Mary Wollstonecraft statue

Great to see a statue to a woman, but I'm not sure about it. She is naked and a very idealised figure. If it had to be a naked figure it would have been more fitting to give her a few lumps and bumps, perhaps show her pregnant with her daughter. Honouring 2 great women in one go.I'll reserve proper judgement until I see the real thing but I'm not hopeful.

I’ve just clicked onto the link - oh dear oh dear oh dear. Confirms my innate antipathy towards statues of people as opposed to sculptures. Personally I’d tear it down and throw it in the Thames ( joke btw ?)

Oh, I am a bit troubled by this image.
I am not sure an ‘idealised’ naked female form is appropriate to represent an important early feminist.

I would have preferred to see an image of Mary Wollstonecraft herself, which could have contextualised her work, rather than this anonymous naked woman. I find this disappointing, particularly as there are so few statues of women, around the country.

I have seen other pieces by Maggie Hamblin and liked them very much, but this is creating more questions than answers, for me.

If this had been a statue commemorating a man would there be a naked male figure? I think this goes against everything she campaigned for.

I'm not a fan either

Very disappointing, I agree, Nortsat

Maggi Hambling, the sculptor, said critics are ^missing the point^:
“She’s everywoman and clothes would have restricted her. Statues in historic costume look like they belong to history because of their clothes".^
“It’s crucial that she is ‘now’."

What a load of pretentious drivel.

She imposes her personal norms on to an important historical figure.

“The whole sculpture is called ‘for Mary Wollstonecraft’ and that’s crucially important. It’s not an idea ‘of’ Mary Wollstonecraft naked… the sculpture is for now.”

Some of the above post should be in italics but they didn't work.

They are Hambling's words, not mine.

I usually admire Maggie Hambling, but this.......no.

^Personally I’d tear it down and throw it in the Thames (joke btw^) ?

The pigeons would be very disappointed.

I don’t think she is pretentious and I see her point, but I just don’t think this statue works either as art or as a memorial.

It’s beautifully done but I see no real likeness to a woman’s life whatever era she comes from I don’t see why the nakedness or why the perfect figure ? I don’t get the significance I m afraid

Oldwoman70

If this had been a statue commemorating a man would there be a naked male figure? I think this goes against everything she campaigned for.

This with bells on ??????

More than 90% of London's monuments celebrate men,

......of whom, how many are naked? Sorry, I don't get it.

Here’s her memorial to Britten. Spot the penis. No me neither
I think it’s beautiful btw

I love the Britten Scallop, too. It shows she’s capable of something much better that the latest work.

Well that's depressing. The responses from in the article show a much deeper understanding of the issues than the statue itself.

Galaxy I would say it’s a complete disconnect

Have you seen the runners up statue?

It is a beautiful piece of sculpture, but as for representing Mary Wollstonecraft.....No.

Clothes didn't restrict her, did they?

It looks a fine statue, and I can see where Maggie Hambling is coming from, but I wonder how many contributors to the fund-raising understood that it might not be a statue of her as such, but rather a commemoration of her work.

Maggie Hambling has let herself down. As suziewoozie has shown, she can do so much better than this. This is a dreadful statue with no redeemimg merits.

I've not RTFT, but I'm horrified.
I wrote my MA dissertation on women, art and society in the 18th century and MW featured a lot.
This is not acceptable.

Oh No! I had to google various images to have a clearer idea of the statue.
What a travesty.

Hmm, possibly used a Barbie doll for a model ?

The artwork would be more suited to a gallery.

It says more about the sculptor herself, than it does about Mary Wollstonecraft.