SHARE THIS ARTICLE:
“We on the left ought to welcome the honest portrayal,” UC Berkeley professor Richard Walker said, adding that destroying a piece of art “is the worst way we can deal with historic malfeasance, historic evils.”

The “Life of Washington” was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression. The San Francisco School Board’s decision to paint over the 83-year-old mural is prompting some to worry that other artwork from the so-called New Deal era could face a similar fate because of changing sensitivities.

Mural Spans 1,600 Square Feet

In addition to depicting Washington as a soldier, surveyor and statesman, the 13-panel, 1,600-square foot mural at George Washington High School contains images of white pioneers standing over the body of a Native American and slaves working at Washington’s Mount Vernon estate in Virginia.

The board’s decision last week comes at a time when the legacies of Washington and other historical figures who owned slaves are being re-examined. Some cities have changed the names of streets and buildings named after slave owners.

Richard Walker, a professor emeritus of geography at the University of California, Berkeley and director of the history project, Living New Deal, said the Washington mural is meant to show the “uncomfortable facts” about America’s first president. For that, it was among many New Deal works of art considered radical when created.

“We on the left ought to welcome the honest portrayal,” Walker said, adding that destroying a piece of art “is the worst way we can deal with historic malfeasance, historic evils.”

Painting It Over Is a ‘Real Fresh Start’

Mark Sanchez, vice president of the school board and a third-grade teacher, said students who must walk past the mural during the school day don’t have a choice about seeing the harmful images. “Painting it over represents not only a symbolic fresh start, but a real fresh start,” he said.

Lope Yap, Jr., vice president of the Washington High School Alumni Association and a 1970 graduates, disagreed, saying when he was a student and saw the mural he was “awed by the subtle ways Arnautoff was able to critique American history.” He said the depictions are “treasures, priceless art” and painting it over is tantamount to pretending the history depicted never happened.

“I’m not into censorship,” Yap said. “I would want to deal with history so we can prevent this from ever happening again.”

The mural is a fresco, which means it’s painted on the wall and can’t easily be removed. Painting it over won’t happen immediately. Should a lawsuit or other delay arise, it will be covered up until the issues are resolved. The board plans to digitally archive the mural.

Most of the $600,000 earmarked for the project will go toward a required environmental review and to cover expected legal challenges.

Mural First Questioned in the 1960s

George Washington High School has about 2,000 students. Nearly all are people of color and many come from low-income families. As early as the 1960s, some students argued the mural’s imagery is offensive and racist. Renewed opposition emerged in recent years amid protests in the South and elsewhere over statues honoring Confederate heroes.

“I understand the importance of art, and it should be the last thing we do, to attempt to cover any kind of art up. The starting point has to be from those who feel they are harmed and how that is unacceptable, especially given the history of this country. When we don’t listen, we don’t learn.” — School board VP Mark Sanchez

Arnautoff, a Russian-born communist and social critic, was hired with Federal Art Project funds as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, a series of government programs meant to help lift the country out of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

He was one of a group of artists to paint murals at San Francisco’s Coit Tower that prompted anti-communists to delay the tower’s opening. Arnautoff’s piece, called “City Life,” shows urban workers crowding around a newsstand of socialist newspapers and magazines. The piece faced criticism for failing to include the conservative-leaning San Francisco Chronicle.

“Victor Arnautoff was far ahead of his time, and we have yet to catch up with him in terms of making school curriculum more inclusive and historically accurate,” said Harvey Smith, president of the National New Deal Preservation Association.

Will Other New Deal Era Murals Be Destroyed?

Walker and other supporters of the mural worry that painting over it may signal that it’s acceptable to destroy the thousands of other New Deal murals across the country. Activists have been successful in getting a series of New Deal murals at the University of New Mexico covered up. Other New Deal murals in New York and Iowa have been vandalized, as well as painted over and subsequently restored.

“The mural is an immense public treasure during one of the few periods of American history where you had the federal government supporting public art, public spaces, public goods,” Walker said. “It’s been the right that has always attacked the New Deal with its social programs.”

Walker suggested rather than destroying the Washington mural, school officials should simply cover it and require freshmen to take a course on slavery and California’s role in subjugating Native Americans.

To Sanchez, that’s not enough.

“I understand the importance of art, and it should be the last thing we do, to attempt to cover any kind of art up,” he said. “The starting point has to be from those who feel they are harmed and how that is unacceptable, especially given the history of this country. When we don’t listen, we don’t learn.”

One Response

  1. Martin Querin

    It’s a painting, how can it truly harm someone. If they had an ounce of true self-worth as a person, not as an ethnicity it wouldn’t affect them in the least. The incessant penchant to break us into smaller and smaller groupings based on a myriad of insignificant anthropomorphic characteristics is simply a continuation of the narrow-minded perspectives that made slavery possible.
    It is irony at it’s pinnacle that anyone that says they are battling racism, or bigotry, uses classifications of people to justify causing “harm”. Identifying people as anything other than simply “human” is how slave owners and imperialists justified their mistreatment of others. How about teaching people to recognize art and history for what it is and instead of identifying with some sliver of the human race actually act as if you believe all people are created equal.
    It was people that were harmed by these terrible historical events, not a “race”, or “ethnicity”. It harmed the entire human race; but it happened and it didn’t happen to anyone now living. Let’s deal with the realities of today without the false egocentric sensitivity that erases evidence or memory of the past. In the case of this mural, it should elicit emotions. Some of the emotions might cause you to emulate the good and hopefully others would cause you to eschew the bad. If seeing a mural “harms” you, then you need counseling; erasing the mural won’t fix you. #silly

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

We've got issues, and we're willing to share
(but only if you want them in your inbox).