Art is not only interpreted through its content or nature, but also through its medium. Each medium of art has different expectations and meaning is changed based on how it is presented. In terms of accountability, there is no greater expression of sponsorship in our culture than the sculpture. Paintings and other mediums can express pride or adoration in a person while being seen as an expression of art or a different time period, while sculptures usually are viewed as a current advocation for every value and action performed by a person throughout their lifetime. Many have passed through contemporary thought in the more ancient parts of the world, but in the United States many of the issues with the people depicted on our own great statues still ring true today. Only recently have we seen statues of slaveholders and Confederate leaders removed from their prominent positions in cities and government buildings, and these have been met with a great deal of controversy. Now, even founding fathers are being moved or taken down from their past prominent dedications, including the slaveowner Thomas Jefferson.
"A Thomas Jefferson statue is on its way out of New York's City Council Chamber, after members of the Public Design Commission agreed to take the nation's third president and well-known slaveowner off of his pedestal.
The statue currently occupies a prominent spot near the chamber's main dais, where Jefferson has towered over council members for more than 100 years."
This decision has obviously sparked controversy, with many questioning in this case what said statue really represented. Can a statue represent ones great deeds, while also acknowledging their faults? I think the plan for the Jefferson statue considers the importance of placement in its interpretation. The way in which a sculpture like Jefferson's is presented also effects what message it sends, and Jefferson appearing like a godlike figure in the middle of a prominent spot in a council chamber sends a different message than, as is planned, the sculpture occupies a spot among other historical figures in a cultural heritage wing. It could be argued that no human should be presented the way in which Jefferson and others have been presented in our society, as they were human, and to make them a sort of divine figure through art will never account for the inevitable moral confusion in their lives.
Across the world, another sculpture is scheduled for removal from the middle of campus in the University of Hong Kong. Unlike the statue in New York, this sculpture requires prominent positioning and presentation due to the importance of its message, and its movement shows a deliberate attempt the Chinese government to denounce the expression of an idea or memory.
"Nightmarish, with images of dozens of bodies and faces contorted in pain, Pillar of Shame towers some 8 meters (26 feet) over the campus of the University of Hong Kong. The less-than-subtle monument, like a scene from Tartarus, is meant to commemorate the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, in which hundreds, and by some estimates more than a thousand, pro-democracy protesters were killed by Chinese military violence.
Now, after more than 20 years, the university wants the statue removed. The sculpture's Danish artist, Jens Galschiot, is shocked by the decision."
This is such an interesting subject. I really think we should consider the approach that we saw in Budapest. There we saw a small park on the outskirts of the capitol set up to house stated that were erected to celebrate Stalin and communist leaders during the occupation. This way, history was left in tact, but citizens also didn’t have to suffer with seeing these people on a daily basis, not idolizing them. The project was made to uphold history without traumatizing people. Looking at the US, it was interesting to see the US immediately took down the statue of Hussein, to symbolize a change of regime (that’s a whole other story). It does make me question why we have…
I found this article really interesting, in that the information a piece of art is conveying to the public does not merely rest on the piece itself, but also the way it is positioned and stored in the public space. All of these factors combine to give onlookers the feeling that the artist and commissioners intended for.
Statues in today's society can be viewed as non relevant because many statues are people who were slaveowners or confederate leaders. Many people who's ancestors have grown up in slavery, will not like seeing a statue in their city knowing it's someone who pushed for slavery. It depicts an image of a city and it could scare people aware. Many people aren't aware of this issue with statues, that why I love this blog post.
I really enjoyed this post and the discussion we had about this topic in class. I think it was probably the best discussion we had all semester so thank you for sparking that. I didn't mention this in class, but I feel like making conscious replacements of unethical/negative historical figures with the art from groups who have been historically erased or who's art has been destroyed/hidden might be a good approach. During the discussion, I couldn't stop thinking about the erasing of indigenous art and artifacts of their culture before colonization and conquest. It would be a very interesting and potentially inclusive campaign to replace some of the statues of confederate soldiers with art from indigenous people or art/historical artifacts…
I really enjoyed this post. Statues and their removal are a very relevant subject matter in our world today. I think there is a lot be asked and thought about this situation and it is important to be aware of it. I really like the question you posed: "Can a statue represent ones great deeds, while also acknowledging their faults?" This is a very important question to ask ourselves.