Cape Breton's 'Mother Canada,' and when monuments go wrong

If one group of Canadians gets its way, a giant monument, and accompanying interpretive centre, will loom over the Atlantic Ocean in a Cape Breton Park. But the proposed "Mother Canada" statue, meant to commemorate Canadian soldiers who were buried abroad or lost at sea, has stirred up controversy. 

The plan is meant to honour Canadian soldiers who were buried abroad or lost at sea but there has been vocal opposition about the scale and location of the 'Mother Canada' memorial.

This isn't the only national monument proposal up for debate. Controversy has also dogged a planned memorial to 'Victims of Communism' -- right in the heart of the national capital.

Joan Coutu, Chair of the Department of Fine Arts at the University of Waterloo, says these stories are more evidence that we're doing it all wrong when it comes to creating memorials and monuments in Canada.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.     

What do you think of this proposed "Mother Canada" monument in Cape Breton?
Well, there are two parts to that question and the first is location. I'm very concerned, as are many, many people, that it sits on this beautiful piece of nature along the Cabot Trail, that's known for its beauty. All of a sudden, we're creating this man-made thing and plunking it in there: it's going to disrupt that beauty entirely.

Aesthetically the statue is, frankly, appalling, in my estimation. It doesn't answer the desire to commemorate the forgotten, it simply looks like a very large female figure with outstretched arms. It doesn't suggest mourning, it doesn't suggest loss, it doesn't suggest memory.

In your mind, seeing the illustrations of this, what does it suggest?
She has this almost zombie quality and I can't get out of my imagination what she might look like once the figure has experienced a north Atlantic ice storm, with all the ice dripping off of her. In fact, it would be more disturbing than maternal.

We have heard quite a bit of opposition to a number of planned monuments, lately. What does that tell you about the way we've been going about this?
Well, it seems to me that these monuments are not really coming from 'the people' themselves but rather from smaller groups who have vested interests, perhaps, in a monument going up. There doesn't seem to be a lot of public support for these particular monuments and the process in which the monuments have got to the stage they've gotten to; a process that doesn't seem to involve the public very much.

Give us an example of a major monument, somewhere, that got it right?
In terms of permanent monuments, I think there are a couple of fabulous examples. One is the Monument to the Vietnam Veterans in Washington, D.C., designed by Maya Lin. That goes back to the 1980s but it's an incredibly effective monument. It was subject to a lot of controversy in the process of its design when it was put up, but once it was unveiled there was almost unanimous support for it. It demands that individuals or groups spend time with the monument, looking for the names of the people that have passed.

That's how a monument can be really effective: it's about engaging people -- making them stop and think and spend time with it. Another really fabulous example, in my estimation, is Peter Eisenman's Monument to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin, which was unveiled at the beginning of this millennium. It, too, demands a lot of engagement; you actually have to walk into the monument to experience it.