- This topic has 2 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
I read about this story in the paper this morning. You can read about it here. A statue of Christopher Newport, a leader of the early Virginia colony in the 16th Century, is being put up in a college in the town of Newport News, and the problem that people see is that the statues has two arms even though he had lost an arm during his life!Is this hub bub over nothing? Do people have a legitimate complaint if they want to see the statue of Newport with only one arm to reflect history? Or did the artist have the right to make the statue in idealized form, not missing a limb? After all - how many equestrian statues or other likenesses have been created in art throughout the ages which have shown idealized, rather than realistic depictions of heroes?By the way I think that this is the statue in question, though I believe it will be placed outside. Not a bad statue, don't you think?
I think the controversy is that he had lost his arm at a point in his life prior to really doing anything important in the settlement. The argument is therefore that he should be depicted without the arm, but the statue shows him with both arms.
I think the controversy is that he had lost his arm at a point in his life prior to really doing anything important in the settlement. The argument is therefore that he should be depicted without the arm, but the statue shows him with both arms.
Then they messed up; should have shown him (warts and all) sans arm. IMHO.How about the FDR statue showing him in the wheelchair?
