Do you ever get in arguments with people who just won’t listen? Well, that’s a dumb question, everyone does. It could be as simple as getting into an argument with an older authoritative figure in your life. A parent? A teacher? All you know is that by the end of the day, they’re right and you’re wrong, no matter what. You tried to argue your point, but it was never heard and now your opinion has been blown away by whoever it was you were arguing with. Your side of the story was never reported. Take your situation and imagine it applied on a larger scale. The voices of the oppressed silenced as their opinion vanished away, not even making it into elementary history books. Sad right? Well, there isn’t a loss for hope just yet. Times are constantly changing and so is the perception of historical events. The lost voices are now coming into the light, which is causing a bit of controversy. So, do we take down controversial monuments? No. Doing that would be attempting to erase history, disrespecting artwork, and in a way, destroying another perception of the story as well. Oppressing as a form of retaliation doesn’t change the past. An alternate solution to this conflict was proposed by artist Titus Kaphar. He proposes amending the statues seen today through processes, specifically art. This way, the statues would stay up, still telling their story, but the bigger picture would highlight the sophistication of historical scenarios as lost voices are now included. Author Michael Zirulnik is focused on finding resolution for these conflicts and amending art may be the solution to this conflict. In order to find common ground among conflicts of opposing perceptions in history, amending history must be utilized by the people.
The Start To Finding Common Ground
The main goal revolving this topic, and really every other controversy out there, is conflict resolution. How can both parties see eye to eye? The main problem currently is that two parties are only focused on a one way approach to solving this problem, one party wants them taken down while the other wants the opposite. This non-ending argumentative discussion will ultimately go nowhere because no alternative is being provided so both parties could see eye to eye. This grey area may now be cleared up due to ideas brought forth by Titus Kaphar. In his Ted Talk, Kaphar states that he can find more about the woman’s lace “then he can about this character here, about his dreams, about his hopes, about what he wanted in life” (7:14). This painting that he references is about a Caucasian family with an African American child. There is much detail put into the family, but not the child. The child represents the oppressed voices throughout history. This oppression leads to retaliation by those affected, which causes the conflict present today. Amending this art can bring this oppressed voice out while also keeping the story of the Caucasian family present. As Zirulnik explains, “once people begin to understand each other, they are more likely to believe, as I do, that in a free society, nobody should have to walk among monuments to their oppressors”. With every side being explained, people would understand the alternate point of view. Tearing controversial monuments down is the same as attempting to silence a voice in history, even though that voice caused oppression. Erasing history is impossible and doing this wouldn’t change what happened in the past, but by amending for the lost voices, more details from the past are being uncovered. This is how humanity learns. The conflict isn’t done there however, as conflict still arises with contextualization of these monuments.
Problems With Perception
Controversial monuments are perceived differently depending on who’s viewing the artwork. The main concern here is that when one’s admiration becomes offensive to another viewer, conflict arises. Zirulnik informs that “the goal is not to persuade or allow yourself to be convinced to change your mind, but rather to identify what everyone believes in”. The key to finding the common ground is finding the best possible resolution that fits as many demands from both parties as possible. The key isn’t for one side to completely take over, and although fitting these demands is difficult, it’s not impossible. Kaphar shares this interest as he wants to “wrestle with the struggles of our past but speak to the diversity and the advances of our present” (10:45). By contextualizing every side to the bigger picture with monuments, both sides would have even ground. Amending art would solve this problem. The stories of the oppressors and their good sides wouldn’t go away, but instead have other art highlighting the stories they silenced. Every voice would be heard and audiences would have the opportunity to contextualize what they see knowing the whole story. Conflict that stems from contextualization often needs an audience and there’s no better example of this than the Equestrian Statue.
Being The Center Of Attention
The public space just begs for controversy and the Equestrian Statue in front of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City doesn’t disappoint. With this statue being out in the open, people don’t have to pay or go inside the museum to see it. They can see it driving to work or going out for a run. With the amount of people that see this statue, conflict is bound to rise, as the New York population is such a diverse group of people. Many think this statue should be taken down. Many think it should stay up. Many think it should be relocated. There are so many opinions regarding this statue and all of it conflicts with humanity’s values. Why should a man who did so many great things for his country like the creation of national parks be taken down? Or why should a racist who thought Native and African Americans were inferior to him be held up? These are great questions, but “demands to ‘take them down’ – and the retorts to ‘leave them up’ – serve only to polarize communities, rather than promoting understanding of each other’s history and helping to build a shared future together” (Zirulnik). What needs to happen is finding a common ground. In this case, some people want the stories of the Native and African American to be brought out. This can be achieved without taking down the statue by amending the art. Creating art that highlights these two closeted stories would bring out every aspect within the historical context. Roosevelt would still be recognized for the great work he put into this country and his history would not be erased, but the histories of the oppressed finally get their share brought out into the public. The only way for society to develop from history is to learn the most out of the past as much as possible so society doesn’t create those same mistakes. Learning about oppressed stories can give more insight into what was missed from the past. Knowing everything only makes society develop. But conflict still arises in any situation, even with possible solutions.
Additional Roadblocks
Some may argue that by amending history, one is changing the perception of historical outcomes. These monuments have hard work put into them with a lot of historical context and by creating art that highlights a different part of the bigger picture, the original piece would be ignored for its artistic value. While this argument has a fair point, it’s not like the original piece is being taken down or removed from history completely. In fact, it’s still going to be up and running with people still admiring it. Zirulnik explains that “people must ask themselves and each other how they wish to represent the full story of history” (Zirulnik). Amending art is merely adding the unknown into being a part of the mix, not replacing the original with new artwork. This means that both sides can be admired, just that the oppressed side has a fair chance of being admired as well instead of not existing. As far as disrespect towards either side of structures, well, that’s up for the people to be mature enough to see both sides. They probably won’t, not for a while anyway, but currently, this is the best way for finding common ground.
Resolving Conflict
In conclusion, amending art is the best solution for finding common ground among controversial monuments. By preventing art from being destroyed while also sharing the voices of the unheard, even ground can be found based on historical context. Amending art is the first step. Contextualization highlighting every aspect of historical situations is the next. Finally, respect. This may be the only chance for finding common ground among this controversy. Follow it, because with the amount of conflict within society in modern age, it’s one step away from civil war.
