Don't put them up on a pedestal

I'll be honest right from the outset here ... I don't like statues. 

They were very much in the news a couple of years ago with the pulling down, defacing and/or removal of those that commemorate people with dubious pasts, such as Edward Colston's statue in Bristol. 

Making a statue of someone is all a bit too 'hero-worshippy' for my tastes. There's a clear and direct line that can be traced from the worship of idols and gods, to statues of emperors and empresses, kings and queens, and then to military leaders and people who have done 'great things'. 

The practice has actually given us a figure of speech - to put someone 'up on a pedestal' is to revere them, to make them an object of devotion. Unfortunately, however, humans are fallible creatures and, as time goes on, skeletons can emerge from their closets. It's also been the case that, historically, statues of the good and the great have been erected by their peers rather than by public demand or subscription. 

Okay, so sometimes statues are put up by the will of the people - the statues of Eric Morecombe and Frank Sidebottom come to mind. But these instances are rare. Most of the time we have little say in matters. I'm pretty sure that the poorer residents of Grantham did not applaud £300,000 of public money being spent on Douglas Jennings' statue of Margaret Thatcher when they were queuing at food banks. Even the unveiling ceremony cost £100,000. And, within hours, the statue had been egged and defaced.

I don't condone vandalism. And I love public art. Public art can give a place an identity and provide people with a sense of pride in where they live. Anthony Gormley's The Angel of the North does that. Andy Scott's The Kelpies of Falkirk do that. Copenhagen's Little Mermaid does that. Public art can even help to regenerate areas - you only have to look at the success of places like Shoreditch and Brick Lane in London, or Margate, or Folkestone in Kent where becoming the UK's largest outdoor art gallery has brought shoppers and visitors back to what was once a run-down seaside town (see here). 

But statues of individuals rarely have the same effect. 

Take Winston Churchill's statue in Parliament Square for example. There's no doubting the fact that Churchill led us to victory in WW2. But what we should be commemorating is the efforts of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who died so that Churchill could have his victory. 'But wait!' I hear you cry, 'Surely the statue of Winston Churchill was erected as a thank you by a grateful nation?' Well no. Churchill was voted out as Prime Minister as soon as the war was over and the statue didn't go up until 1973 - 28 years after the end of hostilities and 8 years after his death. And it wasn't the public who asked for a statue. It was John Tilney MP who suggested it in 1968. And, for the next five years, a committee led by Edward Heath, Lord Mountbatten, Lord Portal and Baroness Elliot set out to raise the sum of £32,000 - the equivalent of half a million today - from sponsors to pay for it. Once again, it's a statue of a person erected by his peers and equals. 

And you could hardly call it a tourist attraction or a figure that attracts visits from a significant amount of the British public. What it does attract is vandalism by people who protest the fact that Churchill was a racist and a misogynist - at least, by today's standards.

In Victoria Embankment Gardens in London you'll find great examples of how I think things should be done. Yes, it does have statues of controversial military men like Gordon of Khartoum and 'Buckshot' Forster that stand in front of the monolithic Ministry of Defence building (with its carved Charles Weaver figures of Earth and Water over the door). But you'll also find poignant memorials to the Fleet Air Arm, the Chindit Campaign, and the Imperial Camel Corps. They're far more interesting things to look at. They mark the bravery and sacrifice of everyone who fought in those campaigns or served in those units, not just their commanding officers. They all carry details of the events they memorialise too - something statues don't always have. And they're nice works of art. 

Meanwhile, what do we do with the statues of those people who have fallen from grace? 

It was interesting to see Banksy's response to the toppling of the Edward Colston statue in Bristol. He suggested that: 'We drag him out the water, put him back on the plinth, tie cables round his neck and commission some life-sized bronze statues of protesters in the act of pulling him down. Everyone happy. A famous day commemorated.' 

Personally, I think it was a brilliant solution. It would have reinstated the statue, educated the public and also become a work of contemporary art. But it didn't happen. Instead, the statue was preserved in a museum. Which begs the question of why? 

Is it because Colston - who made a great deal of his fortune from slavery - was also a philanthropist and did much for the city? Well, Jimmy Savile was a philanthropist too. He raised tens of millions for charities and other worthy causes. Yet Savile's statue in Glasgow was taken down and destroyed. Is that because we see paedophilia as worse than slavery? If that's how we think, it's no wonder Colston's statue was toppled.

As a society we have much to learn. 

And we can make a good start by memorialising events and not by idolising individuals.