Anonymous wrote:I think the sculptor was African American. That said, I agree the memorial is ugly - reminds me of statues I've seen in developing countries of their respective totalitarian head of state.

Exactly! The sculpture just seems like such a poor representation of the Civil Rights Movement. King had a complicated relationship with his own fame and his role as a figurehead for the movement. Clearly he sometimes embraced his role at "Da Lawd," but I think he did fundamentally see the Movement as the work of the people, which is not represented in the sculpture.

I think the sculptor was African American. That said, I agree the memorial is ugly - reminds me of statues I've seen in developing countries of their respective totalitarian head of state.

And Lincoln would have disliked having his monument regardless of how it was made. He didn't believe in things like that.

But this is different. FDR really did look like that. The King statue is oddly off and not representative of his character. It is like the sculptor deliberately chose to give the statue an attitude, and it was a poor choice.

Also, they put up a quote on the wall that turned out to be incorrect. Terrible!

Anonymous wrote:those of you who don't like it - have you been to it since it was completed, or just saw it on TV and pics? I thought it was bad when I walked by last year while it was still under construction, and I didn't like it from seeing it on TV. But once I was actually there, I thought it was very nice.

As for monuments that aren't about what the person stood for - FDR's is beautiful, but not at all what he wanted. he had said that he did not want a monument any bigger than his desk. That's why there is a desk-sized memorial for him by the Nat'l Archives.

FDR probably would have really hated that he's in a wheelchair at his monument. He took great pains to hide the fact he had to use one when he was president.

I get it. There are a dearth of monuments to anything but white males, so it would be great if this one could be amazing. Still, it's just silly to imply that it's less than stellar because the people who worked to create it were a) all white people, and b) didn't want a black man to have a great memorial. I mean, really? If anything, I think the issues with thia memorial have been in large part because there are too many visions of who he was and what he stood for, and it ended up bringing too many cooks into the kitchen. There is the MLK from your high school history book (sainted martyr for civil rights), there is the man himself (good intentions, but flawed like all humans), the Christian (too religious to memorialize), the political leader (who had opinions of a lot more than civil rights--his later work began to be a bit socialist-sounding), and many other facets. They ultimately only wanted to memorialize the first aspect, and basically make him the face of the civil rights movement, but he was too complex, and it was too soon (Too many who knew him personally are still alive), so there were objections to that kind of simplification.

I just looked at pics and think he looks serious, somber, not angry. But I don't get the slab of rock with him emerging from it. ?

those of you who don't like it - have you been to it since it was completed, or just saw it on TV and pics? I thought it was bad when I walked by last year while it was still under construction, and I didn't like it from seeing it on TV. But once I was actually there, I thought it was very nice.

As for monuments that aren't about what the person stood for - FDR's is beautiful, but not at all what he wanted. he had said that he did not want a monument any bigger than his desk. That's why there is a desk-sized memorial for him by the Nat'l Archives.

Isn't it a serious, not angry, look?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone created a bad memorial due to his race??? Someone probably just designed it poorly..

Maybe....but the point is, he is black and the memorial is bad. Can you think of another (white) memorial that looks bad and contrary to what that person stood for?

OK, and who has been responsible for the process? You know what his family has been doing? And they are not white, are they?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone created a bad memorial due to his race??? Someone probably just designed it poorly..

Maybe....but the point is, he is black and the memorial is bad. Can you think of another (white) memorial that looks bad and contrary to what that person stood for?

I've always thought the WWII memorial looked like bad Soviet architecture, but that's not for a person.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone created a bad memorial due to his race??? Someone probably just designed it poorly..

Maybe....but the point is, he is black and the memorial is bad. Can you think of another (white) memorial that looks bad and contrary to what that person stood for?

I don't think anyone created a bad memorial due to his race??? Someone probably just designed it poorly..

As a black woman, I hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it.

MLK was about non-violence and peace. His statue looks angry and intolerant.

it reminds me of han solo frozen in carbonite. that said, it's not a bad memorial. the design of the actual site is nice but mlk's likeness really needs work. he looks angry.

Seriously, did they run out of money?