Reference no: EM133524397

Discussion Probes

Question 1. Does the mural attack or reinforce racism?

Question 2. ???Do you think the meaning of the story told by the mural has changed over time? If so, how?

Question 3. ???Do you think the panels make it difficult for some students to live out their part of the collective story of Washington High School?

Question 4. ???Does saving the mural privilege "art over humanity"? Why or why not?

Question 5. ???Should the stories told by art make us uncomfortable?

The Case Study

Battles over removing offensive statues and artwork generally pit conservatives versus liberals. Many conservatives protested the removal of Confederate statues in New Orleans, for example, a move supported by the city's liberal mayor. Those holding more traditional values believed that photographer Robert Mapplethorpe's work (which often featured sadomasochism) was obscene, a view not shared by more tolerant museum and gallery directors. Yet, in San Francisco, the fight over what to do a bout offensive art is not being waged by those on the left and the right. Instead, liberals are battling other liberals.

A mural made up of 13 panels at San Francisco's George Washington High School, known as "The Life of Washington," is at the center of the controversy. Painted by Victor Arnautoff (an avowed Communist) in 1936 as part of the New Deal Works Progress Administration, the frescoes are critical of the first president. They depict Washington as a slaveholder who promoted mistreatment of Indigenous Americans.

Nevertheless, many students, parents, African Americans, and tribal members find the mural racist and demeaning, believing that the artwork is an outdated remnant of the past. To them, removing the painting will help right an historic wrong. They find three panels particularly offensive. One depicts Washington' slaves, another shows an Indigenous American carrying a scalp, and a third shows a dead Indigenous American at Washington's feet. One junior at the school complained that the images were hurtful to a number of minority students and that students "should never have to hear I'lI meet you at the dead, Indian!"

Under pressure from mural opponents, the San Francisco school board decided to paint over the panels, which sparked a storm of protest. Critics argued that removing the mural was form of censorship. They quoted Henry Louis Gates (an African American), who said, "Censorship is to art as lynching is to justice. Preservationists, secking protection for a valuable piece of Depression-era art, threatened a lawsuit or to place the issue on the ballot in response. the board reversed its earlier decision, deciding to cover up the mural with wooden panels while digitizing the images so that they could still be viewed by the public. (The panels may later be moved elsewhere in the city.) The compromise disappointed both sides.)

The Mayagna/Seneca tribe, worried that the mural would be uncovered at some point, vowed to fight on. An African American school board member who voted against the cover-up claimed that saving the mural puts "art over humanity. On the other hand, the president of the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) argued that the mural is a reminder of racist history, which should remain visible. Actor Danny Glover, a graduate of Washington High, compared the cover-up to book burning.declaring. "The responsibility of art is to make us feel uncomfortable." The president of a group formed to protect the murals didn't rule out further legal or political action, including a ballot initiative. Another preservationist urged voters to recall the school board.