Blog

Zig-zagging through the soccer games in Flushing Meadow one sunny Sunday, I came up behind this sculpture. Comments follow each photo. Note: “proper left” means “the statue’s own left,” rather than “left as you look at it.”

Hmph. Reminds me of Lawrie’s Atlas at Rockefeller Center: all brawn and no brains, and contorted brawn at that. But let me walk around it: it’s sculpture, one angle is never enough.

Better, but still kind of contorted, and what’s he doing? He looks athletic, but if he’s pole vaulting, he’d better get a new pole; and the stars make no sense.

Hello, he has a face! The profile plus up-stretched arm plus curved doodah plus stars make an intriguing combination. But the legs are still looking contorted, and I still don’t know what that pole thing is. I shouldn’t need to find a plaque to make sense of a sculpture.

Even better: I can see what both arms and legs are doing. I do like the way those stars glitter: the sculpture must have been refurbished recently. I like the way the curved doodah crosses the stars in this photo, but it’s still not obvious what it is.

Husband yells from distance, consulting his phone: “It’s the Rocket Thrower, by a guy named Donald De Lue.” Oh, OK. Rockets. Stars. 1964: space program gearing up. I wonder if this is the best angle I’m going to find?

Very similar to #4, but marginally better: the pose is clearer when the knee is a bit to my right of the body. Best so far. Will it get better as I keep moving around?

Oh, yes, I like the lines of the body better here, that curve from the proper right heel up through the proper left arm. The rocket and the stars still make an effective combination. I can still see the face, just. But jeez, those muscles on his left arm are ugly, once I start looking at them. Do you need huge symbolic muscles to throw a metaphorical rocket or reach for metaphorical stars? Hmm, let’s see what happens when I move again.

Just slightly further around, and now I’ve lost the face, and the head looks tiny (or is it that the neck is so thick?). The proper left arm looks very odd at this angle.

And now I’ve lost the proper left leg. This wouldn’t bother me nearly so much if the sculpture were in a niche or against a wall; then I wouldn’t expect the artist to plan for all angles. But it’s designed to sit in the open, and does, and the artist should therefore have paid more attention to non-frontal views.

I do like photo 8, though – the openwork of the Unisphere and the stars is a good combination.

So on balance: I like the almost-strictly-frontal views of Rocket Thrower, and I don’t like most of the rest. Go check it out and make your own decision.

More

• The NYC Parks Department’s page on Rocket Thrower talks about the commissioning of this sculpture for the 1964 World’s Fair and about Robert Moses’s taste in art.
• Have you ever stood behind the Atlas at Rockefeller Center and looked past it to St. Patrick’s Cathedral? Ugly view of a sculpture whose front isn’t exactly gorgeous. If I weren’t such a fan of Atlas Shrugged, perhaps I wouldn’t be bothered so much by the brawniness and small head of that Atlas. More ranting on that in Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan, essay 29, and the app version.
• In this pic, St. Patrick’s is under scaffolding. It’s mostly out from under now, and cleaner than I’ve seen it in decades. If you like the play of sun and shadow on neo-Gothic architecture, now’s the time to have a look.

• In Getting More Enjoyment from Sculpture You Love, I demonstrate a method for looking at sculptures in detail, in depth, and on your own. Learn to enjoy your favorite sculptures more, and find new favorites. Available on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. More here.
• Want wonderful art delivered weekly to your inbox? Check out my free Sunday Recommendations list and rewards for recurring support: details here.