Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.Become a member today »

瓦尔蒙德·杰克逊雕像的基地,在2020年7月1日搬迁后,VA(所有图片都提供了归档纪念碑,除非另有说明,否则除非另有说明;照片由Sanjay Subak

On June 7, amonument to奴隶 - 贸易商在英格兰布里斯托尔站立的爱德华·科尔斯顿(Bristol)持续了125年toppled by protestorsand pushed into the harbor. Four days later, the布里斯托尔City Council dredged up the bronzestatue并将其带到“未公开,安全的位置“最终计划在博物馆中显示它。

The toppling and subsequent retrieval of the Colston monument prompts questions about the value placed on objects versus actions. Why did the object need to be pulled out of the water? Why, after such a clear direct action, did some respond with a sense of loss? These questions prompted me to create the归档纪念碑存档an artist-run digital archive of the documentation of toppled and removed colonialist, imperialist, sexist, racist and Confederate monuments.

JEB Stuart纪念碑(里士满,VA)由起重机在2020年7月7日拆除(照片由Sanjay Subak)

There has been a sharp increase in the toppling and removing of problematic monuments lately, sparked by widespread Black Lives Matter protests following the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Tony McDade, and many others.These symbolic objects have been toppled, tossed into rivers, and lit on fire during protests, as part of the historic, anti-racist reckoning currently taking place worldwide.相反,市政和私人努力防止这些雕像的推迟伴随着这些宣泄象征时刻。许多城市通过建造围栏进行了直接行动,并利用警察部队守卫纪念碑。城市已订购Swift的胸围和雕像,无论是防止抗议者都脱落它们,以保持秩序感,或以更广泛的反种舍运动姿态朦胧的团结。

Let’s look into this trend of relocating monuments. Much like the Colston statue,TH.e Christopher Columbus monument in Baltimore — which was在普遍存在的7月4日期间,推翻并滚入港口TH.抗议was两天后从港口疏浚with the efforts of both cranes and divers. These private companies were hired by groups including theAssociated Italian American Charities of Maryland。The monument was moved to private storage with the intention to repair it and display it elsewhere. Likewise, in Ventura, CA, the city-planned removal of theSt. Junípero Serra statue resulted in itsrelocation to the San Buenavista Mission, one of the missions founded by the very same sadistic priest. In Dallas, a Robert E. Lee monument removed in 2017 was sold at auction for $1.4 million andmoved to a private golf coursein 2019.

数字化控制和保护图像的toppled monument to Christopher Columbus on State Capitol grounds in Saint Paul, Minnesota, June 6, 2020

Numerous other monumentshave been moved toTH.e gravesites of the person they depict. The monument to Confederate general John Castleman, for example, previously located atCherokee Triangle在肯塔基州路易斯维尔,一直是由他的坟墓放置

This shuffling echoes the way people in power move money to avoid tax penalties and culpability. In the US, the ability to move things — capital and bodies — is intertwined with white supremacy, and by moving these public artworks around, this evil slipperiness is enacted with as much racist intent as what spawned the creation of these monuments inTH.e first place这突出了一些问题:雕塑是否会搬到存储将再次出现在更强大和危险的位置?他们会根据即将到来的选举结果重新出现吗?在拍卖会上销售同盟纪念碑,以及他们在公共和私人收藏和空间的安排削弱了社区的努力和机构,努力监测本国历史。



首先将激活主义置于填充纪念碑,归档回顾如何保护历史的考虑因素。我们收集活动家和新闻网点的图像和视频。然后,在探测器的恶意管理中,通过防面部识别工具保护图像被保护,以便为参加这些行动的人寻求极端监狱的句子,包括“保护美国纪念碑,纪念碑和雕像和打击最近的刑事暴力”发出的执行订单。Blurring the faces of the protestors is at once a protective measure and a compelling aesthetic process of abstraction.

我们不作为破坏性的行为,而是保存和搬迁这些纪念碑作为破坏性。例如,在对这种去除浪涌的反应中,TH.e members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacyhave begun to build new monuments, buying property and land to store and display existing statues.

“大多数在公共场所反对这些纪念碑的人会更喜欢看到他们重新安置到博物馆或国家档案馆” noted Lecia Brooks, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, in the纽约时报。然而,以任何方式保留这些物体积极地解除活动家和违法者的工作,他们致力于较大的反种族运动。机构,博物馆和城市应该重新评估他们的优先事项和重新分配资源和赔偿,而不是在重新涂上这些物品的情况下花钱。在A.extensive study conducted in 2018 for the Smithsonian and the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute, it was found that between 2008 and 2018, an estimated $40 million of taxpayer money was spent on Confederate monuments, sites, and groups that support racist ideology. These monuments are not only taking up public space, they are costing the public money.


We need to let these objects die, along with the ideologies they represent.

Support Hyperallergic

As arts communities around the world experience a time of challenge and change, accessible, independent reporting on these developments is more important than ever.

请支持我们的新闻,冥界p keep our independent reporting free and accessible to all.


Jillian McManemin

Jillian McManemin是一个Queer多学科艺术家和作家。


  1. “However, preserving these objects in any way actively undoes the work of the activists and abolitionists who have devoted themselves to the larger anti-racist movement.” This is both unreasonable and unnecessary. Their public placement was their offense. Correcting it, by any means, was and still is justified. But let’s not get carried away. Destroying historical objects, in this case objects pertaining to the very real history of Klan violence and the absurd lost cause myth, is not just legally impossible but not at all desirable. If your ultimate goal is to bring the dixie die-hards into the light of an accurate and unflinching history, begin the dialogue that will bring that about. Victories are opportunities to build. There is no harm in white (supremacist) elephants occupying storerooms. It was never about statues. It was about public space and shared history.

  2. 倡导的立场是非常短暂的视力。保存 - 但不一定是公开显示 - 对后代非常重要。

  3. 同样是前comments-totally同意。Practicing vandalism and allowing rampant (and often highly unsafe / injury producing) destruction is not a good m.o. If you don’t like it, destroy it? If you don’t like what another person says (however offensive) shut them up and make sure they cannot voice their views again? This is a good lesson for kids? Can contrasting symbols and differing heroes co-exist today? Can we not discuss them intelligently? Produce art that speaks to question a previous (myopic perhaps) mindset without destroying it? Honoring destruction (and not making things right, not repairing, not taking responsibility ) teaches destruction. Period. Allowing this to happen signals that destruction public or private property is “good” in the name of art / enlightenment — a frankly terrible lesson and it makes me wince to see young individuals take this stance with such righteous passion. Looking back (with a more informed eye), The French and Russian revolutions, for example, saw many precious items / national treasures and artist / craftsmen-made beautiful artifacts, art, and architecture similarly destroyed in the name of the (dubious in retrospect) “righteous freedoms” ( they got Napoleon the radical turned Emperor…and ..Soviet Communism…and TONS of crappy art–not a full out improvement for the average working class bloke and bloke-ette). Arguably Hitler did the same thing though the comparison may make today’s youth wince (though thankfully the Nazis had the prescient intelligence to at least save the so-called degenerate art knowing it was good stuff). His rhetoric was not so different from those today who would destroy what they find immoral–morality is a slippery slope. Shall we erase the entire oeuvre and legacy of Gertrude Stein because she collaborated with Vichy? Tear down her portraits painted by some pretty terrific artists? (No, no, no or…non! as it were. ) But now let’s make a point to share her compromising choices and not in too tiny print. Let’s celebrate her artwork and not shy away from how she saved her proverbial and ample ass at a time where others made more humanitarian choices.) We can think. We can do this. Instead of promoting irresponsible destruction, educating humans and learning about history — good, bad, and ugly with non-destructive practices should be the goal. Is this not common sense? It is also a sign of maturity — think before you act (destructively). Destruction is an old OLD practice– Ancient Egyptian pharaohs had the images and idols of previous pharaohs destroyed / erased and / or defaced by removing their names and histories and replacing with their own to rewrite history and their own legacies. I see nothing different here. Few leaders or recognized figures lucky enough to be immortalized in bronze are without fault or indeed without some unearthed hypocrisy (owning slaves while advocating the abolition of the practice). They rarely were honored with statues JUST for owning slaves (the dude who owned more got a bigger statue? not…). So what DID they do? WHY were they honored? Did anyone bother to see what they did before taking this stuff down? Surely they DID do something unrelated that was brave or noble at least in historic context of the time. Were they worse than Robert Moses? Does anyone bother to research WHO these people were besides being slave owners as if that one regrettable practice defined them for now and forever? (And frankly if they led troops in the South during the Civil War I can argue they were fighting for far more than preserving slavery which is a shameful reductionist premise — but that’s another can of worms I won’t open here.) History cannot be brought back once erased and destroyed — ART I would argue, is a big part of history. Don’t ERASE art. And when it comes to elitism or the fact that most art institutions have blood (or variations thereof) on their hands– I’m glad Versailles and the Hermitage exist even though they were built by crazy monarchs who weren’t so nice to everyone. Many of the younger writers and so-called intellectuals today (I’m sorry to say) were raised without an understanding of or appreciation of history, context, and the unfathomable amount of skill and artistry and full out talent needed to build many of these statues and much of this artwork– however controversial it may be in today’s “enlightened” perspective (which may look different a decade from now IF we last that long as a nation). Non-destructive approaches are not as cathartic or newsworthy and are lot more boring than that slow, mindful, careful and responsible relocating of an artwork. But the latter should be the way to go if we are to preserve not only history but our humanity.

    Can I also mention the democratic process?–as in let’s go through a proper “bring it up at a public meeting” and involve representatives with speakers on all sides heard in a public forum, etc? Is dispensing with what should be a respectful and democratic process considered progress? I’d argue that losing this process– is losing our humanity. It may come back to bite those so keen on full out destruction and erasure (if you eliminate the fillibuster when you don’t like those using it–then you can’t use it either!). But, sadly, those repercussions may come too late.

Comments are closed.