In the April 25, 2017 issue of The New York Times, Christopher Mele writes about the plan by the city of New Orleans, LA to dismantle and move four monuments dedicated to the Confederate era and its aftermath (“Dismantling a Monument, Under Guard” ) because their presence as civic monuments was offensive to many people. At some point, they will be erected in a new location and placed in historical context .They could not be left as is, but as site specific works of art that have been removed from their sites, they have been damaged in some way. From the conservation point of view, there is no easy answer to the question of what should be done with offensive civic monuments.
One thought on “There is no easy answer to the question of what should be done with offensive civic monuments”
Comments are closed.
Actually, there is an easy answer. Leave them alone. there is nothing good in the act of destroying works of art in an effort to hide history. We as conservators should be of a single voice on this. Whether we agree with whatever is represented or not, the destruction of art is anathema to our ethics. It is pretty simple. We should be against it.
I would further argue that the magic thinking that says “destroying the monuments of the past will change the present” is a sign of how far we have moved from the ideals of the intelligent discourse that is a sign of the enlightenment. Whether we like the past or not, it is our history and we should acknowledge it. If these monuments become locii of discussions and discourse because we no longer agree with what they represent then they are fulfilling their intended function. let there be a dialogue on the meaning of these monuments, put up a board where people can write comments, have a blog, but do not destroy them or remove them in an effort to hide history.
All Egyptian Pharaohs, and most Greek and Roman citizens and leaders were slave holders. Should we close the Egyptian and Classical wings of our museums because of that? Really there is no difference.