Why do we have statues in public places?

By Catherine Simpson

In 2020 we have once again been drawn into discussions about the role of monuments in preserving the past in the public memory. A key example of this was the Edward Colston statue that was torn down in Bristol following the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests that had spread from the USA across the world. As a keep proponent of the British slave trade, Colston has been estimated to have trafficked 80,000 men, women, and children from African to the Americas during the 17^th century.  In 1895, 174 years after his death the city of Bristol decided to erect a statue in response to his philanthropic work at home. However, as attitudes towards the slave trade and the legacy of colonialism have been criticised question have arisen about the more problematic element of his past. He was clearly a man of two sides: both charitable and monstrous. This leads us to the question; what was the purpose of erecting a statue in his honour and what does this tell us about our values as a society?

As monuments alone cannot be annotated and inscribed with meaning, they are unfortunately open to a wide variety of interpretations. Take Churchill’s statue in the Parliament Square in the UK for example. Revealed in 1973 the statue was part of a wider collection of monuments towards British statemen. However, in 2020 the statue too was faced significant backlash from the BLM movement with the quote “Churchill was a racist” was spray-painted onto the monument by protesters. They cited racist quotes from the (in)famous politician such as “a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples” while also pointing out his supportive stance of colonialism that presented his racist inclinations in stark contrast to what we consider acceptable today. However, this protest then in-turn garnered significant backlash from the conservative groups within the country who believed that the BLM was vandalising a national hero. By having this statue in a public place without the context we can see how it has led to an exaggeration of opinions and an unwillingness to communicate between the two sides. Those seeing the statues will not know about the context in which he lived.

There is a valid argument to having history accessible to the public: to keep the past alive and to promote understanding of the impact of violent regimes. However, by keeping these statues are we actually achieving this? Without understanding the complex histories and context related to the events can we truly portray the events of the past accurately?

It seems to me that the act of putting up statues across cities to commemorate important figures is just a hang up of older times where royalty would seek to impress their presence on their subjects. It was revived with the emergence of nationalism that pushed patriotic feelings on its peoples. Should we impose our values and morals on individuals that often did not fully represent them? Inevitably, statues can only portray a severely edited version of the past. They are often motivated by political agendas and are designed to promote certain ideals. Who we choose to put up as a statue is also influenced by hidden agenda’s as not every person receives a statue dedicated to them or their achievements?

I must emphasise that I am not promoting we go out and destroy these pieces of artwork but instead acknowledge them in their totality. In my opinion the ideal places for these statues would be the museum. By keeping them accessible to the public we can continue to talk about the past and ensure that future generations can pass on the learning. We must accompany the statues with the tools of comprehension via plaques, displays, and exhibitions. Additionally, by teaching about these individuals within classrooms more space can be given to the wider context while also accepting their place in history.

To finish I will make a suggestion that in the place of these statues celebrating individuals I believe that we have shown a significant capability at producing abstract works that can similarly present the values and morals we intend to emphasise. It could also give some budding new artists the opportunities to flex their muscles on behalf of the national consciousness to find a new and inventive way of portraying the past. A good example of this I believe is the Holocaust Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. Even though the monument face criticism, only commemorating the Jewish victims of the holocaust for example, it also showed that there was a way to leave a lasting emotional impact on the observer. It depicts a collective experience and event instead of pushing a narrative on an individual.