Koba's revenge: Statues of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin were once ubiquitous in the Soviet Union and throughout the communist world. Although it's still not unusual to see Lenin in public places, Stalins are relatively rare. But in his hometown of Gori, Georgia, the 20th century's greatest mass murderer still stands proud over Stalin Square.
SEYLLOU/AFP/Getty Images, Chris Hondros/Getty Images, DMITRY KOSTYUKOV/AFP/Getty Images, Georges DeKeerle/Newsmakers, Scott Gries/Getty Images, PRAKASH SINGH/AFP/Getty Images, Pablo Spencer/AFP/Getty Images, Joshua Kucera, BRANISLAV PULJEVIC/AFP/Getty Images, MILOS CVETKOVIC/AFP/Getty Images, AFP/AFP/Getty Images
SUBJECTS:
Joshua Keating is associate editor at Foreign Policy.
No American or Western European statues?
Keating,
What about all the statues in the US South of various Confederate officers who look like they were on steroids? I mean, if you didn't know any better, riding through Richmond, VA, you'd come to the conclusion that Lee et al had thighs like a Greek god. And the Arthur Ash monument makes him look like his is about to whop those kids surrounding him with a book and a tennis racket.
Face it, those 3rd world and non-Western statues that you correctly poke fun of, are based on Western precedents, many of which are just as hubris-laden and idiotic.
Now I am off to genuflect in front of the Lincoln memorial.
It is about bad art combined with bad politics. The examples in the article (for the most part) illustrate the ugliness of bad art imposed on an unwilling populace. Until recently, public art in the west has reflected the values of the community. The examples you cite in your comment, while perhaps currently politically incorrect, reflect the pride in and love of their heritage shown by these communities. You could however point out the ugliness of much of the abstract public art commissioned by federal, state and local governments and inflicted on unwilling and bewildered communities during the last 50 years.
Those Western statues of yesteryear were no more a spontaneous expression of public sentiment than the latter, modern, and truly ugly monstrosities one sees around universities or in cities.
Here you can see everything but if someone would like to talk about art, all these monuments are much nicer than, say, the statue of liberty in New York
as ugly as the Bull statue on Wall Street
now THAT is an obscenity!
The Ugliest statue I've seen is the Mustang at Denver International Artery. Incidentally the artist was killed by the statue at the very end of the project.
Have you seen Mount Rushmore in person? It is really godawful.
...without Henry D. Cogswell's Temperance Fountain in Washington, D.C.
http://dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0000570.htm
Cogswell was a California pioneer who came west around the time of the Gold Rush, hung out his shingle as San Francisco's first dentist, and made a fortune in real estate. He was a legendary eccentric and a temperance crusader who believed that access to cool, clean water would turn the common man away from the evils of stronger drink. To this end, Dr. Cogswell designed and built dozens of fountains around the U.S., anywhere the local authorities would let him. Many of these monuments featured a statue of the good doctor himself. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_D._Cogswell , several of Cogswell's fountains were torn down by vandals and art lovers, and some cities were inspired to create fine arts commissions to screen such "gifts" and prevent more public eyesores.
One of the few remaining Cogswell fountains stands in Washington, D.C. and features a crane and a pair of truly ugly fish. It has inspired the Cogswell Society, a group whose traditions include a ritual toast to temperance (the required response was "I'll drink to that!") Take a look at the photos on the sites above--if they're not as ugly as any in this story, i don't know what is.
as of last week he hasnt been moved anywhere mate, still rotating is his old spot...
Keating quantifies the piece as an encounter between "bad art and bad politics", and decides for us (and the child) that the statue's subject, "swine-flu boy" a.k.a. a six-year-old kid, doesn't want this event to be his legacy. Keating's entire feature, most specifically "Swine-flu boy" is a cultural and historical misrepresentation in the absence of context, and explodes the self-satisfying smarmy arrogance of an elitist kid sitting at his desk in DC passing judgment on a world that is far far away from his comprehension. This might have been interpreted as being unjustly critical toward the author himself. However, the piece the author wrote was arrogantly critical of the people in the impoverished town of La Gloria, Mexico--a place that happens to have a very complex political situation.
The massive U.S. and Mexican-owned pig farming complex within La Gloria is the suspected site of H1N1's origination. La Gloria residents picketed the factory in April of last year, claiming its facilities were not only the cause of the 3,000 local cases of the virus, but are also responsible for tainting the town's water supply and causing other health problems.
The statue, whether or not based on the Belgian urinating boy (as the author claims without evidence) and what it represents to the people of La Gloria obviously cannot be classified under a category of "bad art and bad politics" given its obvious representative aesthetic. Instead, the piece itself falls under "when a bad writer meets big world." This conclusion can be arrived at easily after using Keating's base understanding and and applying it to his inability to acknowledge, comprehend and synthesize complex world events and conditions that have led to the creations of the actual statue itself. The result is an objectification of the people of La Gloria--a thing for Keating to pick-up, look at, and wrack his brain for something "funny" to say about it. I realize that this feature is supposed to be cute; a sort of foreign policy object-analysis in the vein of making fun of celebrity hairstyles and dresses as seen in a style publication. But these are real events, real people, and real communities that are the subject here, and that calls for journalistic responsibility. While the discussion about journalistic responsibilities regarding context and cultural representation is limited to this comment section on Foreign Policy's website, I think Keating (along with whoever OK'd this feature) could probably best use a trip back to college for some additional education, because as they stand now, they aren't even equipped to enter into the discussion.
First, lighten up. These statues are ugly, and many have dubious backstories.
Second, you said there is no proof that the swine flu boy is based on the belgian statue, but the must have missed the link the author included to the newstory about unveiling of the swine flu statue in which the governor of Veracruz is quoted saying "La Gloria is now an important tourist destination. Next week we'll inaugurate a statue of the child Edgar Hernandez that resembles the Manneken Pis in Brussels, Belgium, for having carried out a similar exploit"
Journalistic Responsibility? So he should have confirmed his information that these statues are in-fact ugly from two sources and he should have contacted the statues before going to press to give them an opportunity to respond? Please.
When you decide to post comments that are simultaneously pedantic and immature it's best not to recommend that others go back to college - you might fully deplete the world's irony supply.
I think you missed one: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rainier-redcross.org/images/MKlegman%2520Statue%2520DSCF0015.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.rainier-redcross.org/new_web/PROGRAMS/SPECIAL%2520EVENTS/RHB/RHB%2520Marvin%2520Klegman%2520Memorial%2520Award.htm&usg=__RhBeHvArjeFO8vBahdHG2BLVMn4=&h=384&w=512&sz=66&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=xvBn4BiyDMm0aM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=131&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLowell%2BElementary%2Bschool,%2Bstatue,%2Bearthquake%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbo%3D1%26tbs%3Disch:1'
Me and my friends have realized that this article about bad art is strictly pointing to author's opinion what are actually a bad politics.
There are only statues from 3rd world or ex-communistic countries. So what if they look like that or present that what they are? How you actually can be sure that people from those countries have a same opinion about that?
For example, Stalin killed more than 2 million people but when you ask Russians about him - majority have positive opinion about him and his kind of leadership. Maybe Russians have same opinion about Lincoln statue like yours is about Stalin. Same thing is about all other statues that present some politicians or soldiers in, as author of this article said "pseudo-Soviet artistic style". There is no rule what is good art and what is bad just because of it politic background.
Then, because I'm from Serbia, I would like to explain what does staue of Johnny Depp presents. It's placed in a ethno village made by his friend film maker Emir Kusturica and statue is made to ridicule of Hollywood as a factory of mass produced idols.
When I read name of this article I hoped that it would be some artistic judgeing (as it is for that sculpture of tear that looks like a female genital) but, unfortunatelly I have realized that it's just author's politic judgement so I have been very disappointed.
RE: Moscow statu of Peter the Great
The story we heard in Moscow about the Peter the Great statue is completely different from the narrative in your story. We were told that in 1992, Boris Yeltsin commissioned this statue as a gift to the United States on the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage. Since George H.W. Bush was running for election at the time, he refused the statue.
Russians recycled the statue, replacing Columbus' head with the head of Peter the Great. Anyone knowledgeable about either Spanish or Russian clothing knows that the style of clothing on Peter is not Russian, but consistent with 15th Century Spanish design. The boats represented are also from that era of exploration. Muscovites refer to the statue as "Pedro the Great."
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/20338340
The statues are not as ugly as most modern art that you find in America. In fact, most of them are not particularly ugly at all. In fact, they're kinda campy.
How could you miss Touchdown Jesus, aka Big Butter Jesus, aka Drowning Jesus, along I-75 in Ohio? Doesn't matter your politics or religion, that is one distracting eyesore. I'd like to know how many fender benders there are on that stretch of highway eah year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Kings_(statue)
I just looked up Drowning Jesus on wiki, and you're right, it's incredible. Perhaps that statue is best captured under the title of 'world's craziest statues - when religion meets small-town America'?
Agreed! I was heading down to leave just that comment.
The list is missing the Arthur Ashe Monument in Richmond, Va
http://www.mytimesdispatch.com/images/uploads/arthurashe.jpg
The poor guy's head is too big and he looks like he's about to smack the kids with is tennis racket.
The Meaning of Building the Statues
Why the poeple want to build their own statues, even it's ugly or not, especially dictators. Frankly, this is all about the Eternity. Every human holds personality which pushes him to be eternal or immortal. Realistic approach to this issue exposes the ugly truth, nobody is immortal. Every soul shall have a taste of death (The Quran3:185, 21:35). Actually people who want to be immortal usually try to make statues, at least for the next decade after their resignation or death. In my born city, still we have Lenin's statue, which is the sign of respect for Lenin and I think this statue will survive till the change of government. I mean the government which does not support formal communistic ideology.
Caption on Stalin in Gori, Georgia
Why do you award Stalin the title of "20th century's greatest mass murderer?" Stalin was a terrible man, no doubt. In terms of deaths caused, though, Hitler was quite obviously worse by any reasonable measure.
The fact is that Stalin killed more people than Hitler, but he was worse than Adolf not only in case of quantity of his victims. Hitler was a monster, but he was a passionate monster. When we're discussing Stalin it should be found that he was just a bureaucrat without any symptoms of something he believed in. Hitler was someone, but he unfortunately represented evil - Stalin was nobody and always will be. It is shocking that anywhere there is a place where a sculpture of nobody can stand, but it is more sarcastic when we compare it to the text of Mr Saakashvili praising the transformation his country seemingly undergone.
My country's Mass Murderer Is better than yours!
Goodness! What kind of a race is ours, the Human race? There's a patriotic debate on regarding who's countryman was more evil!
Its approximated that Hitler killed 11 million people, around 6 million Jews and 5 million others. Stalin is estimated to have killed anywhere between 20 and 60 million people so is considerably 'worse' by this measurement.
Also the quote 'with one 9/11 survivor describing it as "'a cross between a scar and a female sexual organ."' is fantastic!
Mr. Keating--the Ghengis Khaan statue is out of place in this selection. It's not "bad politics meets bad art", in fact, it has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with tourism. The Khaan has been dead for 700 years and Mongolia does not have an authoritarian regime. When it did, as a Soviet satellite, making any monument to Ghengis, or even teaching about him in schools, was strictly outlawed. Monuments like that one came into existence with democracy.
Genghis was "a brutal conqueror" to be sure, but there isn't any other kind of conqueror. Somehow people in general are much more tolerant of historical atrocities committed by other peoples than they are of those committed by Mongols. Genghis is considered a national symbol in Mongolia just like, say, Angkor is in Cambodia. It has nothing to do with authoritarian politics. Mongolians come to that statue to snap photos and picnic, not to lay flowers at the Khaan's feet or prostrate themselves. And Genghis himself would probably be horrified--he strictly forbade anyone to make any image of himself while he was alive, in stark contrast to Stalin et al.
The statue is visually striking. It's not high art nor meant to be, but the statue of liberty is uglier. What are you trying to imply by including it here?
i think you dont know that--genghis khan was one of the cleverest people in the world. of course you dont know much.i think you need knowledge to speak write,you are so so so so bad LOL
There is a probability that Mr Keating conforms to that annoying manner which can be seen in american foreign policy or generally in american society and which is - to praise ours, to ignore others. But this isn't the point, the point is that even if is doing so he remains Mr Keating, not Keating.
Well I think the statue of Mya Wathe in India is the ugliest with a leader in power deciding to put her own statue up lol.
When I was working london in a hotel they had this funny old lady as a statue which was very ugly indeed and the norm for Hotel Jobs London I cant believe people even think these statue need to be built I really dont think public tax money should be spent on things that are not even good looking lol!
I don't like the concept of "Peter the terrible" statue. But I find "Swine-flu boy" as a wonderful statue. Little boy is still cute for me. For the other statues, some really look ugly. I mean, no appeal at all to any tourist.Andrew Stone
The most bizarre statue I ever saw is a bust of Frank Zappa, mounted on a 10 foot high stainless steel column in a mundane street in Vilnius (Capital of Lithuania). The statue itself is unremarkable but nobody knows who commissioned it and why.
Matski
A nice collection of what is probably best described as statues in poor taste. It is nothing new though. People with power and money have been using statues to immortalize themselves since the ancient Egyptians and even before.
Dave
Why was't that fascist monstrosity included? And I don't see how the Ghengis Khan statue is any worse than the Lincoln Memorial.
And what about the Washington Monument? Can you think of a less artistic cliche than that Masonic phallus?
Such impression that notorious American political correctness allows to abuse to the author exclusively symbols and everything that I am connected anyhow with communism, Russia etc. In the majority of examples, both did not try, and could not see something ugly and truly the awful. In two examples I agree completely: "great" creation of "greatest" Tsereteli in Moscow and that it has presented to America in memory of tragical events. And I thought that only at me the perverted imaginations:)
There is nothing bad in any form of art, Its just an art - a creation of heart and mind. It is just an creative project that is an epitome of Senegal's 50 years of independence, praise it. Why even mixing politics with this beautiful creation?
Jennie
www.silvercarving.com
i think its not ugliest statue
Joshua you are so bad.....I think thats good idea.of course you dont go to this statue.if you go to this statue(genghis khan) you say this is very interesting and cool.but you dont see this statue. i think you cant writing without see about writing think.without this you are bad caption .you dont speak the just your think .if you need some course or school,without this all people and i think YOU ARE ONE OF THE LIER PEOPLE
JOSHUA KEATING,
THE RELIGIOUS DEFINITELY HAVE CONDEMNED THE LITTLE CLOTHING ON THE WOMAN'S BODY BUT THEY NEVER CONDEMNED "ITS PSEUDO-SOVIET ARTISTIC STYLE" !!!!
YOU WOULD ASK AND THEY WOULD EVEN NOT KNOW WHAT THE WORD "SOVIET" MEANS. PLEASE TRY TO WRITE CORRECT INFORMATION NEXT TIME AND NOT TO PUT YOUR OWN OPINION UNDER SOME OTHER PERSONS' NAME.
THANK YOU.
I don't know why people call a statue "ugly". The are beautiful carvings from an artist. Its an art. So, it should not be called ugly :)
Sudoku Puzzles
Really its one of the fabulous post and I just like to say you,its very informative blog which I like a lot.Each & every tips of your post are awesome.Thanks a lot.Keep blogging.
application control58
Show the taste of different culture and country. I wouldn't use the world ugly to describe them. Everyone has its own perspective
By any luck you had one for yourself in the future, I bet It's the ugliest of all.
But rest assured, you WILL HAVE NONE. In your life.
Most likely you are like your leagues of intellectuals who has no capaibility to make a mark in the world, but just love to point your fingers. But if you point your fingers to any of these individuals while they are alive and in front of his face, even if your Lord intervened, you might have a slight chance to keep your life, but your fingers are definitely gone.
All of them are way over your league and you show RESPECT.
They can move mountains, and you can only take pictures.
Since no plastic criticism seems to be deemed necessary by the authors, one has to think the criteria is solely politicial. Bolivar's statue, classical in style and rather beautiful is therefore put forward as one of the ugliest statues in the world because Bolivar wasn't schooled in Yale. If you fight imperialism and your name is anything but Washington, you are evil.
Yuck, the brains that invented this disgust me.
Right here in my home town!
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2404512960070470654pgQJUk
Every time I see it I wonder, did his nose really look like that?
Well, if you're not including Mt. Rushmore, your not serious about either bad politics or bad art. Take a look at the people on that monument.
Lincoln: in the midst of the Civil War in which we have been told ad nauseum that the fate of freedom hung in the balance, Lincoln managed to send troops to both massacre and relocate the Navahos, and also on record as considering Black people as inferior.
Jefferson: not only owned slaves, but strenuously argued against freeing slaves.
Teddy Roosevelt - reviled as a mass murderer everywhere except in the US.
Washington - see above on Jefferson.
I can detect nothing 'ugly' - either artistically or politically - in the statue of Simón Bolívar. Quite the opposite in fact: it is an unexceptionable representation of an admirable historical figure.
I must conclude that its inclusion in this article reflects the author's antipathy towards either the donor country, the recipient country, or both.
In this instance, the ugliness is entirely in the mind of the beholder.
I have personally seen the this statue while visiting Senegal. There is nothing wrong or ugly of it. Find more world best news headlines.
Well written post and thanks for shareing.
How these Burmese rebels got big on Weibo
BY PATRICK BOEHLER
10 signs you may be a liberal imperialist
Does North Korea have a pirate problem?
BY ISAAC STONE FISH
Yes, Karzai is an ingrate -- but the Afghans need us
BY MARC CHRETIEN
Caption Contest: What's happening in this photo of Kim Jong Un?
Is it safe to fly on a U.N. helicopter?
BY COLUM LYNCH
May/June 2013
Profile
FP Power Map
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(50)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE