MONUMENTS IN AN IRREVERENT CULTURE
by F.R. Duplantier
ST. LOUIS/ Behind The Headlines -- "Periodically, government officials, city planners,
architects, and architectural historians have paused to
consider the design and development of our capital
city," observes James F. Cooper of the Newington-
Cropsey Foundation. "In 1791 Pierre Charles L'Enfant was commissioned by George Washington to
draw up plans for the new capital. In 1901, inspired by
the City Beautiful Movement, Senator Charles McMillan, Daniel Burnham, and Frederick Law Olmsted
Jr. created the McMillan Plan, which has served as the
blueprint for development of the Monumental Core
area for the past century. In the mid-1980s," he continues, "as it became evident that all available sites on the Mall were quickly being consumed, the National
Capital Planning Commission began a search for
potential sites outside of the Monumental Core."
In a recent issue of the American Arts Quarterly,
published by the Newington-Cropsey Foundation,
Cooper comments on the monuments planned for construction on and outside the Mall in Washington, and discusses the dilemma that faces monument designers
in an irreverent age. "Today's memorials, reflecting
the current state of the national psyche, lack the courage or insight to present a powerful, bold, and heroic message," he remarks. "This anti-heroic attitude is not
limited to public art or architecture but permeates our
society at all levels. We question how heroic even the
most admirable individuals are and, frequently, emphasize their frailty instead of their strength. Yet the purpose of a monument is not to provide a complex
portrait of an individual or group," Cooper insists.
"Historical detail should be subordinated to symbolic
meaning, not because we want to distort the past but
because memorials must endure future changes in
taste and style. Those based on the conflict and
ambiguity of our age," he asserts, "will not survive the
test of time."
According to Cooper, "Monuments traditionally
convey meaning with direct statements of reverence
and veneration. Stylistically, monuments tend to be
conservative, drawing on earlier models," he remarks.
"Figurative memorials employ a symbolic language
that has evolved over millennia in Western and non-Western cultures. This vocabulary, once the norm for
public art, fell out of favor in the mid-twentieth century," Cooper laments. "For much of the twentieth
century, artists were more interested in abstraction and
irony than they were in creating forms, which transmit
symbolic meaning. Prevailing cultural assumptions
favor non-hierarchical or non-heroic monuments," he
notes. "The resulting designs are often confused, lacking in cohesiveness and void of aesthetic qualities."
Cooper says city planners in Washington today are
"facing perhaps their greatest challenge: to preserve
the city's historical, spiritual, and civic legacy, at the
same time addressing the growing needs of a world-class, technologically enhanced capital of a great
nation. This will require sensitivity to unique circumstances, as well as an understanding of urban design,"
he affirms. "No one wants a city plan imposed by an
inflexible autocrat, yet the current state of uncoordinated growth is threatening the heart of Washington's
civic space. The only way to save the Mall," Cooper
concludes, "may well be to leave it alone."
Duplantier is the author of Politickles: Limericks Lampooning
the Lunatic Left (Merril Press, 2000), available at The Conservative Bookstore and other online locations.
Published by permission.
|