Calling Frank Gehry’s Bluff

Regular readers of these pages know that I’ve been following the plans for a memorial to President Eisenhower, designed by starchitect Frank Gehry, which is to be placed in a park just alongside the National Mall here in DC.  This rather titanic project, which has been in development for years, has yet to see a single spade of earth turned toward completing it.  With costs already estimated to overrun $140 million, it is also becoming something of a cuckoo in the nest of Washington’s monumental core.

This morning WaPo is reporting that the Eisenhower Memorial Commission meets today to look over some proposed modifications to the design, including one which pretty much eliminates much of the signature Frank Gehry style, i.e. using giant pieces of metal “screens” through the park.  As The Post points out, questions were already swirling around the grant of the commission in the first place.  The current re-think however, was prompted in part by concern from Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), that the screens ought to be eliminated or significantly downsized, in order for the memorial to go forward.  In response, Mr. Gehry has threatened to remove his name from the project altogether.

I say it’s time to call Mr. Gehry’s bluff.

Understandably, Mr. Gehry wants to be able to place one of his pimples on the face of the Nation’s Capital because it is one of the few major international cities that so far has refused him.  Washington is not a large city, nor an innovative one in terms of its architecture, but by nature of what goes on here and the impact that decisions made here have on the rest of mankind, it’s arguably the most important city in the world.  Moreover, coming to Washington without seeing the monuments and museums celebrating the history and achievements of the American people, is a bit like going to Athens and not seeing the ruins of the Ancient Greeks.

When you’re an architect ticking off boxes on your bucket list, you recognize that to build a memorial or museum here in Washington is to enter a pantheon of sorts. Your work is almost guaranteed to be preserved and visited for a long time, unlike, say, an office building or hotel.  You may even have the chance of seeing your work become part of history, as has often been the case with the Lincoln Memorial, for example.  However whatever you are designing and building for this particular city, which is a rather unique place, you have to keep in mind that your audience is not hugely interested in being flashy or trendy, but rather in expressing dignity: these structures are meant to last forever, if possible, not look great for 10 or 20 years and then start corroding and rusting away.

Since the Eisenhower Memorial is meant to serve the American people, by honoring the memory of a great servant and leader of that people, rather than the needs of Mr. Gehry, the simplest solution would indeed be that he remove himself from the project altogether.  No one seems to like his design, particularly not the family of Eisenhower himself.  It tells us nothing about the man from Middle America who helped lead our military to victory in Europe during World War II, or oversaw one of the most prosperous periods of growth in this country’s history.

If we are to have a monument to Ike at all, let it be upright and straightforward, like the man himself, with a minimum of fussiness.  Too much time, money, and ink have already been wasted on this project, with little or nothing to show for it other than wasted taxpayer funds – $25 million and counting – and a slew of hurt feelings.   For $25 million, we could have landscaped the parcel where the memorial park will go, and put up a simple column or plinth with a bronze statue of Eisenhower on it. Residents and visitors would already be appreciating a new space along the National Mall to pause, rest, and reflect on the man and his era.

My bet is that tapestries or no tapestries, Mr. Gehry is not going anywhere.  After all, the opportunities to build a major memorial or museum in Washington do not come along every day.  So for pity’s sake, let’s just stop lollygagging around, cut this thing down to a manageable size, and get the job done.

One of the proposed giant "tapestry" walls of the Eisenhower Memorial

One of the proposed giant “tapestry” walls of the Eisenhower Memorial

The Rise of the War Memorials

On the news last evening a report on the present conflicts in which this country is fighting caught my attention, though not because of casualty numbers or speeches by policy makers.  The curators of the visitor’s center being built near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are planning to set aside part of their exhibition space, in order to mingle the story of U.S. involvement in Vietnam with that in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The same report explained that a formal memorial on the National Mall dedicated to those who fought in the latter two countries may take longer to approve.

The juxtaposition of the two present conflicts with that of Vietnam is interesting.  One wonders whether those in charge of this project will also include arguably more successful American military engagements, such as the Persian Gulf War in 1990.  Yet it begs the question, and admittedly many of my readers may find it an unpalatable one, as to why this is being done.

The birth of this country may have formally begun on paper, but it was ultimately achieved through bellicose means.  The United States  has participated in many armed conflicts over the course of its history, and will no doubt continue to do so.  If the American military has a well-deserved reputation for know-how and experience on the battlefield, it is because it has had plenty of practice.

Without listing every major military involvement in which the United States has participated since 1776, let me propose a list of some of the more important ones, at least in terms of numbers, parenthetically mentioning the approximate number of American military personnel killed. This is not meant to be viewed with scientific accuracy, but simply to give the reader an idea of the relative size of some of these conflicts:

The Revolutionary War (25,000)
The War of 1812 (20,000)
The Mexican-American War (13,283)
The Civil War (625,000)
The Spanish-American War (2,246)
World War I (116,516)
World War II (405,399)
The Korean War (36,516)
The Vietnam War (58,209)
The Afghan War (1,803)
The Iraq War (4,800)

This is by no means an exhaustive accounting of all armed involvement of this country in battles at home and abroad.  However, if you are familiar with the Nation’s Capital, you will notice a rather curious fact when examining this list: there are no national war memorials on The National Mall to those who fought and died in the first six wars on the above list. Why is this the case?

In order of appearance, the current group of national war memorials on The Mall began to appear in 1982, with the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, i.e. “The Wall”. This was further expanded in 1984 with the “Three Soldiers” sculpture, and will now include the aforementioned visitor’s center nearby. The construction of this memorial was followed by the Vietnam Women’s Memorial in 1993; the Korean War Veterans Memorial in 1995; and the World War II Memorial in 2004.

Prior to the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, many monuments to historically prominent individuals were erected around the Capital, though very few on or around The Mall itself. For example, by now most of my readers are very familiar with the monument to General McPherson, which sits in the now-infamous square that bears his name, and there are monuments to figures as diverse as Chief Justice Marshall or Samuel Gompers spread all over the city.  Yet memorials to wars themselves were something of a rarity.

As to how America usually honors its military dead on a national level here in the Capital, from the time of the Civil War to today the practice has been formal interment at Arlington National Cemetery. While prominent individuals such as McPherson might get their own monument in the city, the ordinary soldier who did his duty would not have expected the same level of individual recognition.  However, he still knew that he would have a place set aside by his country close to the heart of its capital city, where he would be remembered, along with his comrades.

Times have certainly changed, for there can be no question that over the past thirty years there has been a demonstrable, unprecedented shift in attitude toward the purpose of having a national memorial on The National Mall, and the increasing popularity of the construction of war memorials to the veterans of such conflicts being placed along it. I do not have any answers as to why this change has occurred. Yet considering the report which started off this blog post, we ought to ask some questions about this increasingly common practice.

For example, how are we to establish the criteria by which wars are to be memorialized on The National Mall? Is it a question of numbers, so that World War I merits a national memorial on The Mall, because of the large number of casualties involved, but not Grenada, because the losses there were much smaller?  Are we only to memorialize those conflicts where there are still veterans left alive who fought in them, or are we to go back even further into our history when looking for subject matter for these memorials?  What about civilians such as government contractors who are killed in foreign conflicts – should they also be included in such memorials?

As unpopular as it may be to ask these types of questions, they need to be asked. My readers will draw their own conclusions as to the merits of continuing the practice of building memorials to veterans of specific wars along The National Mall.  However, I would put all in mind of the inescapable fact that The Mall is a finite space, and in order to preserve its character we need to act judiciously, adopting a high level of discernment about what is going to be placed on or around it.

While it will no doubt make me decidedly unpopular in some quarters for saying so, it would seem to me that building a memorial to the veterans of each and every conflict in which the United States is involved along the National Mall will soon turn the place into a kind of quasi-military cemetery. This seems rather superfluous, when we already have a magnificent, unifying memorial to American servicemen and women directly across the river. As much as I honor their contributions to aid their country, perhaps they would be better served by preserving and expanding Arlington, rather than continuing to expand a somewhat disjointed presence on The National Mall.

View of The National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Director Jarvis of the National Park Service Must Resign

If you are a regular or frequent visitor to these pages, then it will come as no surprise to you that I care a great deal about art, history, and civic spaces.  So it was with great revulsion on Wednesday morning while reading coverage of the Occupy DC movement’s latest shenanigans at McPherson Square here in the Nation’s Capital, that I saw a photograph of the statue of General McPherson in the center of the square named for him, sporting a Guy Fawkes mask, and emerging from a giant plastic tarp that has been thrown over his monument.  Several of my regular readers have asked for my comments about this, and while I am perhaps going to be moving a bit beyond what they intended, here goes:

It is time for Mr. Jonathan Jarvis, the Director of the National Park Service, to step down.

Now, before all of you over there on the Right think that I am taking this position because the Occupiers are a bunch of hypocritical scofflaw quasi-anarcho-hippie spoiled brats, which of course they are, you may be surprised to learn that this, alone, is no reason to oust them from the public square which they have occupied for the past several months.  Much as my fellow conservatives do not want to admit it, because they do not like the mishmash of issues which the Occupy movement stands – or tokes – for, we are better off with a National Park Service, that is cautious with respect to how it treats protesters on public land.  We have the freedom to say and do many things, thank goodness, including stupid things.

Otherwise, if there was a heavy-handed reaction to protesters in Washington, those of us who are Pro-Life for example would not have the opportunity to peaceably engage in the March for Life, which this year numbered roughly half a million people, and of course received far less coverage than the antics of the tent city dwellers in McPherson Square.  I would suggest that in some respect, this is the fault of those of us on the side of life, as we are not being as vociferous as we ought to be…though that is a topic for another post.

The monument to Civil War Major General James McPherson – which by the way is pronounced “McFURson” rather than “McFEARson” because “There’s no fear in McPherson” – was sculpted by artist Louis Rebisso, on commission from the late General’s comrades at The Society of the Army of Tennessee, who paid $32,000.00 for it.  This was following an Act of Congress authorizing the placement of a monument to the General in the capital less than one year after his death at the Battle of Atlanta in 1864, which indicates how well the General was thought of by many.  The figure of the young military man on his horse is cast in bronze from captured Confederate cannons which were melted down for the purpose.

General McPherson was originally from Ohio; he rose out of poor circumstances to graduate first in his class from West Point, where he became an instructor in military engineering for a time before moving into experience in the field.  He was regarded by all accounts as a great military mind on the rise, with a particularly good understanding of building defensive fortifications and improving the defense of harbor areas.  General William Tecumseh Sherman was inconsolable after McPherson was killed, in part because the younger man had asked for a brief leave to go home and marry his fiancée, which General Sherman refused because he did not feel he could spare McPherson.

General Sherman wrote the following after McPherson’s death:

History tells us of but few who so blended the grace and gentleness of the friend with dignity, courage, faith, and manliness of the soldier.  The country generally will realize that we have lost not only an able military leader, but a man who had he survived, was qualified to heal the national strife which has been raised by designing and ambitious men.

The Monument to General McPherson is part of a group of Civil War statues and monuments in the Nation’s Capital that were placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1978, and which come within the purview of the National Mall and Memorial Parks spread around D.C.  The care, cleaning, and preservation of General McPherson’s monument, therefore, is not the responsibility of the District of Columbia but rather that of the Federal government under the National Park Service.  The job of the National Park Service, as described in the Act of Congress which created it, and was signed into law by President Wilson in 1916, is as follows:

The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

It is apparent that the present Director of the National Park Service is not doing his job to protect this historic monument to General McPherson. One look at the photograph below will tell you that. Whether a tent city in a national park is a vigil or a campsite, I will leave to my colleagues in the legal profession to semantically determine.  I am not interested in curtailing anyone’s freedom of speech.

Whether intentionally defacing a memorial authorized by an Act of Congress placed inside that park is an act of public vandalism however, is not open to discussion.  Imagine if the same had been done to the statue of Lincoln on the National Mall, and ask yourself whether it would have been allowed to stand, unrepaired and unpunished.  To paraphrase U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, I know vandalism when I see it. And in this case, so should Director Jarvis.

It is an insult to the men and women who died to preserve the Union, and bring about freedom of millions of people from the horrors of slavery, that the monument to this man who gave his life in order to save the United States from disintegration is being so grossly insulted and defaced, and with impunity. Whatever Mr. Jarvis may or may not want or be able to do with respect to the parkland itself, General McPherson deserves better than to continue to be maltreated in this way, as a result of Mr. Jarvis’ apparent impotence to do anything whatsoever.  Nor has he considered the precedent he is setting by allowing these protesters to do whatever they want to this public work of art.  The logical conclusion we must draw from his inaction is that Mr. Jarvis would have no problem with people repelling down the front of the Statue of Liberty, either, or spray-painting red noses on the faces of the presidents at Mount Rushmore, so long as they did so to raise awareness for some cause.

Admittedly I am no one of any importance, as you are all very much aware.  I harbor no personal ill will to Mr. Jarvis, who I am sure is a perfectly capable person in other aspects of his life.  Yet as General McPherson himself would understand, if you cannot provide effective leadership, then you need to step out of the way, and allow those who are better able to lead to take charge.

Whether Mr. Jarvis leaves voluntarily, or whether he is dismissed, he has shown that he is incapable of fulfilling one of the basic responsibilities of his job.  He must be replaced by someone who understands the duties of that position, takes that job description seriously, and carries out his duties, particularly given that his salary is paid by taxpayers.  And hopefully whoever replaces this failed Director will ensure that General McPherson quickly reemerges from the indignity which he has been forced to endure, as a result of demonstrably poor leadership at the National Park Service.

General McPherson deserves better than this