Reagan for Rushmore
From the Beeb: The tired old lobby to get Ronald Reagan carved in South Dakota stone is rearing its ugly head once again in light of the president's passing this week. Led by Republican Congressman Matt Salmon (who is leading my list of contenders for partisan bozo of the year), the idea is that Reagan "deserves" having his face on Mount Rushmore and that Congress should make it so.
The BBC article quotes park service rangers and officials with the monument who make two very obvious objections, and illustrate just how ludicrous an idea this is:
(1) The mountain can't handle another carved face. If you were to try it, you might very well bring down the whole carving. At any rate, if you look at the geography (and keep in mind that the reason Teddy Roosevelt is so far back is that they didn't find good, quality stone until they blasted away that much), there's just no place to put anyone - Reagan, Kennedy or Elvis. And yes, they've all been proposed.
(2) Adding anyone to Mount Rushmore at all would destroy it as a piece of art. Rushmore was the vision of Gutzon Borglum, the dream of this one artist and the many artisans who helped him create it (including his own family). It is not now, nor was it ever, intended to be a continuously expanding "hall of fame" - it is instead an expression of Borglum's admiration for these great presidents. Even the suggestion of placing someone else on the mountain is patently offensive and shows no understanding of art whatsoever. We might as well paint John Paul II into the Cistine ceiling!
Obviously, I get a little bent out of shape over this. As a South Dakota travel counselor, I heard this idea a lot. An awful lot of Americans just don't seem to get why it's a heinous idea to add Ronnie to "the faces" (as the camper-towing masses seem to call Mount Rushmore).
Thankfully, Congress would have to collectively take a goofy pill to pass this one. Let's hope they lay off.
And Rep. Salmon - shame on you for your willingness to deface one of the world's great works of art in the name of petty partisan politics. What an embarrasment for the people of Arizona.
The BBC article quotes park service rangers and officials with the monument who make two very obvious objections, and illustrate just how ludicrous an idea this is:
(1) The mountain can't handle another carved face. If you were to try it, you might very well bring down the whole carving. At any rate, if you look at the geography (and keep in mind that the reason Teddy Roosevelt is so far back is that they didn't find good, quality stone until they blasted away that much), there's just no place to put anyone - Reagan, Kennedy or Elvis. And yes, they've all been proposed.
(2) Adding anyone to Mount Rushmore at all would destroy it as a piece of art. Rushmore was the vision of Gutzon Borglum, the dream of this one artist and the many artisans who helped him create it (including his own family). It is not now, nor was it ever, intended to be a continuously expanding "hall of fame" - it is instead an expression of Borglum's admiration for these great presidents. Even the suggestion of placing someone else on the mountain is patently offensive and shows no understanding of art whatsoever. We might as well paint John Paul II into the Cistine ceiling!
Obviously, I get a little bent out of shape over this. As a South Dakota travel counselor, I heard this idea a lot. An awful lot of Americans just don't seem to get why it's a heinous idea to add Ronnie to "the faces" (as the camper-towing masses seem to call Mount Rushmore).
Thankfully, Congress would have to collectively take a goofy pill to pass this one. Let's hope they lay off.
And Rep. Salmon - shame on you for your willingness to deface one of the world's great works of art in the name of petty partisan politics. What an embarrasment for the people of Arizona.
posted by Bob at
5:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home