Mary Seacole memorial

I just wanted to say that Bill Woodrow's design for Mary Seacole is hideous, ugly and unrecognisable.

A Mary Seacole memorial should resemble Mary Seacole, like Churchill, Monty, Mandela (several), Edith Cavell, and all the others

It's not a question of being modern-or outlandish-it is REPRESENTING the PERSON. Also like the one of John Keats at St.Thomas'.

So give the commission to the other person, who is more DESERVING of it!

I think it's a joke entry ..it looked like white lego bricks..
I liked the one where she is astride a horse..and the bust...

the palm tree connection was lost on me,
Maurice Bilks one looked a bit scarey and out of proportion..martin jennings one is nice, reminds me a lovely lamp.

The red paperclip art will catch every scrap of litter blowing about.

The Martin Jennings design has now been chosen

Florence Nightingale who was more of an administrator than a nurse, rejected Mary seacole despite her being a expert herbalist and healer (medicine had very littele else to offer in those days ) because she did not fit the bill socially. Agaist all odds she paid her own way to the Crimea, helping to treat wounded soldiers at her own expense and after the war paid her own way back leaving her financially in ruins. She was held in such high regard by the ordinary British soldiers that they organised a collection for her. I agree that the statue of her should be equal to that of churchill. She should possibly replace Florence Nightingale as the real lady with the lamp

I think Mary was one of the few characters from the past who I would have dearly loved to meet. I first read about her nearly 30 years ago and was astonished more people had not heard of her. If the docu-drama t.v. programme was repeated I would watch it again.

Quote:

Bill Woodrow's design for Mary Seacole is hideous, ugly and unrecognisable.

No it's not. And it's not menat to be a likeness, so how can it be 'recognisable'?
It is simply too clever for its own good. But in fact, by being a calm, soothing space for people to relax, it is far more in keeping with the spirit of Seacole's mission than a bronze cartoon of her looking respectable. She was never that.

Me not being very academic Little Richardjohn, how is a memorial defined?

Me being old fashioned would like it to represent the person it was honouring. I would like Martin Jennings to give me the small scale model he has created!

Little Richardjohn wrote:

it is far more in keeping with the spirit of Seacole's mission than a bronze cartoon of her looking respectable. She was never that.

Cue Ms. Seacole's descendent's lawyers with a libel writ........

Jan the old one wrote:

Me not being very academic Little Richardjohn, how is a memorial defined?

It should celebrate the work not merely the likeness.
What does a person's appearance have to do with the good they do? Anyone genuinely worth celebrating would not worry whether their face was known for generations to come. They would be happy that the good they did lived after them and the likeness interr'd with their bones. As it were.
Memorial likenesses are mostly for our benefit, to satisfy a trivial curiousity, not a celebration of the memorialised.
We have the photographs, what more faithful likeness do you need? If it's mere accuracy you need, bronze is not an accurate representation of the texture of her skin or hair.
A ward of a hospital is obviously the best memorial for a pioneering nurse, but if a public commission is required, one which celebrates Seacole's compassionate, relaxed, maternal style of care would seem just as appropriate as any metallic likeness. More so, given that it would also be avoiding the same medium and technique and style inevitably used to celebrate warmongers.
Making Mary Seacole look like the Duke of Wellington is surely not appropriate.

Little Richardjohn
Have you stopped taking your medication