F NEWS QUESTION

For the month of May, F News asked: After the U.S. military seized Baghdad, newspapers across the country featured photographs portraying the removal of a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's Paradise Square. The Associated Press reported: "A crowd of Iraqis, with the help of U.S. Marines, toppled a 40-foot statue of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in a main square of the capital [April 9], pelting it with garbage and shoes and dragging the head through the streets."

What F wants to know is: What do you think about U.S. soldiers defacing or destroying public artwork depicting Saddam Hussein? What kind of message do you think this sends to the world? In this case, how does art function not only as a decorative object but as a political and national symbol?

The statue of Saddam Hussein coming down on that glorious day is a moment in history equivalent to the removal of the wall in Berlin. A historical day in world history and a day of freedom for the Iraqis.

Cathryn, Junior, Interior Architecture

Okay folks, some of you may recall that the Iraqi people were trying to deface the statue before the U.S. brought the crane in to help them. The people were also clearly grateful for the help. I really don't believe that a huge statue, that was placed by a dictator to remind people who is in control, is considered "art." If this sends a message to the world, it is that Saddam was an evil man, and that the Iraqi people wanted him and his regime out. The U.S.' intent was to free Iraq from Saddam's oppressive rule, and to make room for a democracy. It looks like we're about halfway there. Sorry to disappoint you, SAIC.

Melissa Liebl, Senior

The destruction or defacement of a monument is part of a discourse, and the potential for such an act may be the most meaningful aspect of a monument's existence. Had Saddam been an ancient Roman Emperor, his monument would probably not have been destroyed; it would have been re-cut to resemble his conqueror. A contemporary spectator would have seen in this act an acknowledgement of supreme power: the ghost of the old emperor, visibly erased, hovers about the statue that the new, even greater, master powerfully inhabits. These days, a gesture of that sort would have an entirely different meaning. Imagine a monument to Saddam re-cut to resemble George Bush. ... Nowadays, our symbolic protocol demands that the statue be deliberately pulled down by Americans and Iraqis, working together, in a staged photo-opportunity before embedded journalists and photographers. The only ghosts encouraged to linger are those of other dictators, such as Stalin or Lenin, symbols of what was once our most hated "evil empire," whose statues were toppled in similarly theatrical fashion after the fall of the "Iron Curtain."

Margaret Olin, Professor, Art History, Theory and Criticism

Perhaps a more interesting question would be the issue of responsibility for the looting of the National Museum in Baghdad and proposals for repatriation. ... What would be constitute "reasonable care" in the case of an occupying power?

Hypothetically, if we were to occupy Paris, what procedures would we have in place for the Louvre and the Pompideau museums, among others?

Jeffrey McMillian, MA Arts Administration candidate

A fascinating moment for art! Nothing about the statue changed, but instantly, the whole world changed around it. I think this sort of instant iconography metamorphosis is simply too much for people to handle. And so they destroy art, innocent, inanimate art, hopelessly attempting to erase a painful history instead of learning from it. I think this is unfortunate. A better solution would be to lock up Saddam's stuff in a warehouse until such time as the wounds have healed.

Bill Voltz, Admissions Staff

One of the messages it sends is that it's about Saddam and not Mohammed. Which is an important message.

Actually, you're right ... we should've collected all of those statues which seemed to be on from every other block in Baghdad and arranged them in a public park honoring the regime. Set them up to make them appear to be dancing with each other, depicting a Texas-style "hoe down" with a statue of George playing a fiddle (Saddam is an ex-CIA guy, you know).

Or, arrange the statues to mimic the "Cadillac" sculpture in Texas ... ramming countless Saddams into the ground (arm and face first).

The shame is what happened to the Museum in Baghdad ... that action taken by the exploited poor and gang thugs is a direct result of state-sponsored repression under a ruthless dictator. 5,000-plus-year-old art and artifacts looted and/or destroyed. An unfortunate monument to himself.

Richard Pallotta

Why would you call the statue of Saddam Hussein art? It was his propaganda as much as its dismantling is ours. More to the point of the meaning of U.S. soldiers defacing or destroying public artwork is the refusal of our military to stop the looting and destruction of the art in the Baghdad Museum. This is another reminder of how ignorant Bush is of the significance of art to culture. If, on the other hand, that action was a deliberate attempt to destroy Iraqi culture, then he is truly a war criminal.

Barbara DeGenevieve, Faculty, Photography

From a visual standpoint, seeing a statue of Saddam toppled and the resulting chaos of the freshly deposed former regime was, by and large, necessary as a visual signifier that, indeed, something was really happening. To initiate the process of change and to solidify in the minds of Iraqis that change had happened, toppling a deposed ruler's likeness should not be considered the destruction of art. The items themselves were hardly art. They were intended as civic reminders to the people just who the ruler was. I'm more interested in the moments leading up to the [removal]. The flags covering the face. An upside down American flag. Perfect, so telling, so "incidental" as to appear unintentional. Let's spend more time pouting about the ensuing chaos which cost us our history, i.e., the museums being looted, pillaged, ravaged, and raped. Comparing the two is not worth the breath wasted to entertain such pointless comparisons. We lost the most important war of all as a result of winning this battle. We lost the fight to understand ourselves through our history. We let the fight and the fury envelop us and burn the bridges to our past. How much have we lost because we decided to impose a democracy on a country that is likely not going to take this "freedom" of democracy and make it its own? What next?

Matthew Hotz, Sophomore, Painting

You have to be kidding, right? These statues were not created as a form of art, but more so as a reflection of vanity. Primarily the vanity of Saddam Hussein. The oppressed Iraqi people toppled the statues because to them it was a representation of oppression.

This piece of artwork, as you are trying to infer, represents a man who tortured his own people, placed them in harm's way, and stole their wealth. This guy was so vain he even put his picture on his money.

Saddam Hussein represents every evil in that country. I don't know where you have been lately, but it appears that the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of him and now if they want to create real art, they are allowed to show their own expression and paint, sculpt, and design any artwork that can truly reflects their passion and creativity.

Chet Ildefonso, Staff

It is fitting that one would destroy a symbol of one's enemy. It is a disgrace that the U.S. would encourage public defamation. Although we all know Saddam isn't the nicest guy in the world (face it, he tried to kill my president's dad), but artwork is a symbol of life and different societies. Art can stand as a decorative object as well as a political/national symbol. Helping destroy items only encourages more destruction. What worries me most is the looting and destruction of Baghdad's antiquities museum, which contained priceless treasures dating back thousands of years to the dawn of civilization. I understand that U.S. soldiers can't protect everything, but this avoidance is inexcusable. 170,000 items of antiquity have been destroyed, worth billions of dollars. I don't think this is sending the world too good a message of U.S. military values.

David Goodberg, Junior, Film, Video, and New Media

I think it was a disgrace that U.S. troops assisted in the toppling of the statue when they should have been guarding the museums and libraries.

Fredrick Holland, Faculty, First Year Program

I believe that what was televised on Wednesday [April 9] and printed in newspapers worldwide was a misrepresentation of what actually took place that day. The numbers of people at the square during the fall of the statue were barely in the hundreds, not close to a thousand. There are bird's-eye-view pictures of the square during the incident which show these small amounts contrasting the masses of people most media was accounting for. ...

On the other hand, I believe that it is completely and utterly disrespectful to do what the American soldiers did, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein is a criminal dictator who has killed thousands of his very own. I think that if the Iraqis themselves had managed to bring down the statue it would have been a totally different matter on its own. The defacing of the statue by placing the American flag over it was completely inappropriate. The Iraqis had the power to do all that was done if it needed to have been done. They did not need American GIs to do it for them. The most important thing, however, is the numbers. There was not a massive riot against the existence of this statue. Many Iraqis, do, however, hate Saddam and never wanted to have to stare at the huge face of him hovering above their bodies. ...

Rayya Haddad, Senior, Photography