In case you thought all the debate over abortion was limited to StudLife, you’re wrong. A recent art exhibit at Brooklyn’s Capla Kesting Fine Art Gallery has stirred new debate about abortion in the “real world.” That exhibit is “Monument to Pro-Life: The Birth of Sean Preston.” Sean Preston is the name of Britney Spears’ son and the statue recently on exhibit is of a nude Spears crouched on all fours on a bearskin rug, the crown of her son’s head emerging from her vagina. The statue dedication was supplemented by materials provided by Manhattan Right to Life Committee. Spears had nothing to do with the statue-neither posing for nor endorsing it.

Sculptor Daniel Edwards is laudatory of Spears for her choice to give up her superstar career in order to raise her child: “Britney provides inspiration for those struggling with the ‘right choice.’” The gallery co-director, Lincoln Capla, points out that it is rare for such a young, successful celebrity to have a child and to put her family before her career. Women all over the world are putting their families before their careers, but with nowhere near the amount of resources or recognition of Ms. Spears, which would make them braver, in my opinion, regardless of their age (Spears is twenty-four). Yet this is the example chosen to be a “monument” to “pro-life.”

Many bloggers have commented on the irony of the piece, and it is strong. The first definition of “monument” in the Oxford American Dictionaries is, “a statue…erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.” I can see how the statue is commemorating Spears’ life and/or the birth of her son. What I don’t see is how it can be a monument to pro-life. Interestingly enough, the second definition of “monument” in this same dictionary is, “a statue … placed by or over a grave in memory of the dead.” A monument to pro-life. Could this be a figurative gravesite for the pro-life movement? I’m not sure the irony was intended, but thank goodness it’s there.

Whether or not it is an ironic statement, the piece is truly mistitled. There is nothing about this piece that is pro-life. First of all, Spears did not endorse the project and is not a known advocate for the pro-life campaign. For all the sculptor knows, Spears may well have had an abortion (or multiple abortions) in her lifetime, although she may not be an active pro-choice advocate, either. It is doubtful Spears meant her pregnancy to be a political statement. I can agree that the statue represents the beauty of life by celebrating the act of birth. But being pro-life and pro-birth are not the same thing. I would argue that most of the world is pro-birth, unless they disagree with the continuation of the human species. Pro-choice advocates are in no way opposed to women giving birth and are just as likely to admire and take part in the pains and pleasures of childbirth.

I was poking fun in my first paragraph, but really, the positioning of this “piece of art” may have both sides of the abortion debate riled up. Pro-choice advocates may be understandably upset about the misleading title of the piece, and pro-life advocates may be wary about so closely tying their name with a celebrity such as Spears, or at least a naked statue of her on all fours. Edwards claims the piece is not meant to be political, but by titling it “Monument to Pro-Life,” I’m not sure how he was hoping to escape that one. If I were Spears, I would personally feel exploited, because it really does seem that Edwards is using Spears to make a name for himself. After all, would there be any sort of media attention paid to the statue if it were of a nameless woman?

Women do deserve monuments to honor their status as mothers in our society, but I’m afraid Edwards’ statue has failed to do this. Edwards’ choice to depict Spears “as she has depicted herself-seductively,” is questionable. Although Spears has spent years crafting her image as a seductress, and although even in pregnancy she may have maintained a somewhat “sexy” image, there is no proof that she tried to depict herself as seductive while giving birth. In fact, many have pointed out that Spears actually gave birth by way of a Cesarean-section. This statue is a complete fantasy on the part of the sculptor, revealing his misconceptions of life and birth rather than adding intelligent art to the community. A real image of Sean Preston’s (or any child’s) entry into this world would be far less seductive, and far more compelling.

Josie is a senior in Arts & Sciences. She can be reached via e-mail at [email protected]

Popularity: 1% [?]

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Friday, April 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Forum. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.