Written in Stone by Sanford Levinson takes an interesting look at controversial monuments in the United States as well as abroad. He identifies the dilemma of the structures meaning at the time of installation versus the controversial and often unconstitutional meaning of the structure in the present. As a constitutional lawyer, Levinson argues his point from this perspective, which complicates and often offers no easy resolution to the contested monuments presented in this book.
Since Levinson focuses on the Southern region for this book, he primarily looks at objects created to commemorate the Confederacy. From a constitutional standpoint today, these sites, structures, even the flag and in some cases stamps, have all had to be reconsidered for the message they are sending out that is unconstitutional. Once the issues of legality are established, the debate begins about whether or not it is appropriate for these objects to occupy public spaces and if not, then where are they to be moved to?
Levinson effectively uses the international cases to diffuse the argument that it is not appropriate to destroy the structures. However, he also provides a healthy argument for why moving the structures, for example, to a museum is not necessarily the best option either. Can these politically charged objects ever really be separated from their historical context and only appreciated for their aesthetic properties? Moreover, what space then, public or otherwise is appropriate for historical context to be applied?
The strength of this book is that Levinson promotes a healthy discussion about what to do with these contested objects. He identifies and I would agree with that there is no easy solution of what to do with these objects.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The use of international examples created a unique point of view. this certainly made it unlike other pieces we have focused upon. Despite this insight, I personally wished that he went into the international sphere with it. This is the first time for me when it comes to looking at historical meaning at monuments and I found the foreign works much more intriguing. His use about the worries of destroying our past also found an interesting note with me. Should nations burn historical bridges when they change governments? IF we look to the former Soviet again, one could partially argue this. They simply altered the use of wonderful buildings, such as the Imperial Hermitage in St. Petersburg. This ties in very well with his legal options near the very end of his piece. Perhaps the answer lies in altering or adding parallel monuments, both provide an interesting view into the complex ideas involved in art and the public.
ReplyDeleteThe use of international examples also establishes a pattern that holds true for monuments around the world. He argues that monuments assumed radical new meanings following "regime changes," and were changed/destroyed accordingly. In the United States, he argues that it is inaccurate to ascribe the controversy over monuments to regime change, arguing instead that controversies often arise when one group exercises its political capital to either promote or condemn monuments. Doing so inevitably entails a recontextualized re-reading of the same text (monument), no matter the nation.
ReplyDelete