Art historian Margaret Aston has noted the aesthetic parallels between the “white walls” of post-iconoclasm Northern Europe and the Neoplatonic interest in classical purity and clarity of form that we associate with the humanists of the Italian Renaissance. Moving beyond the clich that tells us that early modern Northern Europe was more often than not hostile to humanism and the visual arts, most scholars working now in the intersection of arts and theology have uncovered a more balanced and interesting history in which context was everything. Many of the same preachers who tore art off the walls of their churches saw nothing wrong with using similar images for private enjoyment and even devotions. The closest equivalent Americans have today to the historical controversies around churches might be memorial art and architecture. Since Maya Lin’s Vietnam War Memorial (1983), we have been torn between figurative realism and abstraction, between specificity and universality. Many recent public monuments have tried to satisfy everyone, often with an awkward mixture of individual names and blocky sculptural shapes symbolically representing some experience. And yet, people are driven to personalize those memorials by leaving flowers, photos, and so forth. Select a civic memorial space from the past 25 years and analyze it. Consider public and private responses, the collective/individual tension of representation, and historical precedent (or its rejection). What makes a “successful” design in this field? Use specific examples in your argument and illustrate as needed.
Hide
