Monuments of the Future: Planning for a more Equitable Public Space

Подписаться 5 тыс.

Просмотров 1,3 тыс.

50% 1

What will monuments of the future look like? What stories belong in public spaces? What is the role of planners, designers, historians, and artists in this conversation? The Urban Design & Preservation Division and the Arts & Planning Division are partnering to have a conversation about what planners can do beyond monument removal. Thought leader and Co-Director of the Monument Lab, Paul Farber, will present findings of the nation-wide Monument Audit. The National Monument Audit allows us to better understand the dynamics and trends that have shaped our monument landscape, to pose questions about common knowledge about monuments, and to debunk falsehoods and misperceptions within public memory. Paul Farber will also share the Monument Lab's Re:Generation project which explores the question "Which stories belong in public?". Re:Generation is a nationwide participatory public art and history project organized by Monument Lab. The project elevates people shaping the next generation of monuments reckoning with and reimagining public memory. By sharing examples of underrepresented stories in public spaces, planners will see the possibilities for how we imagine monuments of the future.
Guest Host: APA Urban Design and Preservation Division + APA Arts and Planning Division
CM 1.5
Eq 1.0

Опубликовано:

23 апр 2023

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 1

@patrickkelly5111 6 месяцев назад

Many people have strong feelings about legacy monuments, including those "glorifying" war. Did Mr. Faber participate in the battle that’s being commemorated, or serve under a particular bronze-cast leader on horseback? How might war veterans, their families, relatives, and friends react to Paul's talk, which focuses on the notion of inherent toxicity of such monuments, commemorating a wartime or other event? Should we just truck these pieces away without regard to their feelings? I don't know the answer to that, but this dimension seems absent in Paul's mostly philosophical discussion. The idea that a horse in a war monument is 'just as much about ecology as it is about war' is a little surprising, and probably wasn't on the mind of the artist or commissioner at all, who conceived of the piece with a specific event and intent, and to the audience at the time (which didn't include Paul). Is Paul being presumptuous? We can't say for sure, because toxicity and misrepresentation are the mains views in his prepared talk. I wonder if Monument Lab thinks about these things.