Last night, I was watching the news and there was a little story about a big statue of Marilyn Monroe that is on display in downtown Chicago. The statue shows off Marilyn's famous pose from The Seven Year Itch, the one where the air from the grate catches her dress and makes it fly up. As with any piece of art, there were some people who loved it and some who hated it and some that debated whether or not it qualified as art. And, honestly, I think everyone is entitled to their opinion on this. But, there was one women who responded in such a way to the statue that my jaw dropped a bit and I had to shake my head a bit. This woman made me think that we truly have become
*"The United States of the Offended." This woman was horrified that a statue like that be on display where children could see it. In her opinion, this representation of an iconic moment in film history was offensive and highly inappropriate.
What could be so wrong with a statue of Marilyn? After all, even though she was considered a sex symbol, her film costume never revealed too much skin. That was par for the course in the era her movies were made. Gasp, the back view of the statue shows Marilyn's granny panties. Now, granted that was pretty risque back in the day but not now. Any child who goes to a pool or the beach sees a lot more skin than that statue shows. I seriously doubt any child will be corrupted by the sight of the granny panties. And, I can't imagine anyone being too warped by people posing and pretending to be shocked by the statue.
Do you think I'm right and people need to get over their uptight selves or do you think the woman in Chicago was right and a statue like that should be off the streets? Have you ever been offended by a piece of art others considered harmless? If so, do you mind telling us about it?
*a term coined by Robert D. Raiford from
The John Boy and Billy Radio Show
7 comments:
I believe I can say that I have never been offended by a piece of art. There have been times when I have wondered at the motivation behind one (is the artist just trying to grab any attention they can get?).
IMO I think you're right. There is nothing wrong with the Marilyn statue.
This makes me scream. Like you said, it's panties, not revealing, nothing they haven't seen at the beach. Like kids don't know people wear underwear. (And really, the alternative view would have been a lot more shocking).
Also - If you can't adequately explain why her skirt is flying up and you can see her panties, maybe you should get back in your horse and buggy and ride back to whatever century you're from.
Next thing you know they'll be castrating the Wall Street bull.
I think it is offensive. I don't care to see what is up her dress. Marilyn was an iconic figure Only in the movies and that is where it should stay. It figures for Chicago after all they are running the country into the ground!
You know the thing that REALLY cracks me up? How freaking offended would that woman have been if they'd made the statue lifelike AND historically accurate. Because Marilyn and her hubby at the time almost got a divorce over that scene - becuase she WASN'T wearing any panties!!!
*chuckle*
Jeezus, there is more nudity and skin-show on daily TV than on that Marilyn Monroe statue. Seriously!
Can't believe that coming from the land of Jersey Shore, and the Kardashian sisters or the Hiltons.....
I think people need to remove the large insects from their rectums. If they don't like it, they don't have to look at it. I am MUCH more offended by the anorexic women on the cover of every magazine and think that's a much more dangerous image for children.
My son has seen my granny panties and not gone to hell in a hand basket yet. It's not like there is a 20 foot vajayjay up there!
Post a Comment