Is it Art or Not Art?

ISIS and Alqaida have already destroyed too much monuments and ancient art.
Keep yours.

(from France)

I've been following the events in relation to the statue for some time now, and I have to agree it is art, it took someones time, skills and sweat to create a masterpiece such as Nancy's Pic here. I am from the Pacific, our ancestors were taken as slaves to Australia working in the sugar cane plantation and left there. Now they are proudly living in Australia as citizens, they do not look back to the past with hate at what the Black Birders did to our ancestors but appreciate what we have at present, but still remember where we truly came from.

I am not saying Americans should do the same, we all have different ways of seeing things,but be reminded that they are not the only ones who had to suffer as slaves, all black people were slaves. but we should be proud that as slaves our ancestors built their citites, changed the course of history. so let them have their monuments, like this particular fellow, he lost the war.

If there are those who support slavery in the present times, then we can say they are stupid, uncivilised and still in the dark ages.

soo to answer your question Nancy OShea​ this is art, to remove or not to remove will entirely be up to the Americans, but as a descendant of once slaves, I say leave the monuments they are History, it is the neo-nazi and KKK we should be worrying about.

Art is subjective. Just because an individual opinion does not believe something isn't art, doesn't mean it should be taken down, ie, "you think it's ugly." The only exception is when a society/country has progressed, and feel that said art symbolizes a past generation of beliefs that are no longer applicable. However, one could argue that said statue should stay as a reminder not to revert back to negative cultures.

My family not having immigrated to the US until 1876, and growing up where there were not many black people, I'll have to admit I wouldn't understand as much as someone who grew up under Jim Crow and in the shadow of these statues.

The community has changed and those statues are no longer wanted. Just as the earlier generation put them up as an intimidating reminder of those times, a new generation can decide to remove them. The craftsmanship is not the point. Happens in many countries.

They recently removed four Baltimore confederate monuments in the middle of the night.

Some are waiting to see if they will show up in Indianapolis.

I have only been to Georgia once—on a business trip—and was unaware of this monument. So I just now read about how it came to be, and the involvement of the KKK. It made me feel sick. It's a monument to their hatred and prejudices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/geography-environment/stone-mountain

Worse, the Stone Mountain website chooses to ignore the ugly beginnings.

http://www.stonemountainpark.com/Activities/History-Nature/Confederate-Memorial-Carving

From what I have been reading the past few days, most of the Confederate monuments sprang up about the same time, after D. W. Griffith's silent film Birth of a Nation and during the renewal of the Nazis. They are monuments to hate and bigotry. They came up long after the Civil War itself.

I look at this monument and think about all of the black people who have been lynched and young Matthew Shepard and Heather Heyer and I am quite happy to see it go.

I'm a Texan born and raised and proud to be. I've never tried to place myself in any confederate soldiers shoes or sprite but in my heart I believe that had I lived in that time I would have answered the call to arms and possibly died in their cause right or wrong. Although slavery is mainly thought to be the reason for the civil war there were other mitigating factors leading up to it. For instance; Business and industry in the North pressuring the South for more and more food and resources to feed their intense need for industry to turn the raw materials into exportable goods and products for trade overseas in Europe. Yet not willing to pay for increases in the price set by farmers and plantations owners and willfulness not to share in the profits the North was making. But you don't hear much said about that nowadays as it's pretty much been swept under the carpet bagger's rug as is said. Now we're relating slavery to art in the form of statues and monuments. To me that's like blaming the gun for murder in place of the actual murderer. It is art and that's all that it will ever be. We are to blame for attributing something more than need be. That's a beautiful picture you posted Nancy, I wish I had the talent to create something like that carving of anything. 

It is art, and to try and erase what those people said and did from history runs the risk of history repeating itself if people forget. Only by remembering such people and events we can hopefully avoid or at least limit the prejudices of the past.

I agree that it would be best if such things were moved to a museum, or art gallery.

Then again i am British and live in the u/k, so my perspective will be different to those in the usa.

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote Is this art?  Do you think this  carving  should be permanently erased or preserved for future generations?

yes its art... I don't care what they do with it one way or the other but I'm Australian so I'm prob not the best person to make that choice

It's definitely art. But art doesn't get to be protected just because it's art.

If somebody paints a beautiful masterpiece that says, "We should kill or enslave all people of color," it is art, but it also shouldn't be put in a public place (and that person should be prosecuted for speech that incites violence).

Reading the speeches given and correspondence written by the men whose likenesses are carved into that mountain explaining why they were leading their armies makes me physically ill. Their statements were shocking to me. What they fought for has no place in civilized society.

I have no problem with memorials, plaques, or even a statue in memory of confederate soldiers in general. Many of the rank and file were only fighting for their homeland against the "northern aggression" and had no idea what it was actually about. Brothers fought and killed their own brothers. This is an event in US history that we in this country should remember forever so that we dare not repeat it.

I do, however, have a problem with heroic statues honoring the leaders who led the fight to enslave others. For most of my life, I felt that those statues were just part of southern heritage and folks in the south just wanted to honor their past. After having some deep discussions in recent years with people of color that I am friends with, I realize it has a very different meaning for them. And this past weekend proves that that is not what those statues stand for at all.

I was fairly ambivalent before. I'm dead set against them now. Move them to museums perhaps where it can be properly contextualized and remembered, but they do not belong in public places of honor.