So I was thinking about death, and to be perfectly honest it fascinates me, and wondered about the remembering of the dead. We talked about it in class Teusday I believe. Anyway, my grandfather fought in WW2 and it made me think of the war memorials that crop up time and again. Particularly the WW1 memorial at Australia, with the man laying on his shield and the three women beneath him, caught my attention.
However, it was the contrast to the first version of the memorial that made me really think about it. I understand why the first version was not shown, a woman crucified over the dead soldiers (If I remember correctly) is certianly... shocking. But I feel, personally, that while it's vivid, it is not inappropriate. In fact, one might argue that it is more appropriate in its representation. The shock value helps to present the war as a horrible thing.
With that said, I do not mean to endorse one over the other. I understand that the one would be considered inappropriate to be endorsed as a war memorial. However, I do think that the woman's sacrific in the original is more emphatic and shows the understanding better. The sacrific of soldiers should always be recognized, however I feel that in remembering them we should also be remember the war itself and the effect that has on everyone else and the future. The original shows... while the second tells, and it's the showing that scares us and makes us react. It's that reaction that should be remembered too.
No comments:
Post a Comment