• 2018 Grammy NominationsCheck out some of the exceptional nominees for the 2018 GRAMMYs, only on CBS!
  1. TJ says:

    There is nothing wrong with this display of art. Marilyn is much more tasteful than the booty shorts and thongs, not to mention other body parts that are on display everyday that you come outside. People need to get over it and deal with it.

    1. Marygoround says:

      You’re right, it must be art since she’s showing her crotch just like Michelangelo used to.

      1. S Von Smith says:

        you must be an Idiot.

      2. Barbie Dalzell says:

        ur stupid-u cant c her crotch-get over urself

      3. Michelangelo says:

        You obviously have no idea about classic architecture. Most of statues are representing naked people, even in the famous Sistine Chapel painting you can see Adam’s ding-dong

      4. kmr says:

        and we found a fatty!!

    2. Janet says:

      I have a background in architecture & this looks so real & fluid! Made out of steel? Unbelievable! Love it, love it, GREAT ART! I wouldn’t mind buying a smaller version (lifesize or smaller) to display in my home. For the record, I am female, one of the 1st drafts”men” at Harris County, Tx. Please, artists, make some for sale? I will check internet for them periodically. No, I’m not gay, I could only wish to look like her- she’s just beautiful!

      1. Phyllis Duda says:


    3. denise miller says:

      there is nothing wrong with this wonderful art. HATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. ryenotzinger says:

        Lose the word “haters.” It is as pathetically “popular” and as voguish as “24/7.” Therefore, sounds ignorant and un-original.

      2. Barbie Dalzell says:

        say Haters all u want hun!

  2. Jimmie says:

    depends on if like in the movie her panties are in the freezer?

  3. Biff says:

    “depends on if like in the movie her panties are in the freezer?”

    Wait until January

  4. Mike says:

    Totally inappropiate.

    1. Shim says:

      Mike’s right. How much sex do we need being shoved in our faces? You want a blonde with her skirt up – put it in your living room, not in my face.

      1. Corrine says:

        I agree with you ! No wonder God doesn’t answer our prayers !
        We have replaced him with this ?!?!?!?

    2. Oscarphone says:

      “Shut the F…” My, my. Aren’t you the tolerant one. I love it when the supposed “tolerant” are more intolerant than the original opinion. YOU need to get a grip on how intolerant you are. And a hater.

    3. Erica Gieras says:

      not any more inappropriate then what you see walking down Michigan Ave. in real life! I thought the statue was beautiful. I don’t get what is wrong with it but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

      1. Stacey says:

        There are far more significant people from Chicago that deserve a statue with clothes on. Anyone that calls this art must be from the Kardashian camp.

      2. Barbie Dalzell says:

        cloths r on nothing shows.. whats the real issue here?

    4. Will says:

      Get real this is the reason I’ve served my country…..

    5. denise miller says:


  5. Mary says:

    Very inappropriate, but then that seems to be what is approved today.
    Whatever shouldn’t be is, and what should be isn’t.

    Terrible, especially for children to see.

    1. Annoyed. says:


      Give me a break. Children have private parts, the same as everyone else. Your kids can handle it. Maybe its you who needs to grow up.

      1. more annoyed says:

        give us all a break
        just because you have no moral compass , that doesn’t mean we all should be subjected to your asinine juvenile comments.

      2. Troy Larsen says:

        It’s usually a fine line to be crossed with public art displays. That said, what EXACTLY is so bad about this for children? I imagine most kids would find it funny and NOT titilating, except for teenagers. By that age, though, you’d better be talking to them about what’s going on between their legs more than Marilyn’s. Taking this further, it is a PUBLIC work of art, not a children’s museum exhibit. Yes, children require a bit of protection from the general public, but that’s primarily a PARENT’s responsibility.

        I don’t find this sculpture to be all THAT fantastic, but perhaps is meant to inspire an adult conversation that would be lost on children. It is based upon a famous movie scene, but is depicted as a three dimensional, over-sized object that people don’t just look AT, but look UP at and can INTERACT with. We aren’t privy to her panties in the movie, but definitely are with this monstrous thing. Over-sized panties are funny to most kids, not sexy. Of course, I’m just wasting my time writing this since I’m sure a prudish mind will stay prudish.

        At the very least, the piece will provide wonderful pedestrian protection from a rainstorm with just a touch of comic relief (to those with a sense of humor).

      3. Phil says:

        Very well said troy couldnt agree more. I dont see the issue with this. My brother goes to CSU and they have a statue outside the gym of a Ram and it was full genetalia now I know its a ram but its also a huge pair of nuts on display and thats ok but this is “totally inappropriate”? I don’t get it “moral compass” my oh my people are uptight. Hide in your homes if the female body offends you so much.

    2. Hue Chu says:

      It is both the price and gift of living in the land of the free and the home of the brave that we get both what is is and what should not will be. Should you find yourself so morally outraged beyond your sensibilities by others exercising their freedom of expression please book yourself a one way trip to Iran where no one has any freedom to express.

      If we were to make our adult decisions based on what children should or should not see then adults would be limited to drinking milk, eating baby food and sitting around in diapers.

    3. Corrine says:

      I agree with you ! The more we put up with this, the more our children are going to think this is fine ! No more morals ! Worst than animals !

      1. GJones says:

        maybe you should be a parent and actually teach your kids something?

  6. mark says:

    @ Mike and Mary
    Totally inappropriate…no
    Very inappropriate….no

    How about iconic and a reminder of a piece of american history?

    1. Progressive Al says:

      Marilyn’s upskirt is the “American history”? So, those who don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it? Is that what you imply?

      1. jackie says:

        drug abuse, suicide, adultery, a great history, happens everyday a nice reminder, no good actresses just drug abuse, suicide, and adultery

    2. mike says:

      iconic American cinema, perhaps – American history, surely not. I’d have to see the view from directly under her crotch to voice an educated opinion on weather or not it’s appropriate or not. She does appear to be rather chilly (or perhaps even nipply) in a few of the offered shots (not that I’m opposed to nipples).

      1. masry says:

        Women have nipples?!!! OMG call the nipple removal police!!!!!

    3. J Granlund says:

      If you have kids who watch cable, believe me they’re seeing much worse than a lady fully clothed and showing no inappropriate body parts.

      1. thrushjz says:

        That’s why my kids didn’t watch cable until 14…

  7. Kay Hauck says:

    The same artist who did the American Gothic sculpture last year did this one. Apparently his patron hasn’t appeased his appetite for kitsch yet. Next year we’ll probably be confronted with yet another icon rendered huge and cheesy.

  8. J.Kelly says:

    I say erect a 26 foot statue of New York’s Naked Cowboy right next to her to even things up a bit…of course I mean….. because none of them have anything to do with Chicago…yeah…right!….

    1. Jackie says:

      I’d be all for a statue of the Naked Cowboy! He’s hot!

      1. Daily Mayor says:

        I hope they will erect a giant Snookie to look up to.
        That’ll be American art and history combined.

      2. Not Amoron says:

        How sad when someone says “Snookie” is history. A minor blip on a TV show, not at all comparable to Marilyn by any measure.

      3. Annoyed by you idiots. says:

        Do you honestly believe the Snookie person was being serious? God you people have no sense of humor.

  9. tomchicago says:

    I don’t have any problems with an “inappropriate” art work. Many of them have been and needed to be inappropriate. MM was a symbol of the revolution in sexuality that began more than 50 years ago and is still developing

    1. BJ Clinton says:

      And who is winning that “Revolution”???

      1. more annoyed says:

        satan, that is who

  10. Dave says:

    Garish, tacky, and objectifying, that “sculpture” will live in infamy as the greatest prop for gag photos ever constructed.

    1. Dan says:

      ^somebody’s time of the month.

  11. Camera club member says:

    Let’s see here. Upskirt photography is illegal, even in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy unless I have a signed model release. Shooting a photo of this is upskirt photography. Yet this is legal?
    Do I have to get a model release from the statue? How does it sign the model release?

    1. Nathan Maynard says:

      You’d need a really big pen!

    2. Not Amoron says:

      I guess if you’re a moron, you’d need to do this.

      Thanks for reminding us all of the danger here.

      1. JJ says:

        He may not be a moron since our country is sue happy.

  12. Windycity says:

    I really don’t like it at all. I think her pose in the movie was of course, provocative and that’s fine, but to recreate it in this enormous sculpture that is out there in everyones’ face, well, seems inappropriate and isn’t really very attractive. Not very original either. Take it down!

    1. Mike says:

      Very well said!

      1. thruty says:

        Very well said??? This is just prude talking, go to any museum and learn to enjoy the human body for what it is..a thing of beauty.

    2. Mercy says:

      Her role in the movie was provocative for the time it was in but watching it now it’s completely harmless compared to the teen movies that are out now. People are always worried about “the kids” but honestly the kids never pay attentionto things as such and like it was mentioned before, will probably think it’s funny. Adults need to grow up and be adults, it’s a sculpture of a fully clothed woman who’s private parts you can’t even see! If you want to see distastfullness, turn on Mtv and watch some Jersey Shore and then act concerned about “the kids”!

      1. q says:

        thank you… I’m a teenager, and i can still remember being 6, 7, 8, and my mom taking me to the art institute… I remember not even really noticing many of the statues nakedness as anything special… its only the people who make a huge deal over it that make kids see it that way.

    3. Not Amoron says:

      Not very original, hmmm so there have been plenty of other gigantic Marilyn skirt sculptures in public places.


    4. GJones says:

      it’s not in my face so I don’t have a problem with it. The only one I have in my face sometimes is my girlfriend’s…

  13. Itsafact says:

    Inappropriate and not very original. Take it down. It seems a bit lewd or maybe just a bit provocative. Either way, I wish they’d remove it.

    1. Daniel says:

      I think that a half-naked man, wearing a crown of thorns, being nailed to a cross and being brutally murdered is more inappropriate. I would rather let my child see a woman holding down her dress than such a shocking portrayal of violence.

      This shows the hypocrisy of most Christians. Provocative is fine if it’s what they believe in but “TAKE IT DOWN NOW” if it’s not part of their agenda.


      1. Will says:

        I don’t believe the person said they were a Christian, or say anything that would lead someone to believe them to be. Then, of course you needed to make-up a face for your opposition.

        I’m Christian. I don’t find it inappropriate. I could care less really. It’s unimportant, like many things people argue about.

  14. JollyGoodFellow says:

    What if she was life-size and someone crawled to take a peek under her skirt? But she is so tall that all you can see is her crotch. Really tasteful, family oriented and appropriate. Sure, sure.

    1. El Presidente says:

      If the mighty Feminists happily gave their approval, who are you to criticize?

  15. WayneLLewis says:

    So, could someone who has actually seen the sculpture up close from underneath, let us know if it is anatomically correct? Just curious.

    1. LittleLaney says:

      She is fully covered. you see a pair of white lace panties. They cover more than what some of the young girls call shorts these days. People that are in such an uproar spend time at the pool with thier kids, I’m sure of it. So do they have to explain a bathing suit to thier kids too? It’s not an antomically correct vag it’s white panties people. Get over it. If your kids don’t know what underwear are…maybe you have the issues.

  16. Mike says:

    Pathetic is more like it. The idea that we get such a kick out of looking up a skirt that we allow this statue in our neighborhood, outside of our businesses, and even in our city is a sad indicator to how far we have fallen from our grandparents values.

    1. Janice says:

      I would be cautious at using the values of grandparents as an indicator of morality. At least that is the prospective coming from a 30 something African American. 1900-1965 not really a good time for us. Thank God for progression!

    2. Mark says:

      Are you insane?!!! Our grandparents lived under Jim Crow. I’m glad we’re giving up those values.

      1. Hue Chu says:

        Our grandparents lived in the good old days when it was customary for men get drunk (or stayed sober) to beat their wives, children and dog, women could not vote, non-free people were being counted for 3/5 for the purposes of representation and taxes (article I section 2 of the US Constitution), native Americans were marched into reservations so free people could appropriate their lands and people of Japanese descent were imprisoned because of their heritage. So those values are deemed more virtuous than the “loose values” represented by a 26 foot piece of steel.

  17. looneytoonsindville says:

    Inquiring minds want to know – Is the 26 foot tall statue of Marilyn Monroe in Chicago wearing underwear?

    1. Barry H. Soetoro says:

      Plumbing covered. Bikini line trimmed.
      Nothing to see here folks, move along!

  18. Aleks says:

    Click on view thumbnails. There are pictures from underneath. Yes she’s wearing underwear.

  19. BUNNY says:


    1. Barry H. Soetoro says:

      That would be art for sure though too progressive, since giant cows don’t wear knickers.

    2. Arthur Brands says:

      make sure the cow’s nipples are covered, and would somebody please get that cow some pants?

  20. June Saunders says:

    I was born in Chicago, and I am offended and saddened by the statue. Since the movie incident took place in New York, I see this as a cynical and meaningless appropriation on Chicago’s part for sheer economic reasons, to draw pedestrians and viewers (and spenders). It is exploitation of people’s sexual curiosity, and it is exploitation of a woman whose real flesh has long since become, as Shakespeare put it, “worm’s meat”. Marilyn Monroe’s poor, long gone, drug-ravaged body, beautiful as it once was, never seems to have brought her much true love or happiness, since she died by her own hand. Why do we keep exalting her body as some sort of ideal? Homely women who used their bodies to serve others–like Mother Teresa–died with more deep, womanly satisfaction in their hearts than poor, unhappy Marilyn Monroe. The female human body can be used for many more things than sexual ogling. Let’s honor that once in a while and let poor Marilyn rest in peace.

    1. CScogin says:

      I agree, the female human body can be used for more things than sexual ogling.

      …like cooking, and cleaning, and actual sex, and babies, and WHERE’S MY SANDWICH, JUNE?!

    2. Not Amoron says:

      I guess physical beauty is not to be valued in this world, only spiritual and the inner?

      So that’s your take, I am happy to see art doing what it has always done, challenge and break the norms.

  21. rochelle says:

    I too was born In Chicago, and I think the statue is great.

    An iconic role, and person rolled into one. Marilyn Monroe was truly one of a kind and this shows she is still loved by all.

  22. Really?? says:

    Come on, don’t you people get the joke?? It’s a scene from the Seven Year Itch in front of the FIDELITY building!!

  23. amos says:

    Absolutely inappropiate. How are we suposed to teach our girls to be ladies and keep their panties up if we have “ho” statues showing trashy positions. . No wonder we pay higher taxes to fund unwed mothers with the signals we send them.. . esh!

  24. Willow says:

    I say “Inappropriate” but simply because of how big it is and you can see up her dress.

  25. William says:

    Marlyn! It’s so good to see you again,after all these years! And you’re still as beautiful as ever.Still famous after all these years! I’m amazed at your staying power. And guess what,people are still complaining about your sexuality and it’s impact on their moral sensibilities! What power you have!

  26. mud puddle says:

    Marilyn was a pig. I think she was Arnold on Green Acres.

  27. JANICE says:

    This sculpture makes no difference. Marilyn is famous because she was a sex symbol. Showing her fake undies does not matter because it is what most of America imagined when her dress flew up in the movie. If there is something inappropriate the viewer created it in their mind. As far as children go, if a small child’s mind goes straight to sex when they see this sculpture; sex is something they have seen prior not an idea that this sculpture put in their minds. Why people get so offended at the ideas they create is beyond me. I agree the statue is pointless but she has on more clothing than half of the 14 year olds walking down Michigan Ave. let’s worry about that instead.

  28. mud puddle says:

    Janice…you don’t have a clue…just like the person who put up that offensive statue..and as far has the 14 year old walking around half dressed…just think of the young children that are looking up at the crotch of this statue…how will they be dressed in 8 years? You are an idiot, and I hope you are not raising any children.

  29. Cronessa says:

    I think this is disgusting! Of all the subjects the artist could think of this is what he came up with? What a juvenile jerk since he had to know that everyone would walk under it and look up to check out if she is wearing panties. With financial times being what they are it is a complete waste of Chicago’s money and space. If he was so interested in females then why not donate the cost of making that piece of junk to some food banks around the city to feed unemployed women with children to support . Those are the women who need to be remembered and revered.

    1. Not Amoron says:

      So only the poor and needy are worthy of attention in your world? Since the beginning of time mankind (man) has been obsessed with the beauty of woman. Obviously you are not beautiful yourself and are bitter and jealous. Women have curves for a reason you know, it’s not by accident in this world…

  30. Gayle says:

    I don’t understand WHY this statue was installed on North Michigan Avenue. This film had nothing to do with Chicago. Marilyn Monroe had no direct connection to Chicago and 401 North Michigan has no connection to either.
    And, yes, looking up a woman’s dress is silly and tacky.

    1. Gayle says:

      As I think more about it, it really belongs in a tacky place like Vegas. Send it there!

      1. Not Amoron says:

        That’s very astute and intelligent a coment Gayle! Vegas is where the sins of our country are not taboo. It’s so ironic how sex is “evil” here but violence and guns are fine.

  31. Leatrice Campbell says:

    What a wonderful way to acknowledge a beautiful lady. Who will be next?
    Dorothy Danridge, Loretta Young, etc.

  32. mud puddle says:

    Why can’t the aldermen storm in and have this taken down just like they did when someone hung up an inappropriate picture of Mayer Washington dressed in women’s underwear? It was over in seconds.

    1. Not Amoron says:

      muddled puddle:

      I guess you don’t understand the difference between a depiction of an American icon in her most famous movie pose, and a mayor who was portrayed in drag.

      Marilyn would have no problem whatsoever with this sculpture.

  33. jacquelyn says:

    The statue is inappropriate this is not sex in the city. Melt it down and do it over. Nobody wants to see marilyn’s a… everyday. The artist is a wasted talent, if this is how he wants to showcase his work. He soiled her memory. She died a trouble soul. How can he exploit that. Did he pay her estate. Im sure he did not. His mind is in the gutter, nobody remembers that movie. People stare at pretty women, but it is not polite to look under anybody’s dress. Put it in his yard or the mayor (daley) that approved it. That is not how our city should be remember. Put a statute of Barbara Bush, a trouble soul that help the country. At least it would be dignified, and I don’t like republicans. At least she helped and showed how trouble women are important in this world. They are not just sex objects. Whats the point of looking under a women’s dress?

    1. Not Amoron says:

      Some women welcome men looking under their dress. I guess it’s up to your sexuality and comfort level with it. The world is larger than your point of view, even among other women you’ll find countering points of view on this.

  34. jacquelyn says:

    I meant Betty Ford not Barbara Bush. Sorry Mrs. Bush. Again I am upset and I kept thinking there are nicer more dignified women than Marilyn. I like actresses but I don’t like that statue. Its a sex symbol and I think even as sex symbols the Presidents wives are better role models, and need more recognition as unsung heroes and have more to represent, even as fashion icons. All people have something to give and they could have represent Marilyn with more respect. What did Marilyn contribute to be remembered, its not nice to bring it up. All the presidents wives on one big art exhibit would be a great art piece, I hope somebody commmisions it. I hope they pay me for my idea. He got paid for that piece of trash.

  35. Shelly says:

    First of all, it is NOT STAYING in Chicago. It is only here until the spring of 2012!! Second, it is ART!! Not there to look up her dress or for people to imagine without panties or whatever!! Third, the people that are so prudish & ignorrant that they can’t see anything besides sex on this statue, YOU ARE THE ONES THINKING ABOUT SEX!!!! LOL No child is going to see anything sexual about this statue, unless some adult has taught them that!! It is a pose of her HOLDING DOWN HER DRESS, from being blown up. She is a part of history, no matter how much you dislike it. In fact, the last person she called before she died, was the president. You would not complain if it were a naked greek statue. That would be considered a work of art, RIGHT? What about children asking why the statue is naked with no arms, or naked with his pee pee showing?? Why must everything be about sex? There are so many immoral or sexual things on TV that you let your kids watch or many of their friends walking around wearing thong panties hanging out of their shorts or tight tank tops with no bras or no panties under shorts, etc…..The statue will not be here long. I love it!!

    1. d says:

      Thats all the statue is about – SEX and OBJECTIVITY. What the hell do you think its about moron?

      1. nad says:

        Exactly, what’s next, a giant statue commemorating Sharon Stone’s scene in Basic Instinct?

    2. teganx7 says:

      I guarantee I am not thinking about anything sexual or immoral … it’s just plain tacky!

      Thank you for the info about this being moved out in 2012, I feel better about this thing.

  36. william says:

    Shelly, I agree with you,it is a work of art and all this sturm and drang about Marilyn(calling her names,etc.) is uncalled for. She’s a part of history,like it or not and I for one am glad to see her out there.

  37. Bobo says:

    Those without morals see no problem with it. We understand.

  38. politicsgirl says:

    Is it just me, or is it extremely funny that the word “fidelity” is located just behind Marylin on the left…

  39. kristy says:

    Actually, to those that say there are worse things on TV and that kids wear worse walking down the street at age 14, those must be your kids! My kids don’t wear trashy clothes, and they don’t watch trashy garbage on TV. Unlike those that have no morals and don’t truly guide their children, my kids are taught to respect their bodies and value themselves. They are taught that they are much more important to the world than being sex symbols for sick men! Call me prude, but if this is what feminists have been fighting for all of these years, then they sure haven’t accomplished much! You are free to make your kids trashy and I am free to raise kids with values!

    1. Not Amoron says:

      All the ugly women complain, and hide their commentary behind “morals”. A gorgeous woman would have no issue here.

  40. KRISTEN says:


  41. Jeff says:

    I think the statue is fun. I made an extra effort to get off the lake shore bike trial and braved the city streets just to go see it. I am not interested in the sexual aspect of the statue. I just think it is amusing. It brings throngs of people downtown and they spend money here in my city. Nothing wrong with that. I notice sexual exploitation on TV all the time in the reality shows. Men and women are portrayed in various states of undress all the time on shows like Big Brother and others. Where is the outrage about that? I remember the Seven Year Itch well, my Mom took me to see it when I was a kid. Luckily I was raised by parents with a sense of humor, that wanted their children exposed to all aspects of life.

  42. Turquoisa says:

    The problem w. this piece of…”art” is that it is ALL about people staring up her crotch and butt- THAT act is meant to draw tourists. It’s a denegration of a sensitive and intelligent woman who killed herself because she just couldn’t take this type of exploitation any more. Marilyn aside, Chicago’s taken a step down displaying a female pantied crotch disguised as art. As a woman, that notion disgusts me.

    1. Not Amoron says:

      Artists don’t create art to “draw tourists”. Cities may buy it for that purpose..

      At the time of her death Marilyn had been in good spirits and was making plans for future events and movies, potentially her remarriage to Joe DiMaggio.

      I’m sure she hated being a sex symbol, dating powerful men and being a star.

      Your ignorance abounds, Turquoisa.

  43. john stevens says:

    this is stupid. some people have nothing better to do. Its a dumb statue. Shes not naked. Get over it.

  44. teganx7 says:

    I don’t know if it is appropriate or not … it just looks bad. I love art in its myriad of forms, but this isn’t art … it is something that a tacky grandma would have on top of her TV set.

    I hear people saying that this will attract tourists …. who would seriously travel out of their way to see this?

    If you’re going to inves the money to build a statue of a pop culture figure, at least build one honoring a Chicago native … a statue of the Blues Brothers … Harrison Ford …

    Chicago has such a proud artistic tradition … and some of it can be controversial or risque (if some people knew the whole story of “Cloudgate” … its maybe more risque than this thing) … but at least it isn’t tacky.

    1. JerseyGuy says:

      Probably only about 80-90% of heterosexual males visiting the downtown Chicago area will swing by to see it.

  45. Rasheeda Swift says:

    I just seen it! It is a beautiful and sensually tasteful piece of art!

  46. Star Carlton says:

    Illinois is broke – what did this cost the city?

  47. mud puddle says:

    Jeff, When your parents took you to see the seven year itch it was to see a movie. They didn’t take you there to stick your head under her skirt and look at her crotch. Do you get it yet? Probably not………

  48. Jeff says:

    I don’t mind at all a little debate, but there is no need to be sarcastic about it. Differences of opinion do not have to be personal. Ideas and thoughts can be discussed without one person or another involved in the debate feeling superior.

    1. AdamL says:

      LOL. Like reason and common decency exist on the internet. Trolls gonna troll and haters gonna hate. Way to be though, Jeff. This IS a piece of art precisely because it has caused a reaction.

  49. J says:

    Its NOT art. Its silly, inappropriate and makes this city look tawdry.

    1. Not Amoron says:

      So art is only what you define it to be? LOL. Spoken like a true non-artist.

    2. m says:

      maybe a full body shot of Al Capone would be more appropriate, NOT

  50. Joseph Weiss says:


  51. Not Amoron says:

    Let’s take a vote, how many men find this inappropriate? Let me save you time.


    LOL. Women are so jealous of other women more beautiful. Even ones long departed.

    1. true says:

      true, I feel certain that all the people who have issues with this are much more unattractive that monroe herself. jealously always breeds hate.

  52. mike says:

    The statue looks considerably heavier/chunkier than she did in the picture/scene that inspired it. What’s up with that ?

    1. Rob says:

      Statues do add 20 lbs or so. I love it, the movie is a classic.

  53. Really!? says:

    This is a piece of art. Thats it Thats All! The Mona Lisa was once inappropriate as was the sculptures from the Greek and Roman period. Honestly as with anything if you think it isnt for children than be an ADULT and keep YOUR KIDS WAY! Art is to be interpeted into what ever you perceive it to be. Its a scuplure of a woman who had many demons and many struggles, yet she found a way to smile and survive, it is what Chicago is. There are many demons and many struggles in this city and at the end of the day all of us do what we have to do. So have your own opions but to look down at someone for theirs is ignorant.

  54. mud puddle says:

    At least those, quote, “hickish” cows didn’t offend people. They were done in good taste. This is just just plain raunchy. Shame on Chicago for letting this be on display. Where are are leaders when we need them. I have said it before..when Harold Washington was in office and someone hung up a piece of art showing him in women’s undergarment’s the aldermen removed it in a heartbeat. Stripped it right off the wall. What about that piece of art? Offensive? You bet it was and they removed it!

  55. Teagan says:

    Umm this is in front of my uncles buliding we always go down and see the art evry year or week! :)

  56. TT says:

    There were so many other people they could have chose besides a woman with her skirt flying in the air that would encourage people to look up. I am not a prude and I love good art but what around her does she fit in with.

  57. kerry says:

    Looks very nice. Will be a real draqw to have pictures taken with.

  58. justchillin says:

    A real Chicago sculpture would be one of Hugh Hefner standing in his signature silk robe. Then folks could look up and see his whitey-tightys – which would complement Marylin’s granny pants very nicely.

  59. William says:

    Thank you for seeing like it is,but you’ll never convince the preening moralists that it’s art. They want everybody to conform to their standards and damn you if you don’t.

  60. mike says:

    I still want to know why they made her so chunky looking, as compared to how she looked in the famous picture that inspired this piece ? I know it’s not a structural engineering issue :)

  61. Hey You says:

    I have no problem with this statue, especially since my tax money wasn’t used to help pay for it. – – It wasn’t, was it?!

    Probably would have been better located in Las Vegas, however.

  62. dallas says:

    you can see as much at the beach, or a volly ball game.

  63. Don says:

    Nothing wrong with the statue. Artistically, it’s very well done, depicting a scene with which most movie goers are familiar. It’s just a little head-scratchy as to why it’s in Chicago, since Marilyn was not a Chicago native, and the movie was not shot here.

    But she was more to be pitied than censured in her unhappy life. And she was a better actress than given credit. Take the opportunity to see “River of No Return” some day. And she didn’t invent the “dumb blond” role; that distinction probably belongs to Jean Harlow.

    But whatever someone thinks of the statue, and however well or poorly he or she expresses it, why is it necessary for someone else to call that person an “idiot” or a “moron?” One of our greatest societal problems is the growing disrespect we show each other. The first is self-expression; the second is slander. So there!

  64. Melissa Segesman says:

    Kudos to the Chicago Tourism Board! They figured out a way to get at least 50,000 new tourists to visit Chicago. That is, once all the up-skirt perverts out there get wind of this statue…

  65. john gardner says:

    it seems this culture has always been motivated for all the wrong reasons. this is yet another example of the low moral standards of perverts displaying their abnoxiousness for all the world to see. this statue is repulsive, embarrassing and a form of abuse and idol worship. again, not surprised.

  66. Sick says:

    Behold your new gods, America…

  67. Daniel says:

    I think that a half-naked man, wearing a crown of thorns, being nailed to a cross and being brutally murdered is more inappropriate. I would rather let my child see a woman holding down her dress than such a shocking portrayal of violence.

  68. kim says:

    it’s not really inappropriate, but just ugly. They should have kept the bag over her head. As my husband said, she’s a double bagger.

  69. James says:

    God help us is she breaks wind in the windy city!!!!!!

  70. Dr. Smith, OB/Gyn says:

    Fun for the whole family: “Look up, kids! It’s Marilyn’s snapper!”

  71. KenLee says:

    It is absolutely a double standard that men can go shirtless and women can’t! Compare that to TV where every night we see people selling dope, snorting it, shooting it up, cursing, not to mention the violence on TV and the like which is obviously legal. Isn’t this much worse than seeing breasts? What gives? Why are illegal drugs OK and seeing a woman in her natural state illegal? This country has a lot to learn from the Europeans and Carribean Islands where women going topless is OK, even total nudity is accepted in MANY places in the world so why do we have to be such prudes? I support the effort 100% and hope that it will bring about an awareness in this country that there is nothing wrong with being topless or totally naked.
    Although there are a few beaches in America that allows topless sunbathing (South Beach for example) and some nude beaches (Blacks Beach) they are very restricted. Even on those you may be cited for indecent exposure. This is obviously a Right Wing effort to keep America from catching up to the 21st century.

    On Myrtle Beach you can be cited for wearing a thong, although Daytona Beach is full of string bikinis. There needs to be a national law to allow women the same rights as men NOW. Of course this would be totally optional and be entirely up to the individual, that’s called RIGHTS!

    If this was allowed it would soon become as common place as skirts above the knees. Not long ago that was considered obscene. What a country we live in, filled with double standards.

    1. Jb Dean says:

      Why does the 21st Century have to include low morals? Nudity is fine, in its place. There is a place for everything but that place should allow everyone to make their own choice. That’s really what freedom is. If all beaches allowed nudity, that would deny access for those that felt it inappropriate. Like the TV shows you mentioned … we know what to expect on them by their content descriptions and can choose to avoid them if we like. This statue, however, cannot be avoided for quite some distance due to its location and size. That, therefore, removes an individual’s right of choice.

  72. Jb Dean says:

    Here’s how I see the moral decline of America through this statue.

    When the film was made in 1955, her panties were left to the imagination and many of the public were shocked by the scene.

    Now, 56 years later, not only are her panties on display, but they’re about 100 times bigger than real life and on view for the world to see – and people are defending their right to be exposed in public.

    I’m just thankful she was wearing panties because something tells me that if she really wasn’t, in another 56 years we’ll see another artist’s rendition sans skivvies.

    When did privacy and private parts (of which panties most definitely are) go public? : BIG SIGH :

  73. Phil Nolan says:

    The emperor has no clothes!.. This is gaudy trash.

  74. Duane says:

    You guys are idiots enough said……

  75. Dane Kantner says:

    I think it’s a stretch to call something so iconic inappropriate. I however do wish they would’ve considered its placement a little better. Right now it’s too close to the sidewalk on Michigan Avenue and it’s often difficult to walk through the sidewalk because hordes of people are always stopped taking photos. I’ve given up on caring if I walk through people’s photos though

  76. Irma Courtney says:

    This statute is beautiful what’s innapropriate is someone thinking they can see “something ” by looking underneath a statue, I was in New York quite a few years ago and there was a 17 ft replica of Michaelangelo’s David, I never heard a word about that, by the way it was beautiful also.

    1. tg says:

      That’s because people in Chicago make a big deal over nothing. You think it’s harmless but Rod Blagojevich is going to jail because people made a big deal over nothing.

      Flipping what he said into something criminal. Judge jury media all on the same side. A normal person has no chance in Chicago. If this was New York Blagojevich would be considered a normal good natured citizen and there would never had been a case against him. The charges would have never made it to court. The accusers would have been sued and jailed for slander.

  77. Ralph says:

    So thats our tax dollars @ work..what a waste!

  78. jake says:

    In a way its pretty disgusting, women didn’t shave back then.

  79. Laura Kubelka says:

    The statue is crass in the sense that the artist has made Marilyn standing with her legs farther apart than she actually did in that scene in the movie. In the movie, which you can see on YouTube, her knees are only about as far apart as the width of one of her feet (head on) and a half. The statue has her knees about twice as far apart. So the statue doesn’t make Marilyn very “ladylike”. Though she was a sex symbol, she still had a lady-like “un-crass” style. Also, when you see the real still shots of the scene, her legs don’t tilt so far back behind her, but line up quite a bit above her shoe heel and her upper thighs go forward in front of her knees, not backward like the statue. When the statue is veiwed head-on, her calves seem larger in proportion to the legs than the real-life Marilyn’s calves were. So the statue is good, but they haven’t truly captured Marilyn in this sense. (Probably the real-life Marilyn, had you seen up her skirt from the ground, you couldn’t have seen much, because she was standing more lady-like with legs closer together. This sculpture is heavy on the panty-exposure, probably the choice of the artist. Haha!) The top of the sculpture looks more like Marilyn.

  80. Randall Porter says:

    Has anyone mentioned that this is a copy of the statue from the movie “Tommy”? I am waiting for Eric Clapton and a bunch of cultish to come strutting by.

  81. mary says:

    A tribute to a beautiful ‘Larger Than Life Woman’. RIP Marilyn, you were loved and still are

  82. timmy says:

    Wrong uptight city, not the statute itself. More appropriate for left coast.

  83. art from berwyn says:

    ohhhh my. it shames the lord. this is not art. it’s blasphemy! a half naked woman on the streets of chicago. what will happen to us as a god fearing society. i can see it now. god will strike us down and send us to the depts of hell! i think it’s great! there’s a little marilyn in us all. don’t you agree? lmao

    1. Scott says:

      Maybe you should capitalize GOD if you really respect him.

  84. Sophia says:

    I am originally from Chicago so I’m not surprised they erected this statue. But it’s only on display, not permanent. And yes, there are a lot more inappropriate things going on in Chicago…like dead people voting etc. So give Marilyn her time on display. She’ll be gone soon enough. And yes, considering the amount of skin one sees nowadays walking down the street Marilyn isn’t so bad.

  85. Get Over Yourself, Righty. says:

    Other major world cities don’t have fully nude statues in large public squares.

    Oh, wait.

    Replica where the original stood, Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, Italy. Another Replica is in Buffalo, New York; God, think of the children having to look at an unclothed man! Balls and All! (How bad does a flirty, but clothed, Marilyn seem now? Or is David only acceptable because he comes from a biblical story?)

    There are thousands more statues of men and women in the nude displayed in public places. Why get up in arms about a fully clothes Marilyn? If it comes down to it consider it a good teaching moment for your child.

  86. bret says:

    * WOW * there is way more we need 2 b worring about than this thing !!! YA ALL R FUNNY

  87. tg says:

    A little risque walking underneath her dress but perhaps one of the coolest displays of art Chicago has had.

  88. Dan says:

    I say it’s the people of Chicago who decide whether it stays or goes. It’s their city. I don’t live there. I can appreciate the work it took to fabricate but it’s not original and the movie scene was in New York and Marilyn grew up and lived in the Los Angeles area. The only ties she has to Chicago is it’s Hugh Hefner’s home town and it’s where Playboy started. Marilyn was the first nude pictorial in Playboy.

    She had a hard life growing up, became a star but was a disturbed person with many issues and probably never got the professional help she needed. She was a piece of studio property basically and all they cared about was how much money Marilyn could make the studio. She’s an interesting and sad figure in movie history. The dress being blown up by the vent was just another studio trick to get attention.

    For a city to put that kind of thing up is pretty tacky actually. I don’t get the concept.

    1. Scott says:

      The Windy City…her skirt blowing upwards. Kinda clever, actually!!!

      1. elan says:

        Chicago got its name of the windy city because of its politicians, not because the weather is windy here.

  89. Latrice says:

    OMG people its a statue!!!! Compared to what we see on tv, this is very tasteful. Its art, if you dont like it why even look at. I personally love it.! Great job guys :)

  90. bobby mcgee says:

    they should sell advertising space on her you-know-where

  91. Joseph Kovacs says:

    Was there last month and saw the statue of Marilyn Monroe. What’s the problem folks? It’s just art.

  92. Joseph Kovacs says:

    What a stupid comment!

  93. GracieCS says:

    It doesn’t matter what is showing or not, the point is that it is undeniably provocative, and doesn’t belong in a public square.

  94. Goyo says:



  95. Kimberly Carlisle says:

    This really is beautiful work. It would be a shame to tear it down just because people are so embarrassed of their instinctual sexuality. Marilyn was a sexy woman and this is a wonderful portrayal of her. If your children are pregnant or having sex before they’re ready, it’s because you failed to have an open and honest line of communication with them. We are here to procreate. Just because we’ve evolved and it’s no longer appropriate (or legal) for a human to club another over the head and drag them back to their cave doesn’t mean the human sex drive has diminished. It’s still very much there.

  96. elan says:

    I have seen at least half a dozen articles about this statue and EVERY ONE of them has somebody standing right under the statue looking at her vagina. People aren’t looking at the statue or they would be a few feet in front of it but NO they are always under the damn thing and looking straight up. Male and female both do this. The statue may have started out alright but the people or dogs have turned it into what it is.

  97. Al says:

    A lovely work of (f)art is what it is.

  98. Ann says:

    I am a very conservative and religious person who is astanished of MM beauty which was captivated very well by the sculptor and WHO DESIRE TO HAVE Marlyn’s sculpture on Chicago for the rest of our natral life.

    The sculpture is a magnificent work of art which depics a beautiful and intrigue woman who was, is and will be forever loved and appreciated by the one who could measure her and invidiated,and slandered by the one who could not be like her.

    Please looke benith the surface!!!!

    Her tummultuous life and struggle with the system represints our preoblems with the system. She was used and abused the way we are used and abused. The same as all f us, she tried to coupe wiith her issues the way she could.

    She had her demons, her addictions, her problems. She lived an constant strugle and turmoil, and yet she found a way to smile and survived the unexpected.

    We have our problems too, our strugle, our…political demons and yet…by the end of the day we must find solutios tosurvive the unexpected.

    1. Al says:

      Well as a born again Christian, I’m one who refuses to pay homage to any man or woman (dead or alive) who’ve profited much, and who’ve given very little in return. She talked a good game for what she believed in, but what had she done to initiate those good deeds? Not a thing!! I’m a firm believer in the God’s word that suggests “faith without works is dead”, and what she could have done for her country and for herself wasn’t nearly enough to earn her way into Heaven, period! There should be only on form of conservatism in this country and that’s with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

      Will look forward when that thing comes down sooner than later…..one way or the other!

      1. Tony S says:

        I am also a Christian and while I agree that fiath without works is dead, I would also like to remind “judge not, lest ye be judged”. For you to say she hasn’t earned her way into Heaven will only bring judgment upon you.

        P.S. As a Christian, you should also know that nobody EARNS their way into Heaven.

      2. Will says:

        Al, as a Christian you should know it is not our place to judge others. Also, it is intolerance from Christians that fuels hatred for Christians.

  99. Kate Walsh says:

    Oh get over it, as if being a Christian is any good reason to be simply mean. I don’t like the statue, either, because this woman was never seen by society the way she wanted to be seen; as a serious artist who got caught up in the money – frenzy of that era. Better to do a statue of her, similar to the baseball fella nearby..with a script in her hand. Honoring the intense study she planned on doing before her untimely death. Enough with the mean-spirited bunk, given in the name of a very nice Person who hoped He’d bring good things to humanity. No narrow-minded mean snarks at every turn.

  100. Tony S says:

    The statue might have been racy in 1955 when the film came out, but today? No.

    To those concerned about the children…it seems to me like this might present an opportunity to teach the kids about the birds and bees. If you have a moral issue, then teach your kids why in regards to that.

    Mostly I just don’t understand why its here in Chicago as Marilyn was not from here and the film was neither about nor filmed in Chicago. Art? Okay. But we couldn’t find something or someone that represents our great city?

  101. Stacey says:

    What’s next a Kardashian collage?

  102. MK says:

    What did Marilyn Monroe have to do with the City of Chicago? I also think this is a poorly done statue and it just looks like a huge piece of cheap junk. Marilyn was a beautiful woman and her beauty is NOT captured in this statue that is for certain.

  103. Greenrock76 says:

    I find it interesting that there is this reaction to this statue. The sculptor of this piece made a similar sized statute of the iconic picture taken of a nurse and sailor kissing on V-J day in Times Square. It was exhbited outside in a number of cities in the US. I myself saw it in Sarasota, FL. The nurse had a wide skirt and it didn’t cause the furor that this one has caused. If you want to talk about lost values, start with criticizing the lost values of some of our politicians starting with your mayor.

  104. Ruth says:

    Love the statue of Marilyn, and those of us that are from that age, We all remember that wonderful little part of the movie. With all the disgusting things going on in this country, let us just leave this alone and remember Marilyn for her beauty and her movies. I Love it.

  105. bobsmith223 says:

    Well….what most people don’t realize is that Marilyn didn’t wear any panties when they filmed that scene in the movie, and the artist used his imagination to sculpt what’s under that skirt. (I’m buying my ticket to Chicago tomorrow!!!!)

  106. Denny says:

    This is just proof of how immoral our society has become!!! This is not art–just a discusting diplay of immorality!!!

  107. Biff says:

    It’s very tame compared to everything I see on TV.

  108. Maria Nelly Aedo says:

    I don’t know about her in Chicago???

  109. Joel Wright says:

    I believe that the city of Chicago can and should soon do better.

    For me, I feel ashamed that in the city of which I was born, stands
    such a trashy and gaudy monument of over sized proportions.
    Can’t wait for it to come down, embarrassed for the international
    employees daily must come and go from the local Chicago buildings.
    with important international connections (China, India, Brazil, etc…).

    God help us if this is what “represents us” in the heart of this important

    I don’t consider myself “holier that thou”, but I do feel that we are in general
    an oversexed society, feed in part by the immoral icons of our media
    and their poorly lived out life choices.

    Would that something more truly heroic or glorious be there in Chicago —
    even a monument in the shape of a bean is more iconic.

    – Joel

    “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” Psalm 33:12

  110. WannaSeeMyButtCheek says:

    YA its inappropriate!! :|

    How can I walk my little boy past that? Go around? Pretty soon there won’t be anywhere to go around to …just like on TV, Public TV too. Youve’ taken what is public, our public media, and made it private, to make MONEY …face it, that’s what you did…

    I see they just put her up anyway, hey? The Bible says there are those who store up wrath for themselves. I believe the Bible. I wonder for whom it means?

  111. hal says:

    Awwwwww comon—the only thing inappropriate about the Marilyn is the minds and imaginations that people whom think its inappropriate —in other words get your heads out of the sand–this isn’t the 40’s anymore

  112. lionking.2007 says:

    Were’nt there better ways of paying tribute to an actress than errecting a 26 feet tall ‘rated R’ statue in the middle of the 3rd largest city of america??? That is a disrespect to MM. I am sure she wouldnt have approved it if she was alive. Proof: in the statue you can clearly see that she is not happy with the idea of having her skirt blown up by the wind so she it trying to push it back, so, she DID care about having her undergarments exposed her to the public. The artist has only magnified her unconfortable state. Think logic. If it was a hypothetical character then i might have been OK but she was a real character.

  113. Cass says:

    this is amazing, i dont care what anyone says.

  114. Captain Crunch says:

    Can I throw some coins under her skirt so I “have to” bend down to pick them up, a-la John Candy? :-)

  115. Sara says:

    Is this statue still up?

  116. The entire point (which was missed by 99.9999% of the posters) is that this was a matter of physics! The air that came from the underground tunnels made a systematic “whoosh” of upward air movement, and a lightweight (probably synthetic, such as nylon) fabric would RISE!

    If Marilyn had been wearing a fitted woolen suit, with a straight or pencil skirt (also popular in those days, just not in the summertime), the “whoosh” would have added an inch or so of added volume around the knees, for a moment, but the dress would NOT have risen. It was NEVER about “sex,” it was always about PHYSICS!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE