Building America A history of US monuments Introduction    In this lesson, students will learn about the history of three national

monuments the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, 90 minute Block Specialty class (no defined SOLs)

Cognitive Objectives     Students will consider their current views about public monuments. Students will discuss the ways that the aesthetic choices in the building of monuments affect their meaning. Students will describe the link between the building of monuments and national identity. Students will research the controversy surrounding the Arthur Ashe Monument.

Materials and Advanced Preparation   PowerPoint/ digital projector Slideshow notes sheet

Teaching and Learning Sequence Introduction/ Anticipatory Set (15 minutes)  I will ask students to consider the following questions: o What can a monument say about a culture? A nation? o What qualities do you think early Americans wanted to portray through monuments and memorials? o What about todays population? Are there any values that would be more emphasized today?  I will inform students of the days agenda: We will be looking at the controversies surrounding the planning and building of four public monuments: the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Vietnam War Memorial, and the Arthur Ashe Monument. Lesson Development ( 25 minutes total)  I will begin the slideshow presentation.  In a more authoritarian state (a monarchy, a dictatorship), the issue of public monuments, memorials, and murals is not discussed widely by the masses. Public art is often a crucial element to these regimes rise and maintenance of power; democratic input is absent.  Hitler standing beside a Nazi statue; Military parade by the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin

Poster for the League of German Girls. Here we have Stalin, striking a casual pose, a friendlier more relaxed image.  This 1937 Soviet Union poster shows children thanking the party and "Dear Stalin" for a "Happy, Joyful Childhood."  Public art has its limits in influencing peoples perceptions of leaders and nations. A group of Hungarians destroy a massive statue of Stalin in Budapest during a national uprising against Soviet Rule. Public art in the United States, in contrast, highlights how important public art is in creating a nation's image, developing its mythology and national identity. Through controversies concerning art and monuments, we get a better idea of how we think as a country, how we are seen as a country, and how we would like to be remembered.  One of the most simple monuments was among the first hotly contested public art projects of our nation: the Washington monument.  The monument is no longer controversial. As generations pass, we generally begin to take monuments and statues for granted, provided that they do not represent a difficult past (for example, Confederate statues) or show a previous regime (as is the case in the Stalin statue). Lets not take it for granted now. Lets look at it closely as if we had never seen it before. y Looking at the finished monument, what do you think of it? How would you describe it? Does it look like other structures built in the 1800s either in the US or in Europe? What we have today is far different from the original plans set forth. The project began with a contest set forth by the Washington Nation Monument Society  A print of the winning entry is above. It never was built in this form (it is merely a plan). As you can see, it is far more complex than the final project. More complex was the process of getting the monument built. The first plans were drafted in 1833. The monument was finally dedicated in 1884. y The first major disagreement concerned the style of the monument. Look at the print. Does anyone know the term for the proposed monument's style? Where the style originated? y Look at the elements: the rotunda, the columns, the statue of Washington in a multi-horse chariot above the rotunda's balustrade. The large stairs guarded by a pair of imperial, nude sculptures. y While these are Greek and Roman in nature, those were the styles of the Renaissance: the classical spread across Europe. Why would many people want to avoid this association?  *While many in the South embraced stylistic elements of the Old World (in particular, Thomas Jefferson's developement of the Georgian style), the country as a whole desired something new, something that fit the spirit of the New World. What that meant, no one could decide  But back to the Washington monument.  

1)Aesthetic reaction: the obelisk (the only part of the monument that was built) and the jumble of columns come from two different civilizations; they dont make sense together. y 2) Gigantism: term used in the study of architecture to signify something that is unusually large, or large beyond reason. Often used as a negative criticism for something that is large only for the sake of being large, for shock value. In this case, the critic is saying that the architect has given up any sort of meaning in order to make something that has a wow factor.  This however was not the most reviled plan. Another seriously considered plan was composed of four massive Egyptian sphinxes; in place of a pharaoh's head would be the head and breast of our national bird, the bald Eagle.  The dispute over the various propositions led to a stalemate. The monument society began construction but ran out of funds. Public money for the monument would not be secured until the 1870's. As you know, the obelisk was the only retained element.  When the monument was finally completed, it was the largest structure in the world. Gigantism won out. Controversy over public monuments has continued throughout our history. Here is the interior of the Lincoln Memorial. As you can see, tradition won out, the structure similar to a Greek temple, the statue of Lincoln enormous and highly idealized  Though the project came far later in history (work began on the monument in 1914), the issues of architectural style and the critique of gigantism were present here as well.  Controversy over the statue began when diplomats considered sending replicas of the statue abroad to various European cities.  The critique above that this is a misrepresentation of Lincoln; links parts of his past to derogatory statements.  He never mentions the reaction he expects from the European recipients, but do you think that was on his mind? Was he more afraid of Lincoln being misrepresented, or his nation?  While one replica of the Barnard statue was sent to England, works by other sculptors were sent to major sites and cities. Americans hadnt yet embraced rugged individualism as a national trait, refusing to formally recognize our frontier past as vital to our character as a people. Ultimately the term would come to be used to discourage welfare and social safety nets, but in this way, it is defined simply as a mode of living that is linked to our pioneer past. A rugged individualist would demonstrate the following traits: self-reliance, decisiveness, inventiveness, pragmatism, (and at times) unconcerned or rebellious attitude towards high culture or more sophisticated norms  The idea is still a part of our national dialogue Though very different from Lincoln, Sarah Palin can be seen as someone trying to portray herself as a rugged individualist (photo from Sarah Palins Alaska) y

The simultaneously most reviled and most admired monument of recent memory is Maya Lins Vietnam War Memorial. Here is an overhead view. From the air it isnt particularly remarkable. You cant see any figurative sculpture (see below) such as a statue of a general or a soldier. Has anybody ever been there? Can you describe it for me?  *Figurative Art: Art that is clearly derived from real-life objects (such as the human form). Though they can be changed in ways from the original source, figurative painting and sculpture are generally representational.  The Vietnam War Memorial can be called a work of Minimalist art or architecture in that it is clean and simple in design, avoiding decorative elements.  The monument is built to a human scale. It is meant to be approached. Visitors often make rubbings of the names of their loved ones on the wall.  The black, reflective surface forces the viewer to see himself as he reads the names (especially powerful to those who fought in the war they could easily be a name on the wall).  The monument is very democratic in that it doesnt place one fallen soldier above another, it doesnt portray one kind or one rank of soldier (there are no human figures, avoiding the critiques that a lot of monuments receive due to the race of statue subjects)  So what were the critiques of the monument?  Some veterans referred to the site as a ditch  Others found fault with the color, viewing black as a universal color of shame, sorrow, and degradation in all races, all societies worldwide  The way that the monument carves out the earth and appears to be sinking seemed to be an acknowledgement of American shame.  Others referred to it as an open urinal, and a perverse prank  Critics were ultimately satisfied in part when a second piece was added to the site, Frederick Harts Three Servicemen, more traditional in that it is FIGURATIVE in nature and cast in bronze, yet more naturalistic in nature and scale (not highly idealized). The final public monument we will look at: The Arthur Ashe monument, located at the intersection of Boulevard and Roseneath here in Richmond.  The process of creating and installing the monument drew national and international attention.  Were going to research the controversy using Google news. I will guide students to google news archives  Google.com/news  Search for Arthur Ashe Monument  Go to the left margin and click on Archive  Read through the various articles. Many of them will require you to pay for them (says Pay-Per-View underneath the title). Obviously, just use the free ones--there are plenty. The students will answer the following questions in their journals:  1) Who is Arthur Ashe? Why does Richmond want to build a monument in his honor?

 

2) How long did it take from the first proposal to the completion of the monument?  3) How long did the final hearing on the monument last?  4) What are some aesthetic objections to the monument?  5) What is the largest critique? Why is the location so controversial?  6) Provide arguments for and against the monument in its final form and location. As students are working, I will walk around and observe. When most of the students have finished, we will go over the answers together. 

Closure (10 minutes)  I will ask students to name a few things they have learned about public monuments during class today. Was the controversy surrounding early monuments surprising?  I will reiterate the link of national identity to decisions in public art.  I will inform students that the following class, we will be looking at another large display of nationalism through public art and discuss propaganda a bit more. Homework  None

Formative Assessment  I will assess students through their answers to questions and their abilities to pick out important points in the text. During small group reading, I will assess the students abilities to think analytically and recognize important points in the narrative that relate to the themes explored.

Summative Assessment    I will look over the entrance tickets for use of language and ability to think creatively about the prompts. Information from the text will ultimately be used in the formation of tests and quizzes, including an essay to be written once the entire novel has been read. The journal entry will eventually be collected and reviewed as a part of a short poetry project.