Connect: Monuments for a New Era and States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments

Although we have learned some information about the Confederate monuments issue through our public art presentations and curiosity pages, the articles “Monuments for a New Era” and “States Are Using Preservation Laws to Block the Removal of Confederate Monuments” shed new light and new perspective on the issue of dealing with this statues in Virginia as well as the rest of the United States. The articles helped to build on what we have already learned by including what comes after the take-down of certain monuments. The “States Are Using Preservation Laws” article focused on the legal and political sides of this issue, while the “Monuments for a New Era” focused on the public interpretations of the issue and how artists thought the monuments should be interpreted in the future. Both articles and the sides they cover are necessary to develop a rounded understanding of this complex public art issue.
    The articles provide a slight background on the issue, which compares to the other information covered in class. In the “States are Using Preservation Laws” article, the author writes on the process of de-confederalization states had been going through before the popularity of the statue issue, “Indeed, some states grappled with an earlier iteration of this debate in the early 2000s, around the time that Georgia removed the Confederate flag from its state flag, and South Carolina moved a Confederate flag that flew above its statehouse dome to the statehouse grounds” (p. 2) The article also mentions afterward that the process to replace one of its Confederate monuments was purely accidental, and interestingly blew up the issue as seen on page 2 of the same article: "The statue fell and broke, prompting a period of debate and reflection for the town, which was covered extensively by the Washington Post ...But between the time the statue fell and the townspeople decided on what to do next, Alabama passed a law preventing the alteration of any memorial that has been standing for at least 40 years.” The community had already decided to replace the monument with something less controversial, yet faced obstacles from the state. Once again, the issue that we have covered in past seminars comes up. What role should government have on art, especially public art? While it is obvious that taxes and government budgets fund the public art, the community should have the ability to influence its opinions, even by appealing to the state level. The community models the changing times, and with it public art of should be symbolic the period, even if it requires altering or replacing the past monuments.
    Other opinions are showcased in the article “Monuments for a New Era”. However, here the issue of remembrance comes up. Although I agree the existence of the Confederate monuments should be acknowledged for the purpose of education, the question of how theme should be executed comes up. In the censorship seminar discussed in class, debates over artist rights came up, and whether alteration is a form of censorship or whether it strengthens the work by adding history. In this situation, the government is responsible for what happens to the monument, and as the government changes, the opinions it represents also changes, and so alteration or replacement should be acceptable, especially considering the negative connotations of the statues. Although some of the artist ideas did not necessarily appeal to me, I realize that this changes from person to person, as it would be with any public art. And as with any public art comes the issue of regarding public opinion. More specifically, on page 3 of the “Monuments of a New Era” article, the author writes “This reimagined monument transforms visitors from spectators of history to participants in a shared memory.” This statement embodies the issues of replacing the Confederate monuments well, as the communities engaging in these removals need to think about how the monuments were and are meant to be statements, and thought must go into their replacement/alteration that will be seen for years to come. The whole reason these monuments are being removed is because they are controversial, but becoming educated in the issue could allow the public to recognize what the statues represent. Kenya Robinson writes in the article, “Keep the statues. Keep the men on their horses, or at the top of the stepson Wall Street, or with a right hand forever tucked into a fitted vest, or with a finger pointed to a horizon of stolen riches” (p. 11) She recognizes that the statues are constant reminders of “bad” things from American History. But when is replacement of a monument a better idea than alteration? Her idea was to incorporate a sanctuary African gray parrots around the Charlottesville monument and cover it in peanut butter as the parrots chattered with visitors. This idea is interesting as it maintains the history of the monuments, yet adapts them to modern ideas.
    I realize the issue is very much financial as it is political, and remember the presentation which touched on how monuments are sources for tourism. In D.C. the national mall is very much an example of this, and Monument Avenue in Richmond is scenic as well as historic. Some proposed ideas for the replacement of the Charlottesville Monument such as those by Dread Scott and Ekene Ijeoma show polar opposites of how the monuments should be showcased. Scott’s monument would render the surrounding traffic circle useless, and Ijeoma’s monument incorporates the public in a long trek to the top of a tower and back. Since the monument’s replacement is meant to educate the public and make them think about the past more deeply, is an interactive monument more appropriate? Or should it become uncomfortable to remind the public of the scale of the issue of slavery during the period? As Scott wanted to name his monument, “‘The Legacy of Slavery Is in the Way of Progress and Will Be Until America, Which Benefits From That Legacy, Has Been Replaced With a Completely Different Society.’” (P1) But of course, an equally important question is, which type of monument will attract more people?
    The information presented by the “States are Using Prevention Laws” and  “Monuments of a New Era” caused me to ask new questions, most likely those that have already been circled around the monument replacement community already. The more I learn, the more I understand the conflict is very complicated, with many sides. However, the overarching theme seems to be asking those that want to change the Confederate Monuments why they want to do so and how they will incorporate the history of the location in their stead. With legal and political bars, this theme in public art is one I would like to continue to follow, as the process itself is also symbolic of how times change and how people can work to destroy past ideals.