To me, the drive for monumentality is as inbred as the desire for food and sex, regardless of how we denigrate it. Monuments differ in different periods. Each age has its own.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
It appears to be monumental only because it's art.
I think if it's not monumental, there's no point.
My artistic decision to cast my mother's objects into bronze moves beyond the notions of memorializing her. I've been fascinated for some time with the idea of monumentality and what it means to memorialize. Both of these notions are relevant historically, artistically, and culturally.
Instead of causing us to remember the past like the old monuments, the new monuments seem to cause us to forget the future.
I think of a monument as being symbolic and for the people and therefore rhetorical, not honest, not personal.
Society is one vast conspiracy for carving one into the kind of statue likes, and then placing it in the most convenient niche it has.
I don't think all buildings have to be iconic, but the history of the world has shown us that cultures build iconic buildings for their major public buildings.
It is not architectural achievement that makes the structures of earlier times seem to us so full of significance but the circumstance that antique temples, Roman basilicas, and even the cathedrals of the Middle Ages are not the works of single personalities but creations of entire epochs.
People think our work is monumental because it's art, but human beings do much bigger things: they build giant airports, highways for thousands of miles, much, much bigger than what we create.
The same aspirations to celebrate and uplift the spirit that drove the Egyptians to build the pyramids are still driving us. The things we're doing differ only in magnitude.
No opposing quotes found.