Of Murals and Monuments: Why Charlottesville’s Public Art is Political
A stalled “community” mural project teaches lessons about art, politics, and public memory in the wake of racial terror
The seriousness of public art in Charlottesville cannot be overstated. We are a community for whom monuments and memorials have deep significance. This is especially true for the proposed, conditionally approved, but now tabled, community mural intended to respond to the racist, terrorist events of of August 11 and 12, 2017. On Tuesday, March 20, 2018, the Charlottesville Board of Architectural Review (BAR) offered conditional approval for a “community” mural by “renowned” artist Shepard Fairey for the north-facing wall on 321 E. Main Street. In giving approval, the BAR discarded responsibility for serious and careful analysis of how the mural will look. BAR member Breck Gastinger said he did “not think that we are the appropriate body to debate the value of the particular content.” This punting on the aesthetic considerations of the proposal missed an opportunity to intervene in a process that frames this mural as “gift” while overlooking the fact that the mural could replicate the racist conditions that led to the need for a mural in the first place.
The stakes for this commemorative project are high and not merely aesthetic. This mural will be more than a static object. This permanent installation will derive its power from an interpretation of events that have forever marked this community. The mural will also generate meaning and fuel interpretation for generations to come. For this reason, it is critical to assess the proposed artwork. The proposed design was a large square with part of the American flag in the lower left corner. The top center of the square read “Cultivate Harmony.” The central and most striking element of the design was a seven-petaled lotus flower. The five of the large petals contained photographs: Heather Heyer occupied the top center position, flanked by four “anonymous” community members in the lower petals on either side (see photo). Alan Goffinski, director of the Bridge Progressive Arts Initiative, submitted this proposal on behalf of the Charlottesville Mural Project. His submission claims, in part, that “While the proposed mural content will engage the tragic events of August 2017, this will not be an explicit memorial to Heather.” The proposed mural design is at odds with this claim.
Goffinski has now paused this project. He has acknowledged both the problematic design and the lack of community input. Despite these important concessions, Charlottesville community members need to know about the initial proposed design and the flawed process that led to its conditional approval by the BAR. To produce a better memorial, one more in keeping with the racial justice struggles in and of Charlottesville, any future commemorative project must avoid four (4) pitfalls:
1. Hagiography
The proposed design problematically borders on hagiography — the process of idealizing or venerating a person as one would a saint. As Susan Bro, Heather Heyer’s mother, commented at the March 20th meeting, the mural should be “something that represents the crowd and not Heather.” Any commemorative public mural project should heal the community not harm it by elevating one person, or even a few people, over the masses impacted by the events of August 12.
2. Centering Whiteness
The proposed design centers whiteness. This lotus, while perhaps intending to “point to the reality that this is a situation that requires inclusion from the entire community,” in fact, does the opposite. By centering whiteness, the design erases the broad multiracial coalition of anti-racist, anti-fascist organizing in resistance to white supremacy.
3. Ignoring Black resistance
One finding of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Race, Memorials, and Public Spaces — charged with “telling the full story of Charlottesville’s history of race and for changing the City’s narrative through our public spaces” — was that more Black community members (past and present) should be recognized via public memorials and art installations. Any public monument to the traumatic events of August 2017 must consider the deep local history of white supremacy and longstanding black resistance to it and commitment to racial justice.
4. Uncritically embracing “gifts” from famous artists
Where is the graciousness of Shepard Fairey’s gift in this context? His take-it-or-leave-it attitude promoted a sense of urgency and painfully truncated the normal approval process for public art. This is no “gift.” At the March 20th hearing, Alan claimed that Shepard’s mural was the artist’s way to give Charlottesville a “bouquet of flowers.” However, Fairey’s approach seems less about offering condolences or restoration to the community and more about making an artistic mark on the canvas of our collective trauma. Moving forward, one must consider the implications of accepting an artist’s gift simply because he is famous. This last flawed process was rooted in a rush to accept without thinking about the permanent consequences and varied implications. Our highly problematic, contentious Robert E. Lee statue was also a “gift.”
The future iteration of this project must include more allies and stakeholders to avoid the aforementioned pitfalls. The first process included representatives from the Heather Heyer Foundation, two local black artists, and business owners who actually wanted a mural (if not *this* mural). Regardless of who gets a seat at the table (and it should be a large table), it is critical that the Bridge actually *listen* to the feedback and critiques generated by those discussions. It is disingenuous to convene a panel merely for the illusion of “buy in:” and it is worse to ignore critiques, offer a design, and point to the panel as an endorsing body. Only a diverse collective can cultivate a truly holistic community generated memorial. This must be based in a broader coalition of diverse anti-racist Charlottesville residents. It must include the wide variety of perspectives from what Susan Bro aptly called “the crowd” marching on August 12, those people who organized before and since the terror attack. Input from communities of color, low income residents, and other marginalized communities committed to anti-racism is essential.
We are not just the audience for or even the canvas of this mural; we are its content. We give it color, life, depth, complexity. This process should include and be responsive to members of those groups and individuals committed to racial justice and fighting white supremacy. This will ensure that the final version of this mural will heal the community rather than causing more harm and division.
