Monumental Violence: A Moment for Dialogue
On Wednesday, September 20, a panel was held, at the Konover Auditorium, to examine the controversy surrounding monuments in the United States, with panelists discussing the issue of these memorials in terms of their meaning and lasting impact on the country’s public sphere. Labeled as ‘Monumental Violence: A Moment for Dialogue’, the event featured five panelists providing short presentations on topics concerning monuments and their stance in society, all of which was preceded by an opening remark from the University of Connecticut’s President, Susan Herbst; who emphasized the importance of these discussions, on campus, because they offered a critical reflection of our nation’s beliefs at a period, in history, when such crucial values were frequently under attack.
The first panelist to present was Kelly Dennis, an Associate Professor of Art History, who supplied a brief overview on the history of Confederate Statues in the United States, evaluating how such monuments, largely, came into existence during the periods of Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, and the Civil Rights Movement. She suggested their increased presence, throughout the duration of those eras, supported the notion that such statutes were constructed to promote white supremacy, all while exemplifying an overlying problem with monuments in general; in which their erection oppressed certain social groups by selectively determining whose history would be preserved within the public sphere. The solution to this dilemma, according to Dennis, lied in not taking down Confederate Statues, and monuments alike, but converting them into more temporary forms of art that better demonstrated the contemporary views of a modernized society. Dennis argued that this approach permitted a community to constantly transform a monument’s message into one that best reflected the beliefs, of that population, at a given time, while disestablishing the role of monuments as a determinant factor in who, as well as what, was worthy of permanent remembrance within the populace. She mentioned Marta Minjín’s “The Parthenon of Books”, or the NAMES Project Foundation’s “AIDS Memorial Quilt”, as acceptable examples of her approach, for, both, communities transfigured existing monuments to alter their meaning, and portray a visual that was more representative of their respective values.
The second panelist to present was Yan Geng, an Assistant Professor of Art History & Asian American Studies, who provided a personal anecdote, from her childhood, to further exemplify Dennis’s approach to addressing the monument problem. Geng recounted her father taking her to observe the Tiananmen Square protests, and elaborated upon a particular statute, “The Goddess of Democracy”, being constructed, by protesters, in front of a portrait of Mao Zedong, a Chinese communist revolutionary. Geng insisted that the statue’s composition, and strategic positioning, modified Tiananmen Square to represent the mindset of the Democratic political movement in China; hence, modeling Dennis’s solution of converting a visual image into another to change its meaning.
The third, and fourth, panelists to present were Robin Greenly and Michael Orwicz, both Associate Professors of Art History, whom agreed that monuments should be repurposed, rather than removed, from within their public spaces to allow those oppressed to silence their own oppression, while also allowing society to reflect upon the significance, of the visual, from multiple perspectives. Though, in order for this objective to be successful, according to Greenly and Orwicz, the refurbished monument must personally engage the viewer to actively reflect upon its symbolism, for this causes the viewer to connect their personal experiences with the historical context behind the memorial itself. By doing this, the monument becomes an instrument of social reconstruction, which allows the oppressed to control their own oppression. Greenly and Orwicz mentioned Lika Mutal’s “El Ojo Que Llora”, or Maya Lin’s “Vietnam Veterans Memorial”, as preferred examples of this, for both utilize their designs to engage viewers into remembrance of their respective events.
The fifth panelist to present was Alexis Boylan, an Associate Professor of Art History and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality program, who shared a similar viewpoint as Greenly and Orwicz, contributing how a reconstructed monument should not be an imitation of ‘plop’ art, but actually reflect the ever changing moral principles of a modernizing society.
Overall, the panel sought to explore the controversy, surrounding monuments, by illustrating how such memorials may be utilized, by certain social groups, to oppress others within a community. To combat this ordeal, the panelists identified a way for the oppressed to take control of their own social positioning, proposing populaces to convert their monuments into visual imagery that is better representative of the shared values of their society. Through this ideology, the panelists tackle the societal issue of inclusivity within the public sphere, suggesting that having a monument be depictive of an entire community’s values leads to social reconstruction for those oppressed socially, economically, and politically. However, it is important to express that while this endeavor is, ideally, achievable, it is difficult to execute as differentiating social groups, within a community, hold contrasting beliefs among one another. This is why the panelists call for a transfigured monument to be able to appeal to each individual on a personal, and communal level, while asserting its message; theorizing the best approach, to do so, would be establishing a temporary memorial that could change its meaning when a society feels its is necessary to do so. Still, the panelists assert that this process does not guarantee everyone, within a population, to be equally represented by their monument, and explained this to be the reason why the University of Connecticut possess no monuments that are representative of its own community. Thus, the event leaves the audience to question how a monument could be commissioned, on campus, that is inclusive of every individual's ideals.
*Please Note: To learn more about the photos included, within this blog post, simply click on, or hover over, them to do so
