What will it be? A girl? A boy? Regardless, the main thing is that the unborn child and the expectant mother are doing well. However, it is equally well known that a pregnancy can also, on occasions, cause a scandal.
Teenage pregnancies, for example, are always a topic of discussion. And let’s not forget pregnant women who, according to societal norms, should already be thinking about retirement and not nappies – like model Naomi Campbell, for example, who first became a mother at the age of 51 and then again at 53.
A very Luxembourgish scandal
And which pregnant woman caused the biggest scandal in Luxembourg in recent decades? It was the Gëlle Fra. Yes, the same Gëlle Fra who towers high above the capital. Or, to be precise: a slightly modified copy of the three metre tall memorial created in 1923 by artist Claus Cito after the First World War.
Loved, toppled, lost, honoured and shipped: the Gëlle Fra has experienced a lot in 102 years © Photo credit: Anouk Antony / LW-Archiv
The tender for the Monument du Souvenir for the fallen soldiers during the First World War was issued in 1920, and construction work on site began at the end of 1921.
As early as 1923, after its installation, the original gilded bronze statue provoked strong reactions, while the figures at the base of the obelisk, two soldiers and warriors respectively, became a minor matter.
The Catholic Church, with the capital’s cathedral only a stone’s throw away, was disturbed by the figure – a mixture of a representation of the Virgin Mary and a deity. In particular her dress, which clung tightly to her body, caused offence to the clergy.
However, the Gëlle Fra always had a place in the hearts of Luxembourgers, especially after the occupation of the country by Nazi Germany, whose local officials destroyed the monument in 1940. The golden figure remained missing for decades afterwards.
Since 1985 – with the exception of a trip to the World Expo in Shanghai and a subsequent exhibition in Bascharage – it has once again stood high up in its place and served as a symbol of resistance in times of war, of the country’s freedom, and of Luxembourg and the Luxembourgish people.
The copy: a scandalous work
In 2001, Croatian artist Sanja Iveković dared to reinterpret Gëlle Fra, by creating a copy of the figure, having been commissioned to create a work for the exhibition “Luxembourg, the Luxembourg consensus and married passions.” However, her work came with one notable difference: the “Lady Rosa of Luxembourg” displayed a clearly visible pregnant belly.
The figure was put on display at the end of March 2001, not far from the original, and also on a plinth and with altered lettering (including the words “Whore, bitch, madonna, virgin”).
The depiction, but also the inscriptions, caused great displeasure. It led to heated discussions, particularly in veterans’ circles. Early dismantling was demanded, but without success.
Sanja Iveković created the “Lady Rosa of Luxembourg” for a 2001 exhibition © Photo credit: Serge Waldbillig / LW-Archiv
The readers’ comments section in the Luxemburger Wort, which at the time could still be seen as an extension of the views of the clergy, reflected this opinion in many ways. So many responses poured in that the editorial team were unable to publish them all.
“A project that is useless and childish,” was the headline in the paper on 7 April 2001, with a description of the artwork as an “affront to the soldiers of the First World War 1914-18 and to the group of resistance fighters who fought against the Nazi occupiers during the years 1940-45!”
Léon Zeches, the then-director general of the Saint-Paul publishing house and editor-in-chief of Luxemburger Wort, took a stand in the editorial of 30 April 2001 entitled Das Ärgernis (The Annoyance). Zeches sided with the critics. “The only question that arises is whether one may – be it in the name of art, literature, satire, politics, or whatever – appropriate a symbol that is sacred and inviolable to many people, if not to an entire nation, because it has a quasi-sacral character due to the sacrifices associated with it,” he wrote.
The priest and journalist André Heiderscheid did not beat around the bush in his condemnation, entitling his editorial column in the Luxemburger Wort with a straightforward appeal: “Get rid of the nonsense!”. For Heiderscheid, the “mockery” of the original by the work of art “bordered on sacrilege”.
“Sacrilege means the desecration of something that should be sacred to us, and thus inviolable. The ‘Gëlle Fra’ is part of that. What it means belongs to our heritage and thus to our Luxembourg identity,” he wrote. The spontaneous, justified outrage among the people is correspondingly great, and this scandalous mistake can only be remedied, our injured sense of honour only satisfied, if this nonsense is removed from the world, from the cityscape, without delay, without long palaver, without ifs and buts, and can thus gradually be forgotten,” added the priest and journalist.
One reader letter even urged war veterans to come together to remove the statue. “As a sign of open protest against this monument, which clearly offends the feelings of many Luxembourgers, I could express my solidarity with the idea of a large demonstration organised by all associations of veterans, refractory fighters, and resistance fighters,” it read. “The procession, well supervised by the Grand Ducal police, could be followed by a mobile crane that would remove the statue and the obelisk, at the risk of repeating history, but this time to the applause of the crowd,“ it said.
Moderate voices
The statement by Enrico Lunghi, then director of the art forum Casino Luxembourg, which co-organized the exhibition together with the City Museum and Cid-femmes, rather poured fuel on the fire.
“Her symbolism seems obvious: instead of the allegory of Victory borne by the monument on the Place de la Constitution, Sanja Iveković preferred an embodied woman, ready to give life and therefore liable to suffer. She is golden, certainly, but the fact of having baptised her with a real female first name – what’s more, that of a revolutionary who died in 1919 for her beliefs -confers upon her a genuine humanity.”
While “everyone is free to interpret a work in their own way”, Lunghi said, what was “regrettable, however, is when, deliberately or not, the interpretation is based on only a part of a work, whatever it may be”. “When a work is truncated, taken out of context, reduced to one of its elements, one can make it say anything, and use it as one pleases to project one’s visions, fantasies, fears onto it, or, quite simply, use it for one’s own ends,” Lunghi added.
The pregnant “Lady Rosa”: Her appearance in the capital, which lasted just under two months, caused quite a stir © Photo credit: Serge Waldbillig / LW-Archiv
The shitstorm that erupted shortly after the presentation of the work quickly turned into a hurricane, and ultimately led to the founding of the “No to Gëlle Fra 2′” committee, which – as the Luxemburger Wort reported in an opinion piece – feared a national crisis. “The aim of the Coordination Committee, which brings together patriotic associations, is that a gesture by the prime minister will restore civil peace in the country that has been shaken by a controversy in which it was said to be politically motivated by the economy,” the article stated.
There were also calls for the resignation of Culture Minister Erna Hennicot-Schoepges. However, the CSV politician remained steadfast, even after attacks from within her own party, for example in a parliamentary question from Fred Sunnen.
In Sunnen’s opinion, the artwork went against good taste and was a provocation, while the inscriptions were unacceptable. “I would like to ask you, Madam Minister, to intervene to ensure that the monument disappears as quickly as it was built!”
The minister countered that “Lady Rosa of Luxembourg” was intended as a plea for women and their role in society – including during the war – pointing out that the artist herself had experienced war in Yugoslavia at first hand and her mother had been imprisoned in Auschwitz during the Second World War.
Hennicot-Schoepges attempted to convince Sunner that the sculpture was in no way an attack on the original monument. Rather, it was an invitation to think about the actual role of women in society.
Second appearance a decade later
The minister campaigned for Gëlle Fra to be categorised as a “national monument”, which happened in May 2001, while the “Lady Rosa of Luxembourg” figure remained in place until the end of the exhibition in June that year.
Sanja Ivekovic’s artwork “Lady Rosa of Luxembourg” adorned the exhibition hall of the MoMA in New York in late 2011 and early 2012 © Photo credit: LW-Archiv
The pregnant golden lady finally celebrated her second major appearance almost ten years later. New York’s MoMA dedicated an exhibition to Iveković entitled “Sweet Violence”, which also included the “Lady Rosa of Luxembourg”.
(This article was originally published by the Luxemburger Wort. Machine translated, with editing and adaptation by John Monaghan.)