In his book Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the National mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape, Kirk Savage states that the reason why Americans visits monuments is because “there is a face-to-face encounter, with the public, the monument speaks to deep needs of attachment that can only be met in a real place”. I agree with Savage’s statement because it explains how monuments and the public audience are capable of a having a connection which leads to the encounter to become emotional and educational, causing the audience to process what they see and learn. One example of this is the 9/11 memorial site. When people go to this site, they become overwhelmed and captivated by what they see. It’s a memorial site that brings people to tears because of the history that’s behind it. This is a site that causes the public to react and respond. …show more content…
The point of Savage’s argument is that monuments are not supposed to make you feel like they are unreal, like your imagination; they are supposed to enlighten you, by the connection you feel between the monument. Another monument that helps agree with Savage’s point of view is the MLK monument in Washington D.C. This monument is very mesmerizing and artistically attractive to the public audience. The monument seems to be so life like that it’s hard to believe that it’s a monument. The connection that’s encountered when looking at the monument, is the connection that individual feels throughout the body; causing the individual to fully take in what they