The angle everyone's after...Danial Edward's "Monument to Pro-Life"

romanedirisinghe says:

I like it. I didn't realize it actually showed a baby's head emerging. It's always refreshing to see things as they really are, with no censorship.

I don't agree with the political bent of the artist. Pro life?

Sure, this is about life, but birthing isn't about politics, or at least shouldn't be.

What pro-lifers don't understand is that their opponents simply want to have the government's hands off our bodies. That's all.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

I am extremely dubious that the artist considers himself "pro-life". He called it "A Monument to Pro-Life", which is different.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

pfflyers1 says:

the closes a guy gets to this is "turn your head and cough"
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

maxivida    says:

isn't it obvious that the artist is mocking the pro-lifers? why doesn't anyone else notice this? it's britney spears with her girlie hairdo, hanging on to the ears of a bear skin rug. irony? anyone?
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Kris Kros    says:

Very interesting.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

Like they really are?

She had a c-section.

And people dont give birth like this either. The piece just makes me realise how far from reality pro life groups have become - now they think faking a scene is the best way to win a point., Still it does make a nice contrast to the more radical pro life groups whose idea of political statements involves blowing up abortion clinics..

Theres no more reality in this work that there is truth in the average political speech.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

G0Da    says:

I heard that this artist doesnt even care about the debate over if WE SHOULD be able to control our own bodies, that he basically used this to get more attention for himself, adding that title to stir the pot even more in his "BAD PRESS IS GOOD PRESS" Methods. Because think about this, Do you think that the majority of pro life folks would approve of NUDE ART in the first place. LOLOLOL.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

Yes, maxivida, I think more people get it than don't.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsidez    says:

nice black & white
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Colin I. Mills    says:

It is interesting how all the media photographs wouldn't show the head emerging from the womb, but the fact that she seems to have severed legs and arms didn't disturb any of them - not even mentioned. Show people massacring each other, but don't show naked flesh. How totally messed up.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

oybay ©    says:

I'd like to know what the future ex-Mr. Britney Spears feels about this.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

rebeccathirtynine says:

This is a plaster version of the final sculpture, which is cast in bronze from molds made from the disposable plaster version. You can't cast a statue of this size in one pouring, it's poured in many parts, welded together, finished, and patinated to make the final work of art. That is why she appears to be in pieces.
"Knepomuk says:
It is interesting how all the media photographs wouldn't show the head emerging from the womb, but the fact that she seems to have severed legs and arms didn't disturb any of them - not even mentioned. Show people massacring each other, but don't show naked flesh. How totally messed up."
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

mkm3d says:

Thanks Rebeccathirtynine, not everyone understands the process of making a sculpture, and have opened some eyes for sure, as well as the sculpture. I thought I had read in some blurb on the net that Daniel was inspired by her beauty and her form. She did not pose for this at all! I myself am not a Spears fan, but this is a very well done sculpture! Being a sculptor myself, I can appreciate it for that.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Maia C    says:

Ain't no way a woman is going to give birth against the force of gravity like that. Why didn't the sculptor depict her in a realistic position for delivering a baby? I suspect the reason he depicted "Britney" in this position has more to do with conception than with birth.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

wonkthesane says:

Yeah, have you ever seen anything so tasteless in your whole life?
Maia, you do have a point, to quote the scultor:

"The positioning of Spears’s body in a seductive pose on a bearskin rug while giving birth, points toward a comment on her spastic transition from teen-sex-pop-star sensation to mother figure."

Not sure about you guys, but I find any woman with a baby crowning in any position slightly below anything I would classify as erotic. And why a bearskin rug? You know how bad that's going to smell in the fur?! I mean I sneezed once on suede, and I can still see it, seventeen years later. Why would anyone want to see, much less pay museum admission to see, a mock up of a naked Britney? Especially one of that dolting twit redneck birthing some other snotty hick, fresh for the Paris Hilton notoriety? This is more of a momument towards avant guard stupidity, tragic human conditions, and bad taste. This makes me wonder why I quit smoking.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

JF10000000000 says:

Maxivida, if this is meant to be ironic, I will lose all faith in art, humanity and america. I like the sculpture, at least it isn't totally banal like most art I see in Williamsburg.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

maxivida    says:

judgmentalist, judging by this thread, i'd say you're wrong.

assgold, i like the sculpture too. the bear skin rug idea is precious.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

Yeah. Ok. Point taken.

None of my friends misunderstood.

I think.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

Im just not even sure if its art really, just the act of making something to me doesnt mean its art?

as for getting it. I get it fine. I just dont like it. Why not choose just an average person?

Its sensationalist in its design and form and execution, a media event not art - and its also not remotely real life in any way, no one gives birth like this and the subject had a csection.

It makes a statement yes, but the statement is "the media will report anything"
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

maxivida    says:

exactly. you've just defined pop art. and this sculpture is pop art par excellence.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

fair call. Warhol would probably love this :)
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Hoot1    says:

I bet she ripped the ears right off that bear!
Probably what killed it. :^D
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Siebbi says:

Showing war and dying people in almost every newscast is OK but showing a sculpture of a woman giving birth to a new life is controversial? What a sick world!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

Whats controversial isnt the pose or the act its the way its been presented.

But youre missing a point - Despite having a booming porn industry it seems to those of us looking in that Americans are increasingly prudish about nudity - mind you this image is confronting in its pose as well - people dont give birth like this and mate the average person doesnt see a birth anyway - having seen a few theyre not neccesarily pleasant experiences in any way.

I think there is a lot of confusion here - the act of birth is not the controversy its the way this artist portrayed it and its subject thats the contoversy - personally if i was spears I'd be suing for all i was worth, the artist never spoke to her or met her or asked permission.

The fascetious claim that he chose her because of her youth is ridiculous as well - shes 25 years of age and a spoiled brat with little sense and less taste in men - with spears marriages and habits i wouldnt want my kids considering her a role model thanks and if the artist thinks 25 is young to have a kid he needs to get out more.

The only thing spears was chosen for is shock value which is of course why the pose was chosen, the fact that shes rich enough to be able to support a child i suspect isnt the point - the main reason im betting the child was born has nothing to do with pro life (IMO Spears wouldnt know an original thought if it ran her over) and more to do with babies being the newest fashion accessory in celebrity circles - for evidence see Katie Holmes and even Angeline Jolie's seeiming obsession with adopting every kid in sight.

PS if you want to stop seeing death on tv stop invading other countries...
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Siebbi says:

What is shown? A woman giving birth. Nothing more, nothing less.
Everything else is happening in the head of the artist and/or the viewer. I don't know the artist and his intention, so for me it's only a woman giving birth, looking a little like Mrs. Spears. So it's not the object that's controversal but the artists intention or it's interpretation - the artistic context. Pro-life? Bad taste? Both? Everyone has to decide on his own. There we have a conflict. If anyone want to have one.
Concerning your PS: I or my generation of my country never invaded another country. So should any other do. If I don't want to see death from war on TV I have to stop watching TV as long as other warmongers kill in the name of peace.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Fotofever    says:

"Ain't no way a woman is going to give birth against the force of gravity like that. Why didn't the sculptor depict her in a realistic position for delivering a baby? I suspect the reason he depicted "Britney" in this position has more to do with conception than with birth."
I tend to agree with you Maia. The position here is more for the shock value.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

A realistic sculpture of Britney Spears giving birth, on the other hand, would have no shock value whatsoever.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Siebbi says:

The kneeling position is known since ages. The pregnant woman has in cowering, sitting or kneeling position more power to push. The power of the uterus muscles and the contractions are more effective. Expectant mothers are more and more preferring these positions. It's by far no unrealistic sculpture. Apart from the ice bear ;-)
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

NK Shots says:

O_o
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Tami Gramont    says:

Bravo for so much of what has been posted here. I'm proud to be apart of this community (flikr) where so many actually think!

Let's not also miss the point that this is one of the very few times we'll see a vagina in all her glory, doing one of her greatest jobs! It's all ridiculous and typically what art can be about, stirring up the pot, no matter how it's done. And that is precisely what has happened.
I agree, this is the only way to get pro-lifers in all their prudishness to look at the female body and what we’ve decided is superior beauty (we are the culture regardless of our individual opinions and I’m of the mind she’s completely without a shred of dignity, however, rich, since rich replaces all higher qualities in our country as well as other countries if we have our way).

I've forgetten often I am the culture. I helped in some way to create what I see even if I don’t agree with it. I want to NOT believe this since I disagree with so much of what is going on in our world, but some things just are regardless of one’s morality. Is there true objectivity while maintaining one’s morality?
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

hunny*beso* says:

This seems to have taken away the beauty of birth. The artist has stirred the pot...bravo if this was their goal !!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Kim Siever    says:

Actually, many women give birth in a position similar to his. It's natural, unlike the artificial position invented in the hospital.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Kim Siever    says:

Realistic position, it sure is. That's how I gave birth to all three of my children. SW4, if you think laying on the back is a realistic position, you don't know much about the history of birth or the reality of it. That was created for doctors. Hands and knees, or most other positions are what is comfortable for women. Hands and knees was most comfortable for me, and how I had my babies. So this sculpture is very realistic for me. I don't see why it is considered porn as it is a woman giving birth.

And birth is beautiful. Just because it doesn't show the medical aspect of birth doesn't mean it is wrong. Birth is incredible.

if this is Britney Spears, good for her! I thought she had had a c-section. I am glad to see she birthed her baby in a gentle, peaceful way. I would pick hands and knees over any position (well, I already have).

Mary
kmsiever's wife.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

espion    says:

"Is there true objectivity while maintaining one’s morality?" asked ObedientMuse. Sure there is if morality itself is objective.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

romanedirisinghe says:

Not that I would know, but this position seems to compress the belly, and would seem to aid in birthing. Gravity is irrelevant in this situation.

It's odd. I never noticed the arms and legs chopped off. I'm getting a different idea of the artist's intention.

I'm still not sure why the artwork is surrounded by pro life literature. Did the artist put the pamphlets there?
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

romanedirisinghe says:

And the pose is erotic. I think it's incredibly sexy.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

jasohill    says:

I just wonder why he chose Britany and not any other possible pregnant woman! I like the idea, I just don't like the fact that it's Britany Spears. I would have prefer someone less in the public spotlight as the model.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

Spears DID have a csection. This is an artists interpretation of something which never happened and which he never spoke to Spears about at all BTW
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

Flickr user jamfan2 has these photos of the finished sculpture.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Bob King says:

i think this is the first example of crossover from porn to pop art.

and i happen to think it a good thing, and a good thing that people are starting to discuss the implications and all, implied by the various ambiguities and cultural issues that waving this in our faces and marketing it as a pro-life statue implies.

indeed, getting a pro-life group to market a naked woman with her genitalia exposed to the world is a coup in itself.

what does that imply about their beliefs and/or his marketing skills.

and where does britt enter into it, if at all/ qmark doesn't work, or any other shift letters, be glad for the slash...

no pun intended.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

romanedirisinghe says:

Your photo has been blogged at http://romanedirisinghe.com
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

Mapplethorpe's work among many others crossed over from porn to art a long time ago now, its nothing new.

And pro life groups come in many colors, from the moderates to extreme terrorist groups, its not surprising that some groups would have not problem with this sort of thing - that doesnt mean all of them would like it, I can imagine the fundamentalist christian ones are going psycho
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

getting a pro-life group to market a naked woman with her genitalia exposed to the world is a coup in itself.

Kim Siever    says:

Porn? Are you serious, Bob? I don't see anything pornographic about this at all.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

Apparently you missed the naked hot chick/sex symbol and her vagina.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

mkm3d says:

Porn, no- Naked hot chicks are not porn... The vagina with a penis entering it is! I like how this artist has really got people talking! Bravo! I wish my art would do that! Some of the great art pieces were controversal at their time. I think this is a sucess!
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

joctaviothomas says:

I'm creeped out by the plaster casting being broken at the shins.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Tami Gramont    says:

I agree, I don't see porn here. For me, porn is when my stomach turns and I feel slimed after seeing it.

Why did the artist choose B. Spears? Because she's contemporary, she's so un-motherly, un-realistic, un-dignified,... oh, I will not go on. It's irony, it's a contridiction, it's edgy, it's eye-opening. I mean, why would someone look at this woman other than to stare at her body doing what she does. She is not a glorious, "be hold woman" woman. She is not a Madonna powerhouse, but then, this art speaks on so many levels. I am reading into this, but isn't that what art is?

Oh, dear, espoin- thank you for your attention to my comment. What would objective morality look like?

P.S. Woman used to give birth in a natural setting, not controlled and convienent for men. This, squawting, bending at the middle over a bed, is all realistic. Isn't that part of the artist's point. We know so little about birth, it's been so sterilized and treated like an illness sending our mothers to be to a place for sick people. Midwives are quite capable of birthing babies at home. We've done it for thousands of years!

Maybe the other point of this is how skewed our likes are- when all we hold up to view is sex, sexy. Not motherhood for sure. We are only now, now, in this century seeing women's exposed pregnant bellies. But exposed unpregnant other parts? What about the Arizona city of Chandler? They tried to banned public breast feeding. There were a few women with something to say about that, I'll tell you. God forbid, we see a breast doing what is was created for. It's not just for sexual attention! It seems we've forgotten that.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

littlebigman2005 says:

well, I don't really like it but if it is Britney Spears, it's stupid, she had a C-section, she didn't give birth.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

monkeyc.net    says:

Apparently you missed the naked hot chick/sex symbol and her vagina.

First, speaking for me, Spears is neither hot nor a sex symbol - he main claim to fame is arousing teenage boys, not a hard market and singing average songs which are then over marekted - again is not a hard market - Jessica Simpson has a barely room temperature IQ and she has made a bomb.

I find Spears fairly unattractive to be honest - white trash is white trash.

As for vaginas. All women have them, I dont find giving birth very sexy to be honest.

Mind you I wonder what the Pro Life groups now make of this in light of Spears treatment of her child - at the very least what happened to her child shows a lack of any actual parenting skills and at worse its abuse. Yes I know she got cleared, so what - this is LA, a place where both OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson got away with their crimes.

I might be funny but how anyone can see their kid fall that far and wait 6 days before taking it to hospital is beyond me - the fact the baby has a fractured skull raises more questions about why she wasnt charged with a crime - In Australia shed be charged with Child Endagerment at the very least - but then again as i said this is LA and she is rich..

So does that make the pro life groups uncomfortable being associated with a child abuser? Hmm what message does that send?
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

bsdfm    says:

Dunno what you think this ever had to do with pro-life groups. If there's any relationship at all, aside from the artistic intention, please share.

Minus baby and belly, this could be a freeze frame from any mainstream pornographic video. What y'all think of Britney, pregnancy, birthing, or porn, doesn't mean porn isn't referenced loud and clear. Obviously it is also not actually pornography.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

mooseonthemove    says:

hmmmm....
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Tami Gramont    says:

I may have to reevaluate what I said... "I'm proud to be apart of this community (flikr) where so many actually think!"
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

saturnism    says:

can probably an extra tag 'orz'
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

Jessica Jaeger    says:

The thing that bugs me about it is that she did not give birth vaginally- she had an elective cesarean because her mother told her that childbirth was the worst pain she had ever endured. So Britney chose not to go through that. This is pretty fictional- art not representing real life, rather art being used to try and influence "life". Yikes.
Posted 45 months ago. ( permalink )

*baron samedi* says:

all of the above means it's good on some level, right? actually I'm not sure about this just above......

the chopped off hands and feet are maybe a reference to greek statues and if that sounds ridiculous then we're half way there right? I think it's
meant to be daft anyhoo
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

AlienationAngel says:

I'm not sure the artist was aware of the fact that brit had a cesarean- it's definitely interesting if he was, though... I'd be inclined to think that, if he did know, he perhaps chose her because of that fact. It would seem in that case the sculptor's intent would include the subtle message of the beauty of natural birth vs c-section?? (this is entirely speculation on my part...)
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

Tami Gramont    says:

Art does not have to mimic some realities (translation: real life), but is A reality. Does it matter if she had the child vaginally? Most art is created from the artist mind. Art is a reflection. You see what you know.

And, uhm, could someone please remove the porn comments/story-geek-dreams here? (FYI: It's the third post above this post.)
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

Bob King says:

I'm amazed that people are still talking about this. Here's what I said in my original blogpost about it being porn or not porn:

"I am not here to confirm or deny the artistic merit of the sculpture or the statement itself, because I think that's pretentious as all hell. Nor am I in any position to judge the merits of it's statement, or question it's appropriateness as public, or at least semi-public pornography.

But as a sometime pornographer, I know what "talking about sex" looks like, I know what fetishizing an image looks like, and if there is a difference between "fetishizing" and "idealizing" an image, it's a damn fine distinction. A distinction that is generally helped by the presence of clothing and the absence of bearskins - which I associate more strongly with Marilyn Monroe pin-up nudes and cheesy black-and-white vintage porn."
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

jUSTINYC    says:

justinyc.typepad.com/photos/bsprearsprolife/
Posted 44 months ago. ( permalink )

real_mr_darkness says:

She says: "Here it comes!!! And so do I!!!" and she pushes hard "UUUUUUUUUUUUUUH!!!!!!!" Then she says: "Fuck me, baby, I'm orgasmic!!!". I'm cuming on her wet p2ssy!
Posted 42 months ago. ( permalink )

sitteputa says:

Did I miss something? Syndicate; seek help! It´s never too late!
The first thing to do, is to admit that you have a problem.... :)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

BeccaG    says:

-Realistic position, it sure is. That's how I gave birth to all three of my children.

Mary
kmsiever's wife -

Wow, you actually gave birth with your rear in the air and pushing upwards??? Kudos to you lady and your pelvic floor mussles.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

GeoWombats    says:

The most unrealistic part about this birthing posture is that she's got her head up and eyes open. When she's crowning. Yeah, right. Otherwise it is a plausible birth position and I can say that from experience as a baby catcher and having birthed two of my own in a very similar position.
Posted 40 months ago. ( permalink )

melly 65    says:

Lots of women give birth in this position its very effective . I am a midwife so can say this with certainty.
the artist has chosen to confuse the observer with facial expressions and props that's art
Real mr darkness and Syndicate and others have got problems and I woud be most worried to be an aquaintance of theirs .
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

Sirber    says:

So she's not virgin... ;)
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

dirtzoo says:

The piece [scuplture] is genius, though I am not sure the artist is. It is beautiful and ironic, dangerous , provocative, sexual ,vulgar , beautiful, all these things.
And what could be more beautiful than an art piece that rolls a bowling ball through the Pro life question debate, taste, culture, womanhood. The more people talk about it and rant about it, the more completely stupid they prove themselves to be.
Kudos! BraVO!
One victory for Post-modernism!! [ though sadly there are few]
Posted 35 months ago. ( permalink )

brimcmike says:

It is erotic, even because she's pregnant, and even delivering. You don't have to understand or empathize with the eroticism of others for it to exist, and at your unawares to be even common. Shame as social control is a blunt instrument. Women find erotic things that men do not even remotely fathom as erotic. These things are not better than men's eroticism because they are women's eroticism. That's pure neo-Victorianism Cult of Womanhood chauvinism; it is a Procrustean construct, not an elevated state. Consider this: better for the species that men find pregnant women attractive. The pregnant ones are fertile and being attracted to, often translates to taking care of, especially when vulnerable as in late-term pregnancy, peripartum and lactating. We are a complex species with a relatively recent, but increasingly recorded history of only 5,000 years out of at least 100,000 years of existence as H. sapiens, not to mention our manifold, more primitive predecessors. Civilization is a very thin veneer indeed, over a very complex vector quantity of the naturally selected of genes and memes that only and always arise and exist in relation to the bio-socio-physical environment. Some of our cognition and behavior is deeply and ferociously embedded and may not be domesticable, ever.
Posted 34 months ago. ( permalink )

cowicide says:

When are some of you buffoons going to realize this is a well placed and well deserved slam against the inane, worthless, time-wasting pop culture that people waste too much of their plastic lives with?

Pop culture deserves far worse desecration that this; but I still have to give the artist props for at least firing the canon over the bow. Bravo!

Hey, but thanks for giving me a hell of a laugh when some of you actaully debated whether this was "pro-life" or not. Har!!! Har!!!! Gawd... thinking caps, ppl... thinking caps...
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

Tarky7    says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Raelians Rulez, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group. i don't think you are a cultist...but we luv your creations ne way..pls post...so we know what we aren't looking for. =^-^=
Posted 24 months ago. ( permalink )