The non-election blog

Tidying up yesterday, I came across a newspaper article I had cut out and stuffed into the back of a book (ok, Look magazine – it’s literature of sorts!) It was taken from the Belfast Telegraph and was an article on the potential re-use of the Red Hand of Ulster as a symbol of unity for the city. 

“The period known as the Troubles is the one experience that defines us deeply and yet there has been little in the way of an intelligent and courageous artistic response that will not elicit apprehension, condemnation and controversy.”
 

It’s quite ironic really that the ubiquitous symbol suffers from an “identity complex,” as ownership of the ancient emblem unearths a scrambled history where it is emblazoned on GAA tops and is an embedded icon of unionism.  When we look at the red hand, it has different meanings and a different history for each of us, but must those meanings be mutually exclusive?  It certainly unearths questions about our shared identity.  But can it mean something new, an icon of unity? A hand of reconciliation, perhaps?

Can it be, as the author suggests, the hand that can cut through cultural ambivalence? 

Does public art in Belfast need to be ghastly art-nouveau which claws at attributing some kind of relevance to its existence?  Surely our historical symbols have the potency to emerge as a real and unique identity that shows Northern Ireland as a shared society?

Personally, I like the retort to the article on the Belfast Telegraph website - “How about a Tayto crisp sculpture - something that both communities can feel proud of?!”.

Read the article (external site)