Jump to content

Statues


James Hampton
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, James Hampton said:

If you met someone, and they told you they wanted there to be a statue of them, what would you think?

I'd pretend not to laugh and then suggest they seek psychiatric treatment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, pongo said:

@James Hampton 

@woolley is referring to me asking a similar question yesterday - ie what are statues actually for, what are we supposed to do with them?

It seems to me a totally reasonable and fairly neutral question. And yet nobody seemed to get it. They seem to take it for granted that monumental statues are a thing.

In this context I was making a clear distinction between sculpture (eg Rodin) and monuments. Whilst there is some cross-over, monuments tend to be about the person depicted. Where as sculpture tends to be more about the art - perhaps the form and materials - or perhaps some conceptual thing.

It seems to me that a monumental statue exists to the glory of the person depicted. But why? That's at the heart of my question - do we raise or maintain statues of them such that they stand as examples, or as warnings? Or what?

What are monumental statues for? It's a great question. It seems to me that they are just a convention. Me, I have no idea what I am supposed to do with a statue of dead slaver by an artist I could not name. Or some colonialist on a horse. I have no idea why our society would want to keep such a monument except in a museum of awful curiosities. No more than the former Soviet satellite states wanted their statues of Lenin.

I think that’s pretty much exactly my thoughts. Good to know I’m not the only numpity numpty.

To me statues (and portraits hanging in Tynwald if you like) are a clear representation of the divide that exists within society - and probably always will. Those who want to be lead, who want to glorify leadership or ‘personal greatness’ and those who don’t - those who understand that there is no such thing as ‘personal greatness’ in almost any case - nobody acts alone to achieve their supposed great feats. That is how they are portrayed because that is how the people who want to glorify them wish to see it. This isn’t an issue most of the time, because outside periods of political stress they are almost entirely ignored or forgotten - because most people understand it’s not worth worrying about and are happy enough if some people wish to idolize a historical figure, in the same way most people are happy for people to practice whatever religion they like (statues are pretty close to religious artifacts in that sense) so long as it doesn’t interfere with the rest of us. Their simplicity of purpose or message (just ‘greatness’ rather than a monument to what this person and the people they relied upon actually did), is what allows them to become totemic - and so antagonistic. 

Should they be removed, probably not, for the same reason we wouldn’t remove a religious symbol. The problem would seem to be a political system which promotes antagonism. A political system based on the individual of course. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rhumsaa said:

Is there a fine line between having the ego that wants a statue of them and having the desire to make such a positive impact that people put a statue up of you?

Either way you'd get Pyongyang on the blower as those lads know how to make a statue in fine bronze

My guess would be that anyone who really did want to make a positive impact would be horrified at the thought of wasting resources on something so pointless, but that’s just my thoughts. 

 

If Ramsey town ever commission one of you I will be lobbying hard to have them use the guy who did this...

 

B6BD969A-B8B2-42BD-B773-10CC70FA27DA.jpeg

Edited by James Hampton
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James Hampton said:

My guess would be that anyone who really did want to make a positive impact would be horrified at the thought of wasting resources on something so pointless, but that’s just my thoughts. 

 

If Ramsey town ever commission one of you I will be lobbying hard to have them use the guy who did this...

 

B6BD969A-B8B2-42BD-B773-10CC70FA27DA.jpeg

Wasting resources?

Jesus wept.  That's a bit of a stretch isn't it?

In the case of Ronaldo (who may probably be more annoyed he ended up looking like Niall Quinn) Madeira should be very proud of the fact one of the greatest footballers ever was from there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, piebaps said:

Yeah I get that. What happens in 20 years time if he turns out to be a big peado or a slaver? Does he stop being one of the greatest footballers ever?

Well I'm not sure any illegal acts would have impacted on how a great a footballer he is or was.

Clearly illegal acts would tarnish how he was viewed as a person.   He's someone who hands over enormous amounts of his own money too for good causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, piebaps said:

Yeah I get that. What happens in 20 years time if he turns out to be a big peado or a slaver? Does he stop being one of the greatest footballers ever?

a question for Gary Glitter maybe??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted the photo of the Ronaldo bust because it’s a well known example of a piece that was considered to be a poor likeness - funny for that reason.

However it does raise another good point. Ronaldo is well known for his philanthropy, but was accused of rape a few years ago wasn’t he? Would / should the bust have remained in place (in an Airport I think) if he had been found guilty? It’s effectively a present day version of the slave trader question. Does philanthropy and or great skill in a particular field erase what we would presently consider morally questionable actions (if they had been proven)? 

Edited by James Hampton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Hampton said:

I posted the photo of the Ronaldo bust because it’s a well known example of a piece that was considered to be a poor likeness - funny for that reason.

However it does raise another good point. Ronaldo is well known for his philanthropy, but was accused of rape a few years ago wasn’t he? Would / should the bust have remained in place (in an Airport I think) if he had been found guilty? It’s effectively a present day version of the slave trader question. Does philanthropy and or great skill in a particular field erase what we would presently consider morally questionable actions (if they had been proven)? 

Well morally I suppose it a weak argument and needs to revert to law.

What i find morally unacceptable you might find perfectly morally acceptable. We can argue about any given subject from a morality view all we like but the defining point is that of law.

So I suppose in your Ronaldo case - he was accused of sexually assaulting someone.  It would appear he won't be facing any convictions.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...