I think it’s a big problem how much we store that never gets to be seen. If we are going to curate objects they should be accessible and curated. Rotated in and out of display as necessary.
I never see people arguing we should hide statues of Ceaser or any other Roman emperor away in a warehouse. Yet he did many many horrible things in his time. We seem to be able to acknowledge both his fundemental flaws and his impact on history.
Scale this down to a local city, and knowing about those who founded it or influenced it is important too. Seems a waste to lock statues of those away forever. They don’t need to be placed prominently or honored. They need to be contextualized and appropriately placed.
There’s a lot of info you as a viewer can get conveyed from historic statues. Was it built before or after death? Who commissioned it? How is the figure positioned? How does the symbology compare to the real history? It’s hard to capture these from photos and text alone.
Now if we broaden this out to the discussion of other statues maybe we can get a better idea. The example of the UK town statues we’re discussing concerns statues that there are probably one copy of and that changes things.
If we look at say Robert E. Lee, no I don’t think we need to constantly see hundreds of his statues from the 1950s. The 50s in many US states hits that line of historic by state legal standards, so destruction is not an option. I say 1 type specimen per state museum is all that is necessary and the rest could go in storage. Even then if you have an example that’s even older then by all means mothball the younger ones.
We also need to tackle what you define as a monument. Displayed and contextualized in a museum isn’t a monument to me. That is where artifacts belong. In the case of the gardens, that may be the only place that city has, we would need more info, but removing it and placing it in a less prominent position may be the most feasible option for that city.
Finally, history should not only be regulated to books. If you study history through literature only you lose the story entirely. For large portions of human history writing was for the elite and their administration. That is a very narrow view of history, and in many cases those writings do not give the more mundane details. Not to mention even in a history textbook you are relying on someone else’s interpretation of primary evidence. Usually an overview lacks the full nuance. Back to the statue analysis, the symbology of the piece is usually not written down by the makers. We have to analyze that independently. I don’t think this should only be accessible to researchers.
There is a lot of history relegated only to books. Not every piece of history needs a public facing monument.
If you want to keep them for historical value, store them in a warehouse.
I think it’s a big problem how much we store that never gets to be seen. If we are going to curate objects they should be accessible and curated. Rotated in and out of display as necessary.
I never see people arguing we should hide statues of Ceaser or any other Roman emperor away in a warehouse. Yet he did many many horrible things in his time. We seem to be able to acknowledge both his fundemental flaws and his impact on history.
Scale this down to a local city, and knowing about those who founded it or influenced it is important too. Seems a waste to lock statues of those away forever. They don’t need to be placed prominently or honored. They need to be contextualized and appropriately placed.
There’s a lot of info you as a viewer can get conveyed from historic statues. Was it built before or after death? Who commissioned it? How is the figure positioned? How does the symbology compare to the real history? It’s hard to capture these from photos and text alone.
Now if we broaden this out to the discussion of other statues maybe we can get a better idea. The example of the UK town statues we’re discussing concerns statues that there are probably one copy of and that changes things.
If we look at say Robert E. Lee, no I don’t think we need to constantly see hundreds of his statues from the 1950s. The 50s in many US states hits that line of historic by state legal standards, so destruction is not an option. I say 1 type specimen per state museum is all that is necessary and the rest could go in storage. Even then if you have an example that’s even older then by all means mothball the younger ones.
We also need to tackle what you define as a monument. Displayed and contextualized in a museum isn’t a monument to me. That is where artifacts belong. In the case of the gardens, that may be the only place that city has, we would need more info, but removing it and placing it in a less prominent position may be the most feasible option for that city.
Finally, history should not only be regulated to books. If you study history through literature only you lose the story entirely. For large portions of human history writing was for the elite and their administration. That is a very narrow view of history, and in many cases those writings do not give the more mundane details. Not to mention even in a history textbook you are relying on someone else’s interpretation of primary evidence. Usually an overview lacks the full nuance. Back to the statue analysis, the symbology of the piece is usually not written down by the makers. We have to analyze that independently. I don’t think this should only be accessible to researchers.