This September marked the 350th anniversary of the Great Fire of London. People came to watch a replica of 17th century skyline of London get destroyed by fire. The sculpture, created by David Best, was 120 meters long. It was set on fire in the middle of the Thames river. It was a retelling of the 1666 disaster in which a fire started in a baker's shop and lasted for 4 days, destroying the majority of the timber built city. In hopes that it would provide employment, young volunteers helped in building the replica. The burning replica was part of a bigger festival called London's Burning.
Opinion: I think it would have been cool to see the replica and the festival. I think it is cool that they built it to retell the story of the disaster but I also think that it is kind of pointless to build something that big to just burn it. I do not think that I could have helped build it knowing that it was going to be destroyed.
Questions:
1. Why do you think they chose building a replica and burning it as the best way to retell the story of the disaster?
2. Would you spend so much time and effort to build something that big just to have it burned? Explain.
Link- Replica Set on Fire
Replies
I think that the burning of replica best tells the story of the Great Fire of London because London was actually destroyed by a fire. I think if the fire had such a large impact on London then yes I would spend the time and money on the tradition. The tragedy probably brought the city closed together.
I agree that it best told the story because of how it was destroyed by a fire. I can understand why you would want to work on it because it had such a large impact on London.
I think they chose to build a replica, so they could show exactly what happened in the 1666 disaster. I would help, but I wouldn't invest to much of my time since it is going to be burned down anyway. I think that they built it to show how they have overcome the disaster and rebuilt even stronger than before.
I agree with your statement that they chose to build it so they could show what happened in the disaster. I also think that I wouldn't spend to much of my time on something like that when it will get burned down anyway. I like your opinion that they built it to show how they have overcome the disaster.
I agree that they did it to show how the event happened and that it was a lesson in history. I can see why you wouldn't want to spend that much time on something that was going to get destroyed anyway. I do not think I would do it either.
I think that the actual sculpture probably took a lot of time, money, and effort to even build. Plus it is a part of history, so I think that building a replica was smart, so they can retell history all over again for people to see and learn. I know this was for the people to remember this event, so I would say yes I would build it because it did happen, and even if it was big it still is history.
I also think that it took a lot of time and money. You are right about it being a part of history so it is important to see something like this and learn from it.
They did it in a way to replicate or copy what actually happened in the Great Fire of London, I would volunteer to build it but I wouldn't want to burn a lot of time on it, I might spend a day max but I don't see working on this for a week or month then just burning it and ultimately ruining it.
I agree with your statement on it being a way to copy what happened. I can understand why you would want to build it for a day and not more time when it is just going to be ruined.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next