Agree that there's no good reason to complain about them, but that's why they are being moved.
Well, they aren't supposed to depict WWII, so who is to blame for using that as an excuse for making the mistake of agreeing to remove them?
Sure, and we could cite all sorts of similar atrocities.
Just as the building at Gettysburg, designed by a famous architect, was torn down because of complaints.
Why is removing them a mistake? They are paintings from the 50's. They were not painted by a famous artist.
Sure, and we could cite all sorts of similar atrocities.
The question should be "what good reason is there FOR removing them?" I already have noted several good reasons for not doing something like this.
I'd paint over it then. I'd have no people.That might have a similar effect as having Japanese Animes with all white people when the characters are mostly Japanese.
Painting everyone one color might have the same result as saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter"
With this approach however, many are still "excluded" so the front facing murals and art work may need to be updated every decade at least.
Apologies. I was not familiar with that incident and misunderstood the point of your mentioning it.Tearing down the building at Gettysburg was anything but an atrocity. It was, as I described, a modern building that did not belong on the battlefield.
Oh no. I also noted that the murals are not meant to depict life during World War II, so the claim that they do is invalid.The only reason you seem to have in support of your position is that people want the murals removed because they lack diversity.
See the latter part of the above. In fact, be sure to see all of it for the answer to this comment.The building honors the veterans so that honor will remain since it isn't being removed.
Have you looked at the many pictures of the mural in question? It's not a Mural of WWII soldiers. It's a mural that happens to be painted by a WWII vet depicting life on campus in the 50s.As the Daughter of a WWII vet, I would find it quite offensive to have this removed, if it is a part of the wall and can't be removed without destroying it. Maybe people don't understand today, but the reason we are a free country is precisely due to the sacrifice of these WWII soldiers. We could very well be bowing down to an AXIS Flag, or hailing the Fuhrer,had we lost that war.
Those of us who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Now having said that, I'm still not clear if this is part of the wall which was painted on, or is a picture which could be safely removed without destroying it. My solution would not be to destroy the mural but perhaps to put up paintings or pictures also depicting the African American soldiers, and other minority soldiers who fought and played a part in WWII,such as something about the Navajo Code talkers, and Doris Miller, and women who volunteered.
I'm neither an alumni of the University nor do I have children attending there so of course they can do whatever they want! I'm more concerned with the reason given for wanting to remove it, as in let's erase all our history as it does not fit in with where we are today. Erase history, with all it's warts and stains, and we do not learn.Have you looked at the many pictures of the mural in question? It's not a Mural of WWII soldiers. It's a mural that happens to be painted by a WWII vet depicting life on campus in the 50s.
My solution would not be to destroy the mural but perhaps to put up paintings or pictures also depicting the African American soldiers, and other minority soldiers who fought and played a part in WWII,such as something about the Navajo Code talkers, and Doris Miller, and women who volunteered.
Why would it be erasing history to take a painting down? Do you never change the art in your house?I'm neither an alumni of the University nor do I have children attending there so of course they can do whatever they want! I'm more concerned with the reason given for wanting to remove it, as in let's erase all our history as it does not fit in with where we are today. Erase history, with all it's warts and stains, and we do not learn.
However, It's their call.
Why would it be erasing history to take a painting down? Do you never change the art in your house?
We’re not talking about a statue though. If you have to deflect to statues, you must not have a good argument for never changing the art in a building.Tear down a statue of MLK or some other black guy, and the activists for "equality and fairness" will scream the explanation in your face.
We’re not talking about a statue though. If you have to deflect to statues, you must not have a good argument for never changing the art in a building.
The reason given. They were offended by it. But they can do what they want, of course.Why would it be erasing history to take a painting down? Do you never change the art in your house?
In 70 years, probably much sooner, my guess is that it will be gone.Then I guess you can't see any similarity between a statue and artwork, so we'll stick with what you might consider to be "artwork". If people decided to remove the BLM painting that vandals painted on the street in New York, would you have a problem with that? The NYTimes seems to. ‘Black Lives Matter’ Art Outside Trump Tower Is Being Vandalized
I went to middle school in a building that was built in the late 1800s with a 1929 addition. The WPA painted a mural in the building during the depression. In the 90s the building was converted to luxury apartments. During the renovations the mural was covered over. The current guess is that it is still there but no one knows for sure. It may well be gone. If it is still there it would be badly damaged by nail holes. I don’t recall anyone complaining; most people were just happy that the old building was saved.We’re not talking about a statue though. If you have to deflect to statues, you must not have a good argument for never changing the art in a building.