Reply
Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:49 am
The General Services Administration, an administrative arm of the federal government, is currently deciding whether to remove two murals by an artist with Redstone ties from the walls of the Environmental Protection Agency building in Washington, D.C.
The murals, which Frank Mechau painted in the 1930s, depict U.S. mail carriers being chased and slaughtered by American Indians. Some American Indians and others object to the murals, "Pony Express" and "Dangers of the Mail," for what they say is an inaccurate and unflattering portrayal of American Indians in the 1800s.
On at least one point, critics of Mechau's work have a point. According to the website of the city of St. Joseph, Mo., the historic home of the Pony Express, only one rider lost his life to attacks by Indians in the 19 months in the early 1860s that the Pony Express was in operation.
But his work should remain in public view, even if it exaggerates history and portrays American Indians of the 1800s differently from what some today would prefer.
Mechau was painting in the 1930s, a time when American Indians occupied a very different place in the American psyche from the one they occupy today. It wasn't until society's view of American Indians changed that Mechau's work, which portrays American Indians as the dominant people of the West, became offensive.
And Mechau's work is historic in its own right, commissioned with government funding designed to keep Americans working during the Great Depression. It was a short-lived program that helped scores of American artists continue their work.
If the GSA removes Mechau's work, it will close an important window into our past. We would lose two murals created during the Great Depression depicting one view of the conflict between American Indians and settlers in the American West.
Instead of removing the murals, the federal government should install educational materials next to them, correcting any historical errors and explaining how the modern image of American Indians has evolved over time.
Hmmm.
I'm not for censorship. I am remembering there was a Siqueieros mural in LA that was whitewashed over..
Alternately, I don't think of outdoor murals as untouchable forever; think they are by nature ephemeral in mode. (I can argue with myself about this.) Do I think this about indoor murals in a public space? Probably.
Off hand, I think it should be saved, but perhaps not there. Wondering.. it is probably on a plaster wall.. re chance of transferring it somewhere,
Mulling some more. I think there should be a second mural, done by a contemporary artist, depicting the respect for nature shown by native americans, and given equal space...
Very interesting tidbit there.
I am of the opinion that any form of censorship should be strongly limited, if not abolished altogether. And if we continue on this path of 'This offends me, remove it from my sight!' then eventually we'll have no public artwork at all.
Now, having said that, there is a certain degree of responsibility on the government's behalf to maintain public sites. You can't really restrict or stop people from viewing the sides of an administrative building, so if a group of people take strong offense to it, you can't simply hang up a disclaimer advising people not to look if they get offended.
This is a rather significant problem involving all murals. Other public works, such as statues etc can typically be moved indoors, or dismantled and repositioned somewhere where offense will not be taken. Murals don't have that luxury. Therefore, should the creation of murals be approached with a different notion of what's risque and what isn't?
The idea of putting educational material by Mechau's murals would, in my opinion, be more than adequate. Above and beyond that, however, we as a nation need to wake the hell up, quit decrying everything that we don't care for as offensive and derogatory, and learn to live in a world that never was intended to please us 100% of the time.
I agree with Questioner. We cannot run our lives by means of the negativism of censorship. Instead, public works and even literature, such as Twain's use of the N word (what was it, Nemesis?), that we find offensive should be treated as stimuli for debate and public education.
We are too eager to try to rewrite recent history out of a desire to make it fit today's standards, which in turn can be rewritten by next generations. It is the same with literature and song as art. People express disdain or outrage over Margaret Mitchell's portrayal of the old south, but in her day the train of her thought was pretty common, same as Twain's Huck Finn. Stephen Foster had an affinity for black Americans. I have read that a friend of his lay dying and asked Foster, "Where is the song you promised to write for me?" On the spot he composed and sang "Old Black Joe."
An important point, Edgar. Everything we think and say is historically and culturally situated. Instead of censoring values, notions, and actions of a different era and culture SOLELY because they do not conform with our standards is innane, like condemning France for the use of the Guillotine. Instead, we should study those difference in order to develop some historical and cross-cultural sophistication.
There are some exceptions when it comes to cultural practices of other societies. Clitorectomies in Africa, for example.
No, I don't think it should be removed. I think it is what it is and that a plaque should be added similar to dys's topic post.
I would also like to say we should run dys for congress.
I've an opinion but I'll hold it...
It was the same with Kipling's ,"Take up the White Man's Burden." The poem, as I see it, was a tribute to the East Indian considering the time in which it was written.
Right, Letty.
Francis, don't say you'll hold it in. Makes me want to pee--in a Parisian kiosk. :wink:
I think Francis is asleep, JL, so you can pee anywhere you like. <smile>
If you have ever read Kipling's "Without Benefit of Clergy", you will catch another look at his insight into the critical situation of the times.
I hadn't thought about Kipling, but, of course, he fits also. We don't have to agree with the notions of other times, just recognize and deal with them rather than sweeping them under a rug.
exactly, edgar. If our present world hasn't examined the "prophets" who have helped the world get a little better, then it won't get better, but it has to begin with someone.
Hamlet makes poor Danish history. Lawrence of Arabia distorts Arabian culture a great deal. And a mural on a government building misrepresents the role of Indians in the Wild West. So what? Art isn't about the truth, and never has been. And a multicultural society has much more to fear from politically correct censors than from an offensive mural.
Also a very good point, Thomas.
A point I had overlooked, Thomas.
You know, Thomas. Yitwail and I discussed Hamlet. That Dane was a bad boy. As I once told edgar. It's art. You're not supposed to enjoy it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace