Community Chat

[raven-blackbird]

IF you are going to do a Lucy statue there have to be a couple of things that MUST be there............the arched eyebrows...........the high cheekbones........and Peter Pan nose.............second one has those features..........first one, NO......................................raven

[RazorSharp]

---

@Tique wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

What will happen to the old one?

---

@missy1  according to a news story, the old statute will be moved to another section of the park. I think it should be melted. Why have a statute for someone if no one recognizes who it is unless they read a plaque or ask someone. Pointless!

---

I'm sure there are many people who find various works of art unattractive, but that doesn't mean the art should be destroyed.  To artists, and those who appreciate and respect art, your suggestion to destroy the statue would not be a popular one.  Your post is a very good example of how the arts, and arts education in particular, are crucial in helping to shape well-rounded, intelligent minds.

[AngelPuppy1]

---

@The Monkey on My Back wrote:

"Scary" Lucy is being replaced. The new statue is beautiful.

From the Hollywood Reporter:

A Lucille Ball statue unveiled in 2009 and dubbed "scary" is finally being replaced with a new sculpture of the comedy icon, set to be revealed this weekend.

Artist Carolyn Palmer created the new statue for Ball's hometown of Celoron, N.Y.

---

Oh, my -- what a difference!

I don't know who made the first one -- but, ewwww --- that was a horrible image - and if she were my mother --- I'd be terribly upset by it and offended.

This new one is lovely.  I'd insist on the old one being removed and destroyed!!!  

[Nataliesgramma]

The second one is more like it!!

[violann]

JUST THIS MINUTE I noticed that the CONTEXT of the original statue was actually a TOTALLY ACCURATE depiction of the beloved Lucille Ball countenance at her VERY BEST- the Vitametavegamin Commercial!

I am QUITE CERTAIN that I'd never seen the original statue in its complete form EVER when it was originally introduced. What a terrible disservice to both Lucille Ball AND the artist.

I can definitely see using BOTH statues as part of a "sculpture garden" illustrating BOTH Lucille Ball's luminous beauty AND her unique gift for slapstick, outrageous comedy.

She had actually been known for her numerous glamor roles during the 30s-40s, and then began to be recognized as a superb comedienne.

Why would her REAL fans object to honoring both aspects of her wonderful career?

[Tique]

---

@RazorSharp wrote:

---

@Tique wrote:

---

@missy1 wrote:

What will happen to the old one?

---

@missy1  according to a news story, the old statute will be moved to another section of the park. I think it should be melted. Why have a statute for someone if no one recognizes who it is unless they read a plaque or ask someone. Pointless!

---

I'm sure there are many people who find various works of art unattractive, but that doesn't mean the art should be destroyed.  To artists, and those who appreciate and respect art, your suggestion to destroy the statue would not be a popular one.  Your post is a very good example of how the arts, and arts education in particular, are crucial in helping to shape well-rounded, intelligent minds.

---

Interesting perspective. I agree that many works of art are unattractive and should be displayed; however, when one is supposed to be a reproduction of someone, I feel it should be recognizeable. 

[Tique]

[Bird mama]

---

@Tique wrote:

---

Statue still don't look like Lucy, even if she was making a face.  Lucy's mouth was shut in the photo.  She wasn't snarling at anyone, like she is in the first statue. The hand position holding the spoon is off too.  

[violann]

---

@Tique wrote:

---

I guess it might take a frame by frame comparison to see if the first sculptor was off base or not @Tique, but I appreciate your reasoning ! Thank you!

[Monketoes]