A recent NYTimes article (10-10-05) covered a controversial new statue recently erected in London's Trafalgar Square. Placed on an unoccupied plinth, the "Alison Lapper Pregnant" statue has ignited criticism by some wags, the general public and the usually acerbic London tabloids. The nearly 12-foot-high statue of a middle-aged woman, Alison Lapper, shows her naked and slightly pregnant (not that she's slightly pregnant but her pregnancy is showing slightly!) - more striking than this is the fact that Alison, a living woman who becomes the first subject of a Trafalgar statue who is still alive, was born with no arms and abnormally short legs. Thus some find the statue a grotesque addition to the stately square, and also because it lies smack in front of the august National Gallery.
The artist says his intention in designing the work, commissioned by a government advisory panel that selects statues to occupy the unoccupied plinth in the square's northwest corner, was created because he considered Nelson's Column, the square's normal focal point, was 'the epitome of a phallic male moment' so he deemed that the 'square needed some feminity'.
Ms Lapper, at the unveiling, said, compared to other war-hero square statues 'at least i didn't get there by slaying people'.
The statue will stay in place until 2007, when it will be replaced by another temporary statue with the aim of enlivening the somewhat boring square - furthering Mayor 'Red' Ken Livingston's goal of making it a more inviting place.
What do you think? Sacrilege or breathe of fresh air?

What flap?
You can see a picture of it at http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/trafa...4th_plinth.jsp

I don't particularly like it. The surface looks more like plastic than marble and it looks out of place, probably because of its size.

I don't think that anyone is shocked or horrified by a statue of a pregnant woman or by a statue of a disabled woman either.

No not shocked but the article says that some find it unseemly in that setting. In fact critics of the statue - and they would criticize any type of modern art statue here, have been muted because they are aloof to criticize the statue because they may be accused of attacking the portrayal of a naked, pregnant, disfigured woman. So not horrified by the statue itself but because any type of modern abstract work in this staid setting has been allowed. Your criticism of the statue is completely justified as it's not based on content and many critics according to the article think likewise.
Indeed some critics suggest that a statue of Lord Dowding, the hero of the Battle of Britain be erected here permanently.

The New York Times has obviously started inventing stories again.

What to do with the Fourth Plinth has, for at least a decade, been whipping us up to levels of apathy that normally even Guatemala's foreign policy can't manage.

The art establishment keeps on finding things to put on the plinth it thinks will get us all excited. Instead, all we get excited about is whatever Ken's latest damnfool idea might be for changing the way traffic doesn't flow around the square.

What goes on the plinth is a triumph of mind over matter. We really don't mind what They do with it, and it doesn't matter in the least.

i wouldn't want it there permanently but i dont think it's bad for a year or two. it's not a great piece in my opinion and the placement is off...much of it is obscured by the plinth itself as you look up at it. it does have a rather plastic look to it and i hope they can keep the bird cr%p off it.

"...with the aim of enlivening the somewhat boring square..."

Given some of the responses here, I'd say, "Mission Accomplished!"

FlannerUK: Ass you say, Ken Livingstone’s traffic ideas make motor cars wait. They give to bus passengers faster circuit, to walking visitors a piazza to stroll in, coffee, and freedom from ordure from flying rats (namely pigeons) and to cyclists an easy ride around the square.

Ben Haines, London
[email protected]

Mr Haines: My point precisely.

You and I disagree about the management of Traf Sq. We're both prepared to invest energy pursuing that disagreement.

But is anyone investing any energy discussing what goes on the Fourth Plinth? No. It's characteristic of the art establishment's monstrous self-importance (and insensitivity to London)to fantasise that one statue will "enliven" Traf Sq - whoever it's of and whatever genre it's in. And it's an infallible mark of a journalist short of a story that he has to invent a non-existent controversy.

Should Traf Sq have pigeons? Might we not be allowed just one public space without yet another coffee bar? Or without the idiot piped TV Livingstone imposes on Traf Sq from time to time? Should we ban cyclists totally (except for Mr Haines of course) from our streets?

These are subjects everyone I know has a strong opinion about, and few dinner parties avoid at least one of them cropping up. Had PalenqueBob posted about one of them, there'd be dozens of replies.

But outside the solipsistic world of art critics, no-one cares about the statues.

improvements that i have seen under ken:

-traf sq was always a must visit for tourists. today it is a focal point for london in the perfect position to to tie together a very large number of london's largest attractions. as a big roundabout, it did not do this.

-the new hungerford footbridge ties waterloo, the eye and southbank arts venues with london. prior to this, you had to walk far out of the way or take the tube/bus (the footbridge that was replaced does not usable).

-the royal festival hall renovation is taking shape providing much improvement in the public space in this area. this compliments the hungerford bridge and trafalgar sq improvements...now they all tie together.

-the various southbank arts venues (and thanks to many additions and improvements) are now properly using their synergy to make south bank a proper destination rather than where you had to go if you wanted to see a show at the national.

-the millennium footbridge ties together the tate modern with one of london's biggest tourist attractions, st paul's cathedral.

i fully support ken's (and others') leadership in making these improvements. no matter what else you think of him, it is hard to argue against the fact that london has transformed itself over the last 6 years or so.

There was a very interesting TV documentary about the statue a couple of weeks ago. It showed the piece of marble actually being hewn from the Carrera quarries and being fashioned by traditional stonemasons there, making the point that this was in the tradition of Michaelangelo. So I don't know why the surface should look "plastic" : maybe it's just because we are not used to seeing brand new marble statues ? Maybe Michaelangelo's David would have looked like that originally ?

I haven't yet seen the work in the flesh, as it were. But in Sheffield recently I saw the same artist's 'Kiss', featuring two people with missing or short limbs, and thought it was rather beautiful.

Maybe the problem with 'Alison Lapper Pregnant' is that it's just too big ? I haven't seen anything which has given me an idea of its scale relative to that of the occupants of the other three plinths (none of which I could name, incidentally). Also it will obviously stand out more now since it's new and very white : I wonder how it would look if it were in the same state as the other statues ?

Regardless of people's subjective views on the merits of this and the other 'fourth plinth' works, I think anything which gets people discussing and thinking about contemporary art must be a good thing.

BTW, Alison Lapper was 8 months pregnant at the time.

caroline,

on the point of its size...

my opinion is that the statue, if anything, looks too diminutive for its surroundings and the plinth on which it sits. as i mentioned, the subject is seated on the high plinth which makes a fair amount of it hidden from below.

just a regular person's opinion.

The storm in a tea-cup regarding this statue is but a mere bagatelle in comparison with the real Trafalgar Sq statue brouhaha: That regarding Nelson Mandela.

Ken wants to put Mandela on the facing South Africa house. The Council want a smaller version near the national gallery.

Why are we in Britain having a statue of a foreign leader in our main square? Buggered if I know.

p.s. No cheating, who are the other three blokes on the plinths in Trafalgar Square? NO CHEATING!

JMO, but it's in the wrong place.

I vote sacrilege.

"At least I didn't get there by slaying people." This comment tells me Lapper is an ignorant piece of crap. But for Nelson there might not be an England today, or at least a very different one than we know. Sometimes killing people is a damn fine thing to do.

other statues are one of the Georges and a couple of generals I think - or were you talking about the lions??

I meant the old dead blokes. One of them Is General Napier I think.

I know the lions are by Landseer.

I think one's George IV, but he's dressed as a Roman for some reason so he had to have his name added to the plinth as none of his subjects recognised him. Maybe this was pretty contraversial in it's time!

Thanks, walkinaround - sorry, I forgot you said that before. Maybe it's meant to be viewed from a distance, then - from the steps of the NG, maybe ? (Er, does it have steps ? Can't remember.)

Thank you, Edward2005!

Havelock and Napier (who didn't send the telegram saying "Peccavi&quot.