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, rotunda, and of course the mall which stretches all the way back , down to the Lincoln Memorial. Building Capitol 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 Capitol 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 issues that had 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 , many decades and it has been controversial since the 1960s or 1970s, but no big deal was made about it. However, in recent years, because of Certain Police and 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 cause of the southern states. You see here in 2017, a protest against the statue, calling for it to be taken down. The same year, a 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 ultimately, in 2018, a group of students and others pulled the statue down. Now the pedestal stands empty. A different approach was taken in new orleans. Under mitch landrieu, the then mayor of new orleans, a vote was taken by the city council and they voted to remove four confederate statues and to address the memory that they represented. So we see in 2017, this is 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 addressed by rather violent activity. On the other, a recognition by the city council itself that there was symbolic meaning associated with these statues, and in particular associated with the people who have acted the people who erected 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 still represented an ideology 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 spain is Francisco Francos tomb in the valley of the fallen, which has been which was highly controversial. He was a dictator from 1939 until his death in 1975. He was put in this honorific mausoleum. After the revival of democracy democracy and some 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 franco being honored. On the other hand, it had become a symbol of the rising fascist rightwing. It is not just of the fact of the monument, it is the way in which these monuments can be used and represent meaning that they never had originally, but had taken on in modern society. So, in 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 Councils are reconsidering the 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 ended up with the National World 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 park, 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 addition e indicating 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 from the wilson building, d. C. City hall. The area has been cleared and construction is underway. We saw that the centerpiece is s high relief structural rieze 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. We saw the sculptor, cb and howard, is using an idealized mode in depicting this scene of combat, the figures are ally depicted, unlike recent monuments. Depicted in a realistic battle scene. In fact, the 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. Both the allies and the germans were creating art even when they were under commission by their official government body that their paintings were almost grim,mly rim horrifying, antiwar, and here we are looking at the irish born british painter, an official painter for the british propaganda board, painting in france, blown up after he encountered a shellshocked soldier wandering through the fields after the battle. We also saw the american expatriate, john singer sargent, also hired by the British Government to memorialize, to commemorate, and in particular he was asked to commemorate the cooperation during the war between the british and the 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 soldiers having been gassed, they cannot see, they are trying to walk through 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. Capitol step into the and look at have 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. 1777, the surrender of general burgoyne at saratoga. Another key battle in 1781, the surrender of lord cornwallis at yorktown. In 1783, all these scenes shown in the capitol, general George Washington resigning his commission. 1788, the ratification of the United States constitution. The presidency of George Washington from 1789 through 1797. A very important part of this story, in 1790, the residency act, by which Congress GaveGeorge Washington the authority to choose the location for the new capital. 1790 one, what you are looking at here, is the plan of 1791 for the new capital. A plan that imagined essentially from Rolling 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. So washington is a key player in in this postrevolutionary 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 Since 1793, but in the war of 1812, had been burned by the british and you can see the two wings, the senate wing and house wing, butiting the rotunda in the center had never been completed and now was severely damaged. John trumbull, the american painter, was commissioned by congress in 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 because people said, the wrong 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. We see here that jefferson, the 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. Then we have 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. In particular, why a controversy about this . This scene is not the signing of the declaration of independence, which we often think it is. What John Trumbull did and which caused some consternation among those still living, is he left out figures that were not present at the signing of the declaration of independence, but he did add everyone into the audience who did sign. Some were not there but he included them anyhow because he wanted to memorialize those who the strengthion, 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. So 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 of the struggle, the fights, 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 have looked at him in several lectures. Leon Battista Alberti was the italian renaissance painter, architect, and writer who wrote his books on painting, on architecture. Printed the basis for, the 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 historia 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 invention will be grateful when he finds our work enjoyable, counsel for a living wisely. He is very clearly an idealist. He wants the painting to be not 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. You can imagine john adams painting 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. In fact, John Trumbull painted a painting just prior to working tol, 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 there is the general lying on the ground in white, dying. His composition, using geometry to create a strong visual attraction to the soldiers as they line up and to the centrality, to the left, of the general himself. Then he draws us into the story , 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. Theres another red coat to the far right who is stopping him. It is because these soldiers had actually served together prior to the revolution. Here, John Trumbull is trying to show nobility, even among enemies at the moment of war. Even the redcoat, general gates i think was his name, is trying to protect general warren from death. He has taken a scene that was no doubt chaotic and turned it o something that is really oh, can you see the soldier on the right . He is reaching up to grab the gun, the rifle, to stop him from stabbing him. So he has created the image that albertis rules. This. T the symmetry of we know what the focus is, the American General lincoln. Hes on the horse. To his left are the redcoats, who are surrendering. Ornwallis was not present that is why general washington is not at the front. He would only be at the front if the top general was there. George washington is shown in the background. Lines of french and american soldiers to the left and right to witness this great event. When we look again at the declaration of independence and ask ourselves, trumbull, following the principles of good history painting, has created a dignified scene, the central figures being jefferson, adams, and others. Its a moment of honor, a 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 would be the alternative . I thought i would bring in Martin Luther with the pope. We Hans Holbeins we looked at Hans Holbeins 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 himself about to swing his sword. A more realistic portrayal of the savagery, really, of , attack onuthers the pope than what we are seeing here. So the question of idealism and realism. What is 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 lesson that allows us to contemplate higher values and higher purposes . Also in the capital, as a crucial element of the American Revolution being honored, are images of George Washington. I fear here i think it is interesting to see, over time, the way in which artists depictions changes. Here, the arrow is pointing in the rotunda to the statue of George Washington. The bronze statue was given to ol by virginia in 1934. But the origina