Add new comment

Ok... I could read this book, but could you provide me with instances of statues that aren't statist? Also this title has a question not an exclamation mark. Author assumes that statues are likely to be considered statist, yet on the other hand is there anything authoritarian with the timeless practice of leaving historical marks of our existences? I don't think so.

I'm thinking of what Mesopotamian cultures tendency in their architecture to "sign" their buildings on the buried foundation stones, so that even when the buildings have collapsed, people thousands of years later would still be able to read the background behind those buildings. This practice wasn't about enforcing a view to ulterior generations, but rather to keep records of "what happened here", while it can be authoritarian in the way that it may be only reflecting the POV of the ruling establishment. But empires weren't always that self-interested. Ancient Egyptians did love to depict the entirete of social life in their art, unlike some fascistic civilizations like Greco-Romans or Babylonians, showing randos in doing stuff their daily lives. That's also the society known for having likely created popular literature, with a growing literary tradition of folk tales and songs.

I do know some instances of statues (and other carvings) that aren't authoritarian. Etrusquean carvings depicting couples in love... Middle Eastern statues of mothers... or some archaic "porn"... These statues had a place in their time, and this is the aspect we should look into. Museums got them, now, but what was their purpose or location in their world?