Art is a medium of change. Art communicates what words do not, and the absence of verbal language actually has profound implications on our decision making. The part of the brain that makes decisions is not associated with language. This why we often say, “it just feels right.” In his Ted Talk, “Start with why – how great leaders inspire action,” Simon Sinek says to start with your “Why” because that’s what people care about. “It’s not what you do, it’s why you do it” (Sinek).
Considering monuments, monuments are heavily based on the “why” – what they are and what they are made of is of undoubted importance, but why they were made and why they are placed in specific areas, who they represent and who they do not, is what makes them meaningful (and at times, controversial). Take the current removal of Robert E. Lee from Duke. It was not the statue itself, but what it represented. It was the “why” that we are against. The statue does not align with our values, and it was taken down.
Commenting on the current battle over “whom we admire and consider as heroes… [and] who has the power to shape how we view our history” (Dreier), Peter Dreier points out a number of progressive Americans who go un-monumentalized. Among those included in the lists of activists not commemorated are Upton Sinclair, Betty Friedan, and Saul Alinsky, whose Rules for Radicals I consider monumental in itself. I think it’s important to not just look at who is remembered in monuments, but who is not. How cool would a Rachel Carson monument be?
