46
votes
Debate has erupted in Denmark over the fate of a mermaid statue that is to be removed from public view after being decried as “ugly and pornographic”
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Denmark to reportedly remove 'ugly and pornographic' mermaid statue
- Authors
- Miranda Bryant
- Published
- Aug 4 2025
- Word count
- 487 words
Something about this pisses me off. In the recent years a similar debate happened around a statue in Prague that in my opinion doesn't have a lot of artistic value, but it was purchased by a private investor on private land, leaning on an appartment complex outside of the historical parts of town and it's not exactly offensive, it's just meh. And the public debate wasn't in tune of "this is not very good art and it's kind of an eyesore", it was "the boobs and ass on that statue are unrealistically sexy and that's offensive to women and it makes me feel bad whenever I see it".
That's not a criticism of the statue, that's you criticizing your own attitude towards your body. That's for you to fix, not the society.
I hate when this happens, because neither the statue in Prague nor this one have a lot of artistic merit or any historical value, so I'm not opposed to removing them in principle. But I feel forced to defend what I don't particularly care about because I think that people who make these kinds of arguments have to firmly and repeatedly be denied.
Is this the statue from Prague you're referencing? I was curious for the comparison and I'll be honest, this wasn't what I was expecting. I was expecting something less abstract, but wow is that a large sculpture all the same. https://www.david-cerny-tour.com/en-lilith
That looks pretty cool. I’d probably have made her less curvy but it doesn’t rise to the level of “obscene” to me.
That's the one. There's also a giant leg and a giant hand supporting the building elsewhere. I think that Lilith herself is kind of cheap, but the whole building is pretty cool.
The controversy was fueled by the fact that the author himself is a controversial person, especially unpopular among young left leaning people, because he makes a living making statues that are not super deep and artistic and therefore are accepted not only by the general public but mainly by real estate developers. So he's not making "real" art, makes a lot of money doing so and has zero shame about it, all of which some people view as a crime, and he enjoys and fuels the controversy. Without it I don't think the debate surrounding Lilith would have been that visible.
That's wild. The debate loses a lot of sympathy for me the moment they drift into what merits real art. It's hard for me to hate on an artist making good money by knowing their audience and customers. 🤷 However if Lilith is a good example of the kind of stuff he makes, I'm surprised there's such a big audience. Not particularly appealing to me tho far from obscene or offensive in my opinion.
It's an example of what he's been making in the last 5 years or so, which I think sucks. But he's had really good stuff in the past. He always liked to provoke.
In 1991 he painted a soviet tank/monument in Prague pink - that was shortly after the velvet revolution, which also meant the end of soviet occupation for us (1968 - 1989), and there was a lively public debate about what to do with the tank and other explicitly communist/soviet monuments. He ended the debate and got arrested, the tank is no longer in its place but it's pink to this day.
His creepy black babies are somewhat known, especially on Žižkov television tower
Head of Franz Kafka is a pretty decent kinetic sculpture that's very popular among tourists
Entropa was excellent. Czech Republic was about to start its first presidency of the European Union, so to celebrate it we made a huge art piece that was unveiled in Brussels. We gathered 27 different artists from the different member countries who worked together and created this big work of art. Except they were all fictional, the whole piece was created by Černý, his assistants and two other (imo better and certainly less controversial) czech artists, and its whole point was to make fun of stereotypes, sometimes offensive ones. Almost nobody (including czech politicians) knew about this in advance. The whole country of France is covered with a big white cloth saying STRIKE!, Germany is full of highways put together in a shape that may or may not mildly resemble a swastika, Italy is a football (soccer) field with the players occassionally literally fucking the balls, and I think Bulgaria is made of turkish (squat) toilets, against which the bulgarian government protested so much it had to be covered with black cloth. Oh, and instead of UK there's empty space (years before brexit). This whole thing was a very Czech thing to do and it still makes me chuckle.
He made the statue of two people pissing in a pool too, yeah? I thought it was entertaining. The Kafka head also looks really cool in person.
Thanks for such a nice summary of his work! You're right, his prior work provokes a deeper response than the Lilith statue.
DAMN!
It's huge right?!
Uh...it sure is!!!
Many people have bad attitudes towards their own bodies, and part of the reason is that we are exposed to pictures and videos and even statues of "perfect" bodies basically everywhere. Most of us don't look like that, and for some the constant reminders that we don't look the way we should causes serious damage to their self esteem and mental health.
I don’t resemble Michelangelo’s David, but I can’t say I want to be surrounded by statues of ugly out of shape people. Is that what you are looking for? Or do you just not want the naked human form in the public sphere?
Not everyone finds "out of shape" bodies ugly nor are all statues of people "pretty" even if they're intended to be.
I like seeing diverse bodies in art rather than only representing a small minority of body types, personally.
Yes and I'd go a touch further - art isn't (always) meant to be agreeable nor should it (always) make the audience feel comfortable when perceiving said art.
So while I'd allow that hyper-perfect bodies being forced down our throats for commercial purposes (eg. advertising) is genuinely negative for our well-being, it is a different box of frogs when viewing human bodies through the lens of art forms. Maybe.
To be contrarian though, public community art in oft-visited places should at least be agreeable to look at, though. Art should evoke all kinds of emotions, sure, but huge public art has a duty to not evoke overly negative feelings.
Imagine a mural in a busy downtown underground, where commuters must pass through every day to and from work. If they install something huge that speaks about the depression, pointlessness and monotony of day to day life, that's harmful to the community.
Is it? Saying "out loud" what everyone already feels is not a negative. It is getting one step closer to a solution. If anything, that is a useful application of art. Would you rather have everyone being miserable alone and by themselves?
How... interesting. If I'm in a slog of a commute, I really do not want to be reminded how awful it feels and how we're all trapped and powerless. The solidarity is already implicit and need no artful reminder: we're all here being sardines at 7am. My city paying a bunch of money over champaigne one gala evening, to erect a mural about my daily misery, while they vote down work from home policies, would feel several steps away from a solution. I'd just feel mocked.
Edit: An uncommissioned graffiti defacing this farce, such as Banksy-esque fat pigs in top hats in a corner, paying money for "Art" over champaigne, would be quite welcome yes.
I guess it depends on whether the art is any good then. In my mind it was, but a city sponsored gala evening to erect a mural very much doesn't sound like it would produce something good. I entirely agree.
I'm not disagreeing with you. However, I think the murals in Denver Internal Airport missed your memo ( this is the first link I found that seemed to have decent photos of the murals): https://www.uncovercolorado.com/denver-airport-murals-painting-location/
Yikes on a bike. Not sure I feel good about landing at an airport staring at dead children while waiting for bags.
Public art is difficult. Depict happy things and folks will be mad it's whitewash denial, and depict challenging things and folks don't want to feel challenged.
The art really feeds all the weird theories people have about the airport. If you find urban legends fun, looking up the stuff about DIA is a good time if you can wade through the people who take it too seriously.
Haha, I was going to say, Toronto Union Station subway murals would like a word. It's like they're trying to remind commuters how depressing their job is :D
Wow. Some of those sketchy panels look like they're pretty cool, and I like that it was apparently based on actual commuters. But when put all together, it definitely feels dreary. Good piece for reflection, but a bad place.
Agreed, and I only entered the conversation to address that particular point It's the broader disgust at "ugly out of shape" bodies that was implied, that spoke to me.
But art should absolutely be a lot more than just "attractive bodies" for many reasons. It also can be attractive bodies. My point was that "attractive bodies" are not limited to "in shape" ones, nor does ugly equal being out of shape to everyone.
Personally this statue seems to just be some guy's "that other mermaid isn't hot enough so I made a hot mermaid with big ol boobs," rather than a more in depth artistic expression. But I think the city declining to keep it and letting the artist do what he wants with it off of public property suffices. Meh?
Speaking to diversity, this seems to be a fairly unique take on mermaids. Looking to google this seems to be the only giant boobed mermaid statue around. And when I think of classic Greek female nude statues, small boobs seem to be the norm as well.
I don't have an opinion on the statue from a POV of body diversity, my point there was in response to your comment.
Glad the article includes a dissenting point, while I think the breasts are a bit too much, and a bit too I guess, "spherical" for my liking of realism, it's not like the statue is that bad, notably I really like how normal the face is, compared to art that has a more neotenous facial anatomy (especially for women). I don't really see much wrong with it, even if it's not to my tastes. I think calling it pornographic just because it has barely breasts is definitely a bridge too far
And I do think the dissenting opinion has a point. What specific shape of breasts is allowed? How spherical is too spherical? Etc
Yeah, I don't see much wrong with it either. The pose doesn't seem provocative to me, it looks like the same pose of Ariel on her rock with the wave crashing behind her. The only thing that could make it "sexual" is the fact she has large, bare breasts. And I don't like the implication that having large breasts automatically makes something "pornographic".
I do think it's definitely sexual, at least by the relatively puritan American standards I was raised under. Pornographic is a bit too far in my book, though I'm sure some will disagree. I think if it had more effort put into the pose or details other than the mermaid it would make the argument to keep it more sound. But at the same time, it's already there. If there was outcry when it was installed that would make more sense.
Okay not to be low quality or side track but like the "her tiddies are big therefore it's vulgar" sends my blood pressure to the fucking stratosphere. BIG TITS ARE NOT INHERENTLY VULGAR, YOU ARE JUST SEXUALIZING THEM BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE NOTICEABLE TO YOU. FUCK OFF with this feminism facade, what favor are you doing to any woman besides showing that if her tits are this big or noticeable it's pornographic? The context isn't even remotely pornographic, the mermaid is sitting on a rock in a way that her boobs are slightly more prominent and oh no, they aren't small handfuls, ergo it must be MALE FANTASY and no woman has breasts like this.
The idea of breasts being noticeable and therefore should be hidden is so insidious. It fucks with you as you grow up, and into adulthood. My tits are there, and it's only a problem between them and my back! Anyone else has a problem that's on themself! Just be true about your feelings on the statue, call it fugly and say you don't want it but don't claim her tits are pornographic ergo we must remove the statue. Women will feel bad about themselves because of those tities! Also fuck you if your titties look like that!
Sorry, hard rant there. The reasoning they want it gone is just so back handed.
I fully agree that one can - should be able to, really - make art of female bodies with big breasts or other characteristics socially coded as sexual without them being treated as sexual, never mind obscene. And I don't think there's some objective way in which this statue crosses over into being "pornographic"; it'll probably be installed in some other location and that's fine. As you said there exist real women with bodies like this statue and to state the obvious, they should be able to go without being sexualised!
On the other hand I don't think the tits are incidental here, I think they're the point. I think the object was to make a sexualised statue. I don't think that's being imposed from outside, I think it's - to some degree - what the artist wanted.
I find things like this to be the lowest form of perceived improvement for society. There is SO much more we could be focusing energy and time on than some statue that clearly was not intended to be remotely provocative. It just feels performative and controlling.
I think there's a cross section of things wrong here -
But I really don't care what a priest has to say about art by and large. Go dust your habit.
It's not sexy. It's really just a 'standard' mermaid pose without the shell bra. There's hyper realistic statues that I could call sexy or alluring but this one isn't tantalizing.
It's a 'response' piece but I don't feel it effectively conveys that to a viewer compared to the original. While it's fine if the boobs are bigger, smaller, lopsided or whatever, the statue only works if you can look over and go "There's the little mermaid" otherwise it's just "Big Tiddy Mermaid." However because the big mermaid is putting her chest forward compared to the little one's diminutive pose, you've got a direct comparison that makes this one look worse. When Disney's Little Mermaid does this exact pose, it doesn't look as bad because you don't have a shy, demure mermaid in the background.
I agree with V17. It's harmless. To call it pornographic does it a disservice because, in reality, this is the Jarhead 2 of statues. Now it's getting attention which inevitably gives it more value than I might feel it deserves.
I think it's worth pointing out that this statue's been around for 19 years — 12 years in its original location and 7 years in the current place. I have a hard time mustering up outrage about decades-old art.
I don't think human bodies are inherently obscene, and I don't think one body type is inherently more pornographic than another. I'd argue that claims to the contrary reveal more about the speaker's own insecurities and hang-ups than anything else.
I think the problem is that when there's an existing, beloved one, another one is always going to look worse off. Even if this one were fully clothed, it still has a really awkward pose. The arms look very stiff, her back looks painfull arched, and the tail a sort of weird serpentine curve around the rock instead of how a fish would drape its tail. Overall the artist made it look like it's posing with blown dry camera perfect hair, striaght on passport photo beaming headlights1, and too much straining effort, as opposed to the original's more lifelike "caught in a moment of doing her own thing" pose.
See here for more pictures https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/denmark-remove-pornographic-mermaid-statue-35675021
But I think it's a fine statue 15km away from the original.
1 : her eyes. Her breasts are fine, actually from the side they look much less oddly straight circles than the head-on photo in the article. In art class we were taught figures with overly straight lines and basic geometric shapes like perfect triangles or spheres appear awkward in natural subjects, including nudes. Thats why Michelangelo's David is gently resting on one leg, Da Vinci's Virtuvian is doing a jumping Jack, and Botticelli's Venus is listing to one side. Compare and contrast with those awkward and unnatural stick-up-their-butts-straight dictator statues.
I said this in another comment, but the pose reminds me of the famous Ariel pose. So I can see what the sculptor was going for, but the execution just failed.
The arms and arched back feels like it's the moment right after the mermaid breaches the water and pulls herself up onto the rock, yet her hair is totally flat against her head and shoulders. That hair totally removes any sense of motion, like she's been intentionally holding herself like that for a while, rather than capturing a brief pause in movement.
Same goes for how the tail wraps around the rock. Even ignoring what you mentioned about it being more serpentine, I'd expect that sort of wrapping to occur after the mermaid's had a few moments to settle after breaching. Actually, now I'm imagining her slapping her tail onto the rock and then pulling herself up by her arms in the most ineffecient way possible. It's ridiculous, but that's the only way I can imagine the tail being already wrapped around the rock with how her arms are positioned.
Combined together, it makes the pose feel static and forced rather than a dynamic moment in time. The details don't just come together properly.
You got it. In this frame, Ariel's gently wind tossed hair implies motion. Her eyes are wide with song and wonder. Her arms are slightly bent at an angle that compliments her forward surge, with her tail which naturally follows behind her.
im all for a more mature mermaid, a merwoman if you will, so I think it's okay to have a rendition that isn't shy/demure like the original, or fresh and naive like Ariel here. But if they're going to stick it in Copenhagen, that's going to want a young naive fresh faced and shy mermaid.
Even though my personal favourites are more like Clio's Dream, by artists Joan Coderch and Javier Malavia, 2015, I would also be happy with a full figured, confidently nude version of this statue where she looks more natural and relaxed in her body, like the prehistoric dancing girl. It's not that breasts are pornographic, it's that the stiffness and weird pose reminds me too much of /r/badWomensAnatomy male gaze art.
I see what you're saying. I wonder how much less criticism this would have gotten had he chosen a different pose all other things being equal. Something more "in the moment" than this perched on a rock pose.
I wonder why we never get statues in public places with a big ol’ dick and balls hanging down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charging_Bull#Evolution_into_tourist_attraction
That’s more like it!
Those balls are exceedingly well polished lol
How big do you want them?
STATUES IN PIAZZA DELLA SIGNORIA IN FLORENCE
You may already know this, but the ancient Greeks considered a small dick the ideal of male beauty. Big dicks were considered barbaric and a sign of stupidity, that someone was more of a beast than a man. Renaissance artists were emulating this style, so it is reflected in such statues.
That is to say, I think your art may actually be pretty poignant!
Bigger than that!
My high school fascinatingly had a statue of a rearing horse (our mascot) with the dick and balls included (though not super big by any means)
The only one that comes to mind is the replica David in Louisville, Kentucky: https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/golden-statue-of-david