It seems that the role of art in preserving culture and history has been a lightning rod for debate this past year, and in the case of Charlottesville, Virginia, becoming the spark that led to racial tension and violence.
It seems like I have been reading many news stories about furor caused by art in the past year. First there was the statue of Fearless Girl, cleverly placed in front of the well-known statue of a Charging Bull on Wall Street, that completely changed the meaning of the original statue that was meant as a symbol of the strength of the American people, following the 1987 stock market crash. Then there’s the ongoing issue of cities buying ugly public art, whether its streetlights fused together or a truly heinous installation of rocks and rusted metal in Calgary.
Things got even more heated this year over the issue of cultural appropriation, including an incident where a non-Indigenous artist came under fire for painting artwork that was inspired by Indigenous artist Norval Morrisseau.
But no debates or controversy remotely compared to what happened in Virginia, with protestors and white nationalists clashing over the decision to remove statues of Confederate figures like American General Robert E. Lee from public, which led to the death of one protestor.
One University of Nevada student who was caught marching alongside the neo-Nazis claimed it was all a misunderstanding - he wasn’t racist, he just didn’t want to see white culture or history erased, he said.
While it’s important not to erase history, it’s amazing that some people can argue for the preservation of art and monuments that symbolize oppression. Can we imagine statues of World War II leaders like Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini being allowed to stand in their native countries without anger from the people?
Art can engender discussion. It can provoke rage, fear, sadness, and a host of other emotions. I veer on the side of allowing people – including artists - freedom of expression, even if those views are sometimes repugnant or uncomfortable. And I support the idea of towns and cities buying art and supporting artists.
However, when it comes to the use of public funds for art displays or allowing public art to stand, I think that towns and cities should be bound by a few common-sense rules of thumb. If possible, public funds should go towards supporting and recognizing local artists. I believe public funds should purchase art that fuels discussion or reconciliation or other community goals. A statue of a colonial figure or a slave owner, or a symbol of oppression, on the other hand, likely doesn’t contribute to community goals or advancing discussions, but rather, lionizes the mistakes of history and demoralizes those who were subjugated.
The events of Virginia, and the even more fraught political scene in America, is truly a sad situation. I hope people are able to see through the haze of anger, hatred and racial tensions that might otherwise cloud their minds, to having reasonable and rational discussions about where we’re going as a society, how we can get there and how art is truly an important part of the discussion.
