That come across needlessly abrasive 
It was not my intention to say something bad, it just seemed like you missed the main point of my post, as you replied to it, but did not comment at main point at all, so it seemed possible you’ve got sidetracked and missed it completely. Thus my attempt to clarify and draw your attention to it.
… like it happens again here - I’ve mentioned three different tagging strategies, and you again comment that you know one of them, but find it lacking. What about other two? To me it seems like you didn’t even see second and third suggestion. So I’m tempted to call your attention to them again. But judging by your tone, it not seems possible the alternatively explanation, that you’re intentionally avoiding acknowledging them for some reason, which I don’t understand? (why would someone ask for suggestions, and then intentionally ignore them? It doesn’t make sense to me - it seems more prudent to assume the best - that you’ve simply got carried away at first point and missed the rest of them)
Any Tag You Like (Which is what I assume you mean by “spirit of OpenStreetMap community”) very clearly states “And of course, unilaterally changing the definition of existing tags or keys is not OK”.
And yet, that seems to be what you’re proposing in this thread: changing the meaning of existing artwork_type=statue to mean single statue (and supplementing it by new artwork_type=sculptural_group which is to mean what was previously also meant by artwork_type=statue). Even your poll is a fake choice between 4 equally bad options.
If one were to do that, it would create ambiguity where situation was clear previously. Anyone looking at artwork_type=statue would no longer know what it means (previous definition which includes sculptural group, or new one which excludes it) because of that change. It would thus be highly unwanted - for hopefully obvious reasons.
Also, it is not that “you can’t do anything to change it”. It’s just that extraordinary changes require extraordinary amount of preparation and work – and changing a meaning of so popular key is extraordinary change.
There exists Proposal process (especially “Due diligence” section and part about depreciation) if there were a huge need for such destructive change - but I don’t see even a trace of such need in this specific case. Especially as there are other (immensely less destructive) methods to accomplish the same purpose (which I’ve suggested in my previous post, and @Kovoschiz in theirs).