To Ricardo's question about Saddam's cinematic destruction, I would suggest
that film is only visual when projected or re-produced in frames, but until
that point is merely reels of celluloid in cans--an industrial item
resembling so many others. The specific Saddam propaganda dramas, I hope,
will be and should be preserved; those who know where they are and how
they're stored are hopefully still on the scene to protect them. The number
of people who know the whereabouts of these films must be miniscule.
The other question about the reason for statue destruction is as old as
the history of the making of leaders' statues. Queen Hatshepsut's face and
statue representations in 15th c. BC were altered, defaced or destroyed by
her inheritors to Egypt's throne. And on it goes from there. Roman history
is rife with statue destruction. The statue of the potentate is the most
visible, immediate and literal representation of the leader. It's the
simulation of the leader's entire body, I think, that not only lends the
statue power, but also makes it the most natural and obvious target of
destruction once that leader is brought down. The act of bringing it down is
also obviously cathartic. Those bringing it down are also most likely to be
the poorest (as in Baghdad) who are unable to flee the capital during sieges
and wars. The fact that Saddam had his statue representation duplicated and
fashioned in various guises (one famous example is Saddam in Bedouin garb),
and thus fulfilling various mythical visual roles in the Arab and Iraqi
imagination, indicated that he understood the statue's multiple layers of
meaning, usefulness and power. The Fertile Crescent itself is home to some
of the world's first great statuary, so all of this can be seen as a
historical continuum, as well.
I think the disturbance over the broadcast images of the toppling of
Saddam's statue reflects the nature of the global media, and how every
camera (from every network) tells a different story, and how no single
camera can be trusted. But what is far more disturbing to me is the news
(which I heard on both the BBC and NPR) of the looting of the national
museum in the heart of Baghdad. The upper floors were apparently spared from
the thievery, but the lower floor was tragically ransacked of priceless
objects of Mesopotamian antiquity. I have been monitoring the news for more
detailed reports on this outrage, but have heard nothing more; if anyone has
further details, please pass them on. This is a pox on all their houses (the
Yanks for failing miserably to at least place some soldier/guards at the
entrances to the museum, and the Baghdad thieves for destroying art that has
nothing to do with Saddam). If this trend grows, we are facing a tragedy of
huge consequences to the world of art and history.
Robert Koehler
|