FROM THE ARCHIVES:The statue of Daniel O'Connell in Dublin's O'Connell Street was surrounded by controversies. Having chosen Dublin-born sculptor John Henry Foley in 1865, there was further controversy in 1876 over whether the statue should have a cloak, as Foley, who had died in the interim, had depicted – JOE JOYCE
EVERY PERSON of taste in Ireland will hear with regret that the O’Connell Monument Committee have decided to hand the Liberator down to posterity as a muffled old man. We have little doubt also that the well-meaning persons who were made instrumental in perpetuating the blunder will in time come to rue their share in it. For the moment they exult in their triumph; but unless their artistic sense is as blunt as their perception of argument, their enthusiasm can scarcely survive the inauguration day of the monument.
It will be gathered from our report of the proceedings that the undraped figure attracted the support of nearly every member of the Committee whose decision on a question of taste was entitled to respect. The line of argument selected by the favourers of the cloak was alone sufficient to prove their incapacity not only as art judges but as judges of anything. What, for instance, could be more logically perverse than the contention that the wishes of the O’Connell family were disentitled to consideration because they “deserted” their illustrious relative, while a certain member of the Committee “stuck” with him?
We have seldom heard of a more pitiable piece of inconsistency than that committed by the same speaker, when, after scoffing at the idea that Foley could produce a monstrosity, he ridiculed the thought of representing O’Connell “in a cut-off coat and short pantaloons” – the design thus irrelevantly referred to being not only the production of the same great artist but the embodiment of his very latest reflections on the subject of the monument.
Of a piece with this precious style of reasoning was another orator’s triumphant allusion to the fact that the Liberator was cheered through Dublin on one occasion when he happened to wear a mantle, probably for the purpose of preventing himself from catching cold. All the historical information vouchsafed to the public with regard to the previous labours of the Committee was irrelevant to the question in hand, which simply was to decide whether a slight or a massive figure of bronze would look better forty feet from the ground in a position where it could be seen from all sides. Those who denied that Foley changed his opinion before his death did not attempt to explain why he modelled a third figure at the cost of much trouble and much time which he could ill-spare from his other labours.[...] If it is any consolation to men who have failed to know that they have done their duty, the twenty -three members of the Committee who voted yesterday on the side of taste and common sense are fully entitled to that solace.
http://url.ie/8w3r