To address Fifield’s question about why the “after” family is shoeless: 1) apparently the two tableaus were not as unclear as Fifield himself suggested; 2) The man is wearing shoes or perhaps boots; people, and in particular, women and children, often went shoeless/bootless in the 19th and into the 20th centuries, at least in the warmer months. Yes, even in America. If you are prepared to criticize a piece of art in purely artistic terms, great, but it helps to have a better sense of history if you are to criticize on historical accuracy terms.

Also, when referring to Boston Common, most natives either call it “the Common” or “Boston Common,” not the Commons.

I’m not sure about the “girl turning into a boy,” but it’s possible that the two families are different families, no? One remains in Ireland, while the other were able to escape.

I think it’s odd that the N.E. Journal of Aesthetic Research chooses another Irish famine memorial (on Cambridge Common) as an object of criticism. Honestly, neither memorial strikes me as particularly amazing art. But to me (and many others like me, I’m sure) they serve to remind me of an important historical event. Perhaps I am being overly-sensitive as an Irish-American, but it seems odd to nominate two Irish Famine memorials as subjects of criticism (which seems to be lacking in substance).