Art and Design | News | Prince Harry | Princess Diana | Royalty

BigGayDeal.com

Dead Prince Harry Sculpture to be Unveiled in London

Deadprinceharry_3

A dead Prince Harry is featured in "a memorial honoring those willing but unable to serve in the Iraq conflict" by sculptor Daniel Edwards, scheduled to be unveiled at the Trafalgar Hotel on October 11.

"The Memorial features Prince Harry laid out before the Union Jack with pennies placed over his eyes and head rested on the Bible. The statue suggests the tragic outcome of a confrontation in Iraq’s Maysan Province with the Iranian weapons smugglers for whom Harry’s tank regiment was scheduled to patrol. Prone with his unfired gun still holstered, Prince Harry is represented clutching a bloodied flag of Wales, and holding to his heart a cameo locket of his late mother, Princess Diana, while a desert vulture perches on his boot. Harry’s head is earless, denoting the explicit threats against the Prince from militia leaders saying they planned to send him back to his grandmother 'without his ears.'"

The clay mold pictured here still has the ears, but according to Radar Online they are to be removed...and sold on eBay.

And, pardon me for noticing, but it looks as if there is something going on in Prince Harry's trousers (click on left shot, below).

Deadprinceharry2 Deadprinceharry3

You may remember Edwards for his oh-so-subtle takes on Britney Spears giving birth, a Paris Hilton autopsy, and Suri Cruise's poop.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Ahem.

    Posted by: Eddie | Oct 4, 2007 6:22:15 PM


  2. In Pere LaChaise cemetery in Paris there is a gravestone that is a life-size statue of the deceased, Victor Noir, an aristocrat killed by Napoleon. The gravestone is made of bronze, so the entire statue has a beautiful patina...everything, that is, except for the crotch, which has a rather prominent bulge. For decades that bulge has been rubbed for good luck, resulting in a lovely polished shine. I'd like to rub Harry's crotch in exactly the same way...only I'd use my tongue.

    Posted by: peterparker | Oct 4, 2007 6:29:53 PM


  3. At least people are just being disgusting and not trying to comment on the statue's artistic merit, since it has none.

    Posted by: Scott | Oct 4, 2007 6:47:20 PM


  4. I think it's poetic, forceful and has JUST SO MUCH ARTISTIC MERIT i can't control myself.

    Posted by: stolidog | Oct 4, 2007 6:59:42 PM


  5. I think this is the stupidest idea for a statue I've ever heard of. Much better to have a LIVE statue of Prince Harry, shirtless, with a bulge, standing like an Adonis. Now THAT I would go to see.

    Posted by: Hephaestion | Oct 4, 2007 7:08:08 PM


  6. How tacky.....

    The ultimate revenge would be for Prince Harry to buy the accursed-thing and stash it away unseen for when he might actually need it at Frogmore...hopefully in 60 or 70-years.

    Posted by: Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | Oct 4, 2007 7:40:14 PM


  7. What's next ? GWB crying at night because of all those fallen soldiers ? Some athlete injecting him/herself with dope ?

    Posted by: Alain | Oct 4, 2007 7:54:39 PM


  8. That trash doesn't deserve a comment.

    Posted by: Jordan | Oct 4, 2007 7:54:42 PM


  9. his serving would endager his troops so of course he can't go. And his is really torn up about this...trust me on this

    Posted by: alan brickman | Oct 4, 2007 7:55:33 PM


  10. Yet another example that "Modern Art" is an oxymoron. Disgusting trash.

    Posted by: Brett | Oct 4, 2007 8:06:24 PM


  11. Harry wanted to serve and still does. He was bitter that they held him back, but they convinced him it would result in a much higher death rate for the UK soldiers if he was there.

    And the sculpter has actually seen Harry up close, or at least his crotch.....in public at the club he has made many a jaw drop with that bulge of his.....big boy.

    Posted by: Joshua | Oct 4, 2007 8:26:38 PM


  12. Wow, and I thought Jeff Koons was tacky.

    Posted by: Boobs | Oct 4, 2007 8:53:10 PM


  13. Are they calling poor Harry a coward?

    Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 4, 2007 9:15:04 PM


  14. Its art precisely because of the comments it invokes.

    Posted by: Vi Agara | Oct 4, 2007 9:59:47 PM


  15. Regarding the trouser action: erectus mortis, no doubt

    Posted by: Carl | Oct 4, 2007 10:20:21 PM


  16. This is certainly not the way to portray an extraordinarily handsome young man so full of life. Sick, disgusting and in poor taste.

    Posted by: Johnny Lane | Oct 4, 2007 11:21:04 PM


  17. I'm with the general consensus that this is a piece of art that is in poor taste and inconsiderate to those who are close to Harry.
    Particularly 'off' is the fact that this portrays an alive person and brings into the piece a reference to what is a deeply personal grief between a young man and his dead parent.
    It just seems cruel, you know, and I don't think the cruelty and severity of the war, and all its political factors, justifies the message the artist is tring to convey, and the method used.
    I know I'd be very upset if it was my *alive* brother, lover or other relative being sculpted as a dead person.

    Posted by: Chaq | Oct 5, 2007 12:13:50 AM


  18. I'm surprised Edwards didn't submerged the sculpture in a vat of his own urine- edgy!

    Posted by: Tom | Oct 5, 2007 1:26:41 AM


  19. i hate to be schoolmarmish, but a consensus is by definition "general." an oxymoron is where two terms which seem to negate each other actually function together e.g., bittersweet. "modern art" may be a contradiction in terms, but in BRETT's usage of "oxymoron" one might think that he approves.

    anyhoo, i'm not much for gingers, but in harry's case, yeah, i'd do him!

    Posted by: nic | Oct 5, 2007 1:55:13 AM


  20. Hmmm... too bad this one isn't nude like his Britney and Paris sculptures.

    Posted by: Aman-About-Town | Oct 5, 2007 1:57:54 AM


  21. The original idea of it seemed interesting but it's way overdone. The vulture, cameo, ears being removed, bloodied Wales flag? Christ, I'm surprised there wasn't paperwork sticking out of his pocket with the DNA paternity results, as well as the queen's tiara on his head.

    Why is he holding the flag of Wales anyway?

    Posted by: Patrick | Oct 5, 2007 2:16:11 AM


  22. Seems morbid, but reminds me of the tradition for the French monarchs in the Renaissance...their tombs in St. Denis would have two sets of statues mounted over their tombs...on top, the king and queen would be kneeling, and dressed in royal finery, as if still alive and praying, and underneath, rather lifelike marble representations of their dead, naked corpses, with only a brief cover of "cloth" for modesty's sake...apparently Catherine de Medici saw her own corpse's marble likeness, as it was made the same time as her husband King Henri II who predeceased her...and she freaked out!
    I seriously doubt this representation of Harry will be in a royal sarcophagus anywhere in England.

    Posted by: tom | Oct 5, 2007 2:38:29 AM


  23. Its art precisely because of the comments it invokes.

    Really? I'm not going to say it isn't art, but just because something provokes comments doesn't mean it's art. 10 Commandment statue at a state supreme court, anyone? Britney Spears music? Ryan Phillipe acting? Skull with a gazillion diamonds? Lots of comments, little artistic merit.

    Posted by: Ryan | Oct 5, 2007 2:49:03 AM


  24. well, here's the schoolmarm again. art may "evoke" comments. an artist may "invoke" his muse for inspiration.

    what the fuck is going on with our educational system? oh, i rememember, bush is the education president. "chidren does learn...."

    Posted by: nic | Oct 5, 2007 3:25:41 AM


  25. Poor taste maybe, but it's supposed to be a comment on the nature of patriotism and the irony of a member of the royal bloodline not defending his monarchic country. It's not art because it evokes comment, it's art because it's created and presented as art.

    Duchamp's urinal wasn't art until it was put on display to be observed as an art piece.

    It's intentionally controversial, just because it's distasteful doesn't mean it's not art. The artists message was a political one, designed to create thought and discussion around the nature of patriotism and the artist's perceived impotence and redundancy of the British royal family.

    But of course, the gays all end up talking about his big cock and how we want to fuck him. *sigh*

    Sean xx

    Posted by: Sean | Oct 5, 2007 6:37:57 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Larry Craig Reacts to Court Ruling: I'm Not Going Anywhere« «