More on mon­u­ments

The Tribune (SLO) - - Opinion -

It has be­come clear that the pro­posed pub­lic art project to com­mem­o­rate Pres­i­dent Theodore Roo­sevelt is more than a ques­tion of the de­sign of a sculp­ture. As Mayor Heidi Har­mon’s thought­ful com­ments bring to light, this project also ques­tions whether we want to honor any­one pub­licly at all.

I am an ar­chi­tect and have stud­ied mon­u­ments; the most vis­ited seem to be those that are non­fig­u­ra­tive, non-por­trait like, with a clear vis­ual im­age like the Wash­ing­ton Mon­u­ment, the Viet­nam Me­mo­rial and the Gate­way Arch in St. Louis. Ap­ply­ing this ap­proach, a de­sign com­mem­o­rat­ing Theodore Roo­sevelt’s cre­ation of our na­tional parks, a trea­sure for us all, might be sculpted moun­tains, Half Dome, a canyon and trees ac­com­pa­nied with a plaque.

Re­gard­ing the big­ger ques­tion the mayor raises, why is the city con­sid­er­ing hav­ing a sculp­ture made and placed in a city park? Imag­in­ing this sculp­ture in Mitchell Park, who would see it? Would it be a land­mark? And what would the mes­sage be? I pro­pose a me­mo­rial hon­or­ing the cre­ation of our na­tional parks: a good mes­sage re­flect­ing our city’s and our coun­try’s val­ues. – Jerry Break­stone, San Luis Obispo

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.