​What This Farrah Fawcett Statue Campaign Is Actually About

---

Over the past several weeks, I have asked many questions about the two Farrah Fawcett statues being developed in South Texas. I have contacted people connected with the projects, submitted requests for records and information, reviewed public statements, examined the source imagery, and begun organizing what I have learned into a dedicated section of The Farrah Fawcett Fandom. As that work has expanded, it is important to explain what I'm trying to accomplish and, just as importantly, what I am not.

My opposition to the statues as they are presently conceived is already well documented. I have written about the choice of Charlie’s Angels imagery, the likenesses shown during development, and my larger concerns about reducing Farrah’s public legacy to the television image that first made her famous. I do not need to repeat those arguments every time I discuss the projects. The purpose of this campaign, however, goes beyond those objections. I want to understand how these two permanent representations of Farrah came into existence and create a record of what can actually be established about the decisions behind them.

I want to know why particular images were chosen, how the projects developed, who participated in the important decisions, what consultation occurred, what alternatives were considered, and how those choices were ultimately reached. Some of that information may be available through public records or direct responses. Some of it may remain within private discussions that I have no right or ability to access. I have no intention of filling those gaps with assumptions. If something cannot be established, the record should say exactly that rather than turning an unanswered question into an unsupported conclusion.

For this reason, getting answers is not the final purpose of this campaign. The answers are evidence that can be examined along with everything else. If every question I have submitted were answered tomorrow, I would not suddenly have nothing left to do. I would have a much clearer record from which to evaluate the projects. I could compare the explanations with the decisions that were actually made, determine whether those explanations address the concerns I have raised, and revise my understanding where the information justifies doing so. An answer does not have to agree with my position to be valuable. The point is to know what the answer is and preserve it accurately.

The same principle will apply when the statues are completed. Until then, much of the discussion necessarily concerns proposals, development images, statements, and intentions. Once the finished sculptures are publicly unveiled, there will be something concrete to examine. The likenesses can be compared with the photographs they were based on, the final presentation can be evaluated against what was shown during development, and the public reaction can be documented. If people praise the statues, that response belongs in the record. If people criticize them, that belongs there as well. I am not interested in creating an archive that preserves only the reactions that support my own argument.

Documentation and agreement are not the same thing. I have a position on these projects, and I am not going to disguise it to create the appearance of neutrality. At the same time, having a position does not relieve me of the responsibility to distinguish between what I believe, what the available evidence establishes, and what remains unknown. That makes the criticism stronger, not weaker. Anyone can object to something. A documented argument should also show how the conclusion was reached and where the limits of the evidence remain.

There is also a practical reason for doing this work now. Public monuments can remain in place long after the history behind their creation has been forgotten. Years from now, someone may encounter one of these statues without knowing why that particular image of Farrah was selected, who commissioned it, what discussions surrounded it, what objections were raised, or how the work was received when it was unveiled. Reconstructing that history later becomes much more difficult. Documents disappear, websites change, memories become less reliable, and people who participated in the process may no longer be available to explain what happened.

I would rather document that history while it is happening. The statue section of The Farrah Fawcett Fandom can preserve the questions, responses, correspondence, available records, public statements, source images, development of the sculptures, finished works, and eventual public reaction in one place. It can also preserve the limits of what could be established. If an organization declines to answer a question or a particular record does not exist, that is different from proving that something did or did not happen. Maintaining those distinctions is part of creating a useful record.

The campaign also has an endpoint. I am not interested in asking the same questions indefinitely or turning these statues into a permanent dispute simply because I disagree with them. Eventually, the available questions will have been answered as fully as they can be, the sculptures will be completed, and the public will have had an opportunity to respond. At that point, I should be able to look back at the entire process and explain what happened, what could not be established, what the people behind the projects said they were trying to accomplish, and whether the finished monuments support those explanations.
​
That is ultimately what this campaign is about. I cannot control what is built in Corpus Christi or Rockport, and I cannot determine how future generations will interpret these monuments. What I can do is make sure that the history of how they were created is not reduced to a plaque, a press release, or a photograph of an unveiling. The statues will present one interpretation of Farrah Fawcett, while my purpose is to preserve the record of how that interpretation was created, why it was questioned, how those involved explained or defended it, and how the finished monuments were ultimately received.

Image above: Reinterpretation of both statues being proposed for Corpus Christi and Rockport.