The statue of Nelson Mandela, unveiled in London today. Photograph: Lewis Whyld/PA
Today, a nine foot bronze sculpture of Nobel peace prize winner Nelson Mandela was unveiled in Parliament Square, at a ceremony attended by the anti-apartheid activist himself, children's and human rights campaigner - and Mandela's wife - Graca Machel, London mayor Ken Livingstone and prime minister Gordon Brown.
Since the idea for the statue was first conceived, its development has been dogged by arguments over where it should be placed, as well as its artistic merit: the statue, designed by the late Ian Walters, has been called "a mere husk" and "an empty shell" by fellow sculptor Glyn Williams.
In Walters' obituary in the Guardian, however, written by Tony Benn, he is described as "one of the greatest sculptors of his day", his works including a portrait of Harold Wilson and a bust of Mandela's ANC comrade Oliver Tambo. The sculptor from Birmingham, writes Benn, was clearly motivated in his art by his belief in peace, justice and human rights.
Indeed, Livingstone expressed hope that Walters' sculpture of Mandela, positioned as it is facing the Houses of Parliament, would reflect the former South African president's significance on the world stage. While others have suggested that Mandela does not need a statue, for he is already an "awesome world figure".
From what you have seen, do you think it stands up to scrutiny, either artistic or political? Is its aim just to be a life-like representation of a man, or should it convey in its design the achievements of one of the greatest ever world leaders? And how does it compare to the other statues that surround it, of Winston Churchill, Benjamin Disraeli and Abraham Lincoln?
