The wars were spurred on by imperialistic and xenophobic reasons, but they were both extremely deliberate and purposeful, not from any sort of accident, but by the agendas each country held.
Hanno Ehses once remarked in our semiotics class that the Germans lost the wars because they had nothing to fight for: the sterility and sombreness that Modernism created were nothing compared to American illustrations that danced and flourished with colours.
So was Modernism, in all of its high hopes of universal language, linked closely to the restlessness countries had, or was it meant to act as saviour to the people's anguish?
I wonder: if we destroy things of beauty, would they hurt a country more than its loss of people?When we look at war statistics, personal lives are reduced to numbers, deprived of the very essence of their being in a sense. (I would certainly like to consider myself more than a number.) Yet we give such an outcry when we hear great works of architecture and paintings defamed, or destroyed. We are collectively sharing loss in this instance, are we not? We might not have known the Joe Smith who died trying to save our land, but we know the loss the world felt when the Third Reich plundered art collections and museums.
to touch on the last paragraph here, i think the common use of statistics and numbers used when the media talks about human casualties is remedied (possibly?) by building monuments to those killed in wars, natural disasters, terroist attacks, genocides, etc. yes, i do think their is a collective attachment to works of art, especially public/government commissioned ones. Thats why we build monuments or dedicate buildings to people or groups of people, or erect really large tombstones, it's a way to immortalize what was.
ReplyDeleteI think that it's part of our nature to seek comfort in the stability of structures that are around us. So when we see great works of architecture or art being destroyed is it a loss of a physical representation of ideology, and I think this has the potential to instill fear in the public as much as the loss of human life.
ReplyDeleteI agree w/ Nate and Gabe. It would take forever to single out every individual who served in WWI and II, so erecting monuments to those people - at the very least - say "We wont forget you and your sacrifice". Those and other monuments hold so much weight with us as a collective because of the symbolic meaning attached to them.
ReplyDeleteGermany was perged of "degenerate art" and most of what we see in terms of major art and architecture from there during that time was quite new, rigid and regulated. People didn't have the chance to really "live with" or get used to those as symbols of... well... anything other than symbols of the power of the Reich - but that did not represent them in the same way a monument like the Statue of Liberty, for example, represented the Americans.
I'm not 100% sold on Germany losing the war because they had nothing to fight for, however. The tactical stupidity of a mad man played a role in that.
It would be interesting to look at just how big of a role such symbols play in how one views his/her homeland.
OK. Let's look at some of the symbols of Canada and try to pull them apart. We have the maple leaf, the beaver, the CN Tower...
ReplyDeleteThe Beaver, meant to represent both industriousness and also industry was chosen because Canada was so rich in natural resources. My feelings towards it is that it is inaccurate. The Beaver only cuts down limited numbers of trees. He certainly doesn't clear cut. The scale of his dams does not reach the scale of our modern hydro electric dams (with this exception: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/giant-beaver-dam-in-alberta-visible-from-space/article1558436/) I would like Canada to emulate the Beaver more than it does. To use our natural resources with care and on a smaller scale. I find it amazing that sustainability has come up so rarely in our class, and only ever as something passing.
From my understanding, the CN Tower functions as a giant radio transmitter for CN rail. It was built to beat both the Eiffel tower and the Empire State building for height. What are we saying with that? Are we saying "we're better than the French and the Americans?" How unCanadian! To me the only meaning I hold about the CN tower is class trips in grade school... it is a tourist attraction, though not as interesting as Union Station, the ROM or the Royal Alexandra Theatre. It is iconic, but I don't feel there is any substance.
Anyone want to tackle the Maple Leaf?
I'm not sure I agree that Canada should be "more like the beaver". In the prairies they hold bounties for every beaver head because they do so much damage to our railroads and other things we need. Say what you will about what that might mean: it's simply not feasible today to revert back to a time before railroads. Perhaps in 1975 Canada was closer "in scale" to the beaver's habits, but shall we change an symbol just because we've changed, or shall we be limited in growth by an symbol?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the CN Tower, I'm surprised you would bring up the term "unCanadian". To aspire to greatness should never be a fault. For the architects of the CN Tower, would it not make sense for them to try and make the best that they could, to try and put Canada on the same page as other nations?
And what of the Maple Leaf? It was a symbol in use since the 1700s because the American-Indians drew sap from them.
I'm not sure what you intended by bringing up the significance of Canadian symbols.
I was just drawing on what Drew said "
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to look at just how big of a role such symbols play in how one views his/her homeland. " I think if something is used as a symbol for a country than it should be aligned with what the nation aspires to in the Global Community. It is natural that those aspirations change over time. I think the symbols should change too. Most symbols for our country are from the natural world - Polar bears, the loon, the Canada Goose... yet Canada is not an environmental leader in the world.
Maybe growing up in Quebec has given me a different appreciation for nationalism, but I really do think symbols should stand for something and not be empty gestures.
You also mention "I wonder: if we destroy things of beauty, would they hurt a country more than its loss of people?"
ReplyDeleteIs the environment not a thing of beauty? I think destroying the environment would hurt a country more than loss of people, because in the long term being unsustainable means just that. Loss of people.