I saw a link to an article this week entitled “20 things
only history students understand” (1) and read it with some amusement - a
number prompting a smile or even a ‘lol’ moment and the only obvious omission being:
‘when pub quizzing everyone always expects you to get the history questions
correct… do you not know the breadth of what the subject “history” covers”!!!!
That said and all jokes aside, the second statement really stuck with me,
because its true isn’t it? To quote the article, “you’ve had enough of learning
about the Nazis – yes you understand their significance and accept why they can
be fascinating, but you’ve had it drilled into your throughout your whole
education – give it a rest!” I mean no disrespect at all in repeating that article;
I personally find it one of the most fascinating periods of history and have
chosen to continue studying it in higher education for that reason. In fact, I
chose my University based on the expertise of staff who specialised in the
Second World War and Holocaust Studies (I know, how I got onto the Victorians
and animal history is a blog for another time)… but it did become quite oppressive.
It is all I remember about secondary school history and the
majority of A Level history too. There may be a little bit about Motte and Bailey
castles, the abolition movement and history of medicine mixed in there, but
predominately I have good recall on events in Europe during the Second World
War. It’s a shame in a way, because it becomes so drilled into students that I do
think it loses that originality which makes it an interesting topic to learn
about and engage with. If you’re told the same things over and over again there
comes a point where you’re not open to the new and more interesting narratives
that might be being offered to you.
It’s become clearer to me recently that there is actually a
lot more to the events of this period than we are ever told at school or indeed
that are so far missing from the mainstream that very few people actually know
about them. Of course topics and events like the Weimar Republic, Rise of
Hitler, the Anschluss, and Holocaust take precedence when examining European
events, while at home the Blitz, rationing and evacuation dominate the narrative.
But the Second World War was all encompassing and as such resonated within so
many different areas of society; a fact I think is all too easily often
forgotten and one that certainly isn’t shown to students. I know they are
taught what is on the curriculum in order for them to complete coursework and
pass exams, but I just wonder what the effect would be if an alternative
approach was taken (I think I shall do some investigation into the curriculum
changes for a future blog and follow up on this point).
One of my favourite projects conducted as part of the MA was
the research paper I wrote on a fascinating set of sources I found by chance at
Surrey History Centre. These were the diaries of Philip Bradley, a fairground
enthusiast, which were filled with notes and newspaper clippings that gave invaluable
insight into the affect the war had on fairgrounds and their professionals. I
was fascinated to read how rationing impacted what prizes were offered and how
steam engines were commandeered for the war effort, in particular demolition
work. At a high level we are taught the basic concepts; the policies, reasoning
and impact, but very rarely are we shown the impact at a grass roots level and
this project on fairgrounds showed me that. It took one group of professionals
and highlighted their plight and huge contribution to this life changing
conflict - it really brought it home for me.
And this brings me nicely on to what prompted this blog in
the first place – the 2014 film The
Monuments Men, directed by George Clooney. I’d heard about the film and was
intrigued by the plot but until I received it for Christmas I hadn’t got around
to watching it. So last night I got cosy with a cup of tea and some chocolate
(so much for the January diet I hear you cry) to see what it was about. I’ll be
honest, it was a slow burner but it did raise some very thought provoking
statements, well obviously if it prompted this blog.
 |
| The Monuments Men, 2014. |
The film is based on the true story of The Monuments Men, a
group of men and women from thirteen nations, who volunteered for service in
the MFAA – Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives Section – in order to save as much
of European Culture as they could from being destroyed, both accidently and deliberately,
during the war. Amongst them there were museum directors, curators, art
scholars, artists and architects all of whom entered professions which would
see them dedicated their life to culture, whether creating it, restoring it or critiquing
it. So when war broke out it almost seems natural that they would step forward
to protect it from ultimate destruction. I therefore ask, why has it remained
one of those aspects of war very few people know about?
In this opening speech Clooney as lead character Frank
Stokes, presents his argument for the taskforce to the President, stating that “we
are at a point in this war that is the most dangerous to the greatest
historical achievements known to man” and that “while we must and will win this
war, we should also remember the high price that will be paid if the very foundation
of modern society is destroyed…”. Stokes and team then go on to salvage stolen works of art from houses and mines, and if it can be taken as a true reflection of what was identified and found, then it was an astounding amount. As the film develops you realised that in Stokes' mind, art, culture and history are the basis of identity and if that is lost, then
it is as if those people, societies and generations never existed. This was a fight for identity.
The narrative is actually very poignant and emotionally
charged, especially when you consider that many people posed the question, “is
art worth a life?” when they heard of this work. But when you understand the
motives of those involved and why they were willing to risk their lives, than the answer to
that question becomes clear.
I was left asking myself a great many questions. Would we,
in modern society, react in the same way? Would there be people who put their
lives on the line to protect and secure art from destruction and return it to
the many? Is our cultural identity as tied to these traditional and priceless
works of art as it once was, or has time moved on? And, would we still look to
preserve the classics, or would we just be looking to preserve modern art, the
likes of Warhol and Hirst?
.JPG) |
| Authors own Photo |
It is hard to envisage the reckless destruction that
occurred during that time, but it highlights another side to the war – the
assault on cultural identity and questions of ownership. I can’t imagine not
having seen first-hand the Mona Lisa or Venus De Milo in Paris - just imagine
what it would be like to only know of these artworks and not be able to
experience them first hand. It was a great thing those of the MFAA did and I am
glad that this film has highlighted their work. I just think it is so important
we try and find ways of communicating these aspects of the war to students and
not just the more conventional narrative, it could be hugely successful way of
reinvigorating interesting and putting a stop to those “give it a rest!”
comments. I for one will be looking into this in a little more depth!
For another perspective on the film I found a great blog piece here - http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/monuments-men-wonders-art-worth-life
For another perspective on the film I found a great blog piece here - http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/monuments-men-wonders-art-worth-life
No comments:
Post a Comment