I have touched on the subject of modern figurative sculpture and the nature of sculptural quality or lack of it in an earlier post. Here I discuss the very new sculpture of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square.It is another of Ms Wearing's productions.The following should really be read in conjunction with my earlier post which illustrates examples of what would generally be accepted as poor or good quality modelling.
It took until 2018 for a statue of an important suffragist to arrive in Parliament Square. In typical British fashion there isn't quite a consistent theme in the choice of subjects for sculptures in the Square.Is this some kind of British pantheon? But statues of Lincoln and Mandela among many others are there. Personally I can see no reason for Mandela's presence other than blind sentiment. I admire Lincoln but both he and Mandela were foreigners. They only go to prove that, worthies though they may be the choice of subjects for public sculpture in the UK is at best capricious. But this new sculpture is a mediocre piece of work and that is nothing to celebrate at all. It is true that most of the statues in Parliament Square are of poor quality. And this example, on the evidence of photos is no exception.
Ms Wearing is no modeller. Mrs Fawcett's head looks blocklike and lacking animation. She and her team have produced nothing which rivals Nigel Boonham's recent Martin Luther King.
It is obvious that I am not the only one wondering why Ms Wearing was chosen. Here is a letter to the Guardian from Martin Jennings with which-at least on the nature of the modelling- I agree. Mr Jennings is a sculptor. He is one of those catering to the current UK craze for commemoration. He is not correct to say that A Real Birmingham Family is her (only) "other misguided foray into the artform". She and her teams have produced similar works in Italy and Denmark. On photographic evidence it seems that the quality is again very poor.
Contemporary sculpture is a broad field comprising multiple forms of practice. Sculptors do their best work when they deploy their proven expertise rather than when they wander into other areas of which they have little experience. You wouldn’t appoint a plumber to fix your wiring, so why ask a conceptual artist to make your statue?
It is dismaying to see that Gillian Wearing, a celebrated and interesting conceptual artist, has been chosen to make the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square (Report, 14 April). There are several women sculptors in this country with the necessary years of specific experience required to erect a compelling statue in Parliament Square next to Epstein’s figure of Jan Smuts and Ivor Roberts Jones’s great monument to Churchill. Wearing is not one of them, as evidenced by her one misguided foray into the artform to date – the lamentably formless A Real Birmingham Family. We are told she was selected to make the statue of Fawcett by so-called “cultural leaders”. What bias led these experts to ignore the evidence that Wearing’s abilities lie elsewhere?
Martin Jennings
Witney, Oxfordshire
The term "cultural leaders " is indeed grotesque. Are we talking in artistic or anthropological terms? Did any of these cultural leaders have understanding of artistic quality, or knowledge of sculptural tradition? It seems that the answer is "No".
At least this one was cast in the UK . It wouldn't have looked very good if it had been fabricated in China, would it?
I'll grant that Ms Wearing had a challenge in portraying a woman who was alive more than a century ago.How woud you depict her except in the clothing of her own day?
So what would she do? Ms Wearing has her holding out a sheet or banner with some of Mrs Fawcett's words. I am not the first to suggest that it looks as if she is hanging out washing. I also suggest that she grips the banner in a peculiarly awkward and slightly uncomfortable manner-just look at her hands.
Her body- language is not proclaiming something to the effect that, these are my words, look at them and take notice.It is passive and apologetic, not unlike those silent people in you see in the street who hold religious leaflets in their hands which you can accept or ignore.But perhaps that is what was wanted, a figure frozen in expressive mid-gesture might not look so dignified; she wasn't an impulsive Pankhurst after all. Mrs Fawcett may have been a respectable Victorian matron but I think that she could have managed a more dynamic pose.
I have tried to find something redeeming about this sculpture but it doesn't offer much.It was a reasonable idea to add photos to the base but the plinth seems rather half-hearted and there doesn't seem to have been much thought about it. The sculptors of the past could have designed their own plinths to emphasise and complement their figures. The lettering on the base is of only average quality. Surely no letter carver of quality has worked here?
 |
| Millicent Fawcett staue, Parliament Square, Gillian Wearing,installed 2018. |
It took until 2018 for a statue of an important suffragist to arrive in Parliament Square. In typical British fashion there isn't quite a consistent theme in the choice of subjects for sculptures in the Square.Is this some kind of British pantheon? But statues of Lincoln and Mandela among many others are there. Personally I can see no reason for Mandela's presence other than blind sentiment. I admire Lincoln but both he and Mandela were foreigners. They only go to prove that, worthies though they may be the choice of subjects for public sculpture in the UK is at best capricious. But this new sculpture is a mediocre piece of work and that is nothing to celebrate at all. It is true that most of the statues in Parliament Square are of poor quality. And this example, on the evidence of photos is no exception.
Ms Wearing is no modeller. Mrs Fawcett's head looks blocklike and lacking animation. She and her team have produced nothing which rivals Nigel Boonham's recent Martin Luther King.
It is obvious that I am not the only one wondering why Ms Wearing was chosen. Here is a letter to the Guardian from Martin Jennings with which-at least on the nature of the modelling- I agree. Mr Jennings is a sculptor. He is one of those catering to the current UK craze for commemoration. He is not correct to say that A Real Birmingham Family is her (only) "other misguided foray into the artform". She and her teams have produced similar works in Italy and Denmark. On photographic evidence it seems that the quality is again very poor.
Contemporary sculpture is a broad field comprising multiple forms of practice. Sculptors do their best work when they deploy their proven expertise rather than when they wander into other areas of which they have little experience. You wouldn’t appoint a plumber to fix your wiring, so why ask a conceptual artist to make your statue?
It is dismaying to see that Gillian Wearing, a celebrated and interesting conceptual artist, has been chosen to make the statue of Millicent Fawcett in Parliament Square (Report, 14 April). There are several women sculptors in this country with the necessary years of specific experience required to erect a compelling statue in Parliament Square next to Epstein’s figure of Jan Smuts and Ivor Roberts Jones’s great monument to Churchill. Wearing is not one of them, as evidenced by her one misguided foray into the artform to date – the lamentably formless A Real Birmingham Family. We are told she was selected to make the statue of Fawcett by so-called “cultural leaders”. What bias led these experts to ignore the evidence that Wearing’s abilities lie elsewhere?
Martin Jennings
Witney, Oxfordshire
The term "cultural leaders " is indeed grotesque. Are we talking in artistic or anthropological terms? Did any of these cultural leaders have understanding of artistic quality, or knowledge of sculptural tradition? It seems that the answer is "No".
At least this one was cast in the UK . It wouldn't have looked very good if it had been fabricated in China, would it?
I'll grant that Ms Wearing had a challenge in portraying a woman who was alive more than a century ago.How woud you depict her except in the clothing of her own day?
So what would she do? Ms Wearing has her holding out a sheet or banner with some of Mrs Fawcett's words. I am not the first to suggest that it looks as if she is hanging out washing. I also suggest that she grips the banner in a peculiarly awkward and slightly uncomfortable manner-just look at her hands.
Her body- language is not proclaiming something to the effect that, these are my words, look at them and take notice.It is passive and apologetic, not unlike those silent people in you see in the street who hold religious leaflets in their hands which you can accept or ignore.But perhaps that is what was wanted, a figure frozen in expressive mid-gesture might not look so dignified; she wasn't an impulsive Pankhurst after all. Mrs Fawcett may have been a respectable Victorian matron but I think that she could have managed a more dynamic pose.
I have tried to find something redeeming about this sculpture but it doesn't offer much.It was a reasonable idea to add photos to the base but the plinth seems rather half-hearted and there doesn't seem to have been much thought about it. The sculptors of the past could have designed their own plinths to emphasise and complement their figures. The lettering on the base is of only average quality. Surely no letter carver of quality has worked here?
