[5] The sculpture design is intended to emphasize the Kings' commitment to nonviolence and the importance of love as a motivating factor in their civil rights movement work.

"[13] Scott later clarified in an interview with The Guardian that he was unaware the sculpture was entirely funded by private donations, having assumed that the work was publicly funded, and described his initial reaction as an expression of grief over the omission of Coretta Scott King's face from the work as well as frustration over what he viewed as a lack of tangible support for black communities from the nonprofits that spearheaded the project.

One must be told what it is to make any connection to Martin Luther King Jr."[15] Opinion columnist Rasheed N. Walters of The Boston Globe wrote that the sculpture was "aesthetically unpleasant".

[16] Writing in The Washington Post, critic Sebastian Smee said the work "fails artistically," calling it visually "arresting" but ultimately "inherently awkward.

He went on to claim that of the thousands of people who had helped design and fabricate the piece, none had seen the sculpture in a pornographic light, as described by critics, and he deemed that viewing of the work to be "perverse".

[20] Writing in Hyperallergic, critic Seph Rodney questioned Thomas' rebuttal, saying "given the prolonged process of selecting and designing this work, it’s almost inconceivable that no one noticed that from certain angles the piece would not convey what the artist says he intended."

Rodney went on to speculate that "it may be the case that in dealing with a prominent artist handling a $10 million commission those involved who might have flagged potential problems silenced themselves rather than being regarded as 'negative.