There's so much discussion about the fate of memorials. Should they be removed? Defaced? Preserved? Put in storage? Re-interpreted? But are we ready to enter into serious public debate about their purpose? Why we are we so invested in monuments in the first place? 1/7

While we may (finally) have moved away from the idea that removing a memorial somehow erases history, we have not really succeeded in dismantling monumental power. 2/7

Instead, we insist that determining the fate of a memorial requires a committee, an articulation of standards and conditions, a formal review. And, we are determined to come up with a scientific strategy to guide what we memorialize next. 3/7

But can we decide that memorialization is inherently problematic? Can we ask if raising statues to do the work of promoting values and representing civic religion does more harm than good? Can we recognize that permanence is problematic? 4/7

What if, instead, we adopted completely new ideas about public art and public space? What if we purposefully established sites of dialogue and respite? What if we designed places to gather that are flexible and temporary? 5/7

How might a different approach manifest the messiness and beauty of democratic values rather than representing them as fixed and immutable? How might different kinds of spaces enable us to engage in meaningful actions rather than leading us to worship particular individuals? 6/7

There are models and methods for moving in this direction. Thank you to the amazing folks at @Monument_Lab and @SitesConscience who are --and have been-- framing questions like these. If we have to form a committee, let's center their work. 7/7