A few more thoughts: if making an indigenous representation truly was the intention, then the next question would be: why then doing it in a neoclassic style? Why not put in its stead a Maya stela or a Atlante de Tula? The implications of that logic are profound: should one be consistent with it, this means that we have an imperative to retroactively change all artworks from the past so that they are consistent with today’s dominant views.
If you are someone involved in creative work (painter, sculptor, writer, etc) I also wonder how you would feel about someone coming two centuries after you are dead and decide that any random person can change (repaint, remodel, rewrite) your artworks so they can be more suitable to the times. This is the reason why controversial sculptures (Civil War era, Communist, etc) are simply retired —hidden, buried, modified, or even melted away— and replaced by new works. We are lucky that the Spanish conquistadors didn't take the sculpture of Coatlicue and tried to change its face to the one of the virgin Mary— they just decided to bury the sculpture away, and by doing so, they inadvertently preserved it for the future.
For the record, should it happen that my works are one day considered inappropriate, I request for them to be altogether destroyed, not “improved” by anyone, even if they happen to be a better, smarter, more virtuous artist: to me, erasure and forgetfulness are preferable; a dignified death instead of the continued living of a fake, contrived falsification under my name.
the first thing that struck me looking at the two images is that the restoration looks much more indigenous. there is the question of authorship of the artist, but there is also the difference between what a sculpture does in private, vs what a a monument does in public. perhaps it was time for Hope not to wear such a European face.
A few more thoughts: if making an indigenous representation truly was the intention, then the next question would be: why then doing it in a neoclassic style? Why not put in its stead a Maya stela or a Atlante de Tula? The implications of that logic are profound: should one be consistent with it, this means that we have an imperative to retroactively change all artworks from the past so that they are consistent with today’s dominant views.
If you are someone involved in creative work (painter, sculptor, writer, etc) I also wonder how you would feel about someone coming two centuries after you are dead and decide that any random person can change (repaint, remodel, rewrite) your artworks so they can be more suitable to the times. This is the reason why controversial sculptures (Civil War era, Communist, etc) are simply retired —hidden, buried, modified, or even melted away— and replaced by new works. We are lucky that the Spanish conquistadors didn't take the sculpture of Coatlicue and tried to change its face to the one of the virgin Mary— they just decided to bury the sculpture away, and by doing so, they inadvertently preserved it for the future.
For the record, should it happen that my works are one day considered inappropriate, I request for them to be altogether destroyed, not “improved” by anyone, even if they happen to be a better, smarter, more virtuous artist: to me, erasure and forgetfulness are preferable; a dignified death instead of the continued living of a fake, contrived falsification under my name.
the first thing that struck me looking at the two images is that the restoration looks much more indigenous. there is the question of authorship of the artist, but there is also the difference between what a sculpture does in private, vs what a a monument does in public. perhaps it was time for Hope not to wear such a European face.