Women's Memorial

[Dragon]

If you don't like it, what images would you have included?

Gwyn

[marina]

Whatever else went in, there would be face and form.

[ypres]

I agree with Marina,

this one is too impersonal.

Mandy

[AndyHollinger]

I don't remember with certainty, but isn't there a plaque to women with an image inside the Scottish Memorial in Edinburough?

The image of hats and coats works for me in that they left a life and went back to one after service and sacrifice ... it also shows all the different roles they played .... but, hey, I may be a bit strange. Memorials have a way of displeasing everyone. The planned inscription seems a bit much, though.

[Guest John Crawley]

There are over 60,000 war memorials in the British Isles. Not even one is a memorial to just the women who served. Yes, there are a few that include a nurse, etc. The Friends of War Memorials web site in the UK has a wealth of information.

Women only memorials can be found in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada and probably elsewhere, but I not sure.

In perspective, coats and hats hanging on a wall just doesn't seem enough. It does not convey the importance of the sacrifice, the effort, the contribution...the result.

I think the whole concept should be rethought.

John

[Myrtle]

Women and clothes.

I don't see this as an appropriate memorial to women's service in any war.

[marina]

To me it makes the wearing of the uniforms seem like a freakish event, soon cast off. It diminishes achievement, making what the women wore seem more important than what they actually did.

It's a 'Hello' magazine kind of monument where appearance is all.

Marina

[Clive Maier]

I did find a rationale of the memorial design some days ago but refrained from posting it. I thought many Pals would find it so exasperating that it would take some of the shine off the memorial. That seems to have happened anyway, so here it is. The remarks date from March 2001, when the plan was to have a statue of an air raid warden shielding children, mounted on a ‘coat rack’ plinth. The quote comes from a York newspaper – I think the Evening Press - that was reporting the views of David Robertson, who coordinated a fund-raising campaign. Major Robertson may or may not have been quoted accurately or fully. The article says:

Artist Anthony Stones' design is a bronze statue of a woman bending to shelter children, and fellow sculptor John Mills has designed a plinth showing the many uniforms worn by women, to be carved in stone.

Major Robertson said: "The statue represents a woman doing a man's job, wearing men's clothing and a steel helmet, and she is sheltering the children who are our future and the nation. We liked the plinth because it represents the many different jobs women did."

You can see the full article here.

By the way, according to other references on the web, a large part of the cost will be spent not on the memorial itself but on strengthening the road underneath it. Apparently it is to stand directly over a tube tunnel.

[marina]

Wearing man's clothes? They just can't get away from clothes, can they? But it's a very old deep rooted prejudice. This article reminds me of the trial of Joan of Arc - where her military sucesses were second to the fact that she didn't wear a dress, which suggested to the inquisitors that she had rejected her God given female role, and was therefore a highly suspect personality in league with Dark Forces. She would have been 'forgiven' if she'd got back into a dress.

By showing empty uniforms, could the Major and the sculptor be demonstrating unconsciously a traditional unease at being confronted by women who do not conform to female stereotype? Is there a subterranean wish to shove them back in the closet by defining them as empty uniforms hanging on a coat rack? I'm beginning to think they should have found a sculptress for this memorial.

Marina

[Dragon]

Faced with representing a large range of roles taken by women in the last war, where would one start? I think the coats and uniforms idea is a creative response. Clothes are a close, intimate representative of the person.

My impression is that any woman who served in any way could step into one of those garments and resume her role. Every role is given individual significance. By avoiding the exposition of a face, the costumes represent Everywoman.

No-one knows where the women went afterwards. Some went home, some were employed, some went – where? The unanswered question is part of the complexity and interest.

The air raid warden sheltering children idea is derivative and seems to me to be based on a posed sentimental photo which had some currency during the period and would have been called propaganda in some circumstances. I’m glad that itwas not the final choice.

Gwyn

[michaeldr]

I wish that we had heard from some of the ladies who actually took part in WWII.

I realise that it is a very unsatisfactory substitution, however I have been trying to imagine what my late mother [a nurse in WWII] would have made of the coat rack idea and I have to say ‘Not very much.’ I imagine that ladies of her generation would have felt more at ease with the maternal and protective ideals as portrayed by the figure of the Air-Raid Warden and the children.

This also raises the question; ‘For whom is the memorial intended?’ If it is to remind this and future generations of women’s service way back in 1939-45, then the modern idea may well work. However if its purpose is to show belated respect to the women who actually served, then I fear that they might not be too impressed.

Regards

Michael D.R.

[Clive Maier]

There can never be universal agreement about a memorial design. Neither the ‘coat rack’ nor the warden convey quite the right message for me but that’s just my opinion. The strange thing is that this is a national memorial and it is to be erected largely out of public funds but there does not seem to have been any public process for women to determine what they wanted by way of theme, depiction or inscription. There was evidently a competition – it would be interesting to know the remit – and some sort of decision made, or perhaps fudged, by a committee. I have certainly never seen newspaper pictures of shortlisted designs with a call for comment. Judging by this thread, neither has anyone else. How can this be? How can the project have been conducted in such a way that even women on this forum, who are more interested than most in this matter, knew nothing about it and had no opportunity to contribute?

[Quew]

There is now an artical and photo's of 'The Nurses Memorial Chapel' Christchurch NZ on the cemeteries and memorials section of this forum

Quew NZ

[marina]

Quew's post concerning the brave New Zealand nurses shows the great unselfishness and courage of these women. Glad to see new Zeland thibks they deserve more than a coat rack.

Marina

[marina]

Godfrey Bloom, new member of the European Parliament's Committee for Women's Issues , quoted in today's Guardian:

'I want to deal with women's issues because they don't clean behind the fridge often enough'

'I am here to represent Yorkshire women, who always have the dinner on the table when you get home.'

'No self respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age.'

'The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment'

Nice to know that women's issues are in good hands and that whoever appointed him takes the matter so seriously.

Could he be the author of 'back to whence they came'?

Marina

[Dragon]

I'm beginning to think they should have found a sculptress for this memorial.

And perhaps a female sculptor would have come up with exactly the same idea. Or one which aroused equally varied opinions.

Suppose Rachel Whiteread...

Her pieces are grounded in everyday life, intimate, homely artefacts and structures, setting or moulding objects in plaster, rubber, or resin before discarding the mould to reveal the spaces or inverses of the objects in a negative replica. Her references are always human, the things humans used or even inhabited (House), with their own history. She uses them as metaphors, as, it seems to me, John Mills is doing and she lets viewers bring their own knowledge and experience to each piece.

Therefore, I can quite imagine Rachel Whiteread using clothing as imagery and allowing viewers to imagine inhabiting those clothes, taking those roles. Remember the controversy which accompanied the design and construction of her Holocaust Memorial in Judenplatz, Vienna (the closed books and inverted windowless library), yet now it is in situ, it has been recognised as harrowing, austere and very moving.

I like the way the Mills design resists the traditional and expected conventions of memorial creation. I like its ambivalence to the roles of women during and after the War. I like it for the reasons I've expanded in my previous contributions. We all have a right to an opinion on something which will be placed in our surroundings. I don't feel I'm denying my gender in liking this visual metonymy. I also like Sue's suggestion that a triptych would have been effective.

I have known about this project for a while, but it never occurred to me to debate it in this Forum.

Gwyn

[marina]

[quote=marina,Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:27:42

I also like Sue's suggestion that a triptych would have been effective.

I have known about this project for a while, but it never occurred to me to debate it in this Forum.

Gwyn

I like the triptych idea too - maybe we should send a petition!

As for what Whiteread, or any other female would have done, I never second guess an artist.

It never occurred to me either that when Chris first posted about it ( I had never heard of the project before), such an interesting discussion would emerge. Varied in our opinions we might be, but the whole thread has clearly shone light on a neglected area, that of women's role in the war.

And why is the Great War not included in the concept? Did you hear anything about that, Gwyn?

[Terry_Reeves]

In fact this has been an area of research for almost 40 years now. There are many, many books and articles covering this aspect of 20th century history. Indeed the importance of women to the way effort was recognised by the IWM before the end of the war, with the establishment the Womens War Work sub committee. Largely due the efforts the committee Chairman, Lady Norman, and secretary, Agnes Conway, a major collection of contemporary photographs and and documents was established which runs to over 200 box files.

Terry Reeves

[Myrtle]

I do not regard the "clothes rack" as an appropriate memorial to women's service during WW2 as the subject matter reminds me of a first hand observational exercise that Art teachers often set for their GCSE groups. I am sure that Barbara Hepworth or Elizabeth Frink would have produced a more profound piece of sculpture.

[Myrtle]

There seems to be some need for clarification regarding this sculpture. According to the Artist's (John W. Mills) website the memorial is to be "The National Memorial for all The Women who Lost their Lives in The Second World War". The image of empty uniforms and coats makes more sense if the sculpture is commemorating those women who died.

[Dragon]

There seems to be some need for clarification regarding this sculpture.

As I said on Sunday, I've emailed the artist. I've made further inquiries and written some more letters. When I have some information that I'm able to put on the Internet, I will share it, provided that my sources agree.

Gwyn

Edited 24 July , 2004 by Dragon

[Myrtle]

I've had a reply from his representatives and when I have some information that I'm able to put on the Internet, I will share it, provided that my sources agree.

In the meantime, I've made some further inquiries and written a few letters.

Gwyn

Look forward to hearing more about the original criteria for the design of monument and how the memorial will be titled.

[Guest John Crawley]

Clive; in my opinion the Telegraph article contains a few errors.

Women veterans did not point out the fact that there were no war memorials for women in England, my mother did.

She is an ex-A.T.S. member who served with the "Famous 93rd", the only all womens WW2 Searchlight Unit in Britain. In a 1996 letter to Major Robertson, after she had researched the subject, she pointed out the dismal fact and asked him to join with her and her group who had already started the project to have a memorial constructed/erected commemorating the Service Women of WW2.

Major Robertson (Ret.) disputed her fact finding, but afterwards conceded the truth of her statements.

He agreed to 'come on board' (1997) to head up the English component, actually published some letterhead showing a war memorial with three female statues, solicited support and funds from many of the womens veteran associations based on the Service Womens Statues, but later mutineed (1998), changed the concept of the project away from Service Women to Women Who Served and let on that he had started the project, independently from anyone else, after he had determined there were no womens memorials and that he would be supported by the various womens associations.

The estimated cost at the beginning of the project, according to Major Robertson, was 7,000 to 9,000 pounds. Apparently he had a friend who could handle the project. It later climbed to 125,000 pounds and now sits at just under 1,000,000 pounds. Expensive bronze!

Many, many British veterans are not happy with the selected style of the memorial, but feel unable to stop the train. The political theatre has taken over and the political correctness of a memorial to all women who sacrificed during the war, although deserving of recognition, was not the original intention.

I guess there isn't room for two memorials for women in a country with over 60,000 memorials to men.

Letters supporting the above statements are on file in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

John

[DirtyDick]

Obviously a long overdue women's memorial if you are correct in saying that 60,000 are (directly or indirectly) dedicated to men, for tangible reasons given the composition of the armed forces, and only two for women.

I think over 600 ATSs were killed 'in action' during WW2 alone (and no doubt equivalent numbers of ARPs etc.), not forgetting the female ancillary units of both world wars who also suffered casualties.

Bizarre memorial and not to my taste, but there are no doubt many such unattractive memorials dedicated to others dotted around the Country. I sometimes feel that the artists are more concerned about making a name for themselves through producing such 'challenging' works that are reported with mixed views in the Press, and again in impressing their own community - vide the Turner Prize winners and runners up - but that is the way of the world.

(I remember that my first university had a new logo designed for them at a cost of over £200,000: they could have had a free-for-all among the students and general public, with perhaps a £5,000 prize and the credit for this on their CVs, and saved a vast sum of money for more useful purposes ... erm... like teaching people or providing more reference works and computers.)

Richard

[Clive Maier]

John,

As I mentioned earlier, I am amazed that a national memorial seems to be coming into being without having been subject to a public process. I think this is entirely wrong and I hope women will challenge it. The positioning of this memorial in Whitehall and near the Cenotaph will inevitably make it THE women’s memorial, so if the theme or the message is not what women want, it should be contested and quickly.

I think you are wrong about 60,000 memorials to men. The great majority of public memorials record the fallen of the armed forces, regardless of sex. In WWI this did mean that the names on most memorials were exclusively male. That in turn resulted in great many inscriptions with a male assumption that coexist uneasily with the very many female names that were added after WWII. I can't offhand think of a public memorial that was men-only by design rather than happenstance.