And We Thought It Was a Statue of Limitations

Why is it not surprising that a sportswriter would want to dumb down the notion of what Arthur Ashe embodied by critiquing a sculpture?

In describing the sculpture of Ashe at the U.S. National Tennis Center as offensive, perplexing, beautiful and ineffective, J.A. Adande [Aug. 30] never states what he thinks the mission of the artwork or the commemorative garden is in the first place.

When he quotes the viewer whining about having to go into a long explanation to kids about what the sculpture “means,” I couldn’t help but think that artist Eric Fischl had done his job well. Everything is served up on a platter these days (like the banal Ashe sculpture in Richmond) so we don’t have to think, consider or explain.

Hey, if you’re going to stop and look at it, please take the time to consider it, maybe read the plaque too. Adande describes the sculpture as though we should be able to see it, absorb and understand all of Arthur Ashe’s contributions to society and sports in our brief walk from the main entrance to the stadium.

Do you think Arthur Ashe would balk at having to think a little? Do you think he’d mind that a considered minority understands the concept behind the sculpture and appreciates it? I think he’d be honored.

BARBARA MCCARREN

Adjunct Professor in Sculpture,

USC School of Fine Arts