based presentivism history. In other words, TODAY it is bad and should be removed because the current trend tells me it bad.
It's very doubtful that in the last thousand years or so of Italian art, a piece of art was never moved or relocated, or displayed then taken down, because people's tastes change over time.

No one is suggesting destroying any art, just changing the venue. And if it's decided to add context or a plaque explaining the sculpture, that is a lot less radical than the pope ordering the nudity of the Michelango fresco painted over in the Sistine Chapel.
 
Last edited:

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
It's very doubtful that in the last thousand years or so of Italian art, a piece of art was never moved or relocated, or displayed then taken down, because people's tastes changed over time.

No one is suggesting destroying any art, just changing the venue. And if it's decided to add context or a plaque explaining the sculpture, that's a lot less radical than a pope having the nudity of the Michelango fresco painted over in the Sistine Chapel.

In this instance, and in quite a number of others, the change of venue is being moved into storage and there is no indication that it will ever see the light again.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
In this instance, and in quite a number of others, the change of venue is being moved into storage and there is no indication that it will ever see the light again.
But the art is not being destroyed. Museums move stuff to display, and to storage, and back and forth. I think these statues will be displayed again.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
It is my impression that mobs pulling down statues and vandalizing them wanted them destroyed and were in fact attempting to do just that. If there intention was to have them removed to other venues they had a **** poor way of demonstrating that.
This thread is about a specific statue. It wasn't pulled down by mobs.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
It seems to me that the same groups who defended the displaying of art that was offensive to some religious groups a few decades ago are now the ones advocating removal or destruction of art that offends them.

John
It seems to me this door swings both ways, as with most things.
 
Top