That statue was carved by young fan from Ypsilanti!

And Ernie will just stand there like the house by the side of the road...

Love Ernie and this fitting tribute- too bad this pic has depth of field all wrong and a trash can behind it from the angle taken

When preparing a depiction of someone who has been around between the ages of 40 and 90, at what age do you depict him for posterity ? I'm guessing the likeness is trying to show him in his 60s.....

When preparing a depiction of someone who has been around between the ages of 40 and 90, at what age do you depict him for posterity ?

If he's Augustus Caesar, around 25 years of age.

That is an excellent statue. I'm in awe of the craftsmanship of the artist, Lou Cella.

This is as good a time as any to express my theory about art: How you react to it says something about your politics or your intrinsic philosophy.

If you love abstract art and generally have a preference for the contemporary over the traditional or classical, you are probably a liberal or a lefty. If you hate all (or most) contemporary or abstract art, you probably lean to the right in your politics**. If you are somewhere in between those extremes, you are probably somewhere in the middle in the political spectrum.

Abstract art is very often an embrace of the chaotic, the disorderly. Classical art* is orderly.

As to my own tastes, I am somewhere in between, but right of center. There is classical art I really find boring, even though I can appreciate the craftsmanship -- Frederic Remington or Thomas Kinkade, for example. There is a lot of Christian, religious art which is awesome. This, for example. But there are thousands of depictions of Madonna & Child and Jesus, etc., which don't do anything for me.

Generally speaking, though, I like classical art. My strongest preference is for 17th Century Flemish art (the so-called Dutch Masters). I especially love Johannes Vermeer and Rembrandt van Rijn. But I have no prejudice against Italians or Frenchies or other Europeans of that period whose works use light and colors in the way the best of the Dutch styled their paintings.

What I dislike in so much contemporary art is the absence of evident craftsmanship. The artist might have tremendous skill, but to my eye a lot of contemporary art looks like a kid who takes the short bus to school could have made it. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the creativity of contemporary art. In fact, I think because classical art has all been done before, great artists born in the last 150 years or so have moved away from it because they don't feel like there is any creativity in it. To be art -- as opposed to craft -- it has to include creativity. Yet when craft is not evident (to my eye), I say, "meh" or even "blech."

The Harwell statue is of the type that most highly regarded living artists probably say "meh" to. Other than his slacks needing to be ironed, where is the creativity, they would ask. But I don't care so much about breaking new ground. It's a depiction which takes a tremendous amount of congenital ability and acquired skills to produce. There is nothing wrong with honed craft in my opinion. I like an Ernie Harwell statue which, when you look at it, you know it is Ernie. No one will say, "What is that?"

All that said, I'm not a right-winger. I like some contemporary art. I appreciate creativity and color and I especially love whimsy (like this). I enjoyed the displays of Christo, as well, just for their grandeur. But if it looks like something a short-busser like I could do -- that is, it takes no apparent skill -- I can't get too excited about that sort of art.

*I have no degree in art history. So what I call "classical art" may not fit the academic use of the term. Picasso's abstracts, to me, are contemporary art, even if they are now quite old. Classical art, in my lexicon, is a painting or sculpture which depicts humans, plant life, animals and so on as they appear, more-less, to the naked eye. Where fantastical creatures -- say angels or centaurs -- are depicted in classical art, the viewer knows immediately what he is seeing. No one has to explain to you, that "blotch" is supposed to be the Angel Gabriel in classical art. Impressionism falls somewhere in between classical and contemporary in my mind. Most of the best impressionism leans toward the classical.

**I'm sure there are famous examples which "disprove" my theory: that is, some right-wing nut who favored classical art or vice versa. Understood. My theory is meant to be a generalization, not a straightjacket.

I know of a lot of lefties who hated contemporary art--Stalin, for example.

I also know Republicans, albeit very moderate ones, who like contemporary art.

My cockeyed theory is that political extremists of whatever stripe may be more prone than others to detest modern art, because they like to get and/or enforce power through censorship, and it's easier to ban new things than things that have been around for generations. But that's based only on the observation that leftwing and rightwing dictatorships of the 20th century censored modern art of various kinds.

I think it's important for an artist, especially one working on commission, is to understand the needs of their patron. I'm just happy Ernie doesn't have two heads, three arms and four microphones.

I know of a lot of lefties who hated contemporary art--Stalin, for example.

One of the main faults with my "theory" of art & politics is defining left and right. I'm really thinking more along the lines of the American spectrum from conservative to liberal, though I in fact said above "lefty and liberal" tend to favor the abstact.

Well, the idea of Stalin as a "lefty" in this sense is arrant nonsense. The man was, in essence, a fascist.

Interesting that art is accessible/interpretable primarily through politics. I would add, though, that a number of totalitarian regimes have embraced the vanguard of 20th-century modernism. First, Marinetti and the futurists who began to articulate some of the cornerstones of Italian fascism before it was even a strong political movement - the exaltation of the mechanical, a desire to forge anew a brutally efficient technocratic society. In War Communism, in Russia, the Bolsheviks embraced the suprematism of artists like Kasimir Malevich and El Lissitzky - this was art that convinced itself that it could transcend abstraction, refining the simplest elements of form, color, and line to such a degree that they embodied universal moral and spiritual imperatives (which they in turn hoped to apply as propaganda to keep morale and production up). In Brazil, the rise of a modernist-influenced, vibrantly new and syncretic artistic language was one of the things that helped form Getulio Vargas' Estado Novo.

Hitler is the notable exception; an artist as a young man, he detested the avant-garde works of the time and organized exhibitions displaying them as "degenerate art". The diaspora of German modernists the Nazis created profoundly influenced the course of 20th-century art in every corner of the globe. He favored a more classical tradition because he saw it as speaking to the strength/enduring nature of the German character and national identity, that it was pure, powerful, and noble.

My theory is that it is a fool's errand to try and place loosely defined categories of artwork along a one-dimensional spectrum of political beliefs.

Well, the idea of Stalin as a "lefty" in this sense is arrant nonsense. The man was, in essence, a fascist.

I grant you that he was a fascist, but fascism in not some competing ideology. Fascism is essentially a mode of expressing power and authority, and it has little to do with what values or interests are held by that power - I think it is possible for Stalin to be both a lefty and a fascist.

I tend to think most art of its time is fairly radical. Most great examples of the classics stirred lots of controversy (using new color schemes, scale, perspective, subject matter, etc). So if there is inclinations based on politics for classical vs contemporary, on one level I think it's fairly ironic.

Happy birthday, Ernie, and thanks for everything.

Great piece about Harwell at Baseball Analysts the other day that didn't get any play here:

Baseball on the Radio in New York City in 1953

That statue is almost perfect.

Make it a PEZ dispenser, and it would be totally perfect.

I can't wait for the Sterling/Kay statue outside new Yankee Stadium.

I like this statue, but the Harry Carey one at Wrigley Field is basically creepy.

I can't wait for the Sterling/Kay statue outside new Yankee Stadium.

It's already beyond the pale that they do intros on Old-Timer's Day and get to take part in the WS parade. And that their voices now forever mar dozens of classic games one might wish to watch in the future. Either one of these vermin being further immortalized would be cause for revolution.

There's already a statue of Michael Kay.

To further clarify my position (as someone who studies a particular artform for a living, though I don't claim that gives me some monopoly on good ideas about the subject), I agree with zachtoma that artistic taste can't be placed on a political spectrum, or discussed according to one. Artistic taste is essentially a personal aesthetic taste. Sometimes, where political movements take artistic sides, they do so because those are the sides taken by the movements' leaders. Other times, political movements' artistic stances have nothing to do with artistic taste, but are instead based on sociological/psychological projections of what kinds of art they think will lead to what kinds of thoughts and behavior among the populace.

[18]

I can't wait for the Sterling/Kay statue outside new Yankee Stadium.

It's already beyond the pale that they do intros on Old-Timer's Day and get to take part in the WS parade. And that their voices now forever mar dozens of classic games one might wish to watch in the future. Either one of these vermin being further immortalized would be cause for revolution.

Really? What if they froze them in carbonite, like Han Solo, and exhibited them outside the stadium? That's a "win-win."

He certainly lacks the haunted zombie look of the Josh Gibson statue in Nats Park.

I agree with zachtoma that artistic taste can't be placed on a political spectrum, or discussed according to one.

I disagree, obviously. And I think my theory is testable.

Here is what could be done: Take a poll in one city, say Los Angeles. Ask the first 100 people you come across at the MOMA to (anonymously) describe their politics: left, left-center, center, right-center or right. Also ask them how much they like contemporary art: a lot, some, or not very much. Then take the same poll at the LA County Museum of Art when some other classical artist is on display, asking their politics and their views on classical art. (You could do the whole poll, if you wanted, at the same museum, as long as that museum at one time had a contemporary or abstract show and at another had a classical art show.)

If my hypothesis is correct, what you would find is that a greater percentage of people at the contemporary exhibit would be to the left of the people at the classical exhibit. I don't think this has anything to do with "sides taken by the movements' leaders." I think it has a lot more to do with the basic personality types, which help to explain why some people go into certain occupations or have certain views of the role of government in society.

By the way ... I think these sorts of differences between Amercian liberals and American conservatives -- in general -- can be found in other areas, including choice of movies, some types of food, perhaps forms of dress, and even in religion.

With regard to religion and politics, I think it is a 2-way street. Religions tend to shape the political views of their followers; and religious people (who leave the practice they were raised with) tend to choose churches which share their views on politics. Obviously, this is all a gross generalization. I'm perfectly aware that most religious sects in the U.S. have believers and other adherents whose politics are in conflict with one another. Yet, at the same time, we have a number of affiliations which do have a political bent: Members of the Quakers (Society of Friends) tend to be liberals, especially if they were not born into that Church. Same thing with Unitarians and Universalists. People who choose to belong to some Protestant Evangelical sects or the Mormon Church tend to be political conservatives. I belong to a Reform Jewish synagogue at it is quite liberal, though I don't think any more liberal than Jews on the whole.

If you have not see the interview he recently did with Costas for MLB Network, you really should.

Here is some of my handiwork; I caught Ernie from a slightly different angle:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3884918&l=0178543965&id=528000914

(this link will work for everyone, even if you've never used Facebook)

Your theory has sweeping implications about the eras wherein 'classical' art dominated the cultural landscape. I suppose that makes sense. How does a society such as the Romans' mesh with this hypothesis?

I agree with zachtoma that artistic taste can't be placed on a political spectrum, or discussed according to one.

I disagree, obviously. And I think my theory is testable.

Artistic taste is testable. Sort of. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Komar and Melamid.

Artistic taste is testable. Sort of. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Komar and Melamid.

A certain scene from 'Dead Poets Society' comes to mind...

There is a lot of Christian, religious art which is awesome. This, for example

Link is broken, but I'm sure you meant this.

I stand (or really sit) in awe of James Hampton's throne*. My link was to the Sistine Chapel, which I thought as a kid was the 16th Chapel.

*That is one big sculpture: "... occupies an area of some two hundred square feet and stands three yards in height at its center."

Where's the Jeanne Zelasko statue?