This year’s Art History Summative Presentation addressed the question, Is the Removal of a Confederate Statue an Act of Iconoclasm? Owen Eisenbeis, Sam Faust, William Harrison, and Michael Mangano, the prosecution, argued no, it is not iconoclasm; Deven Creeth, Thomas Rempe, Michael Roxas, and Ryan White, mediation, argued that it may or may not be depending on context; Dominic DiPasco, Thomas Kraeger, Charlie Schanbusch, and John Zemlyak argued for the defense yes, it is an act of iconoclasm. A few key arguments from the serious, lively exchange are listed below. Chief Justice Finan with Justices Barrett and Swigelson decided for the prosecution, with qualifications. Justice Finan questioned how the date of a statue’s installation related to their arguments, given that before the mid 1880s most were placed in cemeteries, and after most were placed in public spaces such as courthouse grounds. He also spoke of the importance of recognizing attempts to whitewash the reputation of leaders whom the historical record indicates are not worthy of public commemoration.
Prosecution:
The removal of Confederate statues is not an act of iconoclasm; it is a moral act which continues our progress towards a fundamentally just society. Given that iconoclasm is an act based in the interest of deposing authority, removing Confederate statues cannot be an act of iconoclasm, because it upsets an ideology which has no authority in the United States today. Civil War commemoration can be done with statues that do not uphold white supremacy.
Mediation:
It depends on the statue itself and the circumstances surrounding how and why it was removed, and the most important factor is whether or not the majority of the population agrees to its removal. A statue of Confederate soldiers that the public thinks commemorate the idea they were fighting for could instead be one intended to commemorate lives that were lost. A total iconoclastic eradication of all Confederate statues generalizes different messages into one broad message, therefore the issue of removing a statue must be decided on a case-to-case basis.
Defense:
Iconoclasm is cultural vandalism and a failed attempt at cultural hygiene. It is often done in order to remove the social “power” of statues. The purpose of removing Confederate statues – a clear act of iconoclasm – is to undermine the racist themes that many believe reside within them. Can a statue actually be racist? For racism to occur, there must be an attack on a person or group of people that have similar attributes. Confederate statues do not attack people. Iconoclasm is effectively babyproofing the past. These historical figures, perhaps racist in their time, have been dead for a long time. We keep their statues to remember our history, but not to praise it. They remind us of the blood shed – brother versus brother – during the American Civil War.
Each side clearly made compelling arguments, and I think mediation addressed the question most fully. More importantly, though, now what? As an iconophile, I advocate for art, for cultural patrimony, for the preservation of stuff. So, loathe as I am to quote our former President (in fact I support the Kennedy/Shanahan ticket), and notwithstanding his timing and language guaranteed to combust an already fraught situation, when in a July 2020 speech at Mount Rushmore he said he would sign an executive order establishing a “national garden of American heroes”, I think he named the basic solution – keep our public heritage in public. Successful precedents include Coronation Park in Delhi and Memento Park in Budapest.
That said, I add one huge caveat: it must be maximally democratic. The advantage of a public monument park – large and away from densely populated areas – is that it is a destination any citizen can choose to go to or not. Because citizens cannot avoid their town halls, courthouse lawns, city parks, and major thoroughfares, etc., I endorse the removal of Confederate monuments from those spaces. Imagine a National Monument Park with one designated area where statues and monuments could not to be touched* and were displayed with interpretive panels written by a range of scholars. Imagine another designated area that invites interaction with the monuments – think the graffitied pedestal of the Lee statue before it was removed from Richmond, or the traffic cones placed on the head of the Duke of Wellington in Glasgow. And picture a third area designated for the display of Confederate statues that have been removed, deconstructed, and rebuilt a la the artist Colombino’s, Stroessner Memorial to Victims in Paraguay. I favor such a park that would demand the use and protection of free expression. *Our former President also said, “people who damage or deface federal statues or monuments will get a minimum of 10 years in prison.” Alternatively, I’d suggest 12 + credit hours in U.S. History followed by a year of community service teaching civics in grade schools.
In the meantime, you don’t need to imagine a stealthily forthright contemporary monument to the Civil War, because you can see one live in the ASC – Cole Foshage and Theo Miller’s design titled Reconciliation. The title is aspirational. Their image begins with the middle passage and proceeds to the present. Reconciliation exudes humanity, illustrates progress, and does not flinch from evidence of on-going struggle and brutality. Bravo.
