Statues
Statues are people too. Put them in a church and they weep. In Renaissance Rome they were given the power of speech. Some of the most memorable images from the end of the Communist era are of the statues of Lenin and Stalin being torn down. If you can’t hurt the man, desecrate his statue. The first statues were probably intended to come alive, to protect the town against invaders or do the peoples’ bidding and bring on the right weather. In Greek mythology Pygmalion kissed the statue of Galatea that he had made and she came to life. Daedalus, father of Icarus, was said to have brought most of his statues to life. Post Classical era, there is no shortage of accounts of statues doing the same, mostly Mary, mother of Jesus, letting her worshippers know that she has heard their prayers. Often enough, the statues found in cemeteries allude to life, not its opposite.
Some statues have a life of their own, figuratively speaking. The statue of U.S General Harry Hill Bandholtz in Budapest was unveiled in 1936, as thanks for his part in securing peace, or controlling order, depending on your point of view. A man who had once threatened to have striking American miners hanged for treason in 1920 would hardly warm the hearts of the Communist government and in 1949 it was taken down and stored along with hundreds of others in a junkyard, literally a kind of cemetery for statues. It was restored to its former place in 1989, a certain sign that the Communist era was over. Today he stands with a pompous bearing in Liberty Square, oblivious to the messages socialist minded pigeons keep leaving him.
Defining ‘statue’, as distinct from ‘sculpture’ or ‘monument’, turns out to be difficult. It must resemble something animate, though cars are as viable as humans or animals, and then the term ‘resemble’ becomes tricky. How closely? Given that a circle and two lines are enough to articulate the idea of a person in drawing, can’t the same apply in statuary? Apparently it does. Technically speaking, the Statue of Liberty is not a statue as she is too big, but then she qualifies under all other criteria. Anything smaller than life size on the other hand is a statuette or a figurine, but there is a fair bit of generosity in the idea of smaller than life size. ‘A bit smaller’, even ‘quite a bit smaller’ is fine, so long as it is not ‘too small’.
Statues tell us a lot about a city; it's origins and who and what ideas have been venerated in the past. There are reasons why Sydney built most of its monuments in the European neo-classical style, because that was how it liked to think of itself. Istanbul has very few statues, and most of them are of Ataturk. San Francisco has great examples of heroic modernism, Montreal less so, but then it never thought of itself with quite the vanity San Francisco did.
There are other things to consider in an ongoing history of statues; the way for example that for several centuries only gods and heroes were supposed to be immortalized in them. Around the third quarter of the 19th century a new idea, the public portrait of the general population, crept in. A town square could erect a statue to the women, the workers or the ordinary soldiers. At first they were also heroic figures. That changed after World War 1, when it became acceptable to show fear and other psychological damage. Today, the idea of erecting life size, life like (which of course mean ‘larger than life’) monuments to their leaders has mostly fallen out of favour, except in Britain, where Margaret Thatcher has had several statues cast of her. There is one in the Members’ Lobby at the House of Commons. According to a BBC report in August 2013, conservative politicians would touch the statue’s feet for good luck before they entered parliament, obliging someone to warn that too many sweaty hands were likely to cause ‘wear and tear’. Preposterous of course; most bronze statues endure far worse treatment from the weather. You suspect someone was gently trying to nudge a few Tories into the modern age.
Statues are people too. Put them in a church and they weep. In Renaissance Rome they were given the power of speech. Some of the most memorable images from the end of the Communist era are of the statues of Lenin and Stalin being torn down. If you can’t hurt the man, desecrate his statue. The first statues were probably intended to come alive, to protect the town against invaders or do the peoples’ bidding and bring on the right weather. In Greek mythology Pygmalion kissed the statue of Galatea that he had made and she came to life. Daedalus, father of Icarus, was said to have brought most of his statues to life. Post Classical era, there is no shortage of accounts of statues doing the same, mostly Mary, mother of Jesus, letting her worshippers know that she has heard their prayers. Often enough, the statues found in cemeteries allude to life, not its opposite.
Some statues have a life of their own, figuratively speaking. The statue of U.S General Harry Hill Bandholtz in Budapest was unveiled in 1936, as thanks for his part in securing peace, or controlling order, depending on your point of view. A man who had once threatened to have striking American miners hanged for treason in 1920 would hardly warm the hearts of the Communist government and in 1949 it was taken down and stored along with hundreds of others in a junkyard, literally a kind of cemetery for statues. It was restored to its former place in 1989, a certain sign that the Communist era was over. Today he stands with a pompous bearing in Liberty Square, oblivious to the messages socialist minded pigeons keep leaving him.
Defining ‘statue’, as distinct from ‘sculpture’ or ‘monument’, turns out to be difficult. It must resemble something animate, though cars are as viable as humans or animals, and then the term ‘resemble’ becomes tricky. How closely? Given that a circle and two lines are enough to articulate the idea of a person in drawing, can’t the same apply in statuary? Apparently it does. Technically speaking, the Statue of Liberty is not a statue as she is too big, but then she qualifies under all other criteria. Anything smaller than life size on the other hand is a statuette or a figurine, but there is a fair bit of generosity in the idea of smaller than life size. ‘A bit smaller’, even ‘quite a bit smaller’ is fine, so long as it is not ‘too small’.
Statues tell us a lot about a city; it's origins and who and what ideas have been venerated in the past. There are reasons why Sydney built most of its monuments in the European neo-classical style, because that was how it liked to think of itself. Istanbul has very few statues, and most of them are of Ataturk. San Francisco has great examples of heroic modernism, Montreal less so, but then it never thought of itself with quite the vanity San Francisco did.
There are other things to consider in an ongoing history of statues; the way for example that for several centuries only gods and heroes were supposed to be immortalized in them. Around the third quarter of the 19th century a new idea, the public portrait of the general population, crept in. A town square could erect a statue to the women, the workers or the ordinary soldiers. At first they were also heroic figures. That changed after World War 1, when it became acceptable to show fear and other psychological damage. Today, the idea of erecting life size, life like (which of course mean ‘larger than life’) monuments to their leaders has mostly fallen out of favour, except in Britain, where Margaret Thatcher has had several statues cast of her. There is one in the Members’ Lobby at the House of Commons. According to a BBC report in August 2013, conservative politicians would touch the statue’s feet for good luck before they entered parliament, obliging someone to warn that too many sweaty hands were likely to cause ‘wear and tear’. Preposterous of course; most bronze statues endure far worse treatment from the weather. You suspect someone was gently trying to nudge a few Tories into the modern age.
