Move or Die, final design, 2000.
Intended for an outside wall (25 ’x 123’) of the Associated Black Charities building in Baltimore City.
Intended for an outside wall (25 ’x 123’) of the Associated Black Charities building in Baltimore City.
Should I Stay or Should I Go: the CLASH over public monuments and memorials
6/2018
The text below are my notes used during my presentation at the International Society for Education Through Art's (InSEA) annual congress in Espoo, Finland, June, 2018.
I have long been interested in the concept of site-specificity of public art. Specifically, does public art connect to the community, either in its contents or how it was made; i.e. - were local citizens utilized in the design process.
I presented on this topic early on in my teaching career, both at the Maryland Art Education Association's annual conference in 1999, and a revised version at the National Art Education Association's annual congress in Minneapolis, in 2003.
Professionally, I put these topics on the shelf - so to speak - until news headlines (2017-18) began to focus on the marginalized history of confederate-era memorials and monuments. When my hometown of Baltimore became one of those headlines, it was hard for me to not put words to paper. It was therapeutic in a way, in that it helped me to formulate my thoughts and ideas.
I immediately drew connections to an older story in 2000, one that I wrote about for a graduate class involving the Harriet Tubman mural designs created by Mike Alewitz and painted around Maryland. I spoke to the artist then, in 2000 (over the phone) and again in 2017 through several email correspondences.
I will not pretend to have the answer for the dilemma of what-to-do with these monuments and memorials. But, at the very least I hope the following words and images will offer thought for contemplation.
I have long been interested in the concept of site-specificity of public art. Specifically, does public art connect to the community, either in its contents or how it was made; i.e. - were local citizens utilized in the design process.
I presented on this topic early on in my teaching career, both at the Maryland Art Education Association's annual conference in 1999, and a revised version at the National Art Education Association's annual congress in Minneapolis, in 2003.
Professionally, I put these topics on the shelf - so to speak - until news headlines (2017-18) began to focus on the marginalized history of confederate-era memorials and monuments. When my hometown of Baltimore became one of those headlines, it was hard for me to not put words to paper. It was therapeutic in a way, in that it helped me to formulate my thoughts and ideas.
I immediately drew connections to an older story in 2000, one that I wrote about for a graduate class involving the Harriet Tubman mural designs created by Mike Alewitz and painted around Maryland. I spoke to the artist then, in 2000 (over the phone) and again in 2017 through several email correspondences.
I will not pretend to have the answer for the dilemma of what-to-do with these monuments and memorials. But, at the very least I hope the following words and images will offer thought for contemplation.
**Presented here is my presentation, minus a few images, and as it was spoken at the InSEA conference, June 18, 2018 -
SLIDE NOTES
In countries and cities around the world, monuments and memorials are symbols of power. They are moments frozen in time, designed with the intention of informing the public about relevant periods in history. They are meant to be permanent; carved from stone or made from bronze, intended to stand the test of time, for generations to come to memorialize the past….or at least to consider the past.
The problem with monuments and memorials is that over time, the people or events for which they represent can become symbols of pain and misrepresentation. This is the dilemma that we currently face in many cities in America. Until recently, these works have rarely been viewed from perspectives that consider current social conditions. People are now looking at these public works, and asking the questions:
For example, “The Minutemen” statue, located in Massachusetts, was intended to honor those Americans, who rose up against the British, prompting the American Revolutionary War. The statue is the depiction of a man, of white European decent. Through this representation, however, the monument neglects to tell the story of how women, blacks - African slaves, and Native Americans also fought for this cause. This example is repeated across the United States…a story of white male dominance. So when looking at this piece, perhaps some other questions we should be asking are:
Recently, monuments and memorials associated with the suppression of blacks, African Americans, here in America have been a topic of heated discussions, protests, vandalism, and in some cases, as we saw here in Baltimore, removing them in the middle of the night by public officials. Many of the statues that have come under criticism and controversy are those that depict men or events associated with the Confederacy. For many, these monuments - moments frozen in time - have largely perpetuated a social and cultural white dominance.
Just over a year ago, here in Baltimore, Maryland, four monuments were taken down in the middle of the night, in secrecy. The statues were hauled away and put into storage at a cost of $20,000, according the Mayor Catherine Pugh. There was a promise from political officials that NEW monuments representing a more accurate and just history would replace the monuments that were removed.
These monuments were:
Confederate Women’s Monument - portrays a dying Confederate solider with a tattered Confederate Battled Flag and two women, one cradling the Confederate solider and another standing, peering into the horizon.
Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument - the monument depicts the allegorical figure Glory holding up a dying Confederate solider, who's holding the Confederate Battle Flag.
Roger B. Taney Monument – a depiction of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. While this statue makes no overt references to the Confederacy, the controversy surrounding Taney was his authorship of the Dred Scott Decision, which ruled that Congress could not regulate slavery and that blacks were not citizens.
Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson - a bronze statue depicting Confederate generals, Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. Both of who won decisive battles for the confederacy during the Civil War.
**Click on images below to enlarge
SLIDE NOTES
In countries and cities around the world, monuments and memorials are symbols of power. They are moments frozen in time, designed with the intention of informing the public about relevant periods in history. They are meant to be permanent; carved from stone or made from bronze, intended to stand the test of time, for generations to come to memorialize the past….or at least to consider the past.
The problem with monuments and memorials is that over time, the people or events for which they represent can become symbols of pain and misrepresentation. This is the dilemma that we currently face in many cities in America. Until recently, these works have rarely been viewed from perspectives that consider current social conditions. People are now looking at these public works, and asking the questions:
- What do we do with public works when the dominant, male/white narrative we read in history textbooks is challenged?
- How do we create a public space that honors the social and cultural identity of the people, for the people?
For example, “The Minutemen” statue, located in Massachusetts, was intended to honor those Americans, who rose up against the British, prompting the American Revolutionary War. The statue is the depiction of a man, of white European decent. Through this representation, however, the monument neglects to tell the story of how women, blacks - African slaves, and Native Americans also fought for this cause. This example is repeated across the United States…a story of white male dominance. So when looking at this piece, perhaps some other questions we should be asking are:
- Whose history is represented?
- Whose history is overlooked?
- Who paid the price for these accomplishments?
Recently, monuments and memorials associated with the suppression of blacks, African Americans, here in America have been a topic of heated discussions, protests, vandalism, and in some cases, as we saw here in Baltimore, removing them in the middle of the night by public officials. Many of the statues that have come under criticism and controversy are those that depict men or events associated with the Confederacy. For many, these monuments - moments frozen in time - have largely perpetuated a social and cultural white dominance.
Just over a year ago, here in Baltimore, Maryland, four monuments were taken down in the middle of the night, in secrecy. The statues were hauled away and put into storage at a cost of $20,000, according the Mayor Catherine Pugh. There was a promise from political officials that NEW monuments representing a more accurate and just history would replace the monuments that were removed.
These monuments were:
Confederate Women’s Monument - portrays a dying Confederate solider with a tattered Confederate Battled Flag and two women, one cradling the Confederate solider and another standing, peering into the horizon.
Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument - the monument depicts the allegorical figure Glory holding up a dying Confederate solider, who's holding the Confederate Battle Flag.
Roger B. Taney Monument – a depiction of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. While this statue makes no overt references to the Confederacy, the controversy surrounding Taney was his authorship of the Dred Scott Decision, which ruled that Congress could not regulate slavery and that blacks were not citizens.
Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson - a bronze statue depicting Confederate generals, Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. Both of who won decisive battles for the confederacy during the Civil War.
**Click on images below to enlarge
Several months after the Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson monument was removed by the city of Baltimore, public officials came up with its own solution to remedy the problem. In March of 2018, the city’s Public Arts Commission renamed a tree-lined area around where the monument once stood as, Harriet Tubman Grove.
The idea to commemorate Harriet Tubman’s life and accomplishments makes sense…not just as an alternative to confederate history, but as a heroic symbol for African Americans…particularly given her association to Maryland. Born into a life of slavery in Cambridge, Maryland, she eventually escaped to Philadelphia, only to return several years later to assist in leading over 300 slaves out of captivity into a life of freedom.
To depict Harriet and her accomplishments the city chose to dedicate a grove of trees….
The idea to commemorate Harriet Tubman’s life and accomplishments makes sense…not just as an alternative to confederate history, but as a heroic symbol for African Americans…particularly given her association to Maryland. Born into a life of slavery in Cambridge, Maryland, she eventually escaped to Philadelphia, only to return several years later to assist in leading over 300 slaves out of captivity into a life of freedom.
To depict Harriet and her accomplishments the city chose to dedicate a grove of trees….
Now, some would say this is progress.…that by honoring a prominent black woman in American history through the dedication of a grove of trees, we are moving forward. To me, however, there is an unfortunate and dramatic irony associated with this dedication to Harriet Tubman, and the history of lynching here in America. It is hard for me to not consider the symbolism related to trees and lynching. I think Harriet Tubman and others like her are worthy of more than this compromise, that they are worthy of more than just a symbolic association to an area of trees. Why can’t we have a realistic representation of Harriet Tubman and others like her?
Unfortunately, I believe that we are simply not ready to see a black woman honored figuratively, or historically in a public space.
For example...
In 2000, Baltimore Clayworks was interested in creating a series of murals on the life accomplishments of Harriet Tubman. The funding for the mural project originated with the Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation and the National Endowment of the Arts. The grant was utilized by Baltimore Clayworks to obtain an artist in residence. Muralist Mike Alewitz was chosen for his ability to tackle such social justice issues as equality.
During a five-month residency, Alewitz would create a series of murals that would be placed in and around Maryland. The series of murals would be collectively referred to as, The Dreams of Harriet Tubman.
Note to reader: you can read about this story as told by the artist here.
The first was a mural was painted on a freestanding wall and installed at her birthplace in Cambridge. The mural was unfortunately removed by the city several years ago.
Unfortunately, I believe that we are simply not ready to see a black woman honored figuratively, or historically in a public space.
For example...
In 2000, Baltimore Clayworks was interested in creating a series of murals on the life accomplishments of Harriet Tubman. The funding for the mural project originated with the Mid-Atlantic Arts Foundation and the National Endowment of the Arts. The grant was utilized by Baltimore Clayworks to obtain an artist in residence. Muralist Mike Alewitz was chosen for his ability to tackle such social justice issues as equality.
During a five-month residency, Alewitz would create a series of murals that would be placed in and around Maryland. The series of murals would be collectively referred to as, The Dreams of Harriet Tubman.
Note to reader: you can read about this story as told by the artist here.
The first was a mural was painted on a freestanding wall and installed at her birthplace in Cambridge. The mural was unfortunately removed by the city several years ago.
The second mural was placed indoors, in a library at the University of Maryland’s Eastern Shore campus. The design depicts Tubman as well as fellow abolitionist and Maryland native, Fredrick Douglas.
The third mural in the series was entitled, Education for All, and was painted on an outside wall at Magnolia Middle School in Harford County Maryland.
During the construction of this mural, it was vandalized overnight, spray painted with racial slurs and symbols. The mural was eventually completed after it was cleaned up.
**Click on images below to enlarge.
During the construction of this mural, it was vandalized overnight, spray painted with racial slurs and symbols. The mural was eventually completed after it was cleaned up.
**Click on images below to enlarge.
The final design in the series was entitled, Move or Die, and was to be placed on a large outdoor wall of the Associated Black Charities organization (ABC) in downtown Baltimore City. The mural depicted Tubman with her arms outstretched, a lantern in one hand and a rifle in the other.
When the final design was revealed, there was some discussions around the depiction of Harriet holding a musket (a gun) and, whether that was “appropriate” in a city that sees roughly 300 murders a year. These discussions spilled over into an article in the Baltimore Sun and raised enough of attention that the mural was eventually declined by the Associated Black Charities.
At the time, Mayor Martin O'Malley jumped into the controversy and stated that he would “find a home for the Harriet Tubman mural”. But unfortunately this never came to fruition.
How does a free mural funded by reputable Arts programs not find a home in a city's public space?
The design was displayed on a large canvas at Artscape (annual Baltimore art festival) that summer, and despite the attempts by the artist and those that supported the mural it never found a home in Baltimore.
While the ABC had a right to decline the mural it was an interesting position to take considering the number of historical monuments and memorials in cities around the country that depict white men, with guns or swords.
** Click on images below to enlarge
When the final design was revealed, there was some discussions around the depiction of Harriet holding a musket (a gun) and, whether that was “appropriate” in a city that sees roughly 300 murders a year. These discussions spilled over into an article in the Baltimore Sun and raised enough of attention that the mural was eventually declined by the Associated Black Charities.
At the time, Mayor Martin O'Malley jumped into the controversy and stated that he would “find a home for the Harriet Tubman mural”. But unfortunately this never came to fruition.
How does a free mural funded by reputable Arts programs not find a home in a city's public space?
The design was displayed on a large canvas at Artscape (annual Baltimore art festival) that summer, and despite the attempts by the artist and those that supported the mural it never found a home in Baltimore.
While the ABC had a right to decline the mural it was an interesting position to take considering the number of historical monuments and memorials in cities around the country that depict white men, with guns or swords.
** Click on images below to enlarge
This was back in 2000, and now, here we are in 2018 faced with the same problem. We want to acknowledge Harriet Tubman as a historical figure, but we’re not comfortable with her image, or making a reference to her accomplishments. American cities are littered with statues of white men with guns and swords but an image of a black woman with a gun is deemed to be threatening?
Mike Alewitz summed it up quite nicely when he was quoted in The Baltimore Sun paper in 2000:
" I don't want a kinder, gentler Harriet Tubman. She was a tough woman who
lived in scary times. I don't want to make Harriet Tubman a meaningless
icon that hangs in McDonalds to try to get you to buy hamburgers. She
was a freedom fighter - and that is how she should be painted."
If American can come to terms with its past, I believe there is a solution beyond sanitized dedications like Harriet Tubman Grove.
Admittedly, I was an early supporter for the removal of these confederate-era monuments. But, their removal is a form of censorship and censorship within the arts can be contagious.
I have heard suggestions of putting these monuments in cemeteries, or in museums. But, I think another, plausible path forward, is re-appropriation: Implementing new works of art in proximity of the existing monuments or altering the existing structures, outside of vandalism, allows the viewer to draw new meaning from these moments in history. Imagine, a monument of Harriet Tubman next to a monument of confederate general Robert E Lee. Putting the two side by side creates new narratives, while challenging the old ones.
I will finish with proposing the following questions:
Whose history is overlooked?
And
Who pays the price?
Mike Alewitz summed it up quite nicely when he was quoted in The Baltimore Sun paper in 2000:
" I don't want a kinder, gentler Harriet Tubman. She was a tough woman who
lived in scary times. I don't want to make Harriet Tubman a meaningless
icon that hangs in McDonalds to try to get you to buy hamburgers. She
was a freedom fighter - and that is how she should be painted."
If American can come to terms with its past, I believe there is a solution beyond sanitized dedications like Harriet Tubman Grove.
Admittedly, I was an early supporter for the removal of these confederate-era monuments. But, their removal is a form of censorship and censorship within the arts can be contagious.
I have heard suggestions of putting these monuments in cemeteries, or in museums. But, I think another, plausible path forward, is re-appropriation: Implementing new works of art in proximity of the existing monuments or altering the existing structures, outside of vandalism, allows the viewer to draw new meaning from these moments in history. Imagine, a monument of Harriet Tubman next to a monument of confederate general Robert E Lee. Putting the two side by side creates new narratives, while challenging the old ones.
I will finish with proposing the following questions:
Whose history is overlooked?
And
Who pays the price?