reflection

This week seemed especially long. For the lab we observed the roll that the monuments play in life and how people react to the monuments. We saw their identity not only as a national icon, but as a regular building. It was interesting to watch the people engage the building. In class on Friday we reflected on the performance each piece presented with some members of the Board of Trustees. This was an interesting activity because we got to see a different perspective from someone who has lived longer than we have. There were a couple of points in class that I wanted to respond to and because we were short on time I did not voice my opinion. Everyone kept saying that the Korean and Vietnam Memorial was more emotional for those who visited because it was not a glorified war such as World War II. First I think it is important to realize that the Washington DC WWII memorial is not “thee” memorial. The main one is located at Pearl Harbor and that is where people go to memorialize those lost in the war. The WWII memorial in DC is more of a national representation bringing the states together. Everything people said in class was correct about the emotional detachment, but I disagreed with the reasoning. I think it is important to realize that the WWII memorial was “just” built. It opened in 2004, over 50 years after the war ended, while in comparison the Korean opened in 1995 and the Vietnam in 1982. Those wars were more recent than WWII so those who fought were still alive to mourn. The average age of a soldier serving in WWII around 65 or 70 when the memorial opened, most started to die so it does not create as much as an impact. I really do not think it has to do with the impact of the wars, but it has to do with the time period and the identity of the monument. I think it needs to be clear that no war is glorified, simply the grieving time has passed, and to most people it is a piece of history, not really a “current event” such as the Korean or Vietnam wars. Another point that I wanted to make in class was in reference to the Lincoln memorial. It was brought up how the Lincoln Memorial was modeled after the Temple of Zeus and PTJ asked if the memorial is treated like a temple. Some people said it was because it is such a national figure however when I observed the interaction of people with the monument the idea of a temple did not come across. I had already known that the Lincoln Memorial was modeled after this particular temple and I thought it was humorous to watch people “desecrate” that temple. I saw many people using it as a place of exercise, a meeting place, and a lunch stop. From my understanding, those are not normal activities for a temple. I would expect sovereign respect all around. I’m not saying people were not respectful, but I didn’t see the identity of a temple coming into play. Lincoln is a figurehead and the fact that was “thee” tourist attraction was very clear, but it did not serve as a temple. Those were just a couple of things that I wanted to say in class, but ran out of time to say. Not very important, but that is all I have to reflect on for this week. The baseball game was fun. It was my first so I enjoyed the experience! Sadly, the Nationals lost, but at least they scored one run in the 8th inning!