THE POWER OF STATUES | WHEN ART BECOMES A POLITICAL STATEMENT

Designed: Sharatchandran Nair

Please follow @thesundayblogpost on Instagram

Blog Written by: Kartik Nair

Note: This blog reflects the personal views of the author and is intended for educational and informative purposes and doesn't intend to downgrade anyone in any manner.

The Power of Statues. Yes, that indeed is what my blog today is going to be about. As a symbol of art and expression, it intends to commemorate a person or someone’s life, but is it capable of more than that? Can a symbol of art become a political statement? To start with, it would be a good idea to understand the notion of statues as symbols of power. I will also be delineating the basic understanding of statues as a tool of art and how it is used in the Indian context before addressing a newfound connection between racism and statues.

STATUES AS A SYMBOL OF POWER

Not only do statues and/or memorials symbolize the past or create its narrative, but it also serves to recreate and express the societal values, that are inherent in us, somewhere, which could possibly be designed or crafted by historical events. It can be an ode to our patriots or statesmen or could be a religious creation. Maybe it is built to preserve cultural heritage or to revere leaders or politicians, or to immortalize individuals (sometimes animals) and their life-changing impact on both societies and their cultures. But, in a democratic world, where we elect our leaders and politicians and when we indirectly get a voice in the functioning of country or the government, it becomes fair to say that politics tends to become an inclusive element in our lives, with politicians reflecting our society. Therefore, statues of politicians and political leaders and even political monuments are an integral part of a country's history and culture.

But what happens when art is separated from its aesthetic component and viewed as a tool for politics or political movement? Does it remain the same? Does it gain or lose prominence or significance? According to a sculpture artist Vivek Agarwal, when art becomes political, the nation pays a terrible price. Just like politics, the element of art stands out for itself and makes one introspect. One can safely infer that when art is used as a medium of radicalization, it eats upon its fundamental element of beauty. The location of the statues is also essential. One may argue the significance of the presence of statues at public landmarks, airports, etc. but having them located at children's parks, schools, busy crossroads, etc. might not be a good idea. Add to it the cost of maintenance and cleaning that the state has to bear with. Statues can also become a source of media and history, for it honours values, cultures and traditions, reflecting the very time in which it was created and erected. To strengthen my stance, and before getting into the main idea, let me talk about the importance of statues as a powerful tool in politics in India.

INDIA AND HER TRYST WITH STATUES

Well, who can probably understand and witness this better than us, Indians? Statues of political leaders are mainly constructed for promoting, propagating and maintaining political interests. In the pre-independence days, this was done by a few British officials, and well, today, this unwritten privilege to make a statue a lasting memory of themselves is done by almost all political leaders or parties. Again, they are used to showcase heroic politicians, moments and significant events.

But this is not limited to India alone. If we have the world’s tallest statue, the Statue of Unity (a ~600ft statue of Sardar Patel), the USA has the Statue of Liberty. (Well, it is half the size of the Statue of Unity) China has the 420 ft Temple Buddha in Henan. Is there a statue race? Well, both yes and no! The Statue of Shivaji (off the Mumbai coast) is proposed to be ~700ft (and a cost of ~2800 Crore INR is projected for the same). Economically, the Sardar Patel Statue cost the economy over 2900 Crore INR. This is, as I believe substantial to state that statues are sort of political projects aimed at garnering future dividends.

In India, the ‘statue wars’ if you may call it that way, addresses the situation inwards, touching upon the local political construct. Like life-sized cutouts and aggressive campaigning, statues soon became a primary political tool in this modern era for politicians to patronize their supporters and build their vote bank. Kamal Nath inaugurated a 101 ft Hanuman in Madhya Pradesh, Akhilesh Yadav laid the foundation stone for a 200ft. Maitreya, late Tamil Nadu CM Jayalalithaa announced a plan for a “mega statue” of Mother Tamil (Tamil Thai), etc. All said and done, politicians use this as a tool for status-building and a tool which could possibly garner future tourism. Political analysts also saw the Statue of Unity as a strategic move by the BJP to appropriate Sardar Patel against Nehru. The move to put the Iron Man of India (Or the Bismarck of India) on a global map was very well received in a lot of states. Today, it stands as an identifier representing a nation. (Just as the Statue of Liberty represents the USA). 

The criticism part is an integral part of democracy and is not to be left far behind. Rahul Gandhi admonished the move as a ‘Made in China’ one as the bronze plates used were manufactured by a Chinese firm. A lot of reports also cited Indian Public Sector Companies funnelling their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds into the statue. The critics would state that the gigantic sums of money could be better used for addressing poverty and social security issues. They see the statue-building thing prioritized over social development. Well, money is a limited resource and needs to be allocated correctly and after much planning and thought.

ARE STATUES USED AS A MEDIUM TO CEMENT OPPRESSION AND RACISM?

Well, now that you have a good understanding of statues, I believe it’s time we talk about the issue at hand. To start with, do you know the significance of May 25? Okay, May 25, Minneapolis, USA? Try again. May 25, 2020, Minneapolis, George Floyd. Well, well. You got it, didn’t you? Who was George Floyd? He wasn't a famous personality or one who had amassed wealth or fortune, nor was he was not killed at an urban centre, or the nation's capital. He was, in fact, killed at the 46^th largest city in the United States. But why did his death inspire protests from the Western to the Eastern hemisphere, from the Northern to the Southern hemisphere? More importantly, why did nobody march or protest after Eric Garner was filmed being choked to death in Paris (2014)?

Well, the case of George Floyd (as in the case of police violence against African-Americans) and the wave of protests that followed can be seen with different angles and perspectives. Let’s start with the President of the United States (POTUS), Donald Trump. A lot of studies done on racism and social issues in America highlight the POTUS as a man who has set out to sow the seeds of division. A lot of Americans agree that before 2016, there was a president who could bring the nation together at a time of racial tension.  Or is it because of the legal system that allows cops to get away with murders or have access to ballistic armour and military-grade weapons from the Pentagon? African Americans earn close to $18,000; compared to a ten-fold earning of their white counterparts. Is the government promoting racism by increasing the gap in schooling, policing or health? Or is it due to the broken down schooling, health care and working system? A lot of people would even state that whenever America suffered misfortune, it was the Black American who suffered the most and that the police was being used to safeguard the city’s powerful and wealthy.

The violent protests which broke out showed a different side of the ever-glorious, accepting and prosperous America to the world. The protests spread to over 350 cities in America itself, not to mention other parts of the globe. Protests in Mexico and South Africa are mainly targeted towards police violence. In Brazil, 75% of the people killed in a year by the police are Blacks. A popular poll in America showed a spike in racial discrimination from 51% in 2015 to over 75% today. There were peaceful protests. There were violent protests. There were incidents of Arson, and in some cases, things went out of hand. But what really caught me, is the popular protest movements of statues being destroyed or vandalized of famous people (as we know them) in various countries. Tall, prominent, life-like figures build around multiple places of importance to re-live the person's contribution to society or the country. As stated earlier, statues are a piece of art with a historical touch. It even demanded to remove dozens of statues or monuments around the USA that glorified or promoted Confederate Generals who advocated slavery and who segregated the masses with their racial views.

In San Franciso, a statue of Cristopher Colombus was taken down, in New Orleans, a statue of John McDonogh was tossed into the Mississippi River, in Richmond, a statue of Cristopher Colombus was set on fire and was thrown into a lake. A bust of Ulysses Grant, statues of the Spanish missionary Junipero Serra and Francis Key’s bore the brunt of the angry protesters as well.  In Washington DC, Albert Pike’s statue was taken down, and echoes of “No justice, no peace” were heard throughout, as the statue burnt. Anti-racism messages were sprayed on the sculpture of Nathaniel Rochester. You may or may not be familiar with their names. But, hey, here's what happened to Sir Winston Churchill. Here’s a pic accusing him of racism in the Parliament Square.

Source:inews.co.uk

Well, what were a few things that were common among these people? Some promoted racism, others promoted division and slavery. Some destroyed indigenous tribes and their cultures. Some engaged in forceful acts of a religious conversion or stole the land or properties of indigenous tribes. Quite a few of them appeared as leaders and philanthropists, but their popularity was forged by years of slavery, racism, blood and oppression.  But what drove the people to pick on statues? The death of George Floyd galvanized people of all classes and races to come together and protest against racism and symbols of oppression. One may even argue that statues of confederate heroes were put long after the civil war to defend and propagate white supremacy. Take the case of Edward Colston. (A slave trader in the UK). His statue was not put up until 1895, almost two centuries after his death and long after Britain had abolished the slave trade in its colonies. You might not believe this, but the plaque instilled next to him had no mention of slavery. On the contrary, a lot of schoolchildren in Bristol remember him as a philanthropist and not a slaver.

While proponents advocate to keep them as it is, advocates of the "Black Lives Matter" movement see this as a fundamental flaw against equality and creation of an atmosphere of divide. See, statues are an interesting tool of art as symbols of power and history, right? They tend to provide a record of a country’s past, and shifting cultural paradigms today and how people may want to dismantle or remove them or even keep them as a record of their country’s past. Can art (esp. statues) channelize the large public and act as a tool of continued oppression? Should the media and the government prosecute those who topple statues? Should they be taken down or be transferred to museums or left to rot or be destroyed by rioters? Well, in Mumbai, India, the statue of Edward VII was consigned to a zoo.

“I had rather men should ask why my statue is not set up, than why it is.” - Plutarch

**SharatChandran Nair is ever inquisitive for new ideas and designs and loves to learn and create visual content. You can check out his artwork by clicking on his name.

If you like my blogs and would like to make a small contributing for me to keep the good work going, please do consider clicking the little button below and contributing whatever you can, even as less as INR 100. J

NOTE: DO NOT COPY ANY CONTENT OF THIS ESSAY/ARTICLE FOR ANY PURPOSE/S WITHOUT THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION. PEOPLE WILLING TO USE THIS ARTICLE FOR ACADEMIC/RESEARCH PURPOSES NEED TO CITE THE AUTHOR AND THIS WEB PAGE. NOT DOING SO SHALL RESULT IN AN ACT OF PLAGIARISM. TO USE ANY CONTENT/S OF THIS COPY AND FOR REQUISITE PERMISSION, CLICK HERE.

Subscribe to The Sunday Blog Post Today :)

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name *

Last Name