Comments by "iggle" (@iggle6448) on "The New Culture Forum"
channel.
-
@telephassarose3501 Quite. I have to hope that the original concept was good and beautiful. Though the execution was utterly abominable. IMHO, it's not about romanticising Diana but simply about presenting her as she actually was. Queen Victoria's statues, without variance as far as I'm aware, look just like her photos. How did the Victorian sculptors manage that? And, as you say, how did this present sculptor, with myriad forms of technology available to him, go so badly wrong?
I can think of three deliberate reasons:
1. The RF didn't want such a beautiful, alluring statue that would become a Diana shrine, which I think is still a possibility, given her enduring popularity.
2. Diana's sons, remembering her with childish memories only saw Diana as 'mumsie' and not the extraordinarily attractive, feminine, elegant and captivating woman that she was. Thus, they approved all the sculptor's drawings and photos as he progressed his work, and perhaps made suggestions for tweaks to make it more mumsie according to their memories of her.
3. The sculptor is simply not into women. His male forms are striking and beautiful. Maybe he's gay and Diana's beauty and allure simply didn't touch him - this is, after all, a depiction of her that reduces her to that of an almost comedic weekend M>F crossdresser with bad wigs and a penchant for Primark end of line bargains. Perhaps he's had more practice at creating male art forms. Perhaps he's not all that good at sculpture.And perhaps those who were in charge of selecting sculptors deliberately bore all this in mind.
Whatever, this piece is a total travesty and nothing like it could very easily have been if done by a sympathetic sculptor. (What also bothers me is all the many people trying to turn themselves inside out and upside down, trying to wipe the evidence of their own eyes and cognition, to find something good, something of Diana in this leaden scowling, lumpen hausfrau.)
6
-
6
-
I completely agree too. A tree is known by the fruit it bears. What has 'wokeness' grown? To me, it all looks like a mess of cancelling, humiliating and crushing people who don't agree, violence, riots, thoughtlessly smashing things up, overwrought emotionalism and sensationalism, absence of logic and respectful dialogue....it's faux individualism taken to the extremes and encouraged by those who puppet their programmed foot soldiers. Show me the soup kitchens, the creches, the homes for homeless people, the money they've raised and donated to projects to directly help disadvantaged people, show me the good of 93 different sexualities, the knee-bowing to criminals and overwrought mobs, the dictatorial imposition of redefinitions and the prohibition of a whole range of adequate words...where is the love? And let's emphasise: in the whole history of the world, no such totalitarian counter-culture movement/revolution has ever ended well.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4