The Off Topic Topic

[Malthus]

It is the cancel culture preferred cycle.  It's not THE cycle.

Isn't it? The oldest surviving statue that hasn't been reconstructed or hidden and then put back in place in London is early 19th century.

Obviously there were lots of statues before then, torn down, destroyed and defaced in the Reformation. Then Charles I with his incipient popery starts making statues of his favourites (torn down, destroyed and defaced in the civil war/Commonwealth). In the 18th century old secular statues were also torn down (but largely moved indoors rather than destroyed - so the Elizabeth I and Gog and Magog statues survive) because they were perceived as reeking of Catholicism. We certainly have a cycle running for the last 500 years.

Now people are more concerned with things being associated with imperialism than Catholicism but it seems fair to say there was a cycle.

Depends on whether you are making a normative argument based on past practice or not.

Certainly, Daminatio Memoriae is as old as history (the ancient Egyptians regularly defaced monuments to past discredited rulers); by the same token, cultures regularly stole each other's monuments in moments of glory - such as Europeans taking Benin bronzes. Does that mean that this too is "the" cycle for monuments as well? Lots of people seem to think they ought to be handed back.

[Admiral Yi]

Isn't it? The oldest surviving statue that hasn't been reconstructed or hidden and then put back in place in London is early 19th century.

The oldest surviving statue in the world or in UK?

[The Brain]

Isn't it? The oldest surviving statue that hasn't been reconstructed or hidden and then put back in place in London is early 19th century.

The oldest surviving statue in the world or in UK?

Jesus, they didn't raid the entire world. Even if it was close.

[garbon]

It is the cancel culture preferred cycle.  It's not THE cycle.

Isn't it? The oldest surviving statue that hasn't been reconstructed or hidden and then put back in place in London is early 19th century.

Obviously there were lots of statues before then, torn down, destroyed and defaced in the Reformation. Then Charles I with his incipient popery starts making statues of his favourites (torn down, destroyed and defaced in the civil war/Commonwealth). In the 18th century old secular statues were also torn down (but largely moved indoors rather than destroyed - so the Elizabeth I and Gog and Magog statues survive) because they were perceived as reeking of Catholicism. We certainly have a cycle running for the last 500 years.

Now people are more concerned with things being associated with imperialism than Catholicism but it seems fair to say there was a cycle.

Depends on whether you are making a normative argument based on past practice or not.

Certainly, Daminatio Memoriae is as old as history (the ancient Egyptians regularly defaced monuments to past discredited rulers); by the same token, cultures regularly stole each other's monuments in moments of glory - such as Europeans taking Benin bronzes. Does that mean that this too is "the" cycle for monuments as well? Lots of people seem to think they ought to be handed back.

Nevertheless, the point is that we aren't beholden to keep all public statuary ever erected in situ. Monuments that were chosen to be displayed in public have changed all throughout history.

There, of course, can be good and bad reasons to remove statuary. But I don't really see what the issue with is if people want more monuments to our current ideals.

[Admiral Yi]

Because it's an implicit promise that it'll be there forever.  It's welching on the deal.

[garbon]

Because it's an implicit promise that it'll be there forever.  It's welching on the deal.

By whom to whom?

And who actually thinks all statues will be there forever? We aren't even that reverent towards grave sites.

[The Larch]

Because it's an implicit promise that it'll be there forever.  It's welching on the deal.

What deal? There's no deal whatsoever, it's a public recognition that, as it is given, can also be withdrawn. Nowhere is it even implied that a statue is going to be forever in public view.

[Josquius]

So it's wrong to take down the statues of dictators when regimes fall?

[Sheilbh]

Because it's an implicit promise that it'll be there forever.  It's welching on the deal.

What deal? There's no deal whatsoever, it's a public recognition that, as it is given, can also be withdrawn. Nowhere is it even implied that a statue is going to be forever in public view.

I agree - for me statues are like buildings or other bits of public art like mosaics or murals. They are subject to the same changes of taste, purpose, perspective etc and the same process of knocking them down, replacing them, moving them or whatever else for whatever reason from re-developing an area to politics to changes in taste.

I actually think Yi's take is partly why Protestants basically weren't into statues for the three hundred years before the nineteenth century - there is perhaps a higher risk of sacralisation in the graven image.

But also I think about statues you often see in London - some obviously just reflect ego.

Look at Trafalgar Square - Nelson makes sense. I also think Beatty and Jellicoe and Cunningham make sense with Nelson as a square of British naval heroes. But then you have a statue of George IV, possibly our worst king, which he'd commissioned to be the crowning glory of Marbe Arch but, after his death, the budget was cut and no-one wanted a massive arch crowned with a statue of George IV. So it bounced around various squares in London before landing in Trafalgar Square. And needless to say it is a lie because he is riding a horse while at that point he was so obese he couldn't anymore. What is the deal or implicit promise?

Similarly there's the statues of Napier and Havelock (conquest of Sindh and Indian Mutiny respectively) - it was actually debated in the 30s in parliament that they should be removed to make space for statues of Jellicoe and Beatty (who got busts instead - I think that would have been great, you could then have removed George IV for Cunningham).

But very few people now know who those generals (or George IV) are - which was Ken Livingstone's point that we should clean up the public space by getting rid of long-forgotten generals and statesmen who were important at the time. The statue of Napier was reviewed at the time it was unveiled as "the worst piece of sculpture in England", so they don't have overwhelming artistic virtue. The slightly striking thing about them - and lots of the statues of Victorian generals - is they were often put up by public subscription, largely funded by former soldiers who fought under those generals. I think there's something to Alan Bennett's point that (from a British perspective) the Boer War is the first war where there are casualty lists of private soldiers, we know who the private soldiers are, there are memorials to them. I think the 20th century democratises that so in the 19th century you would remember your part in the army and your comrades through a statue to a general you respected. In the 20th century you have all the more democratic statues/memorials: cenotaph, unknown soldier, women of WW2, victims of the Blitz, International Brigades, even reaching back into history to memorialise the burghers of Calais etc.

There, of course, can be good and bad reasons to remove statuary. But I don't really see what the issue with is if people want more monuments to our current ideals.

Yeah and what we value. The one that always strikes me in the UK is that we have very few statues of scientists, inventors - or even to moments of scientific progress. There's lots of now unknown Victorian statesmen/generals, lots of monarchs, a fair number of writers/artists but  very, very few around science. I don't think that explains, but possibly reflects where social value was seen in British society.

For example, there's no statue of Fleming or Lovelace etc - or even just marks of what they did in public art. Which I find strange.

And who actually thinks all statues will be there forever? We aren't even that reverent towards grave sites.

Yes. Especially in London - some of our nicest parks and squares are graveyards

[DGuller]

Your WTF story of the day: https://www.news4jax.com/entertainment/2021/10/22/alec-baldwin-fires-prop-firearm-kills-woman-on-a-new-mexico-movie-set-reports/   

[Duque de Bragança]

So it's wrong to take down the statues of dictators when regimes fall?

How many Maggie statues by the way? 

[Grey Fox]

Because it's an implicit promise that it'll be there forever.  It's welching on the deal.

And that train of thought is why we should not have any statues.

[celedhring]

It's not like nowadays statues are destroyed when removed from a public place. The Barcelona city council has a hefty amount of statues in storage and occasionally sets up exhibits to show them.

The "headless horseman" Franco statue was quite infamous 

[Josquius]

So it's wrong to take down the statues of dictators when regimes fall?

How many Maggie statues by the way? 

Thankfully few.

[Duque de Bragança]

It's not like nowadays statues are destroyed when removed from a public place. The Barcelona city council has a hefty amount of statues in storage and occasionally sets up exhibits to show them.

The "headless horseman" Franco statue was quite infamous 

Did they remove the Franco statues in, say, Burgos?