Photo courtesy Visit Sarasota County

The “Unconditional Surrender” statue, better known as the kissing sailor, has stood as a symbol of Sarasota’s competing tastes longer than a decade. But would even its most devout fans want the removal of this monstrosity criminalized?

The Legislature seems poised to do just that, with legislation protecting a loose definition of historic monuments from what some might call good taste. Sen. Jonathan Martin, R-Fort Myers, championed SB 1122, a bill he swears is not about Confederate monuments despite criticism to the contrary. To prove it, the bill was written to protect “all monuments and memorials.” 

When I asked specifically if the legislation would stop Sarasota from discharging the sailor from the city’s public art collection, he answered affirmatively.

“It would be protected from removal,” Martin said.

To be honest, I’m not sure reading the bill if that’s the case. The legislation grants authority to the Florida Historical Commission to determine that a monument deserves the protection of the law, presuming this does become state statute. Still, Martin also identifies a “military monument” as any statue depicting a past or present service member (at least since Europeans settled the continent). That seems to sweep in the sailor. 

Importantly, this bill doesn’t just preclude removal of monuments but also stops their relocation. That seems relevant as Unconditional Surrender, a work of art not specifically designed for any particular part of Sarasota—or for the city at all—enticed visitors to multiple parts of the city. Regardless, if city officials violate this law, depending how the final language shakes out, they could be responsible for the cost of restoring the statue and even be removed from office.

Martin maintained throughout the process his bill is about preserving all history. It allows governments who feel stuck with a monument that doesn’t reflect modern sensibility to put up a plaque explaining the history of the work. 

In many ways, “Unconditional Surrender” better establishes my true problem than Civil War celebrations. I’m an ardent defender of free speech, and that means preserving art many find offensive. But to protect this statue from any decision on its display shows proves the silliness of this proposal.

I know a contingency hates the sailor because it depicts a non-consensual groping of a nurse. Most critics, myself included, just think it’s bad art.

First, it’s plagiarized. A clear depiction of Alfred Eisenstaedt’s famous V-Day photo in Times Square (and part of The LIFE Picture Collection), Seward Johnson maintained until his death he based the statue on a military photograph (read publicly domain) of the same moment.

The statue also brings no sense of place. Johnson created a half dozen versions of this statue that are scattered around the country, one which stood a period in Times Square. This one showed up here as part of the Season of Sculpture before a rich veteran made the investment to make Sarasota its home.

But from the moment it first showed up, artists noted its sheer ugliness. The hands don’t match the scale of the body. Local art lover Virginia Hoffman compared it to a Macy’s Day balloon. Artist Dennis Kowal shrouded his own work to avoid it appearing in the same show as this computer-assisted mockery of art. Not only derivative, the sailor delivers a poor copy at that.

Yes, veterans love it. It reminds them of the war ending. Commissioners feared their wrath for years, worried the World War II generation would vote anyone out who dared take down the kitsch shrine. Fine. But for Florida law to affix this distasteful tribute as a permanent part of the landscape hurts the brain as much as the eyes.

Jacob Ogles is contributing senior editor for SRQ MEDIA.

Photo courtesy Visit Sarasota County