About that bare-breasted Overland Park arboretum statue
E. Thomas McClanahan
The artist, Yu Chang, says the piece is about the disturbing tendency of women to objectify themselves. It shows a headless figure with open blouse, holding a camera and snapping a picture of her exposed breasts. A section of her abdomen is missing and the figure is sliced and disjointed in several other places, as we see sometimes when parts of digital images fail to line up properly.
“This woman is choosing to take pictures of only part of herself, deleting her own identity,” Chang says.
If that was the artist’s intent, the idea wasn’t well-executed. To me, the piece seems some sort of statement about the superficiality of our digital toys and the vulgarity of sexting. But even if you buy the artist’s explanation, the work’s in-your-face character seems out of place in a suburban arboretum. It would be right at home, say, at the Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art in midtown.
Also, it seems closely tied to a contemporary fad — sending sexual images of oneself over a cellphone. Which means that in a relatively short time, it might seem hopelessly dated.
Sam Woods
11 months, 3 weeks agoThe amount of discussion generated by this sculpture makes it absolutely worthwhile, and an Overland Park treasure. Just think of how many suburban residents who’s artistic experience stops at “Dogs Playing Poker,” have started thinking about art in a critical and nuanced way. I’m glad the arboretum is keeping the statue as is.
Mark Hastert
11 months, 3 weeks agoIronic. On the one hand we have mommies that staunchly defend breast feeding in public and on the other a fiberglass breast is taboo.
Jeff Blackwood
11 months, 3 weeks agoHonestly, all the bronzes are out of place at the Arboretum. They’re horrible. Michael Jackson? Abe Lincoln and the Empress of China? Two fat tourist kids? What the heck? Who decided on this crap?
Don’t misunderstand me. I love art. I worked in the public relations department when the Nelson got the Shuttlecocks (that was fun to be on the receiving end of public comments). I really don’t understand why: 1) these things were created by Chinese artists when there are so many great artists in KC, and 2) why the beautiful trails at the Arboretum needed these random figures to beautify the already beautiful surroundings.
Does this factor into the Arboretum’s decision to start charging for entrance? Hopefully, we didn’t spend public funds on this.
Charles St Clair
11 months, 3 weeks agoEvery parent has the right to try to protect their kids from those things they deem inappropriate, but that doesn’t give them the right to make that decision about what my kids can see or do (full disclosure, as they say, I don’t have kids, but if I did, I’d want to make those decisions myself).
I agree that there are places where some art may not appropriate (it might not be a good idea to invite Marina Abramovic to do a piece for a kindergarten class or to assign “The Tropic of Cancer” for a fifth-grade book report, only because we also don’t make those kids read Plato at that age), but the Arboretum has become a public art gallery and as such is a good place to display works that have public merit. Statuary has been included in gardens for centuries.
The discussion about what is “good art” (what I like and can understand) and “bad art” (what I don’t like or don’t understand) has been probably been going on since the time of the Lascaux cave drawings (I can imagine Wilma saying to Fred, “Not more animal pictures! I just cleaned that wall.”) and will continue as long as people reveal themselves through art (no pun intended). One of the purposes of art is to express the inexpressible and create a dialogue about the world around us. It seems obvious that the new sculpture in the Arboretum has done just that.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 3 weeks agoCharles…good thoughts, but how can this piece be considered good when it very much misses its intended mark. Art, as you say is to express the inexpressible. But many if not most see something very different than the artist’s intended message. I think that makes it failed art, and why have that around?
The naked boobs can be discussed as appropriate or not for that venue, but the art itself is a failure.
Jeff Blackwood
11 months, 3 weeks ago@Charles - Don’t get me wrong. I love naked boobies like the next guy. I’m not debating good/bad. I’m just asking why this artwork came from China, why we couldn’t have Kansas City art, what any of the statues have to do with the with Arboretum, and were public funds spent on this?
And in the end, how does this relate to the need for the Arboretum to start charging for admittance? I would just as soon not have these statues if it meant that the Arboretum could be free for another year.
Does someone really believe that people are going to go to the Arboretum to see the art? Or are they there for the trees and nature walks?
I have a feeling that some out of touch old ladies in Johnson County thought that it would be great to get on the board of the Arboretum so they could have their own little art space because everyone will love their taste in art and sip tea from cups with their pinkies up when they see the sculptures.
It’s almost like someone found a discount on bronze statues from China and bought up the catalog. We might as well have bought things from SkyMall and put them out there. Peeing boy fountain, anyone?
Susan Brodl Venus
11 months, 3 weeks agoIt’s my understanding the statue was donated. No public funds were spent.
Jeff Blackwood
11 months, 3 weeks agoSusan - Thanks. I hope that’s the case. I was voicing a question, but I fully admit I have done nothing to research the answer. I would still like the peeing boy fountain, though.