comment: >
  
  From Dr Kings I had a nightmare speech.
context: Seneca Scott, cousin of Scott King, described it as a “masturbatory metal homage”
  “If you can look at it from all angles, and it’s probably two people hugging each other, it’s four hands. It’s not the missing heads that’s the atrocity that other people clamp onto that; it’s a stump that looked like a penis. That’s a joke,” Scott told CNN.
  
  The first view I saw, it looked like a woman’s thighs and a man was… ahem. Then it looked like a penis from another angle. Just awful. >
  
  The first view I saw of it looked like two arms holding up the biggest butt log in history. >
  
  Randy Marsh was here >
  
  I wonder how many Bonos that statue weighs 🤔 >
  
  Courics! (I know what I'm talking about, im from zurich) >
  
  Does Bono want the bitty? >
  
  Easy, Bono, that hurts the bitty!
  Bono: BIT-TY!! >
  
  I’ll be honest it isn’t my taste, the MLK granite head in DC is much better. >
  
  The head that is almost his whole body? >
  
  "excuse me, sir. you're sitting on my body, which is also my face" >
  
  Is butt legs? >
  
  Butt is definitely legs. >
  
  It's like a five-dimensional creature eating itself.
  
  Embrace Boston, a nonprofit organization that works toward racial and economic justice and is a part of the Boston Foundation, helped provide resources and $10.5 million in funds, including a maintenance fund, for “The Embrace” and the Freedom Plaza. >
  
  Dear god, think how far 10 mil could go toward education or helping homeless people or providing services to the addicted. This makes me pretty sick. It's both ugly and incomprehensible. Even a stick figure lets you know what it is. >
  
  This. I understand the need to memorialize but it seems insensitive to sink millions into remembering the dead when that money could be used to help the living. If they are important then we should make sure to teach their history to younger generations, not build a statue many will never see. Malcolm Gadwell did a great episode these kind of situations and the dark reality of how those funds could be better implemented >
  
  I don’t necessarily disagree, but couldn’t we make this same argument for every dollar spent on arts or decoration or even personal luxuries? >
  
  It's the classic slippery slope situation. Again, I do not do this argument as much justice as Malcolm Gladwell does in his podcast episode but it's less about expenses and more about extreme expenses like what this statue cost. His example is of the 9/11 memorial and the cost and extreme disruption it caused NYC and the hard question of its true worth; it's an extremely interesting conversation and I encourage people to give it a listen. 
  Art will also always be tricky because of the influx of wealthy people who use it as a tool for tax write-offs and consolidating wealth. It's tricky, but I'm just curious to know more. Who donated the money for this statue, why did they donate, did they know this was were the money was going towards, and so on. I'd rather know how these decisions came about rather than just be mad at the consequences; without that insight the same mistakes will keep getting made. >
  
  I don't think it's necessarily a slippery slope, I'm just asking us to apply the principle consistently. Any dollar spent on luxury or decoration could instead be spent providing necessities to people who lack them, and if it's immoral to spend $10 million on some humungous arm statue, isn't it also immoral to spend $10,000 on a more modest piece of public art?
  This is an old response to (or component of) utilitarianism: something like, can we really justify buying new clothes or going on vacations or even spending an extra few bucks on an expensive coffee drink when that money could be feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, providing life-saving medical care, etc.
  And I'm not totally sure how to square this. Intuitively, it seems kind of wrong to say we ought to eschew all luxury -- that just about anything we do beyond the satisfaction of our needs is wrong as long as there are people whose needs aren't met. A lot of the texture of life comes from little excesses here and there, and any normative ethical theory that demands us to give up all but the barest comforts just feels wrong (or at the very least, it seems too demanding to really be of much practical use). But at the same time, if we believe an act is good inasmuch as it maximizes happiness or reduces suffering, it does seem to follow that just about any leisure or luxury we engage in is immoral (unless you genuinely think there's more utility in, say, chugging a latte than in providing a malaria shot to some kid in rural Nigeria -- or more utility in sitting at home watching Netflix instead of, say, manning a soup kitchen). 
  I guess, like you said, there's still the issue of scale. Spending $1.5 billion on the 9/11 memorial piece is more wrong than going out for a fancy dinner (or commissioning a less extravagant piece), in the same sense that stealing your friend's car is worse than stealing a french fry off his plate. >
  
  At the same time, art is an easy distraction when it comes time to criticize wasteful spending. 
  Plenty more is wasted on projects that achieve far less (which is saying something) due to corruption, inefficiency, lack of oversight, etc. 
  How much is lost as a result of a financial system fluctuating for seemingly no reason on any given day? How much has been spent to support these institutions? How much of the problems we're concerned with were created as a direct result of these institutions and the lack of adequate regulation?
  I'm not saying your points aren't valid, nor that someone who's struggling in these communities shouldn't feel pissed off when they see this statue, but just that possibly as a result of art being what it is, it's easy to make it a symbol in a way that draws more attention than arguably far more relevant issues. >
  
  I want to be clear, I'm not coming out against public art (and frankly, I actually appreciate this humungous arm sculpture). I guess more than anything, I'm just playing devil's advocate or talking through some challenges I have with my own normative ethical framework. As much as I value beautiful things, it seems wrong to install a big, expensive, fuck-off statue when people might be living in tents on the same street. But at the same time, it feels wrong to say indulging in aesthetics is immoral as long as there's a single person who's not getting enough to eat. 
  I agree though, I think there's a lot more waste in commerce than in art, and we don't really account for that waste because it's less visible and it's taking place in a sphere that's meant to be productive. >
  
  Y’all really made a monument to MLK where his head is missing? >
  
  and based on a picture of him hugging his wife who he routinely cheated on. Everything this statue highlights and ignores is weird. >
  
  And, to add that last little bit of insult to injury, it doesn't even get the pose right from the picture. >
  
  It makes more sense  now that I see the photo that inspired it, but it's still odd looking and too large. It dominates the space. >
  
  You really like those fighters, don't you? >
  
  I mean if you’re talking about dominating space you really can’t avoid discussing the tactical advantages that the F-104 Starfighter brings to the table >
  
  At quick glance it looks like hands covering an asshole (excuse my language) >
  
  It's Reddit, you're excused. >
  
  "MLK monument has Boston up in arms"
  i mean, c'mon - it was right there >
  
  Did they have like a mock prototype before building this thing? No one sat there and said, “maybe this doesn’t look all that great.” >
  
  More than likely they did, and I guarantee all the mock-ups showed one specific angle where the art works. No one in charged thought to ask how it would look at different angles or just assumed it would make sense once you take in the whole thing. It’s also way easier to make a pitch and sway concerns to a small limited audience over the larger general public. 
  Also, I’d be money the mock-ups looked slightly different than the end result. Things change when reality strikes. Material cost change so things get scaled back, maybe there were other elements like lights or accent pieces to direct viewer’s eyes but got cut due to budget reasons. 
  More than likely though, the people in charge had no idea what “good” art is and just wanted something. There was no oversight, no real check ins, and anytime the artist said something it probably went in one ear and out the other. “Sounds good, just get it done”. >
  
  The backstory to this and the artist, was on CBS Sunday Morning back in December. It should be on You Tube if anyone is interested. The aluminum cast that the assistants were polishing before it was dipped in bronze, looked a lot better; eventhough it reminded you of the "Bean" in Grant Park in Chicago. The final version doesn't even have the reflective finish the entry picture said it would.
  The main problem for me, is that it's based off a picture of Dr. King that vast majority of people haven't seen, so wouldn't immediate associate with him. I think the artist was thinking more about his personal feelings, than how the general publoc could relate.
  That being said, the last two finalists on that list were BEAUTIFUL and interactive. I just can't understand what the selection committee was thinking. >
  
  Give me $10mil and I’ll do better >
  
  I'll do the job for half that >
  
  I'll do it for a third of 10mil. But, I'll need half that up front for materials, other half on completion. I'll get started just as soon as that first check clears. Trust me! >
  
  Just buy 3 small squadron of F-104 Starfighters
  Everyone will be happier
  Easier to fight racism with a fighter jet >
  
  Huh... can't argue with that logic! >
  
  A complete miss in it’s conception, execution and intention. >
  
  but a very successful reach-around, from certain angles. >
  
  OMG a reach-around is exactly what I thought the sculpture looked like, lol >
  
  Without reading headlines, my first reaction to this monument was 'why did somebody make a sculpture of someone stuffing their head up their own ass'
  Edit: typo >
  
  Omg, I am crying-laughing right now! >
  
  My throat's hurting from laughing so hard. >
  
  It's honestly pretty bad. If nobody knows what they are looking at then the statue is a bust. >
  
  Can't be a bust, there's no head anywhere on it. >
  
  Oh from some of the assessments of it I've seen on Twitter there's definitely head. >
  
  We could do something like police reform or stop racist gerrymandering but we get this instead. I'm sure MLK's dream was a weird statue of his and his wife's arms. >
  
  Boston is one of the most redlined cities in America. Our black communities could REALLY use that $10m. >
  
  Fuck, they could have built a better statue and still had $9mil left for good causes. >
  
  The first photo of it I saw was from single angle, and good chunk of it was hidden by the fence, you could only see the top part of it. So, I was like, OK, somebody figured out particular angle to make it look bad in order to mock it.
  But now that it is fully visible and I saw many more photos of it from different angles... Yeah, I don't think the concept really worked well in this particular case. This is where artist should have been like "OK, this doesn't really work all that well, I should either put more work into it, or try some different idea." >
  
  It works from specific angles, but if your statur is in an open space it should look great from most angles. >
  
  It should have been a plaque with a graven image of Martin Luther King with the date every time foundations are able to donate the money that they instead would have spent on bad art. They could have spent that money with a bunch of different charitable foundations and had enough left over to employ somebody for the next 10 years to make sure that that donation money was spent correctly. >
  
  So far, we're up to a giant penis, 69ing, and holding a giant clump of shit. What other interpretations of this...unique specimen are out there? >
  
  You forgot cunnilingus. >
  
  My very first thought when I saw it on twitter. It only looks good from one specific angle but its so huge that if your were to see it in person you're looking at the many more ugly angles.  Everything about it is just awful if it weren't dedicated to MLK I would probably consider spray painting something on it to at least make it less ugly. >
  
  Idk why they didn't just make it their whole bodies. Like a normal statue of them hugging. >
  
  Abstractions can be beautiful. The human mind is great at connecting dots.
  But here clearly there was no feedback process. >
  
  Yeah this piece shows the problem with abstractions too. Sometimes you can remove so many details and leave too many dots unconnected that your audience ends up connecting two of them together in a way you never intended.
  And that's how you have penis/poop/cunnilingus statue instead of arms. >
  
  In fairness, ambiguity and confusion are valid themes to explore as an artist. It's only a problem if you expect all art to be immediately legible. 
  That said, I doubt that was this artist's intention, which is too bad, because the more I read the criticism, the more valid it seems as a criticism of people's sense of ownership over MLK's legacy. >
  
  It looks like a reminder to get a colonoscopy >
  
  Somebody got paid 10 million for this crap.. >
  
  And this is also a good example that if you want to get rich all you have to do is figure out a way to fuck people over. Because this is straight up robbery without the gun. >
  
  Who's money was taken against their will? As far as I can tell, this is what they paid for. >
  
  Whatever happened to just making a really good statue likeness of the person you’re trying to honor? >
  
  This has also been known to go poorly. >
  
  Send help! I can't stop laughing! >
  
  Or the 'Scary Lucy' statue...
  Lucille Ball statue (since replaced) >
  
  It is literally a hollow embrace, also known as a false display of compassion >
  
  I could see this being some random monument some guy made for free just to get his name out there. 
  But this cost $10 mil. How? >
  
  Even with a stupid design, it would still take a talented artist months or years to actually build. Plus there's the cost to transport and install it and a fund to pay for future cleaning and maintenance. >
  
  This.    In order to put a moment in that location you have to provide a maintenance fund for 25 years or some such. >
  
  10.5 millions dollars for a big bronze cock >
  
  From some angles it looks like an arm proudly displaying a turd >
  
  I thought it was because of racism but it's really because it looks like a penis. >
  
  
  looks like a penis
  
  See a penis doctor immediately >
  
  Your mom said she's all booked up this week >
  
  That Ronaldo bust was better >
  
  Or how about the Lucille ball one? 🤦‍♀️ >
  
  or that one melania trump one >
  
  Can history record that we melted that thing down and started over? It's... genuinely bad. >
  
  “Surely it can’t be that b…..nevermind” >
  
  Aside from the fact that it looks like hands caressing a large turd, I don’t get how the average person is going to look at this and go, “oh, MLK”. I realize it’s based on a photo of him, but like… in the photo he had a head. >
  
  Is this modeled after a picture of Dr. King consoling Mrs. King after he cheated on her, yet again? >
  
  It deserves mockery and possibly a corruption investigation >
  
  It was privately funded.
  I'm a cynical Bostonian who hates it, but I'll concede that it wasn't my tax dollars that paid for it. >
  
  I guess it's an alright statue if you only look at it from the one angle. But then why put it in an area that is so wide open to different viewing perspectives? >
  
  It simultaneously looks like a giant turd, a giant dong, and somebody chowing box. >
  
  Even if it worked, it honors a moment of congratulation over winning an award. Not really the way I think of Dr. King. >
  
  That money could have helped actual people. But this is what we got. sad. >
  
  Giving me Lucille Ball statue vibes >
  
  I think MLK would like to have seen a 10 million inner city library. >
  
  When I look at a monument to triumph over racism, the last thing adjective I should be using to describe it is "Lovecraftian". >
  
  Because it’s fuck ugly >
  
  I thought it was a clever idea, not sure as monument to MLK, but it would have gotten rave reviews if it was set up at Burning Man. >
  
  It'd also be temporary. >
  
  Hahahaha
  What in the fuck >
  
  I just saw a hilarious video of this guy saying from some angles it looks like a dude eating someone out 😂 >
  
  10 million for a statue this better be good.
  !0 minutes later
  .........Um wow .......that is money not well spent. >
  
  MBTA could have used that money! >
  
  So how did something like this even get made without someone noticing that it was garbage?  Isn't there a design review, and miniatures, and simulations of what it would look like on site?  Tons of opportunity for someone to point out that it looks like 3 hands holding up a giant turd?