When Public Art Angers the Public

Last week on the show, we heard about the controversy surrounding Indianapolis’ planned downtown monument, “E Pluribus Unum,” designed by the acclaimed artist Fred Wilson. Among the statue’s opponents is longtime state representative Bill Crawford, who feels Wilson’s figure of a freed slave perpetuates stereotypes of the African-American experience.

“Public art can be challenging,” Crawford told Kurt Andersen, “but it cannot be in your face without asking [the public’s] opinion.” (Listen to the full story here.)

It’s an issue that resonates in public spaces across the country.

The statue of Lewis, Clark, and Sacagawea in Charlottesville, Virginia also has a controversial history. Located in one of the busiest intersections downtown, the sculpture was built in 1919 to commemorate the 1803-1806 Lewis and Clark expedition. It shows the two famous explorers bravely gazing west, with the figure of Sacagawea crouching behind them. Listener and Charlottesville resident Jeff writes that he feels the monument “obviously denigrates both women and Native Americans. … Some suggest that it is a part of history and should be honored as such. But it can be part of our history without dominating (and apparently representing) Charlottesville’s present.”

Jeff suggests there’s a place for public art that no longer has the public’s support: a private museum. “If the sentiments celebrated by a statue are clearly the sentiments of a prior age that are no longer appropriate, then put that piece in a museum and make the space available for something that is appropriate.”

Should existing public art with subject matter newly deemed unsuitable be moved? Or should it be left as a monument to history? Tell us in a comment below.