This presentation will briefly discuss the making of Constitution Gardens but focusing primarily on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the controversy surrounding it.
As discussed last week, Constitution Gardens was originally submerged by the Potomac River, but was dredged and filled into swamp land at the beginning of the 20th century. It was then purposed for temporary buildings which housed the temporary offices of Main Navy and Munitions Buildings during World War I. These buildings were demolished by the 1970s and during his presidency, Nixon ordered that a park be established on the land. In 1976 Constitution Gardens was dedicated to the bicentennial of the American Revolution. 10 years later in 1986, Reagan issued a proclamation making the Gardens a ‘living legacy to the American Revolution Bicentennial tribute’.
An interesting memorial in Constitution Gardens is the memorial to the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. Dedicated in 1984, exactly 208 years after Congress voted to approve the Declaration of Independence, the memorial has facsimile of each of the signatures alongside information of their name, home town, and employment. This memorial is an example of the physical space being incorporated into the memorial itself. Being situated on an island, its separate to the rest of the gardens and with the water surrounding it creates a reflective environment. This moves from the heroic equestrian statues which clearly instruct the viewer in how to understand the monument, they command respect and awe. Whereas this monument is much more open to interpretation.
In 1979, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund was founded by Jan Scruggs as a non-profit organisation with the mission to create a memorial, a space for the veterans to remember those who were left behind and for a nation to heal from the horrors of the war. Buckley introduces the main figures of the VVMF and the controversy surrounding it in a very interesting way. For instance:
‘Jan Scruggs, the grunt who conceived it.
Jack Wheeler, of West Point and Harvard, who organized it.
James Webb, the captain-turned-novelist, who tried to stop it.’
Buckley separates the three men into different stations: Scruggs as the common man, Wheeler as the academic, and Webb as the publicity-seeking meddler. This narrative of Scruggs as the common man is explainable as the press at the time gave ‘few signs that they thought his lobbying or his academic work would interest their readers.’ Therefore many newspapers at the time focused more on his military station and outcry for a memorial than his academic and political work. As the article continues the missions of the three men become clear: Scruggs wants a memorial which will finally honour those who died and finally acknowledge the patriotic duty the veterans carried out. Webb, described by Scruggs as ‘publicity seeking’, is portrayed as taking control where he was not needed, and seemingly for personal gain. For instance, ‘jumping the gun’ by giving his previous employer Hammerschmidt the lead to introduce the legislation giving the VVMF the land on the Mall. Wheeler is an interesting character, he is portrayed as being the mediator of sorts, however in some instances the conflict often arises because of Wheeler and Webb’s personal differences.
These personal differences came to light when design number 1026 was chosen, Maya Lin’s design. By 1981, Webb had resigned from the National Sponsoring Committee, and a few months later, Perot demanded an audit. In response to Lin’s design, opponents like Tom Carhart and Jim Webb demanded the following: ‘a flag; an appropriate inscription; the black granite changed to white; the walls moved above ground’. To add more to the PR nightmare, Ross Perot commissioned polls that showed how much the veterans hated the design, people were implying that the V shape was in fact a peace sign, a ‘tribute to Jane Fonda’ implicating the feminine symbol of the V shape, and then a McCarthyite hunt began with the jurors who picked the design. In 1982 the ground for the memorial was broken, and Scruggs just wanted the whole process to be over.
With the growing discontent, the VVMF had no choice but to hold a meeting and address the issues and find some form of solution. The solution was for Scruggs to push for a statue of a soldier and the American flag was the only way to quell discontent. Jim Webb headed this added memorial, personally rang sculptor Frederick Hart to give him the commission to sculpt the Three Servicemen.
The lastest addition to the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial was the Vietnam Women’s Memorial. Like Lin’s design, Goodacre’s preliminary design provoked conflict from right-wing politicians. Drawing inspiration from Life magazine’s photograph of Nurse Donna Hamilton holding a Vietnamese child, the third figure in the memorial was intended to replicate that photograph. However, after backlash and outrage of it being too political or of an anti-war sentiment, the third figure changed from the standing nurse holding a child, to a kneeling figure, ‘gazing sadly at the helmet in her hand’. This changing third figure reflects the conflict/compromise nature of commemoration, whilst also emphasising the problematic nature of commemorating the veterans of the Vietnam War itself.
To conclude, this difficulty in commemorating the veterans was because it reignited the debates that riddled the country throughout the war. The problem that occurred was separating the soldier from the war – a war that became a ‘black spot in American history’. Which is why Lin’s memorial being so problematic for so many, it appeared to reflect the anti-war sentiments that became so popular due to increased military intervention in Vietnam. However, as Lin states in the interview from the Hess reading:
‘The piece itself is apolitical in the sense that it doesn’t comment directly on the war – only on the men that died. It’s like the emperor’s new clothes: what people see, or don’t see, is their own projection.’
Hart’s (indirect) response to this was:
‘Lin’s memorial was intentionally not meaningful…I researched for three years – read everything. I became close friends with many vets, drank with them in bars. Lin’s piece is a serene exercise in contemporary art done in a vacuum with no knowledge of the subject.’
This nature of debate amongst the architects and sculptors themselves reflects the nature of conflict which will continue to plague the National Mall, and the evolving language of commemoration.