Politics

Icons we could do without

There are a number of Seattle landmarks I'd be happy to see disappear. Why not take a hammer to Hammering Man, or deport Lenin back to Russia?

Icons we could do without
Advertisement

by

Knute Berger

There are a number of Seattle landmarks I'd be happy to see disappear. Why not take a hammer to Hammering Man, or deport Lenin back  to Russia?

There has been much debate in recent months about the proposal to  allow giant, illuminated corporate signs atop some of Seattle’s  skyscrapers. Proponents have argued that it’s no big deal. Seattle is a  commercial center, so why hide it? Opponents have said the skyline is a  precious resource, why tart it up with glowing logos against the  backdrop of Mount Rainier?

You would think something as iconic as the city skyline would be,  well, iconic, meaning it has transcended debate to become a thing unto  itself, something we take for granted, as natural as rain. But people  see it differently. Some see a forest of highrises set prettily against  a backdrop of snowy mountains. Others see an urban cityscape where  change is the restless norm.

The argument that a giant sign on the former WaMu Building touting  Russell Investments, the new tenant, will allow the company free  advertising on every postcard sold in the future has been a compelling  one against highrise signage — until you remember how irrelevant that is  in the era of Photoshop. Go down to any tourist trap on the waterfront  and you’ll find postcards that show orcas jumping over the Space Needle  and sunsets digitally enhanced to spectacular effect. Unpleasant images  can be easily altered.

In other words, just because something exists doesn’t mean it will  become iconic. And just because something is iconic doesn’t mean it will  persist, or should. We are always editing the landscape.

I’d like to do a little editing myself, because my love of landmarks  is not pure. There are a number of Seattle icons that bug me. I’m not  arguing for their removal, but if I were in charge of the City Photoshop  Department, I might be tempted to remove them from the picture.

Jonathan Borofsky’s “Hammering Man” is a good example, a  flat, cheerless drudge who is not even doing anything constructive,  like chipping away at the facade of the ugly Robert Venturi entrance to  the Seattle Art Museum downtown. “Hammering Man” looks like something  out of an old 1960s headache commercial, and watching him makes me reach  for an Anacin.

Fremont is a trove of questionable local icons. The Fremont Troll is  ugly and charmless. I say this as someone who grew up on Scandinavian  folk stories and learned that trolls are not cuddly forest denizens but  creepy serial killers who lie in wait. The Fremont Troll is a bearded  Ted Bundy. And I’d put Fremont’s Lenin statue in the same category.  We’re supposed to be amused by this relic of the old Soviet Union being  adopted by the People’s Republic of Fremont, known for hippie whimsy.  Perhaps the Lenin statue is in town to champion Hammering Man’s worker’s  rights, but I can’t help but think of the murderous repressions Lenin  inspired.

To some degree, the Lenin statue is the opposite of what it appears.  It could also be viewed as a trophy of Western triumphalism. It would  not be here save for the fall of another icon, the Berlin Wall.

Seattle has other monuments like this. Totem poles, for instance. The  Pioneer Square pole is a good example. Puget Sound Indians did not make  totem poles; local businessmen snitched the original pole from a  Tlingit village up north in 1899 and erected it in the square (the  current version is a replica). It is a work of art, but not our art; it  is a souvenir of empire that sits in an urban park built by men who took  as much as they could from the Indians and the land. It has become an  icon, but if you know the story, a complicated one.

My least favorite icon on the skyline is Columbia Center. If the  retro Dr. Evil of Austin Powers fame was supposed to live in the Space  Needle, the Columbia tower is the skyscraper Darth Vader built. Sleek  and tall, yes, and not the ugliest tower ever raised. But to me, it will  always seem like an alien landing, an invasive species, the antithesis  of sustainable, sensible Seattle. It looks best when it’s least  conspicuous, seen from across Puget Sound, cut down to size against the  Cascades. Or buried in clouds, Photoshopped by nature.

This column originally appeared in the March issue of Seattle Magazine. Reprinted with permission.

Donation CTA
Knute Berger

By Knute Berger

Knute “Mossback” Berger is an editor-at-large and host of "Mossback’s Northwest" at Cascade PBS. He writes about politics and regional heritage.