Dude, the problem with the Teddy Roosevelt statue isn't Teddy Roosevelt.
Have you even looked at it or are you just cutting and pasting talking points?
Here, I'll save you the 30 seconds of GIS effort:
Yes, I am familiar with the statue of TR and the 2 allegorical figures that stand beside him representing the 2 continents of North America and Africa (a place TR extensively traveled). It's a form of art. Therefore, like with all art, viewers interpret what they see and what it means or provokes in themselves.
There have been complaints about this statue in the past. The museum actually set up an exhibit which explained the design elements, how they apply to TR's life and work, and tried to inform and teach (the purpose and mission of a museum). I applaud them for their past efforts. However, some people still don't like the statue and what they interpret it to represent, so they complain. And, IMO, in this time of over reactions, mob rule, and vigilantes destroying public and private property, the museum has decided to be pre-emptive and remove the statue (whether that is the best decision or not). Perhaps this is truly the only way to save the art from destruction.
My point being that when people say "Take down the Confederate statues and put them in a museum to use as a teaching tool," we can look to the example of the TR statue to see how well that goes. Even with an exhibit specially created to teach about the artist, similar allegorical statues of that artist time, the life and work of TR, etc etc, it still wasn't good enough for those hell bent on its removal from sight.
There are those who insist there is a "hierarchical" nature of the statue which implies white supremacy. The triangular shape of the statue was a common symmetrical design technique used. Still is. TR was an avid naturalist, conservationist, and equestrian, therefore he is depicted on horseback, which visually raises him up. One could argue that as former Governor of NY and POTUS, the statue was designed and built to honor him. As honoree he is front and center. It doesn't make logical sense to me that a man who was born in 1853, was 10 years old when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, who grew up in NY, who was POTUS in the early 20th century, would depict an African-American citizen as dressed in traditional African garb. In TR's lifetime (1853-1919), this would be anachronistic and his life and legacy as Gov and POTUS had nothing to do with slavery. Therefore, the belief that it is a US slave doesn't add up to me.
Art is both objective and subjective. There are some that go to a museum, glance around the room, scan until a color or an element catches their eye. They approach art as something that will provoke them one way or another emotionally. We were given this explanation as the purpose for art back in the 1980's with Mapplethorpe's "sex art" and Serrano's "Piss Christ." "It's art!" they said. "It's freedom of expression!" they said. "The artist's intent is to provoke emotional reactions!" they said. "It doesn't matter if certain people are offended!" they said. "Get over it!" they said.
Then there are some that go to a museum, and walk slowly from piece to piece, whether it visually strikes them or not, reading every placard, attempting to learn something about a piece or an artist that they never knew. It's a more cerebral experience--both emotional and intellectual--and perhaps one reaction is altered by the other. Perhaps you don't understand or even like a piece, but then after reading about it and what it represents you come, perhaps not to love the piece, but to appreciate the piece for what it was meant to be.
The museum exists for both types of people. The world exists for both types of people. The different types need to peacefully coexist. But how do you satisfy the second group of people (emotional and intellectual) if the first group of people (emotional) gets to dictate what is visible, what is acceptable? Like I said, I find the idea that the Confederate statues be removed and displayed in a museum to be an acceptable idea. I stand by my statement that the radicals, anarchists, and vigilantes would still fight against that, and like the Museum of Natural History, the museums will placate
and not educate.
www.foxnews.com
