Read on Twitter
When I was an art student I was always firmly of the belief that art and politics do not mix (not fine art anyway, not sculpure, which is what I was studying). https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/nov/10/mary-wollstonecraft-finally-honoured-with-statue-after-200-years?CMP=share_btn_tw
The formal considerations inherent in the language of art do not always lend themselves to the political message. The message may have to be compromised, or the artistic integrity may have to be compromised. Either way, you are most likely going to fail in both endeavours.
Graphic art is different, and this includes illustration and public art such as statues. Artistic integrity isn't the point here, the point is representation, either of physical objects or of ideas. Some people confuse statues with sculpture but they are very different.
I respect Maggie Hambling as an artist, but this artwork fails as a result of confusing two separate ideas, to the detriment of both. The political message is ambiguous (being kind) and the sculpture itself suffers from the weight of meaning it is expected to carry.
I still think art and politics don't mix: this sculpture is read (and fails) as a statue because you can't divorce it from its political implications. It's disappointing because it's a wasted opportunity, both for public sculpture and for public political female representation.
