“You can argue that any sculpture is art in some way, but it’s a loose argument,” Schoonmaker said Tuesday. “I don’t know that these statues are worthy of preservation as art objects so much as historical objects – made to preserve a lost cause, a lost war. They weren’t made with great artistic intent, but with political intent. And intent matters in this case.” — The New Observer
With the tragic events occurring in Charlottesville, much ink has been spilled over the topic of Confederate memorials: Should we keep them? Should we take them down? Is keeping them up a celebration of slavery and is taking them down erasing an important part of our past that we must face?
With so much attention given to the particular statue of Robert E. Lee that caused the alt-right to riot in Virginia, it might be a surprise that a number of confederate monuments have been taken down in recent years with much less bloodshed. In May, another statue of the Confederate general was hoisted away in New Orleans amongst a cheering crowd of onlookers and a number of cities across the country have had plans in the works to take down monuments commemorating leaders of the Confederacy. With the events that occurred over the weekend, many of these cities are looking to expedite the process—the Mayor of Baltimore even had all Confederate statues dismantled overnight.
This begs the question of what is to be done with the monuments once taken down. Many on both sides support the notion that these figures and their bronze representations are a history necessary to keep if only as an important reminder of this countries dark past. Along with the argument, is the proposal that these Confederate-themed statues belong in a museum, of sorts.
But, as David Menconi of the New Observer explores, what kind of museum exactly do these losers of the Civil War belong in: History or Art? The question that they could be considered art is not entirely absurd, after all, Roman and Greek art that celebrate military figures and war victories appear in museums dedicated to art across the country, including New York's Met.
In 2010, John W. Coffey, the American and modern art curator for the North Carolina Museum of Art, was tasked with this question when asked to study the memorials at the state Capital in Raleigh. His conclusion: "judged solely as sculpture...the statuary on Union Square is largely an undistinguishable lot." He additionally dismissed many of the pieces as "impressive only in its height" and "generic, off-the-shelf, frozen in descriptive poses."
Move them, perhaps leave the base, but they need to be taken down from their pedestals physically, spatially, politically -architecturally.
All 2 Comments
The nice guy in me says; swords into ploughshares. The better guy in me says; bullets for killing Nazis.
Move them, perhaps leave the base, but they need to be taken down from their pedestals physically, spatially, politically -architecturally.
Hmmm. You know, I like that idea too. It'll serve as a daily reminder of what was "lost", much in the same way its presence was a daily reminder to African Americans the history of violence by the Confederacy. Of course, it could stoke resentment...
It could and it could also serve as the remembrance of a tragic history. The point is that they're still important to reconciling the past and present of American culture.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.