View Downtown Bronze Memorials (Art) in a larger map
Memorials of Victoria's Inner Harbour: A Colonial Present
Walking through the main tourist area of Victoria, BC, one is not surprised to find memorial monuments in places of pedestrian thoroughfares. Furthermore, upon consideration of the monuments as a collective unit, one cannot help but notice certain trends emerge, whether intentional or otherwise. Through the examination of our research questions, it is hoped that some inferences become clear, and we will see a trend towards the colonization of the Inner Harbour through monuments as a metaphor for Victoria’s colonial past.
This study will consider all (7) of the anthropomorphic bronze statues memorializing a person or group of people between Johnson Street south to the Legislative Buildings along Wharf Street. This area is constrained by keeping near the water of Victoria’s Inner Harbour, the main tourist area of the city and terminus of many ocean routes. The scope of our data set can be problematized in the very distinct and limited area we chose to survey; additional monuments matching our criteria may be located a short distance away but are left out here. As well, memorial plaques, conveying much of the same information as statues, are bypassed in order to limit the size of the data set and to narrow the focus of research.
Our research questions led to the viewpoint discussed above, but started out much more broad. First, we wanted to see who gets memorialized with a bronze statue. Furthermore, what are the aesthetic qualities of individual statues, and does this lead to any visible collective aesthetic trends? Finally, is the location specific or important to the statues and their interpretation? Through these questions, it will become clear that, as Hay et al (2004:203) clearly state, “monuments and memorials are at once an outcome and a medium of power.”
To begin, who gets memorialized with a statue? Here it is helpful to look at look at the statues in two groups: national heroes and folk heroes. The national heroes stand out in that they can all be linked to war or colonization. For instance, the large memorial dedicated to those who fought and died in WWII, and the statue erected in memory of the Spanish Civil War perhaps glorifying the act of war; or Captain Cook being prominently placed in the center of the harbour walk as one of the founders of the city, and a statue of Queen Victoria gazing out to the harbour both iconic images of the colonization of the area and it’s original habitants. The material culture represented by these statues fits into Shackel’s (2001:657) theory of memory and the exercise of power by excluding an alternative past, reinforcing patriotism, and using nostalgia to legitimize a particular heritage. In other words, the view of the dominant group is being maintained as people pass daily past these bronze images.
The two folk heroes included are Emily Carr, and Michael C. Williams. Emily Carr is certainly recognized on a grand scale, but is known for her painting more than anything. Williams, on the other hand, is probably best known locally, and perhaps this fact lends itself why his memorial is located some distances from the main group. Of note, however, is not who is here but who is missed. With no anthropogenic representation of any indigenous people, it shows how “the construction of a transplanted ‘European’ identity [and] the appropriation of meaning-space by colonists…are being maintained by cultural ascriptions that exclude indigenous people” (Hay et al 2004:213).
Next, to consider the aesthetic quality of the statues is to consider not their condition, but their construction; or more accurately, how they are depicted in posture and what, if any, personal affects are included. The colonial past is exemplified in this: Captain Cook stands tall and regal in full naval attire holding a rolled scroll under his arm – the epitome of the imperial seaman; Queen Victoria is in her full royal regalia: cape, crown and scepter, lording over the harbour on a massive stone pedestal; a WWII and Korean War memorial bronze looms on top of an equally huge stone monument depicting a man in a battle pose with rifle and bayonet. Conversely, a naval monument, instead of presenting the image in a similar fashion, shows a man returning home with a small child and dog running towards him with arm flung wide; heartfelt yes, but nonetheless conveys the sad cyclical nature of work away from home. Each of these examples, although not directly concerned with the colonial past, lends themselves to being interpreted as perpetuating the dominant heritage. Essentially, they “mark out favoured people and histories and ignore others… inculcat[ing] in us views of heritage preferred by dominant groups” (Hay et al 2004:203).
To further consider our folk heroes, we can see Williams holding a glass of wine, and Carr strangely depicted with a small dog at her feet and monkey on her shoulder. People seeing these bronze statues and not knowing of the individuals may construe an entirely unintended meaning. This all of course begs the question: Is this the way they wanted to be remembered? As Schwartz (1991:302) writes, “statues embody memory. They stand for the events and times, the achievements and values, that society chooses to look back on. Focusing thought on one statue after another evokes different categories of remembrance.” These memorials, intended or not, infer more about our society and ideological hegemony then they do about individuals (Hay et al. 2004).
Our final analysis comes in terms of location. All of the memorials in this data set are near the ocean. Some, like Queen Victoria and the WWII monument squarely look out to sea, where as the others do not. A notable example is Captain Cook: he stands very near the water, but faces away. The intent here may be for ease in viewing, or could convey a sense of discovery of a “new land;” a triumph. As Hay (2004:204) states, “The location of a commemorative artefact in the landscape may fortify, dilute or obscure the meanings intended by its producers.” In this case, we have no concept of the producers’ intended meaning, but it is fair to say that as every bronze statue has been erected on land historically and pre-historically utilized by a large indigenous population, the location of the statues certainly fortifies their intended placements. However, as Hay et al. (2004:204) later suggests, “the meanings and interpretations of those commemorative objects and mutable and fluid.” The viewing by the collective of Queen Victoria may no longer be one of prestige but one of contempt; the Navy memorial may fill some with joy, and other’s sadness. It is not just time which changes the reading of the monuments, but each individual’s life history in part dictates how these monuments are seen. The colonial elites can decide where a statue is placed, but they cannot dictate how these places are perceived or understood by the public (Hay et al. 2004:212).
The set of bronze statues welcoming visitors to the city of Victoria are shrouded in imperial history. From locally derived colonial attitudes to overseas national interests, these monuments perpetuate a heritage by which the dominant power maintains a symbolic hold on their people. Who is remembered, how they are presented, and where their statues are erected all help to maintain a collective social memory which chooses to forget.
Work Cited
Hay, Iain, Andrew Hughes, Mark Tutton
2004 Monuments, Memory and Marginalisation in Adelaide's Prince Henry Gardens. Human Geography 86(3):201-216 http://www.jstor.org/stable/3554332
Shackel, Paul A.
2001 Public Memory and the Search for Power in American Historical. American Anthropologist 103:655-670 http://www.jstor.org/stable/683605
Schwartz, Barry
1991 Iconography and Collective Memory: Lincoln's Image in the American Mind. The Sociological Quarterly 32(3):301-319 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120910
No comments:
Post a Comment