Art critic Timo Valjakka does not believe that Princess Diana should have liked the statue.
Monument the purpose is usually to honor the subject, to remind people of things or things that have been significant in history.
Yesterday in London in the garden of Kensington Palace was announced by the Princess of Wales Dianan statue of appearance. However, the implementation of the blue-gray bronze statue has not convinced the public.
An art critic who writes art reviews for Helsingin Sanomat Timo Valjakka says the work is far from successful.
He describes the bronze statue as “a hypocritical and unstylish depiction in which a figure much larger than his natural size and slightly masculine in face has set his hands to protect two children”.
The work was unveiled on the same day that Diana would have turned 60 years old. The princess died in a car accident in Paris on the last day of August 1997.
The statue Valjaka is strongly reminded of religious kitsch, statues of saints and Piero della Francescan wormwood pictures.
“There will be an image of an altar or a cult. This is practiced even in North Korea. I don’t think Princess Diana would have wanted to see herself as such a cult figure. However, she was a modern woman and in this time, ”Valjakka says on the phone.
In addition to the princess, three child figures have been immortalized in the statue. Suddenly, though, it looks like there are only two children.
The third child appears when the statue is viewed obliquely and not directly in front. According to Valjaka, the child raising his hand resembles paintings from art history about Johannes Kastaja.
“It will be the most disgusting clang,” Valjakka says.
The statue of Diana was designed by a sculptor Ian Rank-Broadley. In the press release, he said the statue was intended to immortalize his “warmth and humanity, as well as his influence, which extends beyond the age groups”.
RANK-Broadley sculpted by Diana, Valjaka brings to mind a few visual statues erected for athletes, such as sculptures Lasse Virén and Eero from Mäntyranta, whose “artistic performance is quite astonishing”.
Valjakka reminds that the history of sculpture shows that it is possible to make memorial statues that live, look and look like their objects.
“Here, when I magnified the image of the statue of Diana on the screen, it occurred to me that I could now even look at the model from the photo.”
Now, according to Valjaka, the statue only looks like Diana from a distance. In addition to the strange appearance, the sculpture is very rigid, even if intended to represent the living.
You don’t even have to look for successes in living statues as far away as ancient or 17th-century Italy. Bernin production.
According to Valjaka, one good example is, for example Wäinö Aaltonen made by a sculpture of a running Paavo from Nurme.
Art critic Jonathan Jones described the statue of Diana in The Guardian “As an embarrassing, spiritless sanctuary”.
“This somehow nauseating statue stands with all those bronze football players as confusing evidence for future generations that in the early 2010s, people wasted their money, input, and conversation on silly, sterile, and insignificant works of art,” Jones wrote.
To the end, he added, “flower beds are nice though”.