Blog

NOTE: All the essays excerpted below are accessible via the “Sculpture Controversy” tag.

In the wake of widespread recent attacks on public sculpture, I’d like to call your attention to the essay I wrote back in 2017: “Politics and Portrait Sculptures.” It was based on my experience writing about outdoor sculptures in New York City for about twenty years, and I still stand by every word of it. For example:

Times change. Ideas change. What should we do today when a member of the public states that a sculpture on government-owned property is offensive?

Simple: sell the sculpture. In fact, all sculptures – whether they are currently on someone’s hit list or not – should be privately owned, and should stand on private property. A sculpture in private hands might be displayed on private property but visible to the public, as [the sculpture of ] Lenin [on Norfolk Street] is. It might be placed in a museum, so that it would be available for study by fans or historians. It might disappear from view into someone’s personal art collection, as much art that comes up for auction does (temporarily, at least). It might be melted down or smashed to bits: owning a work gives you that option.

In any case, once the work was sold, the government could no longer be accused of endorsing or condoning whatever the sculpture celebrates.

And, later in the essay:

Modern intellectuals eagerly point out the flaws in the heroes of the past – the many ways in which they did not conform to current morals and mores. And yes, there’s a point in considering the ways in which these people fail to measure up to our standards. But to understand these historical figures in context, we should also ask: what if they had not achieved what they did? What if no European had discovered the Americas, and all of us still lived under the dictatorial powers of kings and emperors? What if the colonies had not broken free of British rule, and the Founding Fathers had not written and implemented the American Constitution – the first attempt anytime, anywhere, to set up a government designed to protect individual rights? How many women would have died if Sims had never wanted to diagnose and treat their illnesses? Would Cubans be better off if they had continued to live under the rule of the king of Spain?

Human beings are not perfect. That professor who taught you to think critically, that mentor who helped you navigate your first job, that friend who’s your model for how to deal with difficult situations – they all made mistakes somewhere along the line. So did those heroes to whom past generations erected portrait sculptures. To admire any of those people for their achievements doesn’t mean we need to blindly accept, admire, or imitate every single aspect of their lives. We just need to think about which aspects we do admire.

In December 2017, I published several guest posts on the sculpture controversy on my website.

The first was by G.A. Mudge, author and photographer. Excerpt:

Part of the task of the Mayoral Advisory Commission on City Art, Monuments, and Markers Commission is to identify any “symbols of hate” or “offensive” monuments and make recommendations.

The term “symbol of hate” almost defies definition. The terms “target of hate” or “targets of vandalism” may be easier to understand. If a statue is intensely disliked, for whatever reason, perhaps it should be removed, moved, or explained. This said, we must question brief sound bites of hate aimed at any particular statue and try to understand the broad context in which a statue was originally created and dedicated.

The second guest essay was by Zenos Frudakis, sculptor. Excerpt:

I propose we re-appropriate and re-contextualize not just the Rizzo sculpture, but other sculptures in question. For some, a bronze plaque nearby clarifying the subject’s actual history might suffice. For others, an additional sculpture could be placed near the offending work, redefining its historical significance.My Clarence Darrow sculpture, installed this past summer at the site of the historic Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, did just that. By placing Darrow, who defended teaching evolution next to the existing sculpture of William Jennings Bryan, who promoted creationism, I transformed an exclusively religious statement into an inclusive, historical one.

The third guest essay was by Quent Cordair, novelist, painter, and gallery owner. Excerpt:

In art as in religion, an individual’s values reflect his most deeply held personal ideas and convictions. Our response to art reflects what we each personally consider to be important, right, and good. Politically, in any matter concerning art, if we respect the freedom of the individual and the rights of all to think and believe as they will, we must observe a principled separation of art and state, for the same reasons we observe a separation of religion and state.

A work of art depicting an historical person honors something of essence about the person—his character, his ideology, his actions, his accomplishments. But the depiction may also remind others, according to their own judgment, by the standard of what is important to them personally, of what the person may have failed to do or his errors. One person’s hero may be another’s villain, and probably will be, as we’re reminded daily by contemporary political divisions and acrimonies. One person’s savior will be another’s devil. One’s saint will be another’s sinner.

When the power and resources of government are used to advance, support, or maintain any ideological system, value, or symbol – as most public monuments come to represent — the ideological freedom of its citizens is compromised, disrespected, and put at risk. The government’s only proper role in the arts – perhaps especially in the arts — is to protect each individual’s right to value and support what he sees fit to value and support, as long as his choice doesn’t infringe on another individual’s right to do the same. …

Properly, in the government’s function of protecting individual rights, government should neither own nor maintain any art at all.

In remedy, any and all art presently under the government’s stewardship should be auctioned to the highest private or institutional bidder, with the new owner/s agreeing to remove it from public property and do with it as they will. 

More

• In Getting More Enjoyment from Sculpture You Love, I demonstrate a method for looking at sculptures in detail, in depth, and on your own. Learn to enjoy your favorite sculptures more, and find new favorites. Available on Amazon print and Kindle formats.
• Want wonderful art delivered weekly to your inbox? Check out my free Sunday Recommendations list and rewards for recurring support: details here.