The winning bid for a $3.5 million contract to design a new memorial to Canadian military veterans of the war in Afghanistan from a Montreal-based studio that was replaced by the government has prompted a lawsuit by its architect. Renée Daoust is suing the federal government after it replaced hers with a proposal from the Indigenous artist Adrian Stimson citing an apparently “un-scientific” online survey, according to the CBC’s reporting last month.
"We're very concerned because it does create a precedent, a very dangerous precedent for Canada in terms of competitions, public art competitions, architectural competitions and so on," Daoust told the broadcaster. "There was political interference, so we don't want this to happen again."
Stimson is reportedly working to finalize his design without a clear resolution in sight. The American National Global War on Terror memorial in Washington, D.C. from Marlon Blackwell Architects is also being planned for the National Mall.
7 Comments
I am not particularly fond of the hollowed-out combat gear sculpture and bunkered walls of the imposed memorial.
But hey, who is not aware of what goes around these types of politically motivated architectural competitions in general?
Let's see here, you send your working-class army to impose your colonialism on the other side of the world, to the place those young men and women know nothing about, get them killed, and build a memorial of that, and select a design that displays the armor of the dead as if they were killed in Trojan wars.
That is what's wrong with the whole thing, not the backstage power-mongering that typically takes place behind the doors.
As an aside and I'm probably off, but there seems something mocking and critical in the sculpture. It reminds me of a Kienholz.
Gary, did you mean this? https://blog.lalouver.com/post/163231531154/ed-kienholz-initially-conceived-the-non-war
I didn't know this, but it certainly works.
@Orhan wow that is a great find and new to me. Which were you thinking of Gary?
I didn't have one particular in mind. More generally his use of assemblage for striking, sometimes caustic effect.
If you read the article apparently the rationale for the substitution is explained as the preference of the veterans & families of service members, etc. Reminds me of the case with the Vietnam War memorial which was strongly opposed by some veterans and service members at the time. They apparently also preferred a more representational memorial that had sculptures of figures and gear, etc. I learned that in the Maya Lin documentary which is very good.
I don't blame the service members and their families for having this opinion... I'm not sure why they lean that way pscyhologically... but this is a public memorial for everyone in our country and maybe the example of the Vietnam War Memorial should have shown it's worth trusting the professional jury.
Viewing it as a built installation one day, one may be feel the silhouettes of the army gear here as glorifying like Orhan suggested, but perhaps would just seem a bit 'odd', possibly a bit haunting, but probably just an unmemorable sculptural element that children will paw at and people pose next to in pictures.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.