Repeal Statutory Statuary
Art has been with us for a long time. Our earliest known artifacts date to something on the order of 40,000 years ago. There is some evidence that there may have been human artistic activity as far back as 500,000 years. Art is a cherished and essential aspect of our humanity that can evoke powerful emotions. Eliciting emotional responses is considered a primary function of artistic expression.
Because of its ability to elicit powerful feelings, governments — modern and ancient, dictatorial and democratic — have seen fit to use art to promote their ends, celebrating remembrances of historical events, stirring patriotism, or seeking to create an emotional attachment to government itself.
Stories have been with us since before we created artifacts (though not recorded until the advent of writing around 5000 years ago). For millennia, ancient stories were passed down aurally, transmitting important trans generational knowledge and insights. Imagery and metaphorical allusions in the old stories served to express our human experiences, our deepest thoughts, and our most powerful desires. Story telling is in our bones.
It is small wonder that governments would use history in much the same way that they use art. Governments have always had — and probably will always have — an interest in telling their version of history and displaying their chosen artifacts. By now we should treat this as a feature of government.
Art and history sanctioned and promoted by government are problematic in a diverse democratic republic such as ours. We should expect — and even embrace — intense disagreements about what things should be displayed and what stories should be told. That’s the nature of healthy diversity. How can we possibly agree what should represent “us”, when “us” is so gloriously disparate? And lest we forget, there will always be those with troublesome axes to grind ready, willing, and able to promote the art and history that promotes their agenda in the public square.
Art and history are far too important to be in the hands of government. We should simply let those who wish to tell history their way, do so. We should let those who wish to display their cherished art, do so … in their own way and in their own space. Without the imprimatur of government, private stories and artistic displays can fittingly contribute to healthy diverse public discourse, allowing us to collectively reflect on both the good and bad deeds of our ancestors. We should not be afraid of such diversity of thought and speech. We can reject that which is offensive or unpalatable.
A living, breathing, and vigorously debated history free from government’s heavy hand will allow us to reflect more honestly on the twists and turns of our collective story. Living, breathing, and inspiring art free from government influence will allow us to better appreciate the wide spectrum of human experiences of our compatriots as we continue to strive to make our nation into the more perfect union envisioned by our founders.
