SIGNS OF HOPE

"IT'S ALL ROCK AND ROLL TO ME"

 

 I once knew a girl named Hope. She was a shy little thing. My mom would have called her “plain.” That was before the age of enlightenment. Now with sharper human compassion, we look beyond the surfaces of people to find other attributes. But I never found much in Hope — no hidden talent, no outsized passions, no righteous empathy. She was always waiting for somebody to tell her what to do next — a profoundly sad way to go through life.

Hope’s parents were older — into their forties — when she was born. I didn’t know much about them except that they were scientists and quietly reserved in that Old World proper kind of way.  Did they expect this baby to change their social status or their politics or their own personalities? Maybe they invested all their dreams, yearnings, expectations into this tiny person. Hope’s thin little shoulders simply could not bear that much weight.

When Hope was about 15 years old, her parents divorced.  I never heard why. One parent remarried; the other did not. Both parents were in their early 70s when they died — an age that seems young to me now. I lost track of Hope — where she lives, if she married, became a mother herself. None of those facts. Nor do I know if she ever woke up and became assertive or at least, self confident. Probably not.

America is in the middle of a cyclone right now fed by vile politics and bad health with economic insecurity piling on. The Age of American Arrogance ended. Some of us don’t know where to turn. Peace is what we most want. When the world is deconstructing, where is the Gorilla Glue?  

I’m  a big fan of Rebecca Solnit and I listen to Elizabeth Gilbert and I read Heather Cox Richardson most mornings. Women might save us. In her book HOPE IN THE DARK, Solnit writes “Hope is an embrace of the unknown…a sense of radical uncertainty.”

 (She wrote a lot about radical change even before the COVID 19 virus slammed us out of our stupor. )

Elizabeth Gilbert, in a TED conversation said “Resilience is our shared genetic inheritance.” She told stories of people who found themselves in extraordinary situations — floods, earthquakes, accidents — and reports that they nearly all said the same thing: in the middle of crisis, suddenly they felt calm and intuition took over.

Resilience. It’s what separates us from other animals. Not the opposable thumbs we all learned about in 8th grade. Not even the size of our brains, as it turns out! It is resilience ( and our ability to work together in groups.)  

“In disasters, most people are altruistic, brave, generous,” a point of view echoed by Rutger Bregman in HUMANKIND: A HOPEFUL HISTORY. My daughter just gave me this book. I’m only on page 10.  When I finish reading it, I’ll pass it on because ultimately that’s the most powerful thing I can do — read, think, write, hold on to hope.

Would I ever name a daughter Hope? Never! Just having a daughter — just being somebody’s daughter! — is hard enough.

THE STATUES OF OUR MAKING

How do you solve a problem like Civil War Statues? 

What about war memorials?

What about buildings (roads, bridges, sports arenas) named for a person? How about company names on those things? Is there a difference?

WE’VE LANDED IN A GIANT COW PIE! 

First, some definitions:  a STATUE is a 3-dimensional work of art usually representing a person or animal and usually created by sculpting, carving, modeling or casting. (Yes, there are statues of non-living objects — badminton birdies for example. But these are outliers and for our purposes, we’ll stick to the more prosaic definition.)

A MONUMENT is a structure built for commemorative or symbolic reasons or as a memorial to honor something or someone. Statues can be used as monuments but not all statues are memorials.

In a perfect world, a consensus of the governed or given community  agrees on whom or what to honor. The overriding question: was the world better or worse for that person having lived or that action having happened?  Politics should (always) be overruled in favor of merit; we’ll stick with idealism rather than reality.

Those of us in the art world understand all too well that the operative word here — CONSENSUS — is near impossible when applied to any art object or art gesture placed in the public domain.  And as a representative of the art biz (I’m taking a mighty jump here!), I consider EVERY SINGLE MANMADE OBJECT PLACED IN PUBLIC DOMAIN TO BE BY IT’S VERY NATURE, ‘PUBLIC ART.’ (I, in an effort at full disclosure,, require that these objects possess some aesthetic degree of sophistication/expertise/intellectual rigor. “Brain tickle” if you will. Otherwise, I’d rather look at a sunset.)

Given all that tonnage of qualifications, how does any statue ever get into public view? Easy! Make it an homage to God, or (as in Greek mythology) the gods. Or Biblical heroes. Those figures are all over Europe…spouting water in piazza fountains or reigning over …well, everybody. Think of “David”… or all those saints and virgins.  

But, uh-oh, not everybody wants a giant Jesus, arms outstretched, presiding over a city. The Jesus of Rio De Janeiro (erected in 1923) was paid for by donations from the general populace of Brazil (nearly 100% Catholic) and is a symbol of that city and a huge tourists draw. But when outgoing President Garcia of Peru, in 2011, had a close replica built and installed over Lima, all hell broke loose. Lots of cat calls but the biggest objection? NOT ORIGINAL (A fundamental measure for public art success: give me creativity… or stay home.)

Next? Make memorials to past reigning kings and queens. Statues of past royals stand all over Europe…and in the last forty years, they’ve caused protests…especially those rulers responsible for colonialism.  Belgium’s King Leopold who brutally killed thousands in the Congo is a special target but increasingly, human rights exercised by all past rulers are being scrutinized and challenged.  

United States “royalty” hasn’t had an easy path either. The Washington Monument in Washington D.C. took more than 50 years from first talk to final construction, not because Washington was a slave owner — which he was — but because nobody liked the obelisk proposed as his monument. (With public art, everybody’s a critic!) Mount Rushmore (conceived and built as a draw for tourism dollars) was bitterly fought by the Lakota tribe whose sacred land was defaced without permission. To get even, a huge statue of Crazy Horse on horseback was carved from another mountaintop which is totally weird — how can one bad decision be fixed by another equally bad? 

Currently, a statue of Abraham Lincoln, standing over a slave with broken shackles on the ground, is among the pieces coming down in Boston. Lincoln? you might ask. Well, here’s the thing, the slave is in a sub-serviant pose but worse! it’s the old “Rio Jesus” argument! It’s a copy of the original Lincoln that stands in Washington DC. 

Copies never work.

Which brings me finally to the Civil War men on horseback. Most of these mighty bronze sculptures were put up between 1900 and 1950, the majority in the 1920s…the same years of the rise of “White Pride.” The US saw a sharp rise in lynchings of blacks and the mythology of the “Lost Cause” (largely fueled by the re-birth of the KKK.) The federal government made no effort to prevent any of this and the movement glorifying the Lost Cause of the Confederacy grew throughout the South.   No, these statues are not “teaching tools” unless we persist in allowing this myth that the Civil War was fought for any reason other than the right to barter in human flesh - slavery.

What happens to them after they’re taken off pedestals? Scrap heap.To do anything less is to be complicit in America’s giant lie. 

How about naming rights? Henry Ford hated jews. Mahatma Gandhi degraded Africans. “Nobody’s perfect,” you say,…you can’t judge people of another era by today’s standards…aren’t we whitewashing history when we remove these names from good things such as charitable foundations, college scholarships, libraries and schools? Does it matter what name is on the local baseball stadium or performing arts center? Or U.S. military base?

Washington & Lee College professor James Casey writes: “Your name, whether you’re Coca Cola or Google, is a pronouncement of your values.” Federal Express just issued an ultimatum to the Washington Redskins: drop your racist name or give back our money and take our name off your stadium. 

(Confederate generals were technically NEVER part of the United States armed forces so how can those names be justified on U.S. military base? Smalll correction: Lee - a few others - were commissioned officers in the U.S.military but resigned to join the Confederacy. Duke Professor Michael Newcity writes "...they were traitors who conducted war against the U.S." How much clearer can it be?))

Bottom line: maybe we’d better be more careful throwing names around in the first place!

Bad ideas expressed in monuments may seem intractable. Public art is nearly always controversial. Consensus is achieved through bushels of talk —  but sometimes, protests and even pain ultimately are the only tools that break through to our collective conscious.

But attitudes can change. Entrenched opinions are not immune to truth and facts. We are creatures of habit but names change every day. Monuments that we assumed would exist forever can come down with enough human outcry. Look what happened to the Berlin Wall.