WILLIAMS COLLEGE LIBRARIES
Your unpublished thesis, submitted for a degree at Williams College and administered by the Williams College Libraries, will be made available for research use. You may, through this form. provide instructions regarding copyright, access, dissemination and reproduction of your thesis,.
__ The faculty advisor to the student writing the thesis wishes to claim joint authorship in this work.
In each section, please check the ONE statement that renects your wishes,
1. PUBLICATION AND QUOTATION: LITERARY PROPERTY RIGHTS
A student author automatically owns the copyright to Ilis/her work. whether 0[' not a copyright symbol alld date are placed on the piece, The duration of U.S, copylight on a manuscript--and Williams theses are considered manuscripts--is the life of the author plus 70 years.
~ Uwe do not choose to retain literary property rights to the thesis, and I wish to assign them immediately to Williams College. Sekctillg tillS llptiull will ~Issigll cllpyright W 11ll' Cllilege, Th'[s ill nu IVa) preclllLks ~I stulk:, ~Il.l[hllr I'rum li.ilc'l' publishillg his/her' \lor\..: the sludellt would. II()\i'eler. need Illl'Olllal'tlh,' '\rchiles I'c)[' a permissioll t'o['[l1, Thc ,\rchill's would bc rrec in [his case to ~iI"l E['~llll pel'll 1,' ill1uthl'l rCS,'iu\:h,:r to publi,h ,m:dl secliulls rrum the tllcsis, Fbr,:ly \\'luld Ihc['c Ik elil\ ro['the :\I'chives lU grimt pnll1is,iol] to :Ul11lher p,lrly III publish till' the:sis in irs c'111ir,:I\: II Sillidtioll arosc, thl' :\rehi\e\ \Iould he' il1tl)uch Ilith the aUlhor 10 Ictthem \..ml\v thai Sill rCLjuesl had he,:11 l1.lilde,
_I/we wish to retain literary property rights to the thesis for a period of three years. ~ll which time the literary propeny rights shall be assigned to Williams College. S':!c'l'l1l1g this optioll ::,ih" Ihe :luth"r:1 !'e\1 )ears tilma\..e C\elusile use or the thesis ill 1\t""",'I,' ill'liele's. 1,1[(:1' re,ea:\:h. ell',
__ I/we wish to retain literary property rights to the thesis for a peJiod of years, ill' until my death, whichever is the later, at which time the literary property rights shall be assigned to Williams College.
Se'!el'Ul1g t11l:; 0PUOll allol\s the ~\l!lh()[' ::'I'e:lI Ik.\ibiltly Il1e'\lel1lling 1)[' shonel1ing tlk' lime, hi\/hl..·r ~IU[()j11~HiL i..:()P~ Sunk' \ludC'lllS ~l!"t~ ink'rc',lL'd in ll.'oill~2_ lh>-'ir 111l:'\i .... Hi sehuD! lIllI'\.., In this CiIS,'. it would ll1ilLe sense' 1'01' them to ,,11kI' ,I l1umhc:r \uc'h ilS 'i II lhl' hLmL, :1[1<11:11': "'iii Ille' ",'rd, "'IUlilill1\\ dealh. \\hl,:hc'\'c[' is Ih\' !dlei','~ll\ illl\ ...:;.1..,1('[" (ur Lhe .'\n..:hivl~:-. {i.,l dtjll":ilni:-:.!cr i:l)p~ri un d Jr ihe' ,-'ne!:" \\ illdi \:,:t!\; t:k;llh--\Hlr .... t:til \\-;,",n'l iLl\~' \0 \(·~trl'h t"(1r ,,:sLil'__' ~'\l'i..:U[(lrs tllthi", ,-"~l"'l'·--·l·llit li:j ('l1ul'c'ly up I" \'C1L'h SllIdelll,
II. ACCESS The Williams College Libraries are investigating the posting of theses online, as well as their reteillion i11 hardcopy,
L Williams College is granted permission to maintain and provide access to my thesis in hardcopy and via the Web both on and off campus. Sclel'llllg thiS optioll allows researehers around ththvorld [U aeccss the digital lel'siol1 O[ Vlllrk, __ Williams College is granted permission to maintain and provide access to my thesis in hardcopy and via the Web for on-campus use only, Sekcting thi" uptiDn ~liIO\l, accc:s" to lhl: digital versiull Dr' yuur wurf,; fro1l1 the oll-c'ampus lic:I\\OI'f,; {lilly,
_'_ The thesis is to be maintained and made available in hardcopy form only. S,,:kctin!,: thi, Dplioll ;tllo\vs ~ll:l'l>,,' ID your wOl'k oilly rrom the h~lrdcupy you "uhll1ii, SUc'!, ;",'rlaill, tu lhe eillirely (l[' yuur \Iurk, includil1!2 C11l) Iucdia lh~lt it {1!' inc:ludc\,
lll. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION LkcCluse theses are listed on FRANCIS. the Librmies receive numerous requests every year for copies of II(ll'f,;S, If/when a hardcopy thesis is duplicated for a researcher. a copy of the release form always ~ll'col11panies the copy, Any digital version of your thesis will include the release form.
J Copies of the thesis may be provided to any researcher. :';',:kC','ll1 c' 1111, 'Tll(\1l :i1iOI\S any re"l::lrcher tu request a COPy frolu the Williams Co! •.'r lu 1l1~If,;C UIIC ['rum :Ill cledl'olllC versinll.
_ Copying of the thesis is restricted for _ years, at which time copies may be provided to any researcher. This oplioll al!OIvs the aUlhnr to sci a time limit un CUP\illg restl'iL'lioll,', DUI'illg this ;m ,,'ketrollic vt:rsiull or the thesis Ilill bc protccted agClinst duplicalillll,
_ Copying of the thesis or portions thereof, except as needed to maintain an adequate Ilumber of research copies available in the Williams College Libraries, is expressly prohibited. The electronic version of the thesis will be protected against duplication, Signed (student author) Signature Rellloved Signcd(facultyadvisor) Signature Rellloved ~ /ytc~ ~"r"'~, I C Vvi'"J StJ-c ,j ;'10(;'11 Vl(r:-- Accepted for the Libraries S i gnatu re ReIIIoved Date accepted __--=)---C'l'-'-"r----=-O_{+-l_~ _ I Rejected Remembrance Commemorating the Contentious Memory of the Kent State Shootings Senior Thesis by Eve Streicker A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the Degree ofBachelor ofArts with Honors in Art History Elizabeth McGowan, Advisor WILLIAMS COLLEGE Williamstown, Massachusetts For the Kent State community. With Thanks to: Elizabeth McGowan and Stefanie Solum With Special Thanks: Lauren Bloch, C. Ondine Chavoya, Dr. Sondra Cooney, Denise Duquette, Mike Glier, Carol Ockman, Chuck Shafer, and Kathie and Paul Streicker 1 Introduction Eight years after the Ohio National Guard opened fire on protesting students at Kent State University, killing four, George Segal created his memorial Abraham th and Isaac (In Memory ofMay 4 , 1970, Kent State) (1978). Eight years after the shootings, those who witnessed and were a part ofthe tragedy were still experiencing the emotional shock ofthe event. Because Segal's memorial addressed the disputed social context ofthe event, Abraham and Isaac was met with apprehension by a community whose wounds had not yet healed. Segal's memorial was rejected by Kent State University. Instead, it is now installed on the Princeton University campus. The Kent State University administration formally rejected the memorial Abraham and Isaac in a unanimous decision on August 28, 1978. The President's office released the following statement: The Isaac figure appears to be a male between 20 and 30, unclothed except for athletic trunks... kneeling before Abraham in the posture of a supplicant, his hands bound before him. Abraham's right hand holds a knife. The inescapable first impression is that an older person is threatening to kill a younger person who is pleading for his life... It was thought inappropriate to commemorate the deaths offour and wounding of nine others... by a statue which appears to represent an act of violence about to be committed. l According to the statement, the rejection was based on the physical appearance of Segal's memorial-on the appearance of"violence about to be committed". The rejection, however, encompassed far more complicated issues than indicated in the brief official statement above. 1. Martin Friedman and Graham Beal, George Segal: Sculptures (Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 1978),84. 2 Surrounding the issues was the Vietnam War, which largely divided the American populace into supporters and protesters ofthe war. This division was reflected in the way that members ofthe Kent community attributed blame for the deaths ofthe four students. Something was needed to bridge the gap between those in Kent who supported the actions ofthe National Guard, and those who sympathized with the students involved. In response to the event, several memorials were created for the campus. Segal's memorial never had the opportunity to sit among them at Kent State. In creating a unique memorial, George Segal actively confronts the controversy surrounding the event. Abraham and Isaac invites a dialogue by using a well-known allegory as its subject matter. Instead of providing closure and putting the events of May 4th to rest, Segal's memorial is active, didactic, visually abrasive and controversial-just like the event. Even though the memorial was not accepted in 1978, and may never be by those who lived through the events, it still holds much value as an educational tool for future generations. Abraham and Isaac reminds us to keep an open dialogue with history so that tragedies are not repeated. Through examining the rejection of Segal's memorial, I will discuss the difficulty offinding a memorial that would appeal to all those involved in the conflict and contribute to the healing ofthe splintered community. I will explore methods of memorialization to illustrate how Segal's approach differs from others that exist on the campus today. Ultimately, I will discuss the long-term strengths and continued relevance of Segal's memorial by examining the questions he raised, the lessons he 3 attempted to teach and how these relate to the remaining tension within the community. The History of Kent's Contentious Memory th On April 30 , 1970, President Nixon announced that 15,000 United States troops would be deployed to an area of Cambodia controlled by North Vietnamese communist forces. He asserted that the surge oftroops was "not an invasion of Cambodia" and went on to proclaim, "We take this action not for the purpose of expanding the war into Cambodia, but for the purpose of ending the war in Vietnam and winning the just peace we all desire"? President Nixon, unwittingly foreshadowing what was to come in the following days, said, "My fellow Americans, we live in an age of anarchy, both abroad and at home [...] Even here in the United States, great universities are being systematically destroyed... ,,3 Following President Nixon's announcement, protests erupted at colleges across the nation. The next day, at the Pentagon, Nixon was praised by a peer for publicly addressing anarchy within the country. President Nixon responded, speaking offhandedly about uprisings on college campuses. His comment appeared on the nd front page ofthe New York Times on May 2 . The quote read, "You see these bums, you know, blowing up the campuses. Listen, the boys that are on the college campuses today are the luckiest people in the world [...] and here they are burning up 2. Public Papers ofthe Presidents ofthe United States: Richard Nixon, April 30, 1970,405-409, http://vietnam.vassar.edu/doc15.html. 3. Ibid. 4 the books... ,,4 The appearance ofthis quote on the front page ofthe New York Times only served to intensify outrage among American college students. On May 4th, at Kent State University, the protests turned deadly. In direct response to President Nixon's announcement, anti-war rallies erupted in downtown Kent on May 1st, resulting in broken windows and bonfires in the streets. 5 In response, Ohio Governor James Rhodes ordered the Ohio National Guard to the th campus. On May 4 , in thirteen seconds, twenty-eight guardsmen fired sixty-one bullets into a crowd ofstudents gathered in Prentice parking lot, resulting in the death of four students - Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Shroeder. Ofthe four who were killed, two were participating in the protests and two were walking near the green on their way to class. In addition to the four killed, nine students were seriously injured, one ofwhom was permanently paralyzed from the waist down (Figure 1).6 The events at Kent State brought international attention to the university and resulted in more protests and student strikes at hundreds of colleges and universities across the United States. Thus, a small midwestern town became the focus ofnational discontent over the Vietnam War due to an event that continues to this day to polarize and scar the community. The community was divided into two main groups, each wanting the event to be remembered in a different way. One group consisted of state 4. Juan De Onis, "Nixon Puts "Bums" Label On Some College Radicals," New York Times, front page, May 2, 1970. 5. After three days ofprotests, students burned down the campus' ROTC building. This building had been scheduled for demolition in the summer. 6. "Department of Special Collections and Archives." Libraries and Media Services. Kent State University. http://www.library.kent.edu/page/11247. 5 officials, administrators ofthe college and those who believed that the events of May 4th were the result ofstudent provocation and unlawful anti-war protesting. The other group was comprised ofthe victims, their families, and those who were sympathetic to the victims.7 They believed that the rally was a legal manifestation offree speech and the university officials and guardsmen were entirely responsible for the deaths. 8 Though both groups agreed that the shootings were tragic, in 1978 the Kent community was not ready to abrogate blame and cast a memorial that would put the th events of May 4 , 1970 to rest. Creating History from Memory In order to discuss the challenge of coping with the event years after the last bullet was fired, it is necessary to understand how disputed memories contributed to the polarization ofthe Kent State community. People who experienced the shootings at Kent State remembered the event in different ways, making the process of commemoration difficult, because there was no singular history or point ofview. 7. Some members ofthe group described here subsequently formed The May th th 4 Remembrance Coalition on May 4 , 1977, during a communitywide disagreement about the building ofMemorial Gym on part ofthe site ofthe shootings (This event will be discussed later in this paper). The May 4th Remembrance Coalition is dedicated to the continued remembrance ofMay 4th 1970 and creating a legacy that honors the tragic events. 8. Mickey Huff, Healing Old Wounds: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Conflicts Over Historical Interpretations ofthe Kent State Shootings, iii. 6 In his essay Collective Memory: The Two Cultures (1999),9 Jeffrey Olick notes that people tend to remember more acutely events that are consequential or divisive. For example, it is common for a person to recall many specific details about where they were, what they were doing and what they were wearing when President Kennedy was assassinated or when airplanes hit the Twin Towers on September 11 tho Olick calls these occurrences "flashbulb memories". 10 The Kent State tragedy certainly had the potential to create flashbulb memories for members ofthe community. As a result, certain triggers in the form of sounds and sights stir the memory ofthe shootings. For example, parents of students at the Kent elementary school were distraught when a bullhorn started being used to call the children inside from recess. Bullhorns were also employed by the Ohio National Guard to deter th students from protesting on May 4 .II Additionally, the university has become accustomed to treading lightly around the event. The English department stopped requiring papers of their students in the years following the shootings so as to not seem authoritarian and potentially cause students to recall the hostile and violent th feelings they experienced on May 4 . 12 9. Olick's work is largely based on Emile Durkheim and Maurice Halbwachs' work. Associated with Durkheim and Halbwachs' studies is a rich research tradition that includes works by Robert Bellah (1985), Pierre Nora (1992), John Bodnar (1992), Andreas Huyssen (1995), Marita Sturken (1997), and Olick and Robbins (1998), among others. These works, like Olick's, examine the social constructs of memory formation and memory politics. 10. Jeffrey Olick, "Collective Memory: The Two Cultures," Sociological Theory 17 (1999): 340-1, http://www.jstor.org/stable/370189. 11. Sondra Miley Cooney Ph.D., Associate Professor ofEnglish at Kent State University, interview by author, Kent, Ohio April 1, 2009. 7 Olick explores the effect ofcommunity on personal memory, asserting, "Group memberships provide the materials for memory and prod the individual into recalling particular events and into forgetting others". 13 Although only individuals remember, much ofthis recollection can take place together, resulting in social frameworks and group identities that in turn can shape individual memories. Marita Sturken, a sociologist specializing in memory, adds that cultural memory is memory "shared outside the avenues of formal historical discourse, yet is entangled with cultural products and imbued with cultural meaning". 14 From the sociological study of cultural memory, we learn that what an individual remembers happens in his/her own mind, but personal memory is influenced by commemorative symbols and group memberships. Group associations, therefore, not only divide communities by ideology, but also can serve to polarize community memories and consequent reactions to events along group lines. This has been the case with community memories at Kent State, which were polarized by two factions-those who supported the Guard and those who supported the protesters. Each group remembered the event in a different way as members experienced the event from opposite sides ofthe conflict. To memorialize a contentious event like the Kent State shootings, is thus, to take on a great challenge. In order to be successful, one must walk the line between two conflicting memories ofthe same event. 12. Eidem. 13. Jeffrey Olick, "Collective Memory: The Two Cultures," Sociological Theory 17 (1999): 335, 14. Marita Sturken, Tangled Memories, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), 3. 8 In writing history, sociologist Maurice Halbwachs asserts, we are searching for the facts, which must take into account various personal as well as collective memories. In the case of Kent State, collective group memories supported different individual memories. In considering certain aspects ofthe event, these allegiances prevented agreement in the community. For example, death in this case was a reality weighed by opposing opinions-some believe the students were murdered, while others believe the Guard acted in self-defense. Halbwachs distinguishes between history and collective memory by suggesting that one is an issue ofthe past, the other an issue ofthe present. History is defined by Halbwachs to be the past that is remembered, but to which we no longer have an "organic" relationship, while collective memory is an active and personal past that forms our personal and societal identities. ls As we see with the differing memories at Kent State, history and collective memory are not so clearly defined. In the case ofthe shootings, we witness the past encroaching upon the present, making it impossible to put into one comprehensive history the active memories ofthe event for future generations. Recorded memories can serve as didactic tools for future generations. The recording ofhistory creates the means by which individuals born in different times are educated about the memories, occurrences and facts of earlier time periods. In 1992, John Bodnar wrote, "Public memory is a body of beliefs and ideas about the past that help a public or society understand both its past, present, and by implication, 15. Maurice Halbwachs, "The Collective Memory," (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1966). 9 its future". 16 According to Bodnar, the body ofbeliefs present in the record ofpublic memory leads to understanding for future generations. As such, memorials are built so that people or events will not be forgotten. They can be valuable teaching tools for future generations trying to understand and learn from the past. Thirty-nine years after the shootings, collective forgetting has permitted a glossing over ofthe inconsistencies in Kent's community memory. No one clearly remembers exactly who threw the first rock at the National Guard during the protests or which gun fired last. Collective forgetting allows us to reduce the Kent State tragedy to a shooting that resulted in four deaths. Forgetting allows us eventually to bridge the gap between inconsistent individual and group memories, so that we can create a collective memory that will lead to a cohesive history. In Tangled Memories, Sturken argues: "Forgetting is a necessary component in the construction of memory".I? She asserts that memory is fluid and changing, influenced by recollections of others and active and uncontrollable forgetting of details. She states, "We need to ask not whether a memory is true, but rather what its telling reveals about how the past affects the present".18 Memory reflects culture. What is remembered is just as valuable as what is forgotten. 19 16. John Bodnar. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992),15. 17. Marita Sturken, Tangled Memories, (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), 7. 18. Ibid., 1-2. 19. There is a great danger in creating a legacy offorgetting when forgetting is used to reach a compromise. Thomas Beamish, Harvey Molotch, and Richard 10 Segal's Memorial George Segal, an internationally renowned artist, was teaching at Princeton University at the time ofthe Kent State shootings. His environment provided him with an insight into the age demographic protesting the expansion ofthe Vietnam War into Cambodia. In response to the shootings years after the event, the Mildred Andrews Foundation commissioned Segal to create a memorial for the Kent State Flacks did a study on remembering the wrong truth about anti-war protests during Vietnam. In their essay, Who Supports the Troops? Vietnam, the GulfWar, and the Making ofCollective Memory (1995), they discuss the misconception in collective memory that suggests that anti-war protesters during Vietnam were particularly anti troop, and how the proliferation ofthis misconception affected social behavior in opposing the Gulf War and led to a clear articulation during the GulfWar that anti war sentiment was about hating the war, but loving and supporting the soldiers. Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks conducted research for their findings by looking at original media coverage of Vietnam protests that would point to anti-troop sentiment, in hopes of explaining the public opinion that followed. They found that in original media coverage, there was a lack ofreference to violence or overt anti-troop sentiment by war protesters. The idea was fallacious that Vietnam protesters were unsupportive ofthe troops (Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks 346-360). Who wrote the history that painted anti-war protesters as being anti-soldier? Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks blame the media's simplification of anti-war sentiment as polarizing troops on one side, protesters on the other as well as the expressed sentiment ofthe national elite, such as Nixon, who labeled campus protesters "bums" (See note 4 above). They say that, "elites played a significant role in writing the dominant history. The public memory outcome is more consistent with the images suited to the elite's purposes rather than to those ofthe anti-war movements" (Beamish, Molotch, and Flacks 352-3). Olick and Robbins (1998) present history as always being biased and constructed. They say, "History is written by people in the present for particular purposes and the selection and interpretation of 'sources' are always arbitrary" (Olick and Robbins 110). Olick (1999) suggests that different rememberers in a group are valued differently, therefore the memories of some gain more attention and are given greater value than the memories of others (Olick 338). Therefore, the elite, with greater access to sharing their stories and beliefs, would have a greater influence first on collective memory, and then in history. In this competition between memory groups, it would be more likely that anti-war protesters would be painted as "bums" in history, as that was the official point ofview on college protesters. 11 shootings. The Mildred Andrew Foundation was a private foundation based in Cleveland that paid for the creation ofartwork for donation to educational institutions.20 As was noted above, Segal's memorial was rejected by the university administration at Kent State.21 Segal's memorial, Abraham and Isaac, is a bronze sculpture oftwo life-sized figures. A standing mature man, of about fifty, looks into the eyes of a kneeling younger man who appears to be about twenty years of age. The standing man, whom we identify as Abraham, wears a military-style jumpsuit with arms and legs rolled to display bare feet and two clenched hands. He holds a knife in his right hand. The kneeling man, Isaac, is youthful and muscular. He wears only 1960s-style gym shorts. Isaac's hands are bound tightly before him with a bronze rope (Figure 2). The figures are cast at a moment of anticipation (Figures 3-5). 20. It has proven extremely difficult to locate specifics on the $100,000 commission. After contacting Princeton University's museum and library, Kent State's resource center, The Segal Foundation, and attempting to locate the now defunct Mildred Andrew's Foundation, I have been unsuccessful in finding a copy of the commission for Segal's memorial. I apologize for this informational gap. 21. Shortly after Segal received the commission, he visited the campus for inspiration. The administration, at that time headed by President Brage Golding, seemed excited yet nervous about Segal's memorial. As a precaution, the administration sent a letter to the foundation and Segal, accepting the donation of Segal's work with the following condition: Before the work was created, Segal had to send a written description ofthe work, a pencil sketch, and a clay model to the university administration. Unfortunately, Segal's artistic process did not include a written description, sketch or clay model. Segal began his work by casting plaster models and he sent the university administration photographs. The administration did not approve ofthe photographs received and formally rejected the memorial ("Department of Special Collections and Archives." Libraries and Media Services. Kent State University. http://www.library.kent.eduJpage/11247.). 12 The tension in the negative space is created by the poses ofthe facing figures. Upon closer examination ofthis space, the viewer sees that Abraham is holding a seven-inch knife in one of his clenched fists. The knife is pointed directly at Isaac's heart (Figure 6). The expressions on Abraham and Isaac's faces reinforce their opposing positions. Abraham's lips are drawn tightly into a frown. His brow folds into an angry "V". His determination lacks compassion and is dramatically menacing (Figure 7). Isaac, on the other hand, has sorrow cast into his face. With a slackened jaw that leaves his mouth gaping and eyes that point downward at the corners, Isaac's expression is a helpless plea, unanswered by Abraham in the frozen moment (Figure 8). At first, the memorial appears ominous and violent, as Kent State's administration cited above. However, accompanying the sculpture is a plaque that provides insight into the intense situation Segal cast in bronze. The plaque provides th the full title ofthe work, Abraham and Isaac (In Memory ofMay 4 , 1970, Kent State), indicating that it is a memorial for the shootings. It also includes a passage from Genesis concerning The Sacrifice ofIsaac, which Segal depicts. This story is central in the three major monotheistic religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. As such, the story has a powerful universal accessibility. It is customarily told during significant religious moments ofthe year. In Christianity, the story is told in Eucharist prayers during the period leading to Easter. In Judaism, a retelling occurs at Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, marking a new beginning. In Islam, the story is recited on the most sacred day ofthe Muslim calendar, The Feast ofthe Sacrifice, 13 which takes place at the end ofthe rituals ofthe Hajj. During The Feast ofthe Sacrifice, a ritual sacrifice is performed in which the male head ofeach household sacrifices a ram, just as Abraham did in the story?2 The Sacrifice ofIsaac is an iconic religious story in which G-d puts Abraham 23 to the test. G-d says to Abraham, "Take your son, your favored one , Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land ofMoriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one ofthe heights...,,24 Abraham does not question or object to G-d's orders; he blindly follows the command ofhis Superior, bringing his favored son, Isaac, to the top of the mountain, never telling Isaac that he will be sacrificed. Abraham places Isaac with hands bound across the altar and raises his knife. Just as Abraham is drawing the 22. For hundreds ofyears, in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, artistic interpretations ofThe Sacrifice ofIsaac had been created, emphasizing different elements ofthe story-obedience to the Lord, sacrifice ofthe innocent, the rewarding power of faith, benevolence ofthe Almighty, etc. Artistic renditions ofthe story date as far back as the third-century CE, appearing in Rome in the catacomb of Callixtus and in the Jewish synagogue at Dura-Europos (Edward Kessler, Bound by the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice ofIsaac, (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004), 153 174.). The scene is present in Ghiberti's Gates ofParadise (1425-1452), was painted and repainted by Caravaggio (1598, 1603), Rembrandt (1635), contemporary artists such as the Israeli sculptor Menashe Kadishman (1985), as well as by countless others. The breadth of artistic interest and variety oftheir interpretations reflect resonance ofthe story through time. Variations ofartistic interpretation show Abraham approaching Isaac from behind in a sneak-sacrifice; a ram tied to a tree or caught in a bush; G-d's hand reaching downward from heaven; Abraham laying Isaac across an altar; and, as is the case in Segal's Abraham and Isaac, the absence of various elements, such as the ram, mountaintop, and G-d's hand, which create an intense focus on the relationship between the two figures. 23. Sarah, Abraham's wife, could not bear children until G/d allowed Isaac to be born when Abraham was one-hundred years old. It is believed that the text repeated "favored one" several times to increase Abraham's affection for Isaac in order to illustrate a tension between love for his son and faith in G/d. 24. The Jewish: Tanakh The Holy Scriptures, Gen. 21.1-22.19 (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985) 31. 14 knife through the air to slay his son, an angel appears and cries out, "Do not raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear G-d, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me,,?5 At that moment, a ram appears, tangled in a bush. In Isaac's place, Abraham sacrifices the ram. By following G-d's commands and proving his fear and love for the Lord, Abraham wins G-d's favor. Segal juxtaposed this timeless story with a tragic contemporary event. By using this subject, Segal suggests that themes within both Abraham and Isaac and the shootings at Kent State University were related. Because awareness ofthe story on which the scene was based would be widespread, the universality ofthe tale would allow the work a unique accessibility and ability to inspire continued consideration of th the relationship between The Sacrifice ofIsaac and May 4 • Twenty years after the shootings, Segal commented on the events at Kent State saying, "The situation was about survival-about survival with a certain set of values. The students had demonstrated all day. They had burned perhaps $20,000 worth ofwooden Army barracks, smashed some windows in downtown Kent. I thought the death sentence was a bit drastic".26 He goes on to say that he thought the issues raised at Kent State were "topical" in relation to the Vietnam era on the whole. Segal comments on the cultural atmosphere and says, "It was a complicated time. It 25. Ibid., 31-32. 26. Nicole Plett, "In Segal's Campus Sculpture, a Call for Compassion," in The New York Times, sec. NJ, Apr. 29,1990, 1. 15 was emotionally raw. And everybody lost their tempers, even to the point ofmurder, which I thought was a desperate mistake".27 The figures in Segal's Abraham and Isaac are life-sized, which impels viewers to identity with the figures in the memorial-to share the same physical space and enter their conflict. Prior to the creation ofAbraham and Isaac, Segal reflected on the process of creating this specific memorial. He said, "I have a personal prejudice against enormous, impersonal monuments, and I was trying to conceive an approach that can keep human scale, personal feeling, [and] personal intensity".28 Abraham and Isaac uses human scale and the representation of average looking people to avoid "enormous" and "impersonal" memorializing ofthe tragedy at Kent State. Through his use oftwo life-sized figures, he attempted to connect with the public in a personal and interactive fashion. Given Segal's prominence and the attention he paid to the viewers' accessibility to the memorial, Kent State's rejection ofthe memorial would seem unlikely. The reasons for rejection put forth by the administration ofKent State University, however, focused on the violent appearance of Segal's interpretation of the Biblical story. Segal maintained that Abraham and Isaac is "a call for compassion and restraint" rather than an overt comment on violence or the exact events that took th 29 place on May 4 , 1970. He believed that Kent State was a "genuine tragedy in that 27. Ibid., 1. 28. Tuchman, Modern Masters Series: George Segal, 96. 29. Friedman and Beal, George Segal: Sculptures, 84. 16 both sides were well meaning, each convinced of its own point ofview and unable to see the other's".30 It may seem inappropriate for a religious work of art to be the central memorial for a tragedy that touched the lives of all members ofthe community and the Nation, especially in a society that legally separates Church and State. The sculpture, however, brings age-old questions to bear upon the present and therefore transcends the tension of a religious work in a non-religious atmosphere. As an exegetical biblical encounter, The Sacrifice ofIsaac is intended to teach larger social and moral lessons, which change depending on the interpretive intent. Abraham's internal conflict between love and duty is the central theme ofthe story.3l As such, any interpretation of Abraham's conflict encompasses the older generation's treatment ofyouth, and youth's obedience to the older generation.32 30. Cara Gilgenbach, "Abraham and Isaac," May 4th Memorials, 31. Louis Berman, Akedah the Binding ofIsaac (Northvale, N.J: 1. Aronson, 1997), 116. 32. The Ten Commandments are a list of moral and religious imperatives, given to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form oftwo stone tablets. G-d orders that his followers have an obligation to honor their parents in the Fifth Commandment, which reads, "Honor thy father and thy mother" (Exodus 20: 12). The Ten Commandments establish a covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. As Judaism is the basis for both Christianity and Islam, all three monotheistic religions use and observe the Ten Commandments, although each has its own version ofthe text and uniquely derived conclusions. In Christianity, the text reads "Honor yourfather andyour mother, as the Lordyour God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lordyour God is giving you" (Deuteronomy 5:6-17). Although Islam does not follow the Bible, both Moses and Jesus are considered prophets in the religion therefore the Ten 17 Carol Delaney, a Biblical scholar and social historian, questions The Sacrifice of Isaac's resulting legacy of authority, as Segal did in his sculpture by introducing questions of intergenerational treatment to the situation at Kent State. In her book, Abraham on Trial: the Social Legacy ofBiblical Myth (1998), Delaney questions: "Why is the willingness to sacrifice one's child the quintessential model offaith, why not the passionate protection ofthe child? What would be the shape of our society had that been the supreme model of faith and commitment?" Delaney's questions challenge a moral legacy in which elders are traditionally not challenged. This lack of defiance is exemplified in the contemporary model of war in which older generations initially decide to go to war, subsequently sending younger generations to fight the battle. The younger generations, occupying the same conceptual space as Isaac, must be willing to be sacrificed as Isaac was, for it is the obedient duty ofthe son to sacrifice his own judgment in favor ofhis father's, or his commanding officers.33 Segal's memorial does not provide an immediately obvious moral, nor does it appear to directly challenge a moral legacy in which elders are not challenged, as Delaney does. The sculpture Abraham and Isaac is less a specific source of moral rectitude. Abraham and Isaac, rather, asks its viewers to ponder unusual, but pertinent, moral questions about duty, honor and compassion-the type of questions that Delaney raises. This allows viewers to assign their own meanings to the shootings and the memorial based on these themes introduced by Segal. As we can Commandments are not ignored. In Islam, the Quran generally references the Fifth Commandment, saying, "Be good to your parents" (007.145). 33. Carol Delaney, Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy ofBiblical Myth (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1998),passim. 18 see from the example ofDelaney's scholarship, the questions Segal raises in relation to The Sacrifice of Isaac are as contentious as the issues raised by the events that took place at Kent State. Segal's choice of subject for the Kent State memorial, The Sacrifice ofIsaac, relies on his own understanding ofthe story and his personal association of it with the shootings at Kent State. Suggesting that the events at Kent State are analogous to The Sacrifice ofIsaac, Segal says they both depict "the eternal conflict between adherence to an abstract set ofprinciples versus the love for your own child,,?4 Segal cites the question ofhow older generations should behave towards their children as the reason he chose to sculpt this story.35 Segal saw the challenge presented to Abraham as a model for the challenge presented at Kent State, where officers, representing an older generation, decided the fate of four students. By rejecting Segal's memorial, Kent State University also rejected Segal's interpretation ofthe event and the question ofgenerational obligation and implied blame. Kent State itself, after all, represented the authority of Ohio State. To allow a sculpture on its campus that questions the authority of elders would be to undermine the university's influence. Remembering Kent State 34. Phyllis Tuchman, kloaem A4astf!rs Series: George Segal, vol. 5. (N@vi York, NY: Abbeville P, 1983),95. 35. Cara Gilgenbach, "Abraham and Isaac", in Kent State University Shootings Online Exhibits and Chronologies: May 4th Memorials, October 12,2008, http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/exhibit/memorials/segal.html. 19 Kent State's story would suggest that a memorial needs to be erected long after a memory battle has been fought, won, and forgotten about, but this need not be the case. The creation ofa memorial can reconcile what is remembered and what is forgotten by serving as a way to cap the event. Thus the event can end and be committed to history. A memorial can start the healing process. When cultural memories are varied and the history is unclear, memorials can have the ability to reconcile debated pasts. Professors Stanford W. Gregory Jr. and Jerry M. Lewis suggest that the "social process of memorialization involves building an appropriate physical artifact that analogically links past community events with the present, establishing new meaning for the collective memory, and thus enhancing community moral unity".36 Andrew Shaken, author of "Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II" (2002), adds to this argument by noting that, "as a stimulant and organizer of collective memory, a memorial has as its purpose official history, the maintenance of a national or local narrative".37 A memorial need not be approved, public and/or grandiose to commit an event to history_ For years, the shootings at Kent State were represented by a single th photograph (Figure 9). John Filo, a student and protester at Kent State on May 4 , 1970, took the black and white documentary photograph. The photograph shows Mary Vecchio, a 14-year-old visitor to the Kent State campus, kneeling in a parking 36. Stanford W. Gregory and Jerry M. Lewis, "Symbols of Collective Memory: The Social Process of Memorializing May 4, 1970, At Kent State University," in Symbolic Interaction, (1988), 216. 37. Andrew Shanken, "Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II," in The Art Bulletin 84 (2002), 139. 20 lot over the body of Jeffrey Miller. Her mouth is open, releasing a scream, inaudible to the viewer. She has dropped to her knees with one arm beckoning to bystanders; the other arm is bent, as if she is shouldering the weight ofthe tragedy. The action centers on Vecchio-her grief, confusion and horror. She kneels amid a disordered array of individuals who are facing in all directions, displaying the chaos at the moment of gunfire. This photograph was featured in Life magazine as a full-page spread, and won a Pulitzer Prize in 1971. The photograph became the public icon of the shootings at Kent State.38 A similarly unintentional memorial evolved from an earthwork created in January of 1970 on the Kent State campus when Robert Smithson was a visiting artist. The work, entitled Partially Buried Woodshed (Figure 10), originally examined entropy as the artist loaded truckloads ofearth on top of a derelict woodshed until it collapsed. Following the shootings, an anonymous member ofthe community painted "May 4 Kent 70" on the side ofthe shed, transforming the piece such that the work th 39 engaged the controversy ofMay 4 . Through the community's interaction with the deteriorating shed, Smithson's project became an "anti-memorial" that signified, according to John O'Hara, "absence not presence, transformation not fixity, forgetting not remembering" ofthe event.40 This earthwork could be seen as a 38. "1971 Winners." The Pulitzer Prize. http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1971 and Jolm Filo, "Photographer John Filo discusses his famous Kent State photograph and the events of May 4, 1970." Interview. CNNcom. May 4, 2000. http://www.cnn.com/community/transcripts/2000/5/4/filo/. 39. "Partially Buried Woodshed," The Center for Land Use Interpretation, Land Use Database, http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/OH3128/. 40. O'Hara, "Kent State/May 4 and Postwar Memory," 308. 21 comment about forgetting pieces ofthe past and dissolving the memory ofthe Kent State shootings, and, is consistent with Sturken's theory (1997) that forgetting would help resolve the battle over collective memory.41 After the transformed Partially Buried Woodshed started to be seen as a comment on the shootings, the administration slowly destroyed Partially Buried Woodshed by landscaping to block it from the view ofpassersby. Over time parts ofthe structure were removed until it was deemed unsafe. At this point in 1975, the final piece was removed from campus. As Halbwachs has asserted, in writing history we search for undisputed facts. 42 Successful memorials must therefore focus on the facts assumed by all, just as Filo's photograph focused on the moment of Miller's death. Memorials must also avoid taking one side of any lingering conflict. Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, who has written on Yitzhak Rabin's Memorials in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, cites three potential foci for a memorial 1) The protagonist, 2) The event itself, or 3) The event's social and political context.43 Kent State's options for memorialization were therefore 1) The protagonists: the four students killed and nine wounded, 2) The event: the th conflict ofthe protests and shootings at Kent State on May 4 , 1970, or 3) The social split surrounding the Vietnam War and related political action. When choosing from these options for a memorial's subject matter, one must select a focus that reaffirmed 41. See note 17 above. 42. Maurice Halbwachs, "The Collective Memory," (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1966). 43 . Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, "Commemorating a Difficult Part: Yitzhak Rabin's Memorials," in American Sociological Review 67 (2002): 35, 22 historical facts with the objective ofhealing a divided community that was plagued by disputed memories. Vinitzky-Seroussi warns, "Emphasizing the event's context may be critical when considering a difficult past, as it may evoke the same conflict that constituted that painful past in the first place".44 Segal seems to be considering Vinitzky Seroussi's warning with Abraham and Isaac, raising questions about the tension between older and younger generations during the 1960s and 1970s rather than th undisputed facts about May 4 . In doing so, he created an image that reflects a significant conflict. We see in the example ofSegal's rejected memorial the danger of the artist's highlighting the event's volatile social and political context while the memory is fresh and the event is still raw in the collective memory ofthe living. The administration ofKent State saw Abraham and Isaac not as a tool for learning and healing, but as an ambiguous and potentially contentious object about an interaction between an older and younger man that had no place on their campus. Like Segal's memorial, Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial is an example of a memorial created soon after a devastating conflict. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is located on the National Mall, between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. The memorial is composed oftwo polished black granite walls that touch to form a wide "V" (Figure 11). The reflective walls are engraved with the 58,156 names ofthe dead American soldiers and those missing in action from the Vietnam War (Figure 12). The walls have been submerged into the earth. As a viewer walks towards the apex ofthe "V", he or she sinks below ground 44.Ibid. 23 level. The wall itself seems to rise beside the visitor as he/she progresses to the vertex. At the vertex ofthe walls, the names ofthe dead and missing are listed in chronological order proceeding from the vertex to the right. The wall disappears into the earth. Where the wall emerges from the ground at the far left, the names carryon chronologically, where they left off, and end at the vertex, where the journey began. Unlike Abraham and Isaac, the memorial takes a historical fact-that American lives were risked and lost-and remembers that specific, undisputed reality. It honors the fallen protagonists and does not actively comment on the controversial context ofthe time period-the number ofdead Vietnamese, the politics of the war, the difficult adjustment many veterans had coming home due to post-traumatic stress and a cultural divide. Even so, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was initially met with apprehension and controversy. For example, the memorial's physical appearance is unlike memorials that have come before-it is minimalist, uses black granite rather than white marble, it recedes into the earth "like a wound", according to Maya Lin, rather than proclaiming victory in the sky like an obelisk. Nonetheless, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial remains an active memory site in American society. Both veterans and civilians visit the site to remember the war, honor those who have been lost, leave gifts and create rubbings ofthe names to keep a memento ofremembrance. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial overcame the initial anxiety with which it was met and brought together protesters, veterans, and those who supported the government during the war to honor United States soldiers. It became a place that is both commemorative and active, honoring, as Charles 24 Griswold says, "the Vietnam veterans, not the Vietnam War,,45. As such, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial can be viewed as a healing wall that suggests a controversial bridge is needed for a controversial event.46 Andrew Shanken argues that there are two types ofmemorials-traditional memorials and living memorials. The sole purpose of a traditional memorial is to commemorate a person or event. This category consists of statues, obelisks, and triumphal arches. A living memorial might be a community center, park, highway, or public place that is used by the living community. Living memorials are usually marked with memorial plaques or given the name ofthe event or person being remembered.47 The concept ofa living memorial emerged from the time of World War I and became increasingly popular during the Great Depression.48 During the Depression, traditional memorials were criticized as being ineffective as memory sites and the public thought it irresponsible to use public money on bronze or marble statues when there was little wealth in the nation.49 A living memorial is perceived as 45. Charles Griswold, ""The Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Washington Mall," in Critical Issues in Public Art (Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992),89. 46. James Tatum's article, "Memorials ofthe American War in Vietnam" (1996), clearly makes the point that a nation's memorial rarely honors an enemy's fallen heroes. In this article Tatum explores the other side ofthe Vietnam War, focusing his attention on the Vietnamese memorials that mark American failure in Vietnam the Vietnamese victories. 47. Andrew Shanken, "Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II," in The Art Bulletin 84 (2002), 130. 48. Ibid., 131-2. 49. Ibid., 131-2. 25 one that gives back to the community and keeps the memory site alive so that the living community can form new memories, unrelated to the event or person being commemorated at the memorial location. Shanken says, "[a traditional memorial] reinforces the past with its presence; [a living memorial] tempers the past through the banality ofuse, elevating the present".50 When Shanken refers to "the banality of use", he highlights the unspecific nature ofa living memorial, as these memorials allow members ofthe community to create memories at the site specific or unspecific to the event or person being honored. At Kent State University in 1977, the question ofwhether or not a living memorial can act as a true memorial emerged. The administration proposed a gymnasium annex for the existing Memorial Gym to be located on a part ofthe commons where the shootings took place (Figure 13). Many students argued that the location ofthe shootings should be preserved as a sacred memorial place. The university administration and physical education faculty wanted to use the space on campus, rather than treat the site as a graveyard. Students voiced their opposition to the administration and trustees about the destruction ofthe site and appealed to the federal government to sanctify the location as a national historical site. The appeal to the federal government was denied and the administration and trustees voted 8-1 to approve building the gym annex. Members ofthe student body, led by the student leaders who subsequently founded the May 4th Coalition, pitched tents on the site and t conducted a sit-in and various rallies. On July 8 ,\ 1977, the court ordered the area to be vacated and issued a restraining order against protestors. On July 1i'\ 193 people 50. Ibid, 139. 26 were arrested. Through a series of student protests and subsequent restraining orders sought by the administration, the conflict continued throughout the construction of Memorial Gym's annex. 51 The group of students was unsuccessful in stopping the construction ofthe gym annex-construction was completed on July n rd 1979. The building is partially located on the site ofthe shootings.52 The conflict over the gym annex did not heal the community, but rather highlighted and further polarized conflicting opinions surrounding the shootings. Bearing in mind the destruction ofPartially Buried Woodshed (1975), the building ofthe gym annex (1977-9) and the rejection of Abraham and Isaac (1978), it seems that the students' struggle was continually uphill, fighting against the university's administration and the state government's power, further polarizing the community.53 51. "Department of Special Collections and Archives," on the Libraries and Media Services Website Kent State University, http://www.library.kent.edu/page/11247. 52. Ibid. 53. It seems as ifthe May 4th Coalition stands a greater chance of success in later interpretations ofthe site, if ever. The meaning of a memorial site has the potential to change over time. This is evidenced in Scott Sandage's 1993 study, "A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln Memorial, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Politics of Memory, 1939-1963," in which he discussions how the Lincoln Memorial was intended to be a symbol ofthanks for the economic and political reunion ofthe North and South that followed Lincoln's efforts to reunite the North and the South. In later years, the Lincoln Memorial has become a locus for civil rights activism. Sandage says, "memory sites are loci of struggle between the official groups that often create them and the vernacular groups that inevitably interpret and reinterpret them in competing ways" (Sandage 137). The terms official and vernacular have become commonplace sociological terms, used when describing the function ofmany different kinds ofmemory within a 27 Throughout the university's search for an official memorial for those who t died on May 4 ,\ 1970, the contention within the community continued. In 1985, the university's administration conducted a memorial competition. Bruno Ast was chosen to construct a memorial on campus. The memorial was constructed in 1990 and is composed ofmany parts. 58,175 daffodil bulbs,54 representing the American soldiers killed in Vietnam, were planted around a terrace facing in the opposite direction from where the tragedy occurred (Figure 14). On the terrace, three individual rectangular tiles are engraved with the words "inquire", "learn" and "reflect". These serve as the only instruction on the site (Figure 15). From the terrace to the north, four circular granite steppingstones have been submerged into the earth, the last in the row provides a place for a visitor to stand and view four three- dimensional granite trapezoids that are arranged side-by-side in ascending order of size. The trapezoids resemble four coffins or four gun barrels pointed into the distance, away from the site ofthe shootings (Figure 16). These markers are not inscribed with any writing. community or society. John Bodnar originally coined the phrases in his essay, Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, andPatriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, 1992). 54. After years of squirrels digging up and eating the flower bulbs, the flowers are no longer being replanted in this area. Instead, the campus is littered with bulbs located along walking paths and in flowerbeds. The daffodils tend to bloom and fade before May 4th commemoration services each year. 28 Some students criticized the memorial for being non-referential to the shootings. 55 It was condemned for blending the events at Kent State into the Vietnam War as a whole, rather than honoring Kent State as a singular horrific event.56 The memorial's only direct reference to the shootings is a granite plaque located several feet away, next to a walking path. The plaque is hidden under the branches of a thick bush and is inscribed with the words "In Loving Memory" and lists the names ofthe four students killed. Below the four names are the words "Respected" and "Remembered" followed by the names ofthe nine wounded, and the date ofthe tragedy (Figure 17). This contributes to the non-referential style ofthe memorial, as this plaque is only seen when sought. Upon first encounter, without seeing the plaque, the meaning of Ast's memorial is obscured, causing the memorial to be banal enough for visitors to dismiss it from thought. 57 Unlike Segal's memorial, which focuses on the context ofthe controversy, Ast's memorial is not explicitly referential to the protagonists, event, or context of May 4th anywhere other than the plaque. The memorial predominantly serves as a place where present-day visitors can create th memones"fjspeci IC or nonspeci'fjIC to May 4 . Ast's memorial does not honor a specific fact about the event, which would allow for the growth and healing ofthe divided community. After twenty years of th conflict over how to memorialize those killed in the events of May 4 , 1970, Ast's memorial vaguely refers to the event, therefore reflecting either a desire to tiptoe 55. Mickey Huff, Healing Old Wounds: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Conflicts Over Historical Interpretations ofthe Kent State Shootings. 56. Ibid. 57. See footnote 49 above for reference to Shanken. 29 around conflicting memories or an unsuccessful attempt to heal. In an interview, Dr. Sondra Cooney, an English professor at Kent State University and a member of the Kent community during the shootings, shared with me the current community's sentiment. She says that the event is still very emotional and many will not speak about the shootings. She expressed frustration with Alan Canfora, one ofthe students wounded who has dedicated his life to placing blame for the events on the National Guard. He seems to want to create an historical legacy that accurately reflects his personal point ofview. Dr. Cooney thinks he should let the past rest because it is too painful to remember.58 To me, this is a clear indication that Ast's memorial is not creating a satisfactory bridge between the still disparate groups in the community- the emotional wounds ofMay 4th continue to run deep. While Ast's memorial is the official memorial ofthe tragedy at Kent State, other memorials and artworks, scattered around campus, represent various attempts to honor those who died and make physical representations ofmemory. The first, entitled The Kent Four, was created a year after the shootings by Alastair Granville- Jackson, an artist on the faculty during the shootings. It stands on the campus commons. This memorial is composed oftubular elements that recall the rifle barrels that shot the students (Figure 18). Another memorial is located in the parking lot where Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer and William Shroeder died. It is a rectangular stone engraved with the words "In Living Memory Of' and a list of the names ofthe students killed. The stone is surrounded by candles and rocks, 58. Sondra Miley Cooney Ph.D., Associate Professor ofEnglish at Kent State University, interview by author, Kent, Ohio April 1,2009. 30 reminiscent of a tombstone at a Jewish burial ground (Figure 19). The stone in place today is in the third iteration ofthis memorial, as the first stone from 1971 went missing shortly after it was installed and the second was vandalized and removed.59 Another memorial, also established in 1971, is a reference room constructed as a living memorial in the library. The "May 4th Resource Center" contains supplemental reading materials on the Vietnam War and Kent State, as well as small artworks that have been donated to the university in remembrance ofMay 4th (Figures 20-21). In 1999, surrounding each ofthe four locations where the students were killed, six lantern pillars connected with a rough line ofred granite on the ground were placed to outline where the bodies fell. The specific places where the students died are delineated to prevent cars from driving over or parking on the sites (Figures 22-24). The parking lot where the lantern pillars have been placed also contains the marker stone mentioned above. Yet another memorial, placed in 2006, is an Ohio State Historical Marker planted on a post in a bed offlowers halfway between Ast's memorial and the parking lot where the shootings took place. On two sides, the marker describes the event. Perhaps, the most potent memorial was also a victim in the shootings. Between Blanket Hill where the National Guard congregated and the parking lot where students gathered is a steel sculpture by Donald Drumm. It was shot with a 1 bullet on May 4 '\ 1970 (Figure 25). This sculpture has become a place where visitors leave messages to the four students killed, and where they leave encouraging sentiments for the community about peace, love and remembrance (Figures 26-28). 59 . May 4th Resource Center, visited by the author, Kent, Ohio, April 1, 2009. 31 This honors the event in a direct yet unbiased way that is unparalleled by the intentional memorials discussed above. So many attempts have been made in good faith to find a memorial for Kent State and yet it seems that the most successful memorial was there all along. Drumm's sculpture is an unofficial memorial that carries more emotional weight than the others due in no small part to the fact that the sculpture is the only work on campus that addresses one ofthe most irrefutable pieces ofthe event-bullets were shot. The memorials discussed above illustrate various and ongoing attempts to honor the shootings and put the event to rest. Unlike Segal's Abraham and Isaac, these memorials have been incorporated into the campus and given a chance to honor the tragedy from within the community. Each honors parts ofthe tragedy-the gun barrels, the locations of death, the trajectory ofthe event itself, etc.-but none encompass the social tension and divide ofthe time like Segal's Abraham and Isaac, which, from its absence, we know was a highly controversial attempt to commemorate a controversial event. Conclusion When George Segal created Abraham and Isaac in 1978, the community at Kent State was still living the tragedy from two unique perspectives-one found fault with the students protesting, the other blamed the National Guard. Segal, however, was bravely memorializing not only the divided Kent community, but also the social rift caused by the Vietnam War by focusing his memorial on a metaphor about older and younger generations. 32 Abraham and Isaac does not resolve any questions about whose political alignment was right or wrong, thus it reflects the dispute in a pertinent way. Unlike Ast's memorial, which avoids hard memories and hard questions and does not directly address the conflict and disputed history ofthe event except by location, Segal's memorial ultimately commemorated the unstable political climate surrounding the shootings. The viewer worries for Isaac when looking at the sculpture because there is no clear alternative to his death. The viewer questions Abraham's action. The viewer, however, receives no immediate answer. No closure to the story is apparent in Segal's memorial because Isaac's sacrifice is only about to happen. Indeed, to this day there are no answers to be found and only partial healing for those who experienced the shootings at Kent State. Segal's Abraham and Isaac stirs you up, gets you thinking, and leaves you feeling unsettled. As we have learned in discussing the continual challenges facing any memorial for Kent State, from the systematic destruction ofSmithson's Partially Buried Woodshed to the construction ofthe gym annex-from the plethora of sculptural memorials on campus to Dr. Cooney's personal remembrance-it is clear that the community to this day has not been healed. The memorial Segal created was not accepted into the community for a variety ofreasons, therefore it was never given the opportunity to engage and potentially heal the community at Kent State. Nonetheless, the memorial is important in its absence as its rejection highlights a desire to avoid further conflict surrounding th May 4 . The administration cited that the official reason for rejection was the violent image of Segal's rendition ofThe Sacrifice ofIsaac. The memorial, however, was not 33 focused exclusively on violence. Segal was successful, however, in creating a new kind ofmemorial. He created a didactic sculpture that reflected the time period when the shooting took place. Using the allegory ofthe Sacrifice of Isaac, Segal posed hard questions about the political culture in 1970. As discussed above, a memorial may provide a step towards healing a community, but, to be successful, it should commemorate a specific event or person. Going against this assertion, Segal does not allow collective memory to rest. Instead of attempting to heal the debate, Segal pushes against it, depicting a moment ofpsychological separation between Abraham and Isaac. In so doing, Segal asks why the two community groups cannot see each others' perspective, why the violence must continue, why there is no hope-no ram-for the disputes at Kent State. Many of Segal's questions address generational obligation. His memorial teaches us to question how we treat younger generations, how we instruct them and how we create and record memories from which they will learn. Abraham and Isaac teaches us to question the past. From this questioning we learn that future generations deserve a memorial that transcends the divisions ofthe community. Despite the pertinent questions that Segal raises, they can only be asked ifthe memorial is on the Kent State campus. As the memorial now stands at Princeton University, it has become a campus-wide joke-it is known collectively as the "blow job statue" because as viewed from behind Abraham, it would appear as ifthe two figures are engaged in an act of fellatio. Without being accepted into the physical fabric ofthe community, we cannot know ifAbraham and Isaac would have healed the community. We can see, 34 however, through his use ofa widely accessible allegory that Segal's attempt is different from the other memorials in place at Kent State-Segal's work poses problems. Almost exactly thirty-nine years after the shootings, an eruption between students and governmental figures again occurred on the Kent State campus, highlighting ongoing tension in the community. On April 26, 2009, only days before the thirty-ninth anniversary ofthe shootings, riots erupted at Kent State. The Associated Press reports: "An end-of-year college block party spiraled out ofcontrol as police fired pellets and used pepper spray to break up hundreds ofrioting students who sparked a string of street fires at Kent State University.,,6o As firemen attempted to quell the fires, students lit more fires a distance away, throwing furniture and electronics into the flames. Police officers fired rubber bullets and paintballs into the crowds, arresting at least sixty-four students over the course ofthe night. What had started as a party escaladed quickly into a clash between students and authority t figures. Though the reason for the clash differs from May 4 \ 1970, the underlying themes are compellingly similar. th In 1978, Segal created a teaching memorial to commemorate May 4 , 1970. The memorial was rejected, as members ofthe administration at Kent State did not look beyond the violent first impression ofAbraham and Isaac to see the potential long-term importance and educational value ofhis work. Kent community members 60. Meghan Barr, "Kent State Riot: Police Fire Pellets At Students," Huffington Post, April 26, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/26/kent state-riot-police-fi_n_191561.html. 35 were still living with and trying to suppress the flashbulb memory that was created at the moment the bullets were fired. Perhaps today, when students walk unknowingly by Bruno Ast's memorial, and light fires in the street when told to disperse from a party, it would be more appropriate to create a teaching memorial that could constructively readdress this tension. The barrier to placing a memorial like this is the tradition ofhaving tension. Even Dr. Cooney's perspective is tinted by the continuing conflict. She contends that the only way that a memorial like this would be accepted is if everyone with an organic61 connection to the event on May 4th were gone. I asked her what it would take to heal the community. Without skipping a beat, she replied, "It will never be healed. People will have to die".62 61. See note 15 above. 62. Sondra Miley Cooney Ph.D., Associate Professor ofEnglish at Kent State University, interview by author, Kent, Ohio April 1,2009. 36 Works Cited "1971 Winners." The Pulitzer Prize. http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1971. Abramson, Daniel. "Maya Lin and the 1960s: Monuments, Time Lines, and Minima1ism." Critical Inquiry 22 (1996): 679-709. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343997. Adelson, Fred B. "Art Review: Revealing the Strength of Segal as Sculptor and Draftsman." New York Times, sec. NJ16, May 7, 2000. Barr, Meghan. "Kent State Riot: Police Fire Pellets At Students," Hufjington Post; April 26, 2009, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/26/kent-state-riot police-fi_n_191561.html. Beamish, Thomas D., Harvey M. Molotch, and Richard M. Flacks. "Who Supports the Troops? Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the Making of Collective Memory." Social Problems 42 (Aug 1995): 344-60, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3096852. Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swindler, and Steven M. Tipton. Habits ofthe Heart Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Berman, Louis Arthur. Akedah the Binding ofIsaac. Northvale, N.J: 1. Aronson, 1997. Bersani, Leo N., and Ulysse N. Dutoit. "George Segal: the Holocaust, 1984." Art Forum 12 (1999): 11-29. Bloch, Lauren N. "The Story ofAbraham and Isaac." Interview by author. Williamstown, MA, September 22,2008. Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Causey, Andrew. Sculpture Since 1945. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1998. Cooney, Sondra. Interview by author. Kent, OH, April 1,2009. Craven, Wayne. American Art: History and Culture. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2003. 600-02. 37 Cummings, Paul, compo "Oral history interview with George Segal, 1973 Nov. 26." Smithsonian Archives ofAmerican Art. The Smithsonian Museum. http://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/oralhistories/transcripts/sega173.htm. De Onis, Juan. "Nixon Puts "Bums" Label On Some College Radicals." New York Times May 2, 1970: 1. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=107200740&SrchMode=2&si d=14&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&T S=1238284175&clientId=3620. Delaney, Carol Lowery. Abraham on Trial: The Social Legacy ofBiblical Myth. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1998. "Department of Special Collections and Archives." Libraries and Media Services. Kent State University. http://www.library.kent.edu/page/11247. Doss, Erika. Spirit Poles and Flying Pigs. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. Eszterhas, Joe, and Michael D. Roberts. 13 Seconds: Confrontation at Kent State. New York, NY: College Notes and Texts Inc, 1970. Filo, Jolm. "Photographer John Filo discusses his famous Kent State photograph and the events of May 4,1970." Interview. CNNcom. May 4, 2000. http://www.cnn.com/community/transcripts/2000/5/4/filo/. Friedman, Martin, and Graham Beal. George Segal: Sculptures. Minneapolis, MN: Walker Art Center, 1978. "George and Helen Segal Foundation." George and Helen Segal Foundation. http://www.segalfoundation.org/. "George Segal." New York Times, May 27,1988, sec. C24. http://proquest.umi.comlpqdweb?index=10&did=115305009&SrchMode=l& sid=I&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&T S=I239237626&clientId=3620. Gilgenbach, Cara. "Abraham and Isaac." May 4th Memorials. Kent State University Shootings: Online Exhibits and Chronologies. http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/exhibit/memorials/segal.html. Glueck, Grace. "Princeton Takes Sculpture Rejected at Kent State." New York Times, November 18, 1978,23. http://proquest.umi.comlpqdweb?index=1&did=112812589&SrchMode=1&si d=I&Fmt=10&Vlnst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS =1239237850&clientId=3620 38 Glueck, Grace. "Religion Makes an Impact As a Theme in Today's Art." New York Times, April 7, 1985, sec. Hl+. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=9&did=118833428&SrchMode=l&si d=I&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS =1239237758&clientId=3620 Gordon, William A. The Fourth o/May. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990. Graham, Mark W. "Memorializing May 4, 1970 at Kent State University: Reflections on Collective Memory, Public Art and Religious Criticism." Literature and Theology 20 (2006): 424-37. Gregory, Stanford W., and Jerry M. Lewis. "Symbols of Collective Memory: The Social Process of Memorializing May 4, 1970, At Kent State University." Symbolic Interaction, 11 (1988): 213-33. Griswold, Charles L. "The Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Washington Mall." Critical Issues in Public Art. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992.71-100. Halbwachs, Maurice. Ed. Mary Douglas. The Collective Memory. New York, NY: Harper & Row (1966). Huff, Mickey S. "Healing Old Wounds: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Conflicts Over Historical Interpretations ofthe Kent State Shootings, 1977 1990." Thesis. Youngstown, OH: Youngstown State University, 1999. ii-95. The Jewish: Tanakh The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text. Gen. 21.1-22.19. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985.29-32. "Kent State Statue Rejected." The Washington Post, August 27, 1978, sec. A7. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=O&did=13 6680232&SrchMode=1&si d=I&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS =1239238739&clientId=3620 Kessler, Edward. Bound bv the Bible: Jews, Christians and the Sacrifice ofIsaac. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Kramer, Hilton. "When George Segal Goes Public." New York Times, October 19, 1980, sec. D33+. Kwon, Miwon. One Place After Another: Site-Specific Art and Locationalldentity. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2004. 39 "Letter To Peter And Alison Smithson." Pop Art: A Critical History. Ed. Steven H. Madoff. New York: University of California Press, 1997. Leung, Simon. "And There I Am: Andy Warhol and the Ethics ofIdentification." Art Journal (2003): 4-5. Lippard, Lucy R. The Lure ofthe Local. New York: The New Press, 1997. Madoff, Steven R, ed. Pop Art: A Critical History. New York: University of California Press, 1997. Marling, Karal A, and Robert E. Silberman. "The Statue Near the Wall: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Art of Remembering." Smithsonian Studies in American Art 1 (1987): 5-29. May 4th Resource Center. Visited by the author. Kent, Ohio, April 1st, 2009. "The Nation." Los Angeles Times, October 7, 1979, sec. OC2. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=4&did=683385222&SrchMode=1&si d=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS =123 923 8968&clientId=3620. "Object File: 1970, Kent State University... " Abraham and Isaac: In Memory ofMay 4, 1970, Kent State University. Princeton University Art Museum. http://mcis2.princeton.edu/emuseum/code/emuseum.asp?emu_action=searchr equest&newsearch=1&moduleid=1&profile=objects¤trecord=1&searc hdesc=abraham%20and%20isaac:%20in%20memory%200f%20may%204,% 201970,%20kent%20state%20university&style=single&rawsearch=. Olick, Jeffrey K., and Joyce M. Robbins. "Social Memory Studies: From "Collective Memory" to the Historical Sociology ofMnemonic Practices." Annual Review ofSociology, 24 (1998): 105-40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/223476. Olick, Jeffrey K. "Collective Memory: The Two Cultures." Sociological Theory, 17 (1999): 333-48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/370189. O'Hara, John F. "Kent State/May 4 and Postwar Memory." American Quarterly (2006): 301-28. "Partially Buried Woodshed." The Center for Land Use Interpretation, Land Use Database. http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/OH3128/. Plett, Nicole. "In Segal's Campus Sculpture, a Call for Compassion." New York Times, April 29, 1990, sec. NJ1 +. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=11&did=114554727&SrchMode=l& 40 sid=I&Fmt=12&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&T S=123 923 9091 &clientId=3620. "Princeton Ceremony Dedicates a Memorial To Kent State Victims." New York Times, October 7, 1979, sec. 32. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=7&did=112124188&SrchMode=1&si d=I&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS =123 923 9154&clientId=3620. Putre, Laura. "In Memory of...: The 20-Year Search for a Quiet May 4 Monument." The Burr I Kent State University. http://www.burr.kent.edu/archives/1990/memory/memory4.html. Rosenbaum, Joan. "George Segal and the Jewish Experience." American Art, 15 (2001): 94-96. Sandage, Scott Arthur. "A Marble House Divided: The Lincoln Memorial, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Politics of Memory, 1939-1963." The Journal of American History 80 (1993): 135-67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2079700. Scherman, David E., ed. The Best ofLife. New York, NY: Time-Life Books, 1973. Schmahmaml, Brenda. "Casting a Glance, Diverting the Gaze: George Segal's Representation ofthe Female Body." American Art 12 (1998): 11-29. Senie, Harriet F., and Sally Webster, eds. "Introduction." Critical Issues in Public Art. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1992. Shanken, Andrew M. "Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II." The Art Bulletin, 84 (2002): 130-47. Smith, Robert, and David 1. Remnick. "Personalities." The Washington Post, October 6, 1979, sec. B3. Stiles, Kristine. "Segal, George." Grove Art Online. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordartonline.com/subscriber/article/grove/art/t077360?q=geor ge+segal&search=quick&pos=1&_start=1#firsthit. Sturken, Marita. Tangled Memories. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997. Sturken, Marita. Tourists ofHistory. Duke University Press, 2007. Susman, Warren. Culture as History: The Transformation ofAmerican Society in the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1984. 41 Tatum, James. "Memorials ofthe American War in Vietnam." Critical Inquiry 22 (1996): 634-78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343996. Tuchman, Phyllis. "George Segal 1924-2000 - Obituary." Art in America, September 2000. Tuchman, Phyllis. Modern Masters Series: George Segal. Vol. 5. New York, NY: Abbeville Press, 1983. Vinitzky-Seroussi, Vered M. "Commemorating a Difficult Part: Yitzhak Rabin's Memorials." American Sociological Review 67 (2002): 30-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088932. Wheeler, Daniel. Art Since Mid-Century: 1945 to the Present. New York, NY: The Vendome Press, 1991. 42 Figure 1: D. Mayer, Location Map, May 4--Shooting. http://upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Map_oCShoot ings_at_KencState_University_in_1970.jpg Figure 2: George Segal, Abraham and Isaac (1978). Photograph by Eve Streicker on March 31, 2009. Princeton, NJ. Figure 4: George Segal, Abra ham and Isaac (1978). Face of Abraham Photograph by Eve Streicker on March 31, 2009. , Figure 3: George Segal, Abraham and Isaac (1978). Foot of Isaac. Photograph by Eve Streicker on March 31, 2009. Princ eton, NJ. Figure 5: George Segal, Abraham and Isaac (1978). Pants ofAbraham with view of Isaac's bound hands. Photograph by Eve Streicker on March 31, 2009. Princeton, NJ. Figure 6: George Segal, Abraham and Isaac (1978). Abra ham's knife and Isaac's bound hands. Photo graph by Eve Streicker on March 31, 2009. Princeton, NJ. ,/ l / Figure 7: George Se- ( gal, Abraham and Isaac (1978). Abraham's face. Ii. ), Photograph by Eve Stre \. icker on March 31, 2009. Princeton, NJ. Figure 8: George Segal, Abraham and Isaac (1978). Abra ham's face. Photograph by Eve Streicker on March 31, 2009. Princ eton, NJ. Figure 9: John Filo, Kent State (1970). [http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1971] Figure 10: Robert Smithson, Partially Bur ied Woodshed (1970). "Earthworks". [http://www.robertsmithson.com/earth- works/partially.htm] Figure 11: Maya Lin, Th Vietnam Vete ans Memorial (1982). http:// www.daily ushistory.com ImagesNVM fromabovelefl Figure 12: Maya Lin, I The Vietna Veterans Memo rial (1982). http://photo somd.com/ data/SOO/ medium/ DSC_S711. Jpg Figure 13: Google Map of Site of Kent State Shootings marked with Campus Memorials. Eve Stre icker. http://maps.google.com! maps?hl=en&tab=wl 1: Donald Drumm, Untitled (1967) 2: Alastair Granville-Jackson, The Kent Four (1971) 3: Stone Marker, Donated by the B'nai Brith Hillel (1971-5) 4: May 4th Resource Center [located off the map] (1971) 5: Memorial Gym (1979) 6: Bruno Ast, May 4th Memorial (1990) 7: Markers of locations where four students died (1999) 7a: Jeffrey Miller 7b: William Schroeder 7c: Allison Krause 7d: Sandy Scheuer 8: Ohio Historical Marker (2006) Figure 14: Bruno Ast, May 4th Me morial (1990). Reflection terrace. Photo graph taken by Eve Streicker, April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 15: Bruno Ast, May 4th Memorial (1990). "Inquire, Learn, Reflect" c terrace. Photograph taken by Charles F. Shafer, April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 16: Bruno Ast, May 4th Memorial (1990). View from ter race. Photograph taken by Eve Streicker,April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 17: Bruno Ast, May 4th Memorial (1990). Commemorative plaque. Photograph taken by Eve Streicker,April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 19: B'nai B'rith Hillel Jewish Services Center at Kent, May 4th Marker (1971). Pho tograph taken by Eve Streicker, April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. igure 20: Ron Kovic, Kent State (April 15,1998). In the May 4th Resource Cen· er. Inscription on the back reads: "To thl students of Kent State University on the ifteenth Day ofApril, 1998, with love nd hope for everlasting peace, I give thi ainting to you as a gift so that the memo ry of that day will never be forgotten" . hotograph taken by Eve Streicker, Apri 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figures 21: Ted Abel, Stained Glass lVin dows (1978). In the May 4th Resource Center. A sunburst in various stages. Pho tograph taken by Eve Streicker, April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 22: Prentice Lot Individual Student Markers InstaJIed (1999). Jeffery Miller's marker. Photograph taken by Eve Streicker. April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 23: Prentice LotIndividual Student Markers InstaJIed (1999). Jeffery Miller's marker. Photograph taken by Eve Streicker. April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 24: Prentice LotIndividual Student Markers InstaJIed (1999). Sandra Scheuer's marker. Photograph taken by Eve Streicker. April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 25: Donald Drumm, Untitled (1967). Photograph by Eve Streicker. Taken on April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 26: Donald Drumm, Untitled (1967). Detail of the bullet hole. Photograph by Eve Streicker. Taken on April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio. Figure 27: Donald Drumm, Untitled (1967). Detail of me~ sages. Photograph by Eve Stn icker. Taken on April 1st, 200l Kent, Ohio. Figure 28: Donald Drumm, Untitled (1967). Detail of messages. Pho tograph by Eve Streicker. Taken on April 1st, 2009. Kent, Ohio.