Welcome to our live chat with Kirk Savage, author of Monument Wars: Washington, the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape.

Live Chat: Kirk Savage, “Monument Wars”(01/26/2010)
12:52
David Alpert:
Welcome to our live chat. Kirk Savage will be joining us in a few minutes. In the meantime, please feel free to enter any questions which we will try to pose during the chat.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 12:52 David Alpert
12:59
David Alpert:
Professor Savage has now joined us. Welcome! And now over to our host for today’s chat, Neil Flanagan. Neil?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 12:59 David Alpert
1:02
Neil Flanagan:
Professor Savage, just to introduce readers to the topic, would you mind giving a brief introduction to the history of memorials and how they have changed over time?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:02 Neil Flanagan
1:05
Kirk Savage:
I argue in my book that there has been a shift from a heroic, object-centered paradigm of memorial building, which flourished in the 19th century, to a more spatial, psychological paradigm of memorial building in the 20th century — the latter dealing more and more in the late 20th century with issues of trauma and victimization. The role of sculpture and architecture has also changed accordingly, though sometimes in unpredictable ways.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:05 Kirk Savage
1:06
Neil Flanagan:
here’s a question about that from Matt W
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:06 Neil Flanagan
1:06
[Comment From Matt WMatt W: ]
We seem to have come to view a memorial as necessary to remember a person or event. The Vietnam memorial, for instance, virtually necessitated the later Korea and WWII memorials, and makes inevitable some eventual memorial to Iraq and Afghanistan. Does this say more about our fear of cultural amnesia than anything else or is it simply about interest group competition?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:06 Matt W
1:11
Kirk Savage:
Good question — a bit of both. The shift I summarized just now also involved a shift in subject matter, from the “great man” monument to the “common soldier” monument. Part of the rationale for the common soldier monument from the Civil War onward was to rescue these ordinary men from oblivion, to inscribe the names of the dead on a monument somewhere so they wouldn’t be lost to memory. This drove the Vietnam Veterans Memorial especially. But it also creates interest group competition, as various groups of survivors vie with one another for limited commemorative space, especially in the national capital.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:11 Kirk Savage
1:13
Neil Flanagan:
I think the immediate reaction many people have to the grand monuments of the early 20th century, like the Lincoln Memorial is to think of them as hero monuments, but they’re not so simplistic, right?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:13 Neil Flanagan
1:19
Kirk Savage:
Far from it. The Lincoln and Grant Memorials on either end of the “Mall” are complex psychological spaces that open up some of the difficult and even traumatic aspects of history. In the case of Grant, the monument is really about the suffering of the ordinary soldier and the peculiar relationship of the commander to that suffering soldier; in the Lincoln Memorial, it’s the leader brooding over the tough choices and unpredictable events of history. So these are not one-note triumphal monuments like the so-called “Emancipation Monument” in Lincoln Park or the Andrew Jackson equestrian in Lafayette Square.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:19 Kirk Savage
1:20
Neil Flanagan:
Okay, let’s make a shift to the plazas in front of the memorials.

Here on this blog, we talk about public space and the public realm quite a lot - but you make the point that the idea is really less than a century old. Matt W asked:

Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:20 Neil Flanagan
1:21
[Comment From Matt WMatt W: ]
What does the transition from public grounds to public space entail for how we use or interpret memorials?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:21 Matt W
1:21
Neil Flanagan:
And in the 1900s, the idea was a public grounds, one with less of a politcal role.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:21 Neil Flanagan
1:22
Neil Flanagan:
Rather, 1800s.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:22 Neil Flanagan
1:29
Kirk Savage:
When statues were seen to be ornaments in public grounds, the visitor was assumed to be genteel and the experience was certainly not thought of as political but rather about the leisurely exploration of a particular place, a park or garden or little landscaped square or circle. With the transition to a more transition to a more spatial concept we lost many of the pedestrian-level urban amenities of the public grounds — the kinds of things that are so lacking on today’s national Mall — but we gained a more intense, more complex memorial space. In the old scheme one wandered the grounds and literally looked up to your heroes; in the new scheme you trudge over often barren stretches of “space” but are sometimes rewarded by memorials that engage your emotions, that create an experience that has its own aura and intensity. In the older model we revered monuments; in the newer one we “experience” them on a more personal level.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:29 Kirk Savage
1:30
Neil Flanagan:
One more question about the history, and then, let’s talk about the many more monuments proposed today.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:30 Neil Flanagan
1:31
Neil Flanagan:
So one of those spaces was the ceremonial grounds around the Washington monument.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:31 Neil Flanagan
1:31
[Comment From GuestGuest: ]
The McMillan Plan included a very formal design for the grounds of the Washington Monument, though this was never executed. Was that due to a lack of funds or a perceived change in public taste?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:31 Guest
1:35
Kirk Savage:
At the time of the McMillan Plan there was some grumbling in the newspapers about the overly French and overly fancy scheme for the Washington Monument “garden.” Frankly, I don’t think there was a lot of public enthusiasm for this part of the plan, but it is hard to assess. It would have cost a lot of money and Congress would have had to appropriate it, and the House at that time was not at all supportive of the McMillan Plan. So I think that the formal plan for the Washington Monument grounds was dead in the water from the start.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:35 Kirk Savage
1:37
Neil Flanagan:
Now, there are still enormous plans today - The NCPC has several long-term plans to expand the ceremonial grounds in some form or another. Plus, there are new memorials proposed.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:37 Neil Flanagan
1:37
[Comment From AlanAlan: ]
With the soon to come Eisenhower Memorial and the conservative movement’s love of Reagan, are we likely to see more and more presidential monuments? (I am sure that Obama’s historic presidency will trigger some sort of monument.)
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:37 Alan
1:37
[Comment From Pete WittePete Witte: ]
Prof. Savage, your book sounds fascinating. Did you discuss the proposal for the MLK,Jr. Memorial? How does that memorial fit into the 20th Century paradigm that you suggest? Or, are we going to see the Mall have a 21st C. paradigm shift? (I understand that due to limited space, NCPC wants to disperse future monuments. Maybe that’s the shift?)
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:37 Pete Witte
1:42
Kirk Savage:
First, Eisenhower. Yes I think this will spur more efforts to build memorials to individual Presidents — Reagan, JFK, even Truman surely are not far behind. (We are probably spared LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, but you never know!) Of course these are in a sense duplicate efforts since Presidents are now memorialized with ever expanding Presidential libraries, and with other structures such as the Kennedy Center. But there will be competition for space in the monumental core to commemorate them
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:42 Kirk Savage
1:45
Neil Flanagan:
Yes - the competition has already been fierce. Do you think that the politics surrounding the victim memorial will make it difficult to build off the mall?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:45 Neil Flanagan
1:46
Kirk Savage:
Second question — MLK Jr Memorial. This is an interesting combination of past ideas, as many monuments nowadays are. On the one hand it’s a landscaped plaza, a contemplative space within the Tidal Basin with a complex scheme of landscape architecture by a good firm. On the other hand it’s got a huge iconic portrait statue in it, amazing in its scale. We won’t really know how these concepts fit together until the memorial is erected and we can actually experience it. Finally the memorial has to have a support structure, another element that is increasingly becoming de rigeur and that is ballooning the space demands. The VVM visitor center would be the most notorious example.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:46 Kirk Savage
1:48
Neil Flanagan:
Alternatively, what about the repurposing of older memorials, as has been proposed for the WW I memorial, or done with the WW II and National Women’s Memorial
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:48 Neil Flanagan
1:52
Kirk Savage:
I think, ultimately, it’s a losing battle to try to keep new monuments off the Mall. No effort to limit monument building has ever succeeded. Victim memorials simply increase the pressure. Instead of “closing” the Mall, I prefer the idea of expanding it, as the Coalition to Save the Mall has proposed. Repurposing is another interesting solution, and has a venerable tradition behind it — many local Civil War memorials or WWI memorials have been repurposed and updated to honor soldiers from subsequent wars. This is one way to keep memorials alive.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:52 Kirk Savage
1:55
Neil Flanagan:
Expansion sounds good to me, but considering how empty the mall can feel, and how little locals use it for memorial purpose, don’t we run a risk of further turning DC into a beautiful graveyard?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:55 Neil Flanagan
1:58
Kirk Savage:
Perhaps if we think of expansion differently, not as the creation of more empty space, but rather as the creation of a multitude of different urban environments that could include commemorative works and themes. Then the expanded monumental core would not only have more room for monuments (of varying kinds) but we would be a less barren and more urban, pedestrian-friendly place to be.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:58 Kirk Savage
1:59
[Comment From IMGophIMGoph: ]
residents near the mcmillan sand filtration site on north capitol street often cite past agreements that agree to make the site a memorial to clean water (its reason for existence in the past, etc.) how common are monuments to something utilitarian like that, and is it worth analyzing?
Tuesday January 26, 2010 1:59 IMGoph
2:03
Kirk Savage:
Very uncommon but what an interesting idea! I’ve also thought that a memorial to Tiber Creek would be appropriate…
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:03 Kirk Savage
2:05
Neil Flanagan:
I believe the Canal Park in Southeast will include some references to the Tiber Creek system.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:05 Neil Flanagan
2:05
Neil Flanagan:
Okay, final question pair, about legibility.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:05 Neil Flanagan
2:05
[Comment From GuestGuest: ]
Very interesting. 2 comments:Couldn’t agree more about the deeper meanings to be found in the monuments at either end of the Mall. I would add that they manage to speak to the tragedy of individual loss at the same time as they speak to national aspirations in an uplifting and unifying way. Less successful memorials — like the modern Viet Nam or the classical WW2 — seem to only manage to address one or the other. Seems like it is as much a matter of quality of design as it is
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:05 Guest
2:05
[Comment From Ron EIchnerRon EIchner: ]
Why do you think interpretive centers have become a programmatic feature of virtually all contemporary monument/memorial design? The depth and complexity of meaning in the memorials at either end of the Mall manages to communicate the tragedy of loss and the national aspirations without needing subtitles.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:05 Ron EIchner
2:13
Kirk Savage:
Yes those two “bookends” of the national Mall are extraordinary, and it’s always hard to know what was responsible for their success. The addition of interpretive centers is also a complex development, probably relating to the increasing reliance on museums after the success of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, I’m sure there are deeper factors at play too, but I find the trend troubling — these visitor centers fundamentally change the experience and need to be examined carefully, not merely as annexes to the monument. I think the visitor center at the VVM will profoundly change that monument. We’ll have to wait and see; I may be proven wrong.

On another note, thank you so much for inviting me and offering such interesting questions to think about.

Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:13 Kirk Savage
2:14
Neil Flanagan:
Yes. I thought this was a very interesting chat. I want to thank Professor Savage for talking with us today.

Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:14 Neil Flanagan
2:14
Neil Flanagan:
And I’d like to thank our commenters for their questions.
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:14 Neil Flanagan
2:15
David Alpert:
Feel free to continue discussing Professor Savage’s comments and the debates over memorials on the Mall in the comments. Thanks for reading!
Tuesday January 26, 2010 2:15 David Alpert
2:15

Continue the conversation about urbanism in the Washington region and support GGWash’s news and advocacy when you join the GGWash Neighborhood!

Tagged: live chat, memorials, public spaces, the mall

Neil Flanagan grew up in Ward 3 before graduating from the Yale School of Architecture. He is pursuing an architecture license. He really likes walking around and looking at stuff.