Wonders of the Modern World - or 'Seven, the Magical Number'
Not to be outdone by the ancients (or the BBC), there has been a push for the last seven years (that number will crop up a lot) to determine the seven wonders of the modern world. The Great Pyramid of Giza - as the only one of the original Seven Wonders still standing, is keeping its position as a Wonder - an 'honorary' one. But this project has set out to determine what seven new wonders will join it.
Candidates include the Great Wall of China, Timbuktu (Mali), Alhambra (Spain), the pyramid of Chichen Itza (Mexico), Ankor Wat (Cambodia), the Taj Mahal (India), the Statue of Liberty (America) and the Sydney Opera House (Australia). Candidates will be selected through an extended voting process (going on as you read) around the world at both each of the nominated sites and online. The original list of over a hundred potential sites has been cut down to a short list of twenty one. You too can vote online: Seven Wonders of the Modern World
I would like to see a bit more consideration on what exactly makes a 'Wonder of the World.' What elements made the old wonders so great? Size was definitely an issue - all of the previous wonders were monumental architecture. The Great Pyramid, the Hanging Gardens, the temples of Zeus and Artemis, the Maulsoleum, the Lighthouse of Pharos, the Colossus standing astride the harbour at Rhodes; they were also great achievements in construction and architecture (well, maybe not the Colossus. It collapsed less than fifty years after it was erected during an earthquake). But is great size all there is to it? Or is there a 'magical' element as well? Something about the site that just captivates the viewer and makes them marvel at human achievement? I think so. After all, there has been no dispute that the Great Pyramid should be removed as a wonder - indeed, I think there would be an outcry against it. It clearly still has that magical element to it, still possessing its drawing power after two thousand years.
A lot of the justification for the nomination of sites doesn't just rely on stunning visuals - amongst the modern wonders there are sites pushed forward for their social or historical significance (although they are all quite breathtaking as well). The Alhambra in Spain is being promoted as a site where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in peaceful co-existance in the Middle Ages, the Christ Redeemer outside Rio de Janeiro has been touted as a symbol of welcoming and the Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany has been put forward as an example of how one man achieved his dreams.
Do we expect more from a modern wonder, then, than just a pretty face and architectural triumph? Do we demand that it also have some sort of significance outside it's physical features?
My knowledge of the original seven wonders is limited; I know what they are, who built them (and why), where they were and that they were dubbed great by the Greek and Roman tourists of the ancient world. I would assume that a compilation of a new seven wonders list would have much the same reasoning: a tourist trail of the 'best' sites in the world. Yet why only seven (apart from the symmetry of adhering to the old model)? Considering the width and scope of human achievement across the planet, do we really need to limit ourselves so much? Is there any true value (apart from prestige and income for the site) in designating something an 'official' wonder? As a point of curiosity, what would be the opposite of a wonder - the seven most appalling sites constructed in human history? Most ugly? Most horrific?
On the 07/07/2007, the new list of wonders will be revealed.
Candidates include the Great Wall of China, Timbuktu (Mali), Alhambra (Spain), the pyramid of Chichen Itza (Mexico), Ankor Wat (Cambodia), the Taj Mahal (India), the Statue of Liberty (America) and the Sydney Opera House (Australia). Candidates will be selected through an extended voting process (going on as you read) around the world at both each of the nominated sites and online. The original list of over a hundred potential sites has been cut down to a short list of twenty one. You too can vote online: Seven Wonders of the Modern World
I would like to see a bit more consideration on what exactly makes a 'Wonder of the World.' What elements made the old wonders so great? Size was definitely an issue - all of the previous wonders were monumental architecture. The Great Pyramid, the Hanging Gardens, the temples of Zeus and Artemis, the Maulsoleum, the Lighthouse of Pharos, the Colossus standing astride the harbour at Rhodes; they were also great achievements in construction and architecture (well, maybe not the Colossus. It collapsed less than fifty years after it was erected during an earthquake). But is great size all there is to it? Or is there a 'magical' element as well? Something about the site that just captivates the viewer and makes them marvel at human achievement? I think so. After all, there has been no dispute that the Great Pyramid should be removed as a wonder - indeed, I think there would be an outcry against it. It clearly still has that magical element to it, still possessing its drawing power after two thousand years.
A lot of the justification for the nomination of sites doesn't just rely on stunning visuals - amongst the modern wonders there are sites pushed forward for their social or historical significance (although they are all quite breathtaking as well). The Alhambra in Spain is being promoted as a site where Jews, Christians and Muslims lived in peaceful co-existance in the Middle Ages, the Christ Redeemer outside Rio de Janeiro has been touted as a symbol of welcoming and the Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany has been put forward as an example of how one man achieved his dreams.
Do we expect more from a modern wonder, then, than just a pretty face and architectural triumph? Do we demand that it also have some sort of significance outside it's physical features?
My knowledge of the original seven wonders is limited; I know what they are, who built them (and why), where they were and that they were dubbed great by the Greek and Roman tourists of the ancient world. I would assume that a compilation of a new seven wonders list would have much the same reasoning: a tourist trail of the 'best' sites in the world. Yet why only seven (apart from the symmetry of adhering to the old model)? Considering the width and scope of human achievement across the planet, do we really need to limit ourselves so much? Is there any true value (apart from prestige and income for the site) in designating something an 'official' wonder? As a point of curiosity, what would be the opposite of a wonder - the seven most appalling sites constructed in human history? Most ugly? Most horrific?
On the 07/07/2007, the new list of wonders will be revealed.