So much of the world's historical monuments, particularly those of the western empires, are of how these countries want to see themselves as. It's not really a reflection of their true selves but more of an idealized version of their 'accomplishments' that are perpetrated by the ruling class. Monuments have always been a structure of grandeur for the rich and powerful, no one else had the monetary means to commission these artworks, because of this we are left with an incredibly warped and self-indulgent structure, albeit quite beautiful and important to the country's image. To flip this upside down and instead make these sculptures for the ones who have suffered, and have that be the subject matter, is honestly quite brilliant. Monuments have been repeatedly used as propaganda to lift up those in power, and to challenge that by lifting up the weak is not only righteous but incredibly important for the era that we live in now, where we are having these discussions of how these countries have presented themselves for so long.
While reading some of the monuments pieces I felt as if each of them had something that they needed to prove. For example, for the Tate piece felt the need to expose what history has done to people. Each level exposed how much each person was taken advantage of in service of someone else. For the rumors of war piece exposed the whole idealism of the past resurrecting a past historical leader to make sure that the event does not happen again. The Bracero monument exposed all of the work that the people of that time had done in order to make sure that not another person is taken advantage of again. But truth be told, all of these monuments have come with some sort of backlash. The bracero monument had gotten criticism for stating that the braceros were free to do what they wished. From what the article had stated that was not the truth. It was merely one persons interpretation of what a bracero was, b...
Comments
Post a Comment