How to make a feminist sculpture

Yesterday, I braved the rain and cycled to Newington Green (19km return) to make my own mind about Maggi Hambling's sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft. I approve.

First impression was overwhelmingly positive: scale, material. The sculpture is a quirky monolithic shape, brightly shining, even in the overcast day. The material silver colour (aluminium, silver-patinated bronze?) wonderfully stands out like a flame in the green, and its modest scale is human and enticingly emotional. It feels at ease in the space, does not compete with the buildings around, yet is clearly visible from all corners. A magnet.

I was not alone in my pilgrimage! I spent one hour in the Green (the coffee of the kiosk was excellent as a friend had mentioned, and I also patronised a patisserie (v good croissant), and a French restaurant where I bought some cheese.

The obelisk feels organic - a maelstrom of shapeless yet allusive form (I thought tree, women, magma... intelligence!) very directional and moving. It is totally not static, and made me think of some of Rodin's works, and even the Peter Pan sculpture at Hyde Park. Creation and transformation. Very tactile.

Then, at the top, a small figure of a rather incongrous (with the rest of the design) woman. This is NOT a classical depiction of a nude. It totally rejects, in my opinion, the male gaze. It is an anatomically correct female body strong and athletic. Remind me of both anatomical figures and Lara Croft (for me, nothing to do with Barbies as one woman was discussing around me). I read it as a vindication of the naked, not the nude.

The figure seems to come out of the maelstrom below fully formed, determined, looking very strongly ahead, with brains. I found the figure ugly, ie no idealised beauty at all, yet compelling in her strength and direct look. I like it. Some women told me that they found it "too slim". I actually found her perfectly normal. We are all too fat actually. A black woman liked that she could identify with the figure. Didn't find it just "white" and that made me think of the very short hair, which is also interesting.

The strongly emphasised breasts and pubis were right too if you want to read the figure easily as a woman because the head is far more ambiguous (as it should be!!), and the upright stance is also not the typical way nudes are depicted (there is generally a curvature of the body and head, a contrapposto...).

I thought of Titian and his Profane and Sacred love, his Diana (the strongly bodied one). This little figure did not look sacred (ie naked) in a secular way, but curiously at ease in her own athletic body, which was very definitely very binary, very woman.

I was delighted that the monument is NOT a portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft but a paean to woman as a strong, empowered human being. I did not miss the books or clothes, as some obviously did. I definitely think that this monument can be read as an answer to MW's thought-provoking quote here: "I do not wish women to have power over men but over themselves", a thought that has clearly informed the design of the sculpture. The woman at the top is definitely not into blind obedience. Her tight fists, her direct glance, her upright body are all very much directed by a mind, I felt. The monument itself is quirky enough, not following blindly what a traditionally commemorative statue is. This is art filled with emotion and bringing its own logic and rationale to the public space. You cannot be indifferent to it, it requires an emotional and intellectual response. The last thing you can say of it is that it is decorative.

Legacy a statue? badly phrased comment, that is for sure!! I am with the writer that MW needs a bigger monument to be commemorated: a 24h open library, a one million pound yearly prize to the betterment of young deprived girls, a series of scholarships, whatever!! this is an appropriately small and interesting piece of art in the square she knew. I would not be at all ashamed to show this to a little girl or boy. Again, IT IS NOT A NUDE. It is a NAKED WOMAN.

I wondered about the granite of the pedestal and the letter type chosen. I suppose the black makes the whole thing stand out. The letter type could be better and it was not perfectly arranged in the side; should have been slightly up.

Hambling took a very clear design decision contrasting the maelstrom of the upwards thrust of the monolith and the calmness of the figure, in total control.

The lady in green with the girl also loved the monument and we spent some time discussing it. The girl was not too impressed, wanted to go home!, but liked the silvery colour.

More fans!! the place was like a party. Loads of people, all discussing the work and its relationship (or not!!) to the work of Wollstonecraft. I have not read her properly, only fragments of her work. This monument definitely made me want to go and read her work. Is this a common treat of public monuments? I don't think so!

On my way home I decided to revisit two prominent monuments to women. This is the one dedicated to Edith Cavell. (George Frampton, 1920) Definitely bigger! no emotional draw here. Cavell had died just five years before, so there were likenesses of her around. It is a curious juxtaposition of ideas. At the top is the Virgin and Child and just below it it says "For King and Country", also around one inscription in each side - Humanity, Devotion, Fortitude, Sacrifice. A very didactic monument which tells you what to think about it all.

It has presence and gravitas, which is good, and good proportions. the contrast between white marble and granite is middling. Dated.

The newest one I know. The suffragette Milllicent Garrett Fawcett by Gillian Wearing (2018). I love the quote chosen "Courage calls to courage everywhere". The image makes you think of the Veronica... A rather traditional approach - another portrait based on a photograph I presume - as befits the other famous men around it. It was a very good idea to put plaques with the names and images of so many more women (and some men) who were behind women's suffrage. I rather like it.

So, a very different memorial to Wollstonecraft. This one is about ideas, a talking point, an aspiration. The Garrett Fawcett also invites that sort of discussion in a more historical context (ie the actual suffragette struggle in the 19/20c). Whereas this one has chosen a timeless approach as what MW vindicated is a far more profound and radical truth, which is still very much challenged nowadays!