Oct 10th 2008 12:46AM You're right about art and clothing--of course, they don't cancel one another out by any means. But too often, I think, the subject is wearing clothes that are flat-out tacky, ugly, or dated, and that ruins the whole thing for me. If Kate's likeness were wearing a twining toga-like garment, that'd be one thing, but a sports bra? Please.
More important than the tackiness factor of the statue's attire is the cop-out factor--the fact that the sports bra and thong are there because showing ALL of her anatomy would be considered offensive or inappropriate. Personally, I think it would make the piece a lot more interesting, because you'd have the juxtaposition of Kate (beauty) and an asshole (ugly, disgusting). A golden statue of Kate Moss doesn't move me. Its tribute to her beauty doesn't say anything new. But if Mark Quinn had dared to show ALL of this human figure, we'd have been presented with the difficult-to-accept--but undeniable--idea that beauty and ugliness are relative, and most often they go hand-in-hand.
Oct 6th 2008 2:27AM If the statue weren't wearing a sports bra and a thong--if Mark Quinn/Kate Moss took the chance of showing ALL her anatomy--then I'd consider this artistic. But with the most "sensitive parts" clothed in modern-day attire I think it's a serious cop-out and not nearly as controversial or provocative as real art should be.