Transcripts For CSPAN3 Interpreting The American Revolution Civil War 20240713

Available as a podcast. Find it where you listen to podcasts. Next on American History tv, art historian Judy Scott Feldman analyzes artistic portrayals of the American Revolution and civil war. She talks about the influence of painting, sculptors, and memorials on how history is remembered. The Smithsonian Associates posted this event. Posted this event. We are going to look at the American Revolution and civil that. Ut a little beyond controversies about the stories we tell. I am going to focus, because it is impossible to cover such an amount of material in one talk, i will focus on the capital and the public buildings on the mall , which is the centerpiece of American Political Culture and our public culture where people come from all around the world in country to participate government, to learn about government, understand our heritage, so i thought, what is it we say to those people when they come to washington . What have been some of the controversies . What are some of the issues we should be aware of and what is missing . That is going to be my focus with the Capital Building here, and of course the mall which stretches all the way back down to the Lincoln Memorial. The Capital Building with its great paintings by John Trumbull of the American Revolution and at the opposite end of the mall, the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the civil war and Abraham Lincolns role. Also up at the capital and is another littleknown memorial. There was an oped in the Washington Post a couple days ago about this memorial, the ulysses s. Grant memorial, which is there at the foot of the Capital Building. It and the Lincoln Memorial were dedicated in 1922, the same year. Yet they represent two different approaches to telling the story of america and the civil war. Of course, the statue of ulysses s. Grant is something that one sees similar statues of throughout washington, all the circles in washington have been populated about the same time with Civil War Union generals. Lets look first at some of the been arising not only in america but elsewhere about how we tell our history, what kind of history artists have made for us, monuments that speak to the world of identity, often national identity, and one of the biggest controversies that has erupted in recent years has to do with confederate monuments. This is silent sam, the confederate statue raised up on the pedestal at the entrance to the university of North Carolina at chapel hill. Erected in 1913. It has been there for many decades and it has been controversial since the 1960s or 1970s, but no big deal was made about it. However, in recent years, police andcertain confederate activities, the monument has taken a new aspect. It is no longer simply a statue of a confederate soldier. It is a symbol of the confederacy, a symbol of the south, a symbol of the socalled lost because of the southern states. 2017, a protest against the statue, calling for it to be taken down. Protest to keep it alive, keep it up. The Confederate Heritage society protesting the opposition to the statue and saying, this is a symbol of pride, a symbol of our history, of our heritage, and ofimately in 2018, a Group Students and others pulled the statue down. Now the pedestal stands empty. A different approach was taken in new orleans. Landrieu, the then mayor of new orleans, a vote was taken by the city council and they voted to remove four confederate statutes and to address the memory that they represented. 17, this is fundy the fourth and last of the confederate generals to be removed. General robert e lee removed from his pedestal and put into a warehouse until a decision could be made what to do with these statues. On one hand, the controversy activity,by violent on the other, a recognition by the city council itself that symbolic meaning associated with these statues, in particular are associated with the people who have acted them in the early 1900s who were espousing a lost cause. I recommend in the readings at the bottom, Mitch Landrieus book, which i recently bought and read, and it is a powerful story of him growing up in new orleans, facing confederate history, and recognizing that these were not harmless statues, that they were put up for a reason and for some people they ideologyresented an that is the antithesis to the way in which his city wanted to remember the past but also look forward to the future. Also, a recent story out of francos tombisco in the valley of the fallen, which has been which was controversial. From 1939ictator until his death in 1975. He was put in this honorific mausoleum. Im after the revival of democracy and Political Action by the spanish government, it was decided that his body would be removed and moved to the cemetery with his wife. Why . On one hand was the memory of theco being remember, on other hit, it had become a symbol of the rising fascist rightwing. It is not just of the fact of the monument, it is the way these monuments can be used and represent meaning that they never had originally, but had taken on in modern society. 2019, his body was removed and moved to another location, taking away the honorific quality that had been bestowed on him. It is not just an american thing. You find it in many countries that people nations, city thecils are reconsidering legacy, their heritage, their history, and asking themselves, what story do we want to tell about ourselves . What matters to us now in the 21st century and how do we want to memorialize in our public spaces so that people can take this to be a statement of both our past but also our aspirations for the future . Lets look back in washington. Changing memorials, changing purpose, changing meaning. Monuments dont stay static. They are put up by people who lived long ago with certain ideas and they change over time. This is something that makes it worth discussing. We saw last time, when we were looking at the way in which artists depict world war i, we worldup with the national war i memorial, which is now under construction along pennsylvania avenue in washington. It should be completed maybe this year, maybe next year. We saw it will take pershing ,ark, next to Freedom Plaza between pennsylvania and constitution avenue. This part will be restored. It will be restored to a functioning public park. The statue of pershing will be restored as well. Now, there will be a new indicating a freeze the honoring of world war i. Here is the location and this is a live picture i took this morning, so you can see the area has been cleared that is across , d. C. He Wilson Building city hall. The area has been cleared and construction is underway. Centerpiece is this sculptural freeze that tells the story of the journey of the soldier from the moment he leaves his family and home to go to war, fighting through the war, and ultimately returning home. Sculptor is using an idealized mode in depicting this scene of combat, the figures are naturalistic lee depicted, unlike recent monuments. This depicted in a realistic battle scene. Original proposer for this memorial, to honor world war i veterans, said, i wanted a large sculpture, i wanted it to be of the time, 100 years ago. He was speaking in 2019. We also saw at the end of our talk yesterday that 100 years ago, they were speaking differently. Allies and the germans were creating art even when they were under commission by their official government body that their paintings were almost uniformly rain, horrifying, antiwar, and here we the irish born british painter, an official painter for the british propaganda board, painting in france, grown up after he encountered a shellshocked shoulder shellshocked soldier wandering through the fields after the battle. We also saw the american expatriate, john singer sargent, also hired by the british guard men British Government to commemorate, and he was asked to commemorate the cooperation during the war between the british and the americans cared americans. He went to france and came back and said, i cannot find any real scene of such cooperation. I would prefer to show this horrifying scene of these disorders having been cast , they cannotassed see, they are trying to walk to the battlefield strewn with bodies and this is how he commemorated world war i. On the one hand, we have our new memorial, which is more idealized treatment of a heroic journey, and on the other hand, 100 years ago, artists who found world war i to be beyond words, beyond idealism, and truly something that required a new kind of art that was essentially antiart in its message. Capital step into the and look at have the american look at how and the American Revolution was depicted through artists eyes. We will be looking at John Trumbulls paintings. First, a little chronology. 1776, the declaration of independence. Of generalurrender burgoyne at saratoga. Another key battle in 1781, the surrender of lord cornwallis at yorktown. 1783, all these scenes shown in the capitol, general George Washington resigning his commission. 17 88, the ratification of the United States constitution. The presidency of George Washington from 1789 through 1797. An important part of this story, in 1790, the residency act by which Congress Gave George Washington the authority to choose the location for the new capital. Of 1791 for the new capital. A plan that imagined essentially from willing hills filled with a few homes and cows and sheep, a fullfledged city and new capital for the new nation. In 1800, the federal government relocates to washington for the first time. Player inton is a key this post revolutionary history and the government having reestablished itself or having established itself, moving from philadelphia, mix washington makes washington the locus of commemoration. How do we depict the American Revolution . Here is a view of the Capitol Building in 1814. It had been under construction ofce 1793, but in the war 1812, had been burned by the british and you can see the two wings, the senate wing and house waiting, but the rotunda in the center had never been completed and now was severely damaged. John trumbull, the american painter, was commissioned by gress in 1870 two create 1817 to create four paintings commemorating the revolution and he consulted with president monro at the time and they decided to choose two military scenes and two civilian scenes. Here are the four scenes, all of which i have shown you. Lets look at greater detail. The declaration of independence. It was controversial in its day , the wrongple said figures are present and not all the figures who should be present are present. In fact, the scene is not the signing of the declaration of independence, it is the delivery of the first draft of the declaration of independence by Thomas Jefferson, john adams, and others on june 28, 1776. Why . It was the process that was still ongoing. Jefferson, thet key drafter, is handing the document to john hancock and now begins the debate and discussion and controversy and fighting over what exactly to say to the british and whether to sign this document. Two military scenes, but notice there is no battle. There is no fighting, no heroic military action. Instead, the focus is on the surrender of the british. This is the triumphal scene. We have the surrender of burgoyne in 1777 and another surrender of lord cornwallis. Finally, a heroic civilian image of general George Washington resigning his commission. Why so important . Rather than make himself a king, he relinquished military authority for civilian rule. Particular, why a controversy about this . Is not the signing of the declaration of independence, which we often think it is. What John Trumbull did and which caused consternation among those still living, is he left out present att were not the signing of the declaration of independence, but he did add everyone into the audience who did sign. Hee were not there but included them because he wanted to memorials memorialized those who had the strength to sign that document. It was john adams who was particularly perturbed. He wrote about it. He said, who will paint the debate . Who will paint the arguments in the Council Chamber in boston, in the month of february, 1761, between mr. Gidley and mr. Otis . Here, the revolution commenced. Then and there, the child was born. What did he want . He wanted realism. He wanted a sense that this was not a happy gathering, everyone in agreement. He wanted this to be a realistic scene of the struggle of the fight, the debates that took place. In fact, this is a theme that runs through memorials. Should they idealize or should they be realistic . We will see that again and again. Lets go back and see what Leon Battista Alberti says. We look at him in several lectors. Italian renaissance painter, architect, and writer who wrote his books on painting, architecture. Basis for thehe justification for classical architecture and classical painting from the italian renaissance forward. What he said about history painting remains the standard up until the 19th and 20th century. The great work of the painter and sculptor is the narrative or history to hold the eye of the learned and unlearned spectator for a long while while a certain sense of pleasure and emotion, the reader will not only delight in the paintings variety at artists s invention, but will be grateful when he finds our work enjoyable, counsel for a living wisely. He is very clearly an idealist. Be nots the painting to so much telling what really happened, but telling us what the moral is of the story. So it requires distortion. It requires embellishment and also requires a certain order that probably was not part of the story. The painter needs to first of all draw the eye, please the eye , so people look at the painting. It needs to move the emotions. There needs to be something that draws you when to the action taking place. Thirdly, it needs to counsel the soul. There is a moral to be learned from this. ,ou can imagine john adams brawling members of the convention, pulling each others hair and stabbing each other, what a scene that might be. It may be realistic, but not uplifting or counsel. Paintingbull painted a just prior to working in the capital, he painted the death of general warren at the battle of bunker hill. He was present himself at that battle. The battle of 1775. He uses and follows closely albertis ideal in preparing this painting. You can see that there is the general lighting on the ground in white, dying. Geometry,ition, using to create a strong visual attraction to the soldiers as they line up and to the centrality of the general himself. Storye draws us into the and in the story, you can see the general on the ground, his eyes are still open. He is dying but there is a red coat to the right who is about to stab him with the bayonet. There is another vet coat to the far right who is stopping him. It is because these soldiers had served together prior to the revolution. Here, John Trumbull is trying to show nobility, even among enemies at the moment of war. Even the redcoats, general so, he has taken the scene, which was no doubt chaotic, and turned it into something that is really can you see the soldier on the right . On the far right . Hes reaching up to grab the gun. The rifle. To stop him from stabbing him. That has created an image follows the rules. As he does with the surrender of lord wallace. Take a look at the symmetry of this painting. Is, thewhat the focus American General lincoln. Hes on the horse. To his left other redcoats who are now surrendering to his left are the redcoats, who are surrendering. Wallace was not present which is why general cornwallis was not at the front, which is why George Washington is not there. He is shown in the background of the other general were there and we see lines of french and american soldiers to the left and right to witness this great event. At the look again declaration of independence and ,sk ourselves, trumbull following the principles of history painting, has created a dignified scene, the central figures being jefferson, adams, and others. , and amoment of honor moment of contemplation. Hes made of that moment when finally, these ideas, the draft is handed over for debate. He has made this into a heroic image of american founders. What we see in the alternative, i thought i would bring in Martin Luther with the hope with the pope. We looked at hans holbein luther versus pope leo the 10th. Holbein showing luther in the upper left with his quill pen. Hes not fighting with the sword. But with his quill pen, attacking pope leo, who was about to swing his sword. Portrayal oftic the savagery, really, of ,uthers attacks on the pope then what we are seeing here. So the question of idealism, and realism. Whats the purpose of the commemorative painting . What is the purpose of telling this history . Is it to tell the truth as it was . Or is it to make of it some kind of model, some kind of moral us to that allows contemplate higher values and higher purposes . Capital, as a crucial element of the American Revolution being honored, are images of George Washington. Its interesting to see over time the way in which artists depict him. Changes. Is pointing in the rotunda to the statue of George Washington. The bronze statue was given to 1934. Pital by virginia in but the original stands in the Virginia State capital, in richmond. It was a statue done of George Washington. To virginia by a famous french sculptor of the 18th ,houdon. Here you see George Washington is depicted in his military in front of ang assimilating symbolizing power and unity. Began with this work he started with a bust. The busty made here, thats the he mademate the bust here. You can see it. But what did he dress him in . A roman toga. If you know about the founders, they were always quoting nations the ancients. They were creating the modern version of a roman republic. They would read what the ancients said and the idea was reference allegorical to George Washington is a great republican in the tradition of the ancient romans. George washington saw the bust and said no go. I will not be shown as a roman. I will be shown in the modest elements in which i am. So he got rid of the outfit, put him in his everyday clothes. George washington insisted on realism. He wanted realism, not idealism. He did not want to be likened to an esoteric figure. He wanted people to appreciate what he had done for them. So you see on the one hand, he is shown in his military garb. But notice that the sword is not in his hand. He is holding a gentlemens walking stick. Off to the right, his sword is on the is hung up side. This is indicating that though he led to the americans during the revolutions success, he was putting aside military authority for civilian. This,arshall side of nothing in bronze or stones could be a more perfect image of this statue of the living washington. Image that is, in many ways, similar to trumbulls image, in which George Washington is some shown as one of the founders, in his everyday, realistic aspect. Asked a830s, Congress Famous american sculptor, a famousreen off american sculptor to create a sculpture of George Washington for the rotunda. This is what he came up with. Artists,most american went to rome, paris, studied with the great european painters and sculptors and admired the traditions of the ancient greeks and romans. And he chose the statue of the olympian, zeus, from ancient greece. If you look at that reconstruction on the right, that drawing. To see how tall the big people are. They are tiny. Colossal statue, like most of the great statues of the gods and goddesses of ancient greece. They would have completely filled the interior height of a greek temple. Because the temples were homes. F the gods they were not places for people to go in, they were homes for the gods themselves. The olympian, zeus, undressed from the waist up and wearing rich greek garb below, holding a staff. Victory and a clearly a superhuman image. Thats exactly what the artist is trying to convey, using allegorical mode, the image, or the iconography of an ancient god to show that George Washington was more than a mortal man. The point, but also what is he doing with his left hand. He is relinquishing his military authority, his sword. Over, he is doing his correct civilian act, you have these two things combined, the godlike iconography combined with the civilian act of George Washington. How does this compare . One from the painting by trumbull, and 20 years later, really a generation later, when we are dealing with artists and sculptors and patients who did not know George Washington like the originals, who did not work with him in the creation of the government, now we are seeing an image. But even that was too much for congress. The ridicule was so great that ultimately the statue was put out on the east front grounds of the Capital Building, where children and adults came to gok, and ultimately to the smithsonian. Ins is a journalist writing 1907. The story of this washington is a tragedy, he conceived him as a colossal, godlike figure, but met with impedance, ridicule, and taunts. One satirist when interpreting the meaning of the extended arm supposed that washington was saying my body is that mount vernon and my clothes are in the patent office. Statue ended up in American History, where one can go see it. So this i bring up because the question of, what do we do with statues we dont like or dont want, heres one example. He is now something to be in the, or ridiculed, American History museum. , theup to the ceiling great dome of the rotunda also has a painting. And it is so difficult to see that most people have probably never looked at it in any great detail. It is the painting of the apotheosis of George Washington. Italian,ter was trained in rome, and brought with him a deep appreciation of italian renaissance painting. You are looking up into the 1865,ng, apotheosis in here a closer view, where you see the circular arrangement of figures, rising up into the yellow sky, the sun beyond, and figures lining the rim of the eventattending this great. And who is the star of the show . George washington. Here he is. Thepainter knew about controversy about the sculpture. So he took it to heart and dress to George Washington in his military garb. Hes holding his sword, but also gesturing to a book, which is history. But he did not use the divine aspect, or godlike it cannot iconography that he was probably inclined to use but knew would get him in trouble. So he depicts George Washington and his military garb, but he has this pink roman cloak over his knees. What was he thinking of . Probably he was thinking of the assumption of the virgin painting in parma cathedral. 1530. He was well acquainted with this and found it to be a super way of trying to indicate, in a dome , the rising up of a godlike figure into the heavens. Here lets look at the assumption of the virgin. Heres a detail, you can see in the central yellow aspect is jesus christ, rising into the heavens, and just below him wearing pink and blue as the virgin mary, who, according to catholic theology, is being bodily taken up into heaven. So here you have a model, for visualizing this great vision of a heavenly figure, rising up to eternal divinity. In the case of George Washington , he is flanked not by angels and saints and apostles, but instead by liberty and victory. We see, in this case, and i italianpainter an painter, bringing catlike archer stick artistic bringing sensibilities. Ic we have George Washington as he ascends to heaven and below him you have freedom trampling tierney. Tyranny. Y its being translated into a of a superhuman George Washington, who has been elevated in the eyes of the artists and americans by this 1865, that he is now considered beyond human. Theres another washington, this one on the mall. The idea for this goes back all the way to the founding of the city. Its interesting how this one was conceived. Plan, the city was embody, the layout, to many respects, the unit the new United States constitution. President George Washington asked the planner, who was born in france, and was trained in european planning, architecture, and art, ask him to design this new city. He looked out over the hills between the anacostia and Potomac Rivers, and laid out a city which at its heart, the three main buildings, the three main monuments, the u. S. Capitol on the highest spot, a pedestal waiting for a monument. In france or rome that would have been a church, a cathedral, a palace. Here it is the temple of the , the house of representatives, the senate building. A mile away, down pennsylvania avenue he planned the president s house the president cost se the president cost the president s house. And then a monument to George Washington. The public space between them he intended to be what we call the mall, a public space for the enjoyment of the american people. His whole city was centered on the concept of representative government, the elected president , the elected representatives of the people, the people between them, and the father of the country, George Washington. Have aninal idea was to equestrian statue, general George Washington. Now that general George Washington statue is now in washington circle, by George Washington university. It was never placed on the mall. Inaction, ars of Citizens Group got together, created the Washington Monument society. Now we are dealing with 18 30s and by that time the notion of an equestrian statue was out of the question. The winning design was robert mills Washington Monument from 1836. A bit different from the one we have now. See there is a tall obelisk, 600 feet high, at the foot of it is a round temple. A greek temple form is the detail, with sturdy doric , carrying essentially a pantheon. It was intended that there would be monuments to the heroes of the revolution, statues and painters painting inside. His composition, essentially, was a monument to washington, but also all of the heroes of the revolution. . Ut what is that on the top whats above the entablature there . Its a man in a chariot. Its George Washington, writing a chariot. And rising to heaven. Have is thething we paris, aiomphe in monument to napoleon and his military victories, where he also had figures such as this. In this case it is peace in a triumphal chariot. He could see the personification of peace, the partially nude thele figure ground writing four horses and golden victory figures to eastside. This is what mills had in mind for George Washington. Off, soe green much like the other sculptors, they were thinking of an iconography figure to transpose him from the everyday, from a general, to a superhuman, almost godlike figure. So when construction had been halted on the Washington Monument for about 20 years in the 1860s and 70s, when construction was started up , who reallys casey loved modern inventions, elevators, electric lights, decided no, no, we are not going to put that temple at the bottom. He wanted the Washington Monument to stay a simple obelisk that would represent the modality of them the madera of america,dernity moving forward. He saw it as a model of american ingenuity. It was his decision to not create the monument that mills envisioned. I think we are all happier for it. So when we look at the iconography of George Washington on the mall, right here in washington. There is no simple iconography, depends ons it when and where the artist came from, what they knew of George Washington or did not know of him, that we see everything from a very realistic, general George Washington on horseback to the aside figure who was put that hsu has put aside his sword and resigning his commission, to the godlike figures that show up two generations later. The civil war, how do we show the civil war . How did artists create civil war imagery . A little chronology, 18 621 to 1865, the civil war and president Abraham Lincoln. In 18 65, courthouse were generally surrendered to general grant were general lee surrendered to general grant. Following that is reconstruction and also the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments giving the formerly enslaved people rights that they had been denied. Historian many historians writing about this era have concluded that what remains is certain is that reconstruction blacks its that for failure was a disaster whose magnitude could not be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that endured. It is a failure, and that failure which is in part in forming the controversies that we are now seeing on university virginia,in richmond, and elsewhere. Over these uses of these images and the stories they tell when they were built after reconstruction in that period of time when the lost cause was being promoted by the daughters of the confederacy. Just to step outside the mall for a minute. We do have an interesting and quite beautiful relief sculpture of the red brick building. The old pension building in washington at fourth and f street. It was created following the civil war to serve as a building that would serve former soldiers, to provide them with needs, financial and otherwise. As you enter the building, its now the National Building museum. As you enter the building, look up. There is a relief in terracotta that goes around the entire gigantic building. Its modeled on the parthenon in part the nose, in athens, from the fifth century. The procession with athena and the greeks, but of soldiers, marching to battle, going to war, and coming home. We have a narrative of civil war activity,ghting, some but mostly a kind of narrative story. And then we have this. One of the earliest monuments after Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, emancipation monument in lincoln park. What is shown here . Standing,ncoln, leaning on a pillar. Notice the profile of George Washington. He is holding in his right hand on top of the pillar the emancipation proclamation. At his feet, a formerly enslaved nude, is leaning down and looking up in gratitude as Abraham Lincoln extends his hand over him. Bys monument was paid for. Reed enslaved people which made it rather controversial, at the time, and especially to our day. It shows this man, subservient to lincoln, and Frederick Douglass set it right said it right area he was at the dedication and he said it shows on need grow the negro his knees when a more manly attitude would have been indicative of freedom. So even unveiled, it was controversial because of the subservient way in which thomas portrayedomas ball the man. Postrecent washington article, harry jones, the assistant director of the africanamerican Civil War Museum in washington said i have never met anyone who said they liked it or were happy with it. I think it is one that people wish away. You dont read much controversy about this, but theres plenty behind the scenes. Whenever i show it to people who have not seen it, they are rather horrified. So what do we do with the statue . Do we leave it up . Move it . Reinterpreted . Reinterpret it . Its a good question. So what does the mall look like after the civil war . This. The capitol dome, originally once thes not adequate Capitol Building had been extended to the north and south, the dome looked too low. Designedd new dome was , and it was under construction during the civil war. The mall itself was a mess. It had those white buildings in cemeteries military associated and barracks. Ssociated with civil war tiger creek had turned into a fetid sewer. The only building you see is the one in the back, the Smithsonian Castle with its towers rising up. The mall was a mess. In 1900 it was still filled with trees. This is a view from the top of the Washington Monument. You are looking to the capital and can see the smithsonian on the right. You can see the National Gallery of art was occupied by the railroad station. The Railroad Tracks crossed the mall at sixth street. So how are we depicting the civil war on the mall in the area immediately after . We werent. There were not opportunities to do so. It was not until 1900 that things started to change. Memorialt the lincoln in 1922 and the grant memorial. To understand this we need to go back to the plan again. The 1791 plan im showing you on ,he right, laying out the city with the mall as its centerpiece, physically and also symbolically. 1901, senator mcmillan convened a commission, now known as the Mcmillan Commission, or the senate park mission. A planate commissioned to restore order to the National Mall and provide new places for public buildings and new memorials. The idea was fine for a few decades, but it was filling up. There was a need for public buildings, including the federal triangle and new memorials, including the need for a monument honoring Abraham Lincoln as the preserver of the union. So where the original scheme highlighted the president s house, and the Washington Monument, now the expansion under the Mcmillan Commission to the west and the south, on land that originally had been part of the Potomac River, all of that to the west and south of the Washington Monument was underwater until the 1880s. When the army corps dredged at the potomac and dumped soil west and south of the monument. Because of that the Mcmillan Commission said we now have a place to expand the mall and double its size. So they expanded exactly on the axis that had been established. They did not create a new design. They said that they visited all the cities of europe and came back to his plan, believing it to be the most appropriate design for washington, d. C. South,y expanded to the but also to the west, to a to the memoryed of one man in our history as a nation, who is worthy to be named with George Washington. Abraham lincoln. That was the Mcmillan Commission, in their report to congress in 1902. It was clear that they were establishing, reestablishing, the symbolism, the geometry, and the constitutional basis that had originated in the plan. Furthermore, in aligning the Lincoln Memorial with the Washington Monument and the Capital Building, they were also extending the symbolism quite explicitly. Bacon, thet henry designer said. The site at potomac park was the best one for a monument to Abraham Lincoln. We have at one end of the axis a beautiful building which is a monument to the United States government, the capital. At the other end of the axis, we have another possibility of the memorial to a man who saved the government, lincoln. Between them is a monument to all three of these structures stretching in one grand sweep from capitol hill to the Potomac River will legend one to the other the associations and memories connected with each and each will have its value increased by being on the one axis and having visual relation to one another. So this is the the design and the symbolic basis for the location of the Lincoln Memorial, not just a monument to lincoln but a monument that reinforced the constitutional axis of the establishment and the preservation of the american government. And, of course, theyre speaking language. Roic the architectural language that the Mcmillan Commission used was classical architecture. They wanted the mall to be filled with white, classical buildings and the triangle between constitution and washington passive av suspect creation of the Mcmillan Commission. They wanted federal buildings to have the dignity of classical greek and roman architecture. And dema inlose the Lincoln Memorial, modeled on a greek temple, the parthenon in rome and the greek staff by Daniel Chester french, when shows lincoln 16 foot high, super human scale, godlike in his temple setting with an inscription behind his head which says in this temple as in the hearts of the people for whom he saved the union, the memory of Abraham Lincoln is enshrined forever. So both a godlike figure in the temple form, his setting, in his sculptured form but also specifically in the inscription, which also says that this monument represents the preservation of the union. You dont see any overt sim political related to the emancipation proclamation, anything having to do with the states, anything to do with slavery. Instead on this axis, it was intended to symbolize the preservation of the United States government. And then at the other end. We have the grand memorial by henry sladey. This memorial was actually proposed not by the Mcmillan Commission but by veterans of the civil war. They wanted a monument to comment commemorate their efforts so we see here the great heroic leader, you lissis s. Grant is represented and you can see where in its very hard to get good pictures because in the 1960s that reflecting pool was put there so you cant stand n front of the stache but that statue of grant right in the center and here you see him raced up on a pote up here, a more traditional monument to the military leader of the Union Monuments up on his horse and to the side, you have the infantry. You can see cannon being dragged on one side and on the opposite side, the cavalry, men on horseback. Classizing but very telling, dramatic action during the civil wear war. Were looking at the two ends of the mall, the one end en intended with the historic plan. They werent saying lets build a monument to lincoln and lets have a competition. They were saying lets build a monuments to lincoln and we know what it wants to say, about the development and preservation of the government while at the other end a more traditional military monument showing the bravery, the valor of the roops. So what have we done and how do we build up and add to the story and this is a question that has to do with essentially the story on the mall and we keep adding to and updating. The grant memorial is very little known. Though i will say its a great place for the taking of school pictures. Youll see lots of School Groups assemble on the stairs at the bottom with the Capitol Building in the background and it makes for a great setting but it has not become a place of any other kind of commemoration or activity. The Lincoln Memorial, on the other hand, has taken on new meaning. On the one hand, some people have been very critical, from the beginning, of the Lincoln Memorial. Saying look, Abraham Lincoln grew up in a log cabin. He had no money, he had no learning and here we are representing him as a godlike figure. Curment savage in his book monument wars. Talks a lot about how do we build monuments and what should we say and hes cite critical of idolizing, almost defying of Abraham Lincoln. But its raised up on a podium with the great view of the mall bull also of its association with lincoln and the emancipation proclamation. We saw marin anderson, a great amra singer who sang on the stretches of the libble memorial in 1939 and then we see Martin Luther king with the march of freedom speech before the hundreds and thousands of people assemble and would now that spot has been marked by an inscription in the stem exactly where he stood. Now, if you havent seen it, its a little hard to find because its simply an inscription in the pavement and sometimes if youre there at the lincoln, youll see tour guides squirting water on the stem and what theyre trying to do is put water into the inscription so you can actually see i have a dream. I think it should be for prominent but the Park Services sed a manlt for historic purposes that we were disturbing a historic property. But it no longer represents thinking in 1902 or thinking in 192 when it was completed completed but it also shows that this memorial has an afterlife and it continues to have an afterlife and its good to memorialize that. During the first obama administration, inauguration, the day before in 2009, hundreds of thousands of people gathered because there was a dedication and a commemoration and a musical performance on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial exactly where Martin Luther king had stood. And so this monument, more than most in washington, has been able to take on additional layers of meaning that give it a living presence, not simply something for the past. And, of course, weve added the Martin Luther king memorial as well. Another memorial less known is the africanamerican civil war memorial dedicated in 1998, which is in the shaw neighborhood. But you can see whats happening is the monuments are proving not case of ugh in the civil rights, based on the remembrance of civil war, were seeing that our memory of the civil war is no longer simply the preservation of the union as enshrined on the mall and the actual battle scenes but instead civil right movement adopted the Lincoln Memorial and once it took on this new level, we also had the call for additional monuments as civil rights becomes a more important theme and now shoals up throughout the city. And so when we look at our commemorations, were seeing both the original and were seeing a growing desire, a growing need to supplement the original story as told in 198 1902 by adding appreciations and commemorations of those who were an integral part but were not figured, were not pictured, were not part of the commemorative landscape. Weve also added to the american story, beyond the American Revolution and the civil war, as weve had to, as we update and weve added the American Indian museum and the National Museum of frern history and culture. There have been calls to make e more mall more representative of our history, of our message, our meaning and national identity. Now, on capitol hill, its interesting to see how theyre the story nd told. Staffry hall, each state is allowed to erect two statues, two figures from their state and what weve seen here is by and large trk figures were all white men, up until relatively recently. But in 1905, the first woman was statuary hall. Frances willard. In 19 oops, that shouldnt say 1913. That should say [laughter] thats no commentary. That should say 2013, then Vice President joe biden dedicated the monument to Frederick Douglass. So what has happened here in statuary hall . The nice thing is theyre statues. You can take down one and put up another so the story is not so permanent like the apotheosis in the dome. So well additional figures, africanamerican figures, made up of american figures and in itself, ol row didnta the three ladies in the bathtub. The saw gratz. It tends to to look like three ladies in a bathtub but this is susan b. Anthony and others. Womens rights, not only about women but about the amending of the constitution, which was necessary in order to get women the right to vote. And so were seeing, and i log that, this, that the capitol under which our representatives serve daily and where the tourists go and a place where weve been able to update the story being told, as we realize that the whitecentric, malecentric story of American History can now be expanded and must be expanded to tell a much broader story. So, in building up the story on capital, theon the question comes to mind is who decides and how . And it comes to mind in part because of the prolive ration of War Memorials, in particularly on the west end of the mall. It started with the vietnam Svetlana Kuznetsova rans memorial. We then got the crane vealt veterans memorial, we got the world war ii memorial, which i will point out to you, the major controversy concerning it was its location on the constitutional axis of the mall that had been established and reestablished by the Mcmillan Commission and now we put a world war ii memorial in that location that not only disrupted sim blockly the meaning of the sim bolligly the meaning of the mall but also is enchoiced. So kinds of parades and marches that used to go through the area can no longer be. So questions railsed about the location of the memorial, not the existence of the memorial, which there was no opposition to. In addition to these war nowhere else, we po now have one thats supposed to open next year. The National Desert storm and Desert Shield memorial. This will be located over by the Vietnam Veterans memorial, making the west end of the ball a place where the prolive ration of War Memorials continues to take place just since the 1980s weve been adding them at alarming speed. End ys whilst the east is getting more museums, the west end lab getting the memorials. So who owns americas past and how do we stide what should go there . Im one of those who believes that the original vision of the lafont plan was an in genius idea, to embody into the landscape the fundamental principles of the United States constitution and the declaration of independence and its that idea, which has been defended by congress at various times, by government agencies, Historic Preservation entities but it essentially is rooted in the 1791 idea and expanded by the mc millen commission idea to include further history. Where did the War Memorials come from . Well, this is where you look at the commemorative process. N 1986, just a couple of years after the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans memorial, congress realized that there was war to be a run on memorials. Veterans groups coming to congress and so they passed the commem a active works act of 1986 which actually put in place a process where bipeople could add commem a active works, not just to the mall but to washington, d. C. , and the process works like this. A sponsor decides they want a memorial. Nd they go to the National Capital memorials advisory commission, which is headed by the Parks Service and has sitting on it the mexico of the General Services administration, the architecture of the capital and the American Battlelines commission, among others. Federal agencies that manage different aspects of the federal government. And that entity decides who whether the memorial neesm is important enough to be in the capital city. As opposed to some other city. And generally they agree that yes, it is. Once they were given the ok, these sponsors go to congress and Congress Passes or creates legislation and then passes the legislation and generally after that creates a commission. A memorial commission, and designates that commission to now follow through, to find a site, to find a design, to collect the money and then to build the project. After Congress Passes the bill, though, the sponsor has to go back to the National Capital Memorials Commission and seek their advice about Site Selection and they can either choose a site outside the National Mall, in which case they have a lot of leeway but if they want to be on National Mall itself, they are very restricted. It has to be of preeminent importance to the nation to be right in the center and it has to be of National Significance to be beyond but then once they consult again begins the process that often takes three, five, even 10 years. They have to go to review for the before the commission of fine arts, the National Capital commission. The office of preservation, the d. C. Preservation office, the office of planning and so on and so forth. Essentially this is what takes so long. They go before the entities and explain their design and Site Selection. And then they go from Government Entity to Government Entity, federal in d. C. In order to get their approval. Finally, once the final memorial is granled, as we saw in the noirl desert storm. They only finally got their approval in fall of last year but they are starting construction. Once they have final approval and a certain amount of private money collected then they can move ahead with construction. So this was 1986 and what happened . Well, more memorials got built. The crane veterans memorial, the world war ii memorial, and the world war ii memorial controversy caused congress in 2003 to state that the mall is a completed work of civic art. Completed work of civic art. Now, congress was encouraged to do this by the National Capital Planning Commission and the u. S. Commission of fine arts because they didnt know how to say no to anybody. Essentially sponsors come, they have a belief that they have a strong theme that needs to be in the capital and thats what happens. So Congress Declared the mall a completed work of civic art and put a moratorium on issue memorials. They exempted the Martin Luther king memorial and they ex e. Ed the desert storm memorial and others will soon follow. The question it leaves us with, to a large extent is, can the mall be a completed work of civic art . Is the story it tells full . Is it the story that we want to leave behind for future generations . And its not a completed work of civic art, what other alternatives could there be . As you walk up and down the mall and when i took a picture, i forgot, when i was stuck at a traffic light just a little while ago, i meblet to put it into my presentation. I was on constitution av at the Washington Monument avenue at the Washington Monument grounds. 60 acres of open space and potential for Something Interesting to be done to enhance that really dull walk from the east to the west side f the mall across that 60acre expanse. Or the view from the Lincoln Memorial. Two miles from the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol Building and ive walked it many times with sixthgrade classes and its a long walk when theres nothing particularly compelling to grab your interest. And so what i believe and this has been a proposal out there for 10, almost 20 years now, that we need a new commission. We need a new Mcmillan Commission, and the idea here and this is an idea i agree with would be that we reestablish the logic, the reason and the idealism of the original plan. People might disagree. Kurt savage said he thought that the 19th century mall was really wonderful, covered with trees, me andering paths, a great environment for the people but once the mall was cleaned up and the trees were cleared out in the 1930s, thats when we started to use it. We couldnt use it before then because there was no open space and there was no open vista. You couldnt see the Lincoln Memorial from the Capitol Building. So the notion of a thirdcentury mall would draw on the original geometry, the original symbolism, the original concept of the mall as an embodiment of the constitution and place for the people. We had our finest thinkers of the day in 1791. George washington, lafont, Thomas Jefferson working closely together. In 1902 we had frederick burnham, armstead jr. We had the top designers of their day and today we could do the same but weaved have to come up with some kind of entity, a commission of designers, thinkers, politicians, caught others, scientists, who could think about this great space for the coming century instead of being stuck with the 190 man. What happens when the plan you have runs out of memorial space . The Mcmillan Commission had the Lincoln Memorial in mind but since then weve punishment monuments wherever they tend to fall, depending on the sponsors. That is this is what lafont said George Washington in 1709. No nation 17 9. No nation had ever before the opposition of deliberately eciding the spot where the apital city should be fixed. No doubt lafont would think the concept of the mall is a complete work of civic art to be totally at odds with the original idea but the mall in its place in American City and democracy evolves as our society evolves and this is a notion that the National Mall coalition has been trying to. Com and encourage government and congress in particular to think about. That our original mall. The firstcentury mall, l enfant mall, was laid out the fundamentals of the malls setting. One second and notice the original yellow dolted line. Thats the original banks of the Potomac River. The Mcmillan Commission more than doubled the size of the mall and extended the westward and southward access. What is referred to here as the secondcentury mall and the mall could expand again. This is all federal land on both sides of the potomac and the anacostia. It could provide a design challenge a symbolism challenge, an cautional challenge, a memorial challenge. It could allow us to say the mall with can never be complete. It can continue to evolve and to grow and to tell a story. When we think about smallscale sculptures, such as this Benjamin Franklin sitting on the bench and finding interesting creesms creesms interesting people. Men, women from our past. Not just military victors but scientists and statesmen, teachers and so on. Could we, for instance, take statuery hall and reenvision it on the mausm to make that twomile spans a real openair classroom that could be used to great appeal . Could we look at monuments like the Albert Einstein memorial, which is on constitution avenue at the National Academy of sciences, smaller scale. Butfour acres, not 14 acres a small scale with eating around it that can accommodate people while also telling them more of the american story. And what do we do with the monuments we increasingly have problems with or we disapprove of . Do we take them down . Do we put them in a warehouse . Well, heres one approach. Budapest memento park. Maybe we could think of Something Like this. This is a cnn headline from 2018. Park where communist statues are laid to rest. So they imagined once communism had fallen, to create a park and move the mouse. There. This is the architecture. This park is about dictatorship and at the same time, because it can be talked about, described, built, this park is about democracy. After all, only democracy is able to give the opportunity to let us think freely about dictatorship. And so we see this great architecture which you remember and openair land scale where marks and engineles previously levated in the center of the capital now are relegated to this theme park along with great heroic statues to have working class. Could we think of Something Like that . Washington, the memorials, how we remember American Revolution, civil war, is like a combination in many ways, of the course that weve een following. Looking at the way in which important, often traumatic periods in history. The french revolution. Prost reformation. World war i, artists expressed not one opinion but multiple opinions. They engage with their time, they tell us what the moral is. They tell us sometimes with i deal form what the higher power ay was, but sometimes, as in delacroixss liberty leading the people showing the chaos of the french revolution and yet the heroism of the people. Kovitzs grieving parents in world war i. Showing the sadness, the horror, the frahma of world war i. No glory here. Trauma of world war i. No glory here. Any questions . [laughter] [applause] id like to make a comment. One thing you didnt talk about was it once dominated by the shn shonian museum as well as National Gallery of art. Thats a big part of the mall. And thats the way the smithsonian is dealing with the space and trying to keep all their museums on the mall or at least close to it. What do you think about that in relation to lenfants plan . I think the memorials are a crucial part of the story and thats why i think the addition of the American Indian and africanamerican mew semis were ways in which that story was enhanced. They didnt originally want their museums to be smithsonian and this is often the case, that congress decides that a museum enterprise. Several out there still, latino mew seem. Mern womens africanamerican museum. For there are museums theyre waiting to study. That doesnt mean they want to be part of the smithsonian but congress dez nates and makes them part of the smith sewn yean. Its not as if the smithsonian came up with the theme. As a matter of fact, the smithsonian has been saying in recent years. We have plenty of museums to take care. We dont knee any more. The museums are a crucial part of the story told and whats happening is, essentially, the smithsonian is growing because congress is telling it its going to be the official storyteller in america, in particular on the National Mall. But yes, theyre very important. But theres plenty of room. And, facility, i think as a matter of fact, i think the smithsonian would love to put statues and small sculptures outside their museums. There tuesday yao used to be some statues out front. There. Mr. Beasley, a giant dinosaur in front of the National History museum. And it was great fun. Kids would play on it, until it became a legal liability, apparently. The only fun right now we see is the carousel, which is a wonderful ride. Cheap and long but that is under threat too and may soon be lost. The question is why . The reason is nobody is in charge of the mall and i didnt bring you the diagram but i made a diagram and both d. C. And federal agencies asked me if they could use it. It shows an yarel view of the mall and all the different entities. The park service has jurisdiction of the grass, trees and major monuments because once the monuments are completed, Congress Hands them over to the Parks Service to maintain them. But you then have the smithsonian and it has its buildings, its forwardens and it has the walkways in front. National gallery of art is a separate, semiindependent entity. It has two buildings and a garden. He United States department of agriculture, right down the street, thats a federal agency. And the cross streets are governed by d. C. Government and constitution by the park service up to i think its to 178th, 15th street. You have all these entities and essentially what they say to one another is not on my land. So when the smithsonian wants to have the folks lime festival, they have to be get a permit from the park service and for the past 30 years theyve been fighting each other. The park service doesnt want people on the new grass but the smithsonian wants to bring people to the new grass, and everyone understands this is the fundamental problem, which is why they like my diagram. Its not their fault, they say. We have jurisdiction only over this land. We cant get land to expand but i here could be think there could be great possibilities if we could create Something Like a Mcmillan Commission and put others on the commission so we could talk about the totally of the space as opposed to jurisdictions that talk about only their own policy. Yes . Memoriale eiffel tower go through the same process that you just described . Yes. I was involved from the very beginning of thizen hour memorial and when they commose the site, the Government Entities are supposed to follow a public process called section 106. Somehow that got a little diverted because by the time that site was selected, which is on independence avenue across from the air and space museum. The federal government and the District Of Columbia government, along with joint administration services, each of whom owned part of the lot all agreed that since that lot is not of much use, lets give it away. Of course, its on mched avenue, the southern equivalent of pennsylvania avenue on the north. So the site was given away. Usually theres a competition but they decided lets get rid of the competition and use g. S. A. s hiring process and what g. S. A. Does when theyre going to build a courthouse, they look at a bunch of earkts and say they want this one. They chose gary, who had never built a memorial, and he started coming up with ideas. Its unup under construction and going to be completed by may of this year. Four acres, 80foot high columns. Sclurp at the low level and trees and the columns also hold a metallic screen. What was interesting with this one and this happened also with the world war ii memorial. The world war ii memorial was supposed to be a monument to honor all americans working together during the war. Children, women on the home front and so on. It ended up being built by the American Battle Monuments Commission as an American Battle moufment. Izen hour was chosen eisenhower, was chosen, they said, because the site is next to air and space, f. A. A. , department of education, voice of america. Awful these build beings all these buildings surrounding it go back to the eisenhower administration. Its a way of showing how he was a very influential president in bringing about the expansion of government in different ways. The idea gary came up with was the barefoot boy from kansas. The sculpture was of a barefoot boy. It has to do with the final speech that eisenhower gave when he came back from war, that he was just a barefoot boy from kansas and that the screens would have scenes of kansas land scale and pictures. That idea got flown out. The screens got reduced down to one and now the screen is the beaches at florimon di with the cliffs. The statue of the barefoot boy is now off to the side and this is over the process of about 10 years. We went from a monument that celebrated the president and his general so now a monument which is another world war ii memorial. But thats often what happens. You go wheres that original idea that seemed so full of promise by the location . But its the process thats very complicated. Why did he get a fouracre site with columns that are taller than the Lincoln Memorial . Again, we dont have a way, like we did with the lenfant plan and the mc millen plan, to have sbefpblgt design at work. Instead, its piecemeal. Ill give you a plot of land and you fill it up but before that, were going to go through 400 different review and well chip away and chip away until but thats democracy, i guess. [laughter] yes . The monument to Franklin Roosevelt . Originally it was going to where 14 acres. It was cut down to seven. So its half the size it originally going to be and i wasnt involved with this but it was originally proposed in the 1950s and it was going and then they had so many different competition and the designs were always thrown out. And finally, lawrence pal halperin designed this landscape solution, which is essentially four rooms. One per each of Franklin Roosevelts administration, to tell the story, the Great Depression depression, world war ii and amp math. And we used and halperin usinged a lot of sclurm elements to tell story. There are some compelling and interesting sclurl elements and kids like it. Why we need seven acres for that is another question. But it is beautiful at night, as is the world war ii memorial. You have water, lights, compelling elements but it is essentially a museum. Why dont we put Franklin Roosevelt in a museum and then leave our open space to maybe a statue . Its a very compelling statue of Franklin Roosevelt sitting with his great cape and you could even put now the one of him in his wheelchair on the way up the path, which is where i think it belongs, not in the moufment. Its too small for najai gantic wall. But we are confused as to what a memorial should be, what it should do, what its purpose is and what it says about us as a nation. Concerned, our memorial makers are struggling to find a way to do that and we dont have anyone kind of giving them advice as a totally. You can go to the commission of fine arts and there can be some fine commentary but if you go back two years later with your revised design, theres a good chance those same commissioner are no long Attorney Commission and someone else is on and they have a different perspective. So the process, service its tried to be organized, in my view doesnt succeed when it comes to making coherent, cogent monuments and putting them in relationship to one another. I meant to do this but i dent. What about the Jefferson Memorial . Jefferson, the slave holder. Terrible aspect of that background. But do we take him down or do we say the Jefferson Memorial is, in fact, a monument to the declares of independence. You read the walls, thats what it is. Its only on the cobs institutional axis with the constitution and the white house. Lets bring the other founders in. He doesnt have to be the only one standing inside. We could add women founders as well. We could add all kinds of their actives to the stairs, to the tidal bavenl area, even inside the temple itself. Can we rethink memorials step saying Historic Preservation demnleds they stay 1930 or cant we say, look, were using them for the Cherry Blossom festival, cant we do a little bit more . And now we know that jefferson has this dark side of him, we dont have to dispose him but maybe we can give credit to others. Wasnt George Washington also a slave owner . Yes, George Washington was also a slave owner. Every time theres a big controversy about the founders, someone says what about that Washington Monument . Its saving grace is its abstraction. It doesnt have any image or words. Its simply this great on limbing and if it werent there, washington wouldnt be washington. That is, the city. Yes, these issues come up all the time. Im surprise that would people dont look in horror at the dome of the capitol and they save what in the world is going on here . Except no one can see it now. But you can use these just in the ro tunneleda, you can use the rotund affects, you can use the paintings, the sculpture to tell a story about how we tell our story. It can be a very interesting way to engage people in what our memorials mean and even think we can imapproval them, and thats what i like about statuary hall. We can take down somebody and we can put up somebody else. Statues allow you to have this inpep nernls. Impersonal ism perm innocence. Whereas a sevenacre moufment. A fouracre mourgets were stuck with it. Thats my feeling. Anybody else . Yeah. A we look at all the confederate symbols and what they mean today. Any discussion about Arlington National cemetery no, because the government absconded with it and once it was yeah, that was robert e. Lee and lees ancestral home and then during the war, Union Soldiers were being buried on the site and ultimately the government did pay the family for that land and it became a National Cemetery so i dont know what the solution to that may be but i think its might be but i think its good when people learn their history and what they realize Something Like that Arlington Cemetery was part of the lee family examine so on. These discussions are good and often, you know, the louders voices are the ones that get eard but people like Mitch Landrieu were able to create a very thoughtful dialogue in his little book, which i highly recommend. Theres no one answer, theres no simple answer. You can leave the monuments up and maybe put a plaque, so long as theyre not used for symbolic purposes by forces for destruction. But thats partly the problem is how these monuments are used. Theyre not abstract things. When youve got rallies and Confederate Heritage events going on around them, now theyre being given new meaning. Just like the Martin Luther king plaque gives the lincoln new means so its a reason and an opportunity, really, to think, to discuss, to learn our history and to revise our history as needed. I hope you liked the class. Ive had a great time. [applause] yeah . I know youve focused mainly on this area but i wonder what your thoughts are on the new statue of richmond rumors of war. Yeah, wiley made a statue called rumors of war. Its a black man on a horse with dreadlocks and jeans and its directly modeled on i think its jeb stuarts statue in rim showed it and he first in times square in new york and now its planted in richmond across from the museum of fine arts, i think. Yeah. And what hes done is hes taken the traditional heroic confederate statue and now put the same kind of horse but with this black man on it. To me, its kind of a you now, it its an interesting thought but i dont think it essentially buys into the heroic man on horseback. E does Kendall Wiley also did a and i dont remember what he called it but you all remember napoleon crossing the alps, right . Grand painting. Oh, its up there. Its up in the upper left. Crossing the alps, not a hair out of place, heroic, when, in fact, he was on a musme. Wiley, who paints just black men hell find on the street yeah, and he did a black portrait on the horse. And i thought, ok. And thats at the portrait gallery, isnt it . Yeah. Buthe did obamas portrait, when i looked at the paint of the napoleon now transformed to a black man, i dont quite get what you get, except that hes appropriating what he thought was an inadequate or inappropriate image and now given it over to his black subject. So im not i dont get it. You dont think it [indiscernible] i know a lot of people think that. Im just not so sure. Arthur ashe is now on monument avenue so i think these are all things worth considering. I think, though, when you buy into the same icon ago friday iconography that youre criticizing, you run the risk of being not clear or ambiguous but i think hes being playful as well and sometimes playful is what you need to do in order to get people to pay attention. Thank you. Thanks a lot, thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] this is American History tv on cspan 3, where each weekend we feel 48 hours of programs exploring our nations past