Historical interpretation changes quite frequently. Does it not seem odd that one of the more prominent forms of public history cannot be changed? Statues and monuments are literally set in stone. When historical interpretations change, it is much easier to re-write history than it is to re-carve it.
With this in mind, do statues and monuments still have their place in public history? Ultimately, I would suggest that the best application of statues to public history is in the form of symbolism. Eileen Eagan notes in her article Immortalizing Women: Finding Meaning in Public Sculpture that women are typically portrayed as symbols of good citizenship and embodying stoic values. I find this the best type of public history as these characteristics maintain their longevity. Statues and monuments of recognizable historical figures represent only their accomplishments, and rarely depict the overarching symbolism that should be displayed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment