Monument contradictions
In Kirk Savage’s “Monument Wars”, he discusses the idea and importance of monuments in Washington D.C. Specially, where they are located, how the idea of having a monument for a particular person or people came to be, and what they stand for politically or historically. Savage discusses the “transition of the national mall” and several monuments in this piece and the opinions that others have had about them.
Savage begins the chapter of “Conscience of a Nation” by discussing the national mall and the rise of memorials being built. With such a large space and a wide platform to broadcast a national message, it would have been a wasted to do nothing with the space, He said “The mall designers had a vast space of national …show more content…
The idea of the Vietnam memorial came from a man named Jan Scruggs, this was during the time period when “post-traumatic stress disorder” came into phycologists’ vocabulary and his vision for the memorial was to serve as a healing action for the veterans that served. Scruggs said that he wanted the memorial to serve a purpose for “veterans themselves, who had endured not only the trauma of combat but a crushing rejection from society”. Savage explains that the memorial was built with the intention of recognition and support to those who have gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The design of the Vietnam memorial was meticulously thought out so that the names of those who perished were listed on top of one another in a timeline fashion, and as the war continued, so did the names to increase the slope of the wall. Maya Lin, the memorial designer, made the names are intentionally small because the designer wanted to give the memorial a more intimate feel, “like reading a book than a billboard” and the glossy, black wall itself was chosen so that the visitor can look and see themselves as a reflection to offer an opportunity to “remind them of their own thoughts and reactions” literally providing a place of reflection. The controversy with this memorial is whether or not it was actually built with the intention to be a therapeutic memorial or to be a political statement. Savage writes “therapeutic memorials, then, can never be entirely nonpolitical or no didactic.”. In order for a therapeutic memorial to be therapeutic, it has to have a meaning, savage explains that it must be “…implicit or explicit, to the traumatic event that makes its victims worthy of collective recognition.” Savage goes on to say that though the intentions of the Vietnam memorial were neutral, however, the sponsors were only thinking about their own
In Kirk Savage’s “Monument Wars”, he discusses the idea and importance of monuments in Washington D.C. Specially, where they are located, how the idea of having a monument for a particular person or people came to be, and what they stand for politically or historically. Savage discusses the “transition of the national mall” and several monuments in this piece and the opinions that others have had about them.
Savage begins the chapter of “Conscience of a Nation” by discussing the national mall and the rise of memorials being built. With such a large space and a wide platform to broadcast a national message, it would have been a wasted to do nothing with the space, He said “The mall designers had a vast space of national …show more content…
The idea of the Vietnam memorial came from a man named Jan Scruggs, this was during the time period when “post-traumatic stress disorder” came into phycologists’ vocabulary and his vision for the memorial was to serve as a healing action for the veterans that served. Scruggs said that he wanted the memorial to serve a purpose for “veterans themselves, who had endured not only the trauma of combat but a crushing rejection from society”. Savage explains that the memorial was built with the intention of recognition and support to those who have gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country. The design of the Vietnam memorial was meticulously thought out so that the names of those who perished were listed on top of one another in a timeline fashion, and as the war continued, so did the names to increase the slope of the wall. Maya Lin, the memorial designer, made the names are intentionally small because the designer wanted to give the memorial a more intimate feel, “like reading a book than a billboard” and the glossy, black wall itself was chosen so that the visitor can look and see themselves as a reflection to offer an opportunity to “remind them of their own thoughts and reactions” literally providing a place of reflection. The controversy with this memorial is whether or not it was actually built with the intention to be a therapeutic memorial or to be a political statement. Savage writes “therapeutic memorials, then, can never be entirely nonpolitical or no didactic.”. In order for a therapeutic memorial to be therapeutic, it has to have a meaning, savage explains that it must be “…implicit or explicit, to the traumatic event that makes its victims worthy of collective recognition.” Savage goes on to say that though the intentions of the Vietnam memorial were neutral, however, the sponsors were only thinking about their own