Hello again,
Well- I've looked at this sculpture again. Although I admit that had I seen it in a gallery I doubt I would have given it a second glance- I can now state that it would have made a more effective image as four nudes. (Really I am not a pervert 
)
Not as the daughters of the Tsar, but as four young maidens expressing all the suffering millions of the 20th century...ok. Not very original, not very remarkable but ok. Technically it is a fine work- if a little contrived and precocious - but it's just that - ok. The floating tissue just seems a bit...tasteless ?
feel free to call me a philistine 
R.
An artist can only create what s/he finds emotionallymoving. Yes there are a lot of other moving stories; the nuns that Janet mentioned, etc. But an artist doesn't and couldn't possibly create what everyone else finds moving; s/he has to choose among all those subjects.
So, this particular artist found the sensual, the delicate and poetic (judging from his interview) ---the things that seem to always be destroyed by other's (who are not so delicate or poetic) cruelty in war, etc., to be his subject. For him, the young women represented those fleeting things that were dear to the artist.
Now, personally I don't find the sculptures sexual at all. To me, they are sensual. But not sexual. For me there's a big difference, but not everyone feels that way. I loved the lyrical lines to the delicate garments along with the movement of their bodies. For some, these things need to be celebrated. For this artist, he also must have felt the need to express this celebration to others; to remind us perhaps, of the beauty of youth, the fragility of youth, of young women (and men!), of the delicacy of the fleeting moment that before we know it, can race towards death; sometimes a violent death...
Adele
