Reading the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. Through Multiple Realities a Thesis Presente

Home , Commemorative Works Act, Kilroy was here, Rainbow Pool, World War II Memorial

Reading the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and World War II Memorial in Washington,

D.C. Through Multiple Realities

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Darby R. Libka

April 2021

This thesis titled

Reading the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and World War II Memorial in Washington,

D.C. Through Multiple Realities

DARBY R. LIBKA

has been approved for

the Geography Department

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Timothy G. Anderson

Associate Professor of Geography

Florenz Plassmann

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3

Abstract

LIBKA, DARBY R., M.A., April 2021, Geography

Reading the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and World War II Memorial in Washington,

D.C. Through Multiple Realities

Director of Thesis: Timothy G. Anderson

This project explores three memorial “realities” at two memorials in Washington,

D.C. - the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the World War II Memorial. The three realities explored are the planning reality, in-person experiential reality, and the online reality, here expressed by analysing Instagram. Upon uncovering themes present in each of the realities for each memorial, the themes are compared through a space-time progression from planning to in-person experiences to Instagram. In this thesis, the author discusses the transfer of themes between these three realities, which themes are transferred, and which themes are not transferred. The author further describes how themes can manifest differently or disappear entirely as the memorial progresses temporally through the various realities. Ultimately, it is demonstrated that different memorials have varying levels of “success” in transferring the original planning reality intentions and themes through to the in-person experience and, ultimately, to the

Instagram reality.

Dedication

Dedicated to my Brookfield Church family: Thank you for walking with me into new life

and showing me so much love. I am forever grateful for your faithfulness. Acknowledgments

I am so grateful for everyone who has joined me on this journey and given me their support on the way. Firstly, I thank God for His guidance and grace that have allowed me to successfully reach this place in life. I want to thank the Ohio University

Geography Department for giving me the opportunity to pursue this study and encouraging me as I explored my interests along the way. I am thankful for the guidance of Dr. Perkins in Geography 5000 as my concept was first developing, and I would like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Whitson and Dr. Buckley for their support and many helpful suggestions as I moved further in the thesis process. I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Dr. Anderson, my advisor, for his encouragement from the graduate application process and touring the Department to his help in these final steps. Your enthusiasm and support as I have gone through my graduate school journey have been invaluable, and I am so thankful.

Of course, any thank you to the Geography Department would be incomplete without expressing my appreciation for the care and support of my fellow graduate students. This thesis would not be where it is today without late nights in the grad office, many coffees and conversations, as well as the opportunity to relax at hockey games together. I am especially grateful for the “Goat Herd”- Ivan, Tyler, Grant, and Amanda- for their friendship and for cheering me on. Thank you to everyone at Ohio University

Geography for your care and support! I could not have made it without you all.

I want to thank the incredible family and friends who supported me and loved me through this entire experience. First, I would like to thank my family for your love, especially Mom, Dad, Brooke, Grandmama, Grandpapa, and Great-Grandmama. Your 6 prayers and support mean the world. I also wish to extend my appreciation to John for his support from our second day at Mary Washington and onward. Thank you for always cheering me on, sending me pictures of Bear, and all of our wonderful adventures. I am so grateful for our many years together.

I could not have made it through the grad school process without my beloved

Brookfield Church family and friends. An, thank you for loving me from day one. To my small group leaders: Regina, Justine, and Caleb, I want express my deep appreciation for your leadership in my life. Thank you to the Wintle family for loving me and supporting me throughout my time in Athens. I am also so thankful for the many prayers, coffees, and hammock sessions shared with Rebecca, Cara, Maeve, and Gabriella as I have made my way through school. My life is so much better for having such wonderful women as yourselves in it. Finally, I want to extend my most sincere gratefulness for the friendship and love of Sarah, Madison, and SMurphy. Thank you for countless prayers and laughs, and for doing life with me. I love you all dearly.

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Dedication ...... 4 Acknowledgments...... 5 List of Tables ...... 10 List of Figures ...... 11 Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Questions...... 12 Research Questions: ...... 14 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 15 Memorials and Meaning ...... 15 Collective Memory and Identity ...... 16 The National Mall ...... 18 Social Media ...... 22 Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 26 Memorial Planning...... 26 In-Person Experience ...... 27 Instagram...... 29 Chapter 4: Planning the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ...... 33 Purpose ...... 33 Process ...... 35 Location ...... 44 Design ...... 46 Conclusion ...... 50 Chapter 5: Planning the World War II Memorial ...... 51 Commemoration ...... 51 World War II ...... 53 Planning Process and Design ...... 57 Participation in the Process ...... 62 Site and Design ...... 69 Site ...... 69 Design ...... 73 8

Conclusion ...... 77 Chapter 6: In-Person Experience on the National Mall ...... 79 Introduction and Impacts of Covid-19 ...... 79 The Vietnam Veterans Memorial ...... 80 World War II Memorial ...... 84 Comparison of Experiences and Representation at the Memorials ...... 91 Structure ...... 91 Remembrance of Service ...... 92 Behavior and Participation ...... 100 Chapter 7: The Memorials on Instagram ...... 102 Introduction ...... 102 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Instagram Location...... 102 Site and Design ...... 103 Use of Space ...... 105 Humanization at the Memorial ...... 108 Summary ...... 111 The World War II Memorial Instagram Location...... 111 Design and Location ...... 112 Use of Space ...... 115 Memorial as Park ...... 117 Summary ...... 118 Conclusion ...... 119 Chapter 8: Comparing the Three Memorial Realities ...... 121 Vietnam Veterans Memorial Realities ...... 122 Themes ...... 122 Comparison ...... 125 Planning to In-Person Experience ...... 126 In-Person Experience to Instagram ...... 130 Summary ...... 134 World War II Memorial Realities ...... 135 Themes ...... 135 Comparison ...... 139 Planning to In-Person Experience ...... 140 9

In-Person Experience to Instagram ...... 146 Summary ...... 149 Conclusion ...... 150 Chapter 9: Conclusion...... 153 Summary of Findings ...... 153 Implications of the Research ...... 155 Future Research ...... 158 Final Thoughts ...... 159 References ...... 161 Appendix A ...... 169

List of Tables

Page

Table 8-1. Vietnam Veterans Memorial Themes ...... 125 Table 8-2. World War II Memorial Themes ...... 139

List of Figures

Page

Figure 4-1. The Wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ...... 38 Figure 4-2. The Washington Monument as Seen from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 39 Figure 4-3. The Three Servicemen Statues ...... 41 Figure 4-4. The Vietnam Women’s Memorial ...... 49 Figure 5-1. Close-Up of a Bas-Relief at the World War II Memorial ...... 66 Figure 5-2. View from the Steps of the Lincoln Memorial ...... 71 Figure 5-3. The World War II Memorial with the Lincoln Memorial in the Background 75 Figure 5-4. Depth and Fountains at the World War II Memorial ...... 76 Figure 6-1. National Park Service Sign about COVID-19 ...... 80 Figure 6-2. Directory of Names at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial ...... 81 Figure 6-3. Mementos Left at the Wall ...... 82 Figure 6-4. View from the Crux of the Wall ...... 83 Figure 6-5. The Vietnam Women’s Memorial and Plaza ...... 84 Figure 6-6. Vista Between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument ...... 85 Figure 6-7. First Bas-Relief of the Pacific Side at the World War II Memorial ...... 86 Figure 6-8. State Column with Wreaths and Rope ...... 87 Figure 6-9. Fountain Honoring the Pacific Theatre ...... 88 Figure 6-10. The Wall of Stars ...... 89 Figure 6-11. National Park Service Sign about the Rainbow Pool ...... 90 Figure 6-12. Bas-Relief Showing a Woman Working in a Factory ...... 96 Figure 6-13. Bas-Relief Showing a Celebration of V-J Day ...... 96 Figure 6-14. Bas-Relief Showing American and Russian Soldiers Meeting in Berlin ..... 97 Figure 8-1. Inscription Recognizing Planners of the World War II Memorial ...... 143

Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Questions

The National Mall is both literally and figuratively the center of Washington,

D.C.; it serves as a stage for the inauguration of United States’ presidents on the east end and a platform for social marches on the west end under the watchful eyes of Lincoln. Its memorials are iconic and include structures such as the Washington Monument that soars above any other structure in the city, and the Jefferson Memorial surrounded by the district’s famous cherry blossoms. For visitors and locals alike, the National Mall is the heart of the nation’s capital, and millions flock to it each year to visit its famous sites and to experience a place celebrating and commemorating American ideals and persons that are revered as heroes in the national mythos. But while the Mall appears to be “eternal”

(Savage 2009, 7), it is subject to constant change and (re)interpretation as a response to society’s need to remember the events that have helped define the nation or those that have reaffirmed national values.

When the District of Columbia was being designed, George Washington placed

Pierre Charles L’Enfant in charge of planning, and it was under his direction that the

National Mall was created (Evans and York 2013). While today’s Mall is certainly different than what L’Enfant conceived of nearly 250 years ago, it has nevertheless served the American people in a variety of ways. Today, the Mall is a highly structured space that is characterized and defined not only by its memorials and museums: it also serves as one of the country’s most noteworthy public forums. It is important to consider these variant functions. The National Mall is undeniably public space, but over time this space has become less accessible for everyday activities in favor of a more structured 13 approach to its physical environment and its condoned use of space (Benton-Short 2006).

This begs the question: how have changes related to planning and public utilization of the

Mall affected the everyday use of this social space?

As the National Mall’s physical qualities have changed over time, the ways in which people interact with this space have also become increasingly more complex with the advent and rise to prominence of social media. Because these media allow users to attach locations in the physical world to their posts, each step in the process of adding data to a social media user’s profile reflects a series of decisions about how that individual wishes to represent or showcase their experience in the real world. While these platforms do have the potential to demonstrate how users act in spaces or perceive those spaces, it is essential to understand that social media is a presentation of a “highly curated” (Schwartz and Halegoua 2015, 1654) version of the user’s life. Nonetheless, the representations of locations shown through this lens stand to demonstrate the elements of a place that visitors feel should be included in their online identities. The purpose of this thesis is to understand three different representations, or “realities,” of the National

Mall’s World War II Memorial and Vietnam Veterans Memorial and how they influence one another. The realities of these two memorials that are analysed in this thesis include the planned structures, the in-person space experienced by visitors, and the online image- based versions created on Instagram. Timeto (in Wilken and Goggin 2015, 98) argues that it is an “illusion” to suggest that “only one representation can be the objective one” that embodies a place. It is recognized that these different realities through which the two memorials are experienced will be at times in agreement and at other times in contention 14 with each other, but it is at these points where the officials who look after these spaces and consider the future of the National Mall can understand the more complex meanings of these places for their visitors.

Research Questions:

1. How have the federal government and officials such as architects chosen to

commemorate World War II and the Vietnam War on the National Mall?

2. How are the World War II Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

experienced by visitors?

3. How do visitors to these memorial spaces represent them through Instagram’s

location feature?

4. How do the intended uses of the memorials, the in-person experiences of the

memorials, and the Instagram realities agree or disagree with one another?

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Memorials and Meaning

Memorials are conspicuous elements of cultural landscapes around the world.

They take different shapes and commemorate a wide range of subjects, from war heroes to the victims of natural disasters. Despite the differences in subject, longevity, and design of these spaces, there are similarities that can be explained by a society’s desire to recognize the events and persons that are deemed significant (Senie 2016; Stroud and

Henson 2019), though this can be accomplished in different ways and for different purposes. Foote (1997, 8) suggests four types of memorial sites that can be grouped according to the kind of event that is memorialized. The most honorific of these is a site that has been “sanctified.” By his definition, “sanctification,” a type of memorialization in which the site is deemed “sacred,” is considered the highest honor that a group of people can afford a site. Memorials such as a statue commemorating a battle or a park in

Manhattan remembering the victims of 9/11 are sanctified spaces, though it is important to note that these spaces stem from “a deep need for attachment” (Savage 2009, 4) to one’s society.

Memorials are simple enough to recognize, but they are by their very nature highly politicized and contested spaces (Dwyer and Alderman 2008; Post 2009; Stroud and Henson 2019). They are created with specific narratives, they seek to give visitors a certain impression of the space, and at times they even silence voices. Vázquez’s (2018) definition of memorial tourism includes the end goal of the “transmission of civic values”

(51), but the power to determine what is valued in a society is not a democratic decision; 16 the memorial landscape has been defined as “the product of economic and political structures placed in the hands of a few people” (Post 2009, 187). Memorials cannot be interpreted as “impartial” (Dwyer and Alderman 2008, 167), and as such need to be understood and read within the proper context. Memorials stand as a testament to the values that certain members of society hold dear, whether that is presented in a straight forward manner or implied. Nevertheless, while they can be ahistorical and should not be read as “fact,” they are a key component in shaping a society’s collective identity.

Collective Memory and Identity

Identity is manifested in many ways, ranging from groupings such as nationality to being a fan of a certain sports team. It is a quality that is not inherent, but rather is formed and strengthened over time through interaction with one’s surroundings. Burke

(2011, 190) found that “monuments both expressed and shaped the national memory,” which is why they are also often at the center of debate. Repič’s (2018) study explores the process of creating a landscape memorializing World War I in parts of the Alps, highlighting the commemorative challenges that these areas faced due to the fact that although they were not victors in the war, today’s landscape is still shaped by the memory of that event. This experience was not erased, which speaks to the power of negative events to shape a national identity. Similarly, a bridge in Vilnius had become the subject of serious debate because among its several statues was one depicting a Soviet solider. This same bridge celebrated citizens in other roles, but while Lithuania was certainly shaped in part by its experience under Soviet control, the idea that it should be remembered as a part of the identity of Lithuanians was called into question (Trilupaitytė 17

2014). Memorials that are selected, or excluded, from the public sphere can be considered as tools that give direction to collective national identity.

While monuments and memorials are imposed symbols of identity, it is important to understand what people do with these symbolic structures. These imposed narratives can be accepted, or they can be rejected, and the ways that people interact with and react to memorial landscapes allow for an expression of these sentiments. One study found that along the National Mall, “feelings of national pride and belongingness were consistently illustrated” by American visitors to the area (Daniels et al. 2015, 9). As opposed to international visitors, the researchers suggested that American visitors were reflective of the deeper characteristics of nationhood and were quick to include themselves as a part of the intended audience when speaking about their experiences. Lowenthal (1985) notes that “awareness of history… enhances communal and national identity, legitimating a people in their own eyes” (44), which serves to make this acceptance easier for visitors.

Combined with the idea that the cultural landscape is generally accepted by the public without much consideration to the origins of discourse (Schein 1997, 663-664), these factors create an environment where memorial meanings are easily imposed upon the visitor.

In contrast, visitors can also express displeasure at memorial sites in a multitude of ways when they feel that their identity or experience is not well represented. Schein

(1997, 676) notes that cultural landscapes “embed both disciplinary constraints and the possibilities for human agency.” Visitors have left an enormous quantity of objects at the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall, including letters, photographs, and “gifts for the dead” 18

(Senie 2016, 31). These objects can be interpreted as a search for closure. Officials were reluctant to commemorate such a controversial event (Senie 2016), but the conflict was clearly felt by many, and the personal additions to the Wall serve as a reminder from the public of the consequences of that era. In this sense, their pain stemming from the

Vietnam conflict is now being expressed through the symbols of personhood at the Wall.

The narratives at these sites are constantly being negotiated through the ways that people use these spaces (Schein 1997, 664). While memorial structures are often imposed by those with power, they can serve as critical sites of struggle over how groups wish to define the events that played a role in shaping collective identity.

The National Mall

The National Mall is a memorial space that clearly exemplifies “national identity,” (Benton-Short 2006, p. 298) for the American public (Daniels et al. 2015).

Washington, D.C. has been described as “a physical expression of democracy” (Evans and York 2012, 118) for the ways in which its structures enshrine American values and ideals on the National Mall. As Repič (2018) and Trilupaitytė (2014) demonstrate, memorials can be strong testaments to who a society feels that they are with respect to their nationality. This is a complex process, and in the case of memorials in the United

States, Foote (1997) claims that these spaces often act to justify violence that has shaped the nation’s history, and it spins these events and persons as the means by which a greater

American society has been formed. The World War II Memorial and the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial attest to the violence that has strongly impacted the country, and these two spaces have both undergone what Foote (1997) describes as “sanctification” 19

(8), or the process of making these sites places that recall events and people in a stoic manner. Conversely, Savage (2009) argues that the newest memorials have begun to address the need to move the discourses encoded in them beyond a “patriotic or inspirational teaching.” Instead, these memorials “are now expected to be spaces of experience, journeys of emotional discovery” (21). Such tensions characterize the struggles pertaining to the meaning of the National Mall, especially as the twenty-first century is entering its third decade.

Space is limited at the National Mall, and this has been the focus of many debates over how the Mall should be used. As it has become increasingly more dedicated to memorialization (Benton-Short 2006) these pressures over what national narratives on the

Mall will look like continue to increase. Visitors to the Mall know it for its “‘timeless’ architecture of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman building types” (Savage 2009, 5). But Evans and York (2013) have made the argument that the 1982 Vietnam Veterans Memorial was the “first modern memorial on the Mall” (124). Viewing the city’s core from above, the dominant architectural color is white, from the Capital to the Lincoln Memorial and most buildings and memorials in between, but the Wall, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s centrepiece, is constructed of large black granite panels that increase in size as one progresses along the memorial’s path. This contrast, according to Senie (2016, 20), was stark and did not go unnoticed by visitors. Unlike the celebratory monuments created earlier, such as the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial, the Wall expressed a message of struggle (Senie 2016). Rather than paint this conflict as an event where lives were lost in the name of a great American “cause” for democracy and 20 freedom (Foote 1997, 10), the sentiment that the public needed “healing” from the

Vietnam conflict was evident in this memorial (Senie 2016, 30). The design, the seemingly unending list of names, and the descent “into the implicit domain of the dead”

(Senie 2016, 15) all act not as a celebration of the conflict, but rather as a place for emotional processing (Foote 1997; Senie 2016).

World War II occupies a powerful position in the American psyche (Evans and

York 2013). The individuals who lived during that time are collectively referred to as the

Greatest Generation, it is portrayed in countless books and films, and it is arguably the singular event that launched the United States into the position of power that it enjoys today. Despite World War II’s prominent role in American “cultural” identity, its commemoration on the National Mall was not without debate, but unlike the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial, this was not just a matter of the design of the memorial, but also its location. Prior to 2004, the space between the Capitol and the Lincoln Memorial contained the Washington Monument and little else. The placement of the World War II

Memorial in this line of sacred figures that are fundamental to the nation is justified in the brochures distributed at the site as recognizing “the importance of World War II in preserving and internationalizing democratic ideas won under George Washington and defended under Abraham Lincoln” (National Park Service 2004 in Benton-Short 2006).

This claim that World War II has the same level of significance as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in the formation of American identity is important because while it attracted almost the same number of visitors as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in 2018 21

(NPS Stats, 2019), these memorials communicate and represent two opposing responses to war.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial conveys the sense that the conflict ended without resolution. In contrast, the World War II Memorial is an unabashed celebration of Americans’ participation in the war. The memorial space is rife with iconic symbolism, complete with waterfalls, pillars with wreathes, and eagles (Benton-Short

2006). While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was designed for coping with the loss of individuals as evidenced through the listing of the names of every person killed in action, the World War II Memorial mourns the loss of individuals through a wall of “4,000 gold stars (one for every 100 Americans killed in the war)” (Benton-Short 2006, 308).

Compared with the listing of individual names on the Wall, a star for each 100 lives is more impersonal. As Evans and York (2013) note, this is because this memorial is not designed for mourning, but rather the space is “an expression of gratitude to those who served and sacrificed during World War II” (127). Notably, it could be argued that most

Americans sacrificed in one way or another due to the war, exemplified by movements such as recycling drives lead by children and the use of ration stamps imposed by the government. While Maya Lin used the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to express a discontent with the entirety of the conflict and its consequences, the World War II

Memorial “stands as a monument to the superpower status of the United States” (Savage

2009, 300). This memorial marked a return to a celebration of national pride and a noble cause, just as the legislation ordering its construction required (Benton-Short 2006). The

National Mall is constantly being altered through additions to it, and the decisions as to 22 what and how symbols should be represented are debated by those in power as well as the public. Yet as far as its everyday existence is concerned, the Mall is still seen as a space of “patriotism and belonging” for Americans (Daniels et al. 2015, 9).

Social Media

The built environment reflects the ways in which people interact with the world around them and plays an important role in shaping personal and collective experience.

Smartphones and social media are becoming increasingly important in the daily lives of individuals. Accordingly, it is important that researchers, city planners, and memorial architects consider the relationships between memorial spaces and online communities.

Wilken and Goggin (2015, 2) define locative social media as involving “the use of information, data, sounds, and images about a location.” While such media have serious implications for geographic research, Haffner and his colleagues (2018, 204) note that there is a “lack of research” on such forms of “volunteered geographic information,” and they specifically reference Twitter and Instagram as examples. Additionally, their research found that Facebook and Instagram were “the most popular platforms for tagging location content” (222). According to these findings Instagram is an important data source that might be mined in order to explore the relationships between location and social media, and should be the focus of more studies.

Instagram is a photo and video sharing platform that allows users to hold either a public or private account. Additionally, users can attach captions, hashtags, and locations to photos. The ability to attach location to photos and to see a collection of photos that claim to represent particular locations in the real world raises questions concerning 23 decision-making, place representation or destination image, and “the spatial self”

(Schwartz and Halegoua 2015, 1644; Breek et al. 2018; Haffner et al. 2018; Jang and

Kim 2019). When Instagram users choose to create a post, they select photos for purposes that may be representative of their experience in those spaces, but Schwartz and

Halegoua (2015) caution against the use of Instagram as an entirely accurate form of representation. Rather than understanding these photographs as a precise embodiment of experience, the authors argue that “we need to understand… how they are being used as a form of self-presentation as well as (re)productive practices of experience and reception of urban space” (1657). With this recognition, Instagram can be used as a tool for understanding what people feel is important enough about a space or an experience in a space that they decide it is deserving of a place in the identity that they are shaping online.

Place identity is influenced by individuals who publicize data about those places

(Breek et al. 2018), but place can also be used as a means by which people shape the version of themselves that they wish to share with their community of online followers

(Timeto in Wilken and Goggin 2015). Schwartz and Halegoua (2015) similarly suggest that when social media users choose to disclose their locations, it is a “performance” or

“identity production” (1647), which agrees with Lowenthal’s argument concerning the importance of place in self-identity (1985, 42). These location-tagged photographs also act in turn to impact how others view a location (Paül i Augustí 2018), especially when considered in the context of the collective image that these create when the images are stored collectively under a singular place name. Instagram allows for any user to search 24 for a location, and when the user selects a location they are provided with a map showing where the address is (if one is attached) and all of the publicly available photos with that location tag. Jang and Kim (2019, 2) conducted research in which they attempted to

“depict the collective identity of place in a single image” by using a combination of hashtag-identified places and coordinates from the photographs. Their final product produced a series of maps, but alternative approaches need to be undertaken in order to determine collective themes among images. Society’s inclusion of online communities in their daily activities can be used by geographers as a comparative tool in the context of these questions and performances of identity (Schwartz and Hochman in Wilken and

Goggin 2015).

Social media does not promise an altogether accurate version of how users view the world around them, but it does represent an account of places and individuals’ experiences in those places that the users of these platforms wish to share with others or incorporate into their presented online identities (Schwartz and Halegoua 2015; Schwartz and Hochman in Wilken and Goggin 2015; Breek et al. 2018). Timeto (in Wilken and

Goggin 2015, 98) suggests that locative media acts to “combine reality and representation.” The memorials on the National Mall are spaces that have clearly defined plans and purposes (Benton-Short 2006; Savage 2009; Evans and York 2013; Senie

2016); however, visitors to the Mall do not always comply with the intended use of space. These areas become the stages of struggle when Americans choose to protest on a large scale or on smaller scales by leaving personal mementos at the memorials. While these memorials are all based upon the physical structures, these varying realities 25

(planning, in-person, and social media) and the messages that they carry are at tension with one another. Research does not show more than two of these realities at a time as being related to one another, but the implication that the memorials impact in-person experiences (Senie 2016), experiences impact social media interactions (Dolbeau-Bandin

2016), and social media representation impacts experience in a place (Schwartz and

Halegoua 2015) is present in the body of literature. Geographers should consider the nexus of these relationships.

Chapter 3: Methodology

This project seeks to understand meaning across three realities of the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial and World War II Memorial on the National Mall. These three realities- planning, in-person experiences, and Instagram representation- all express messages and demonstrate different views of personal and cultural meaning that are imbedded in the memorials’ landscapes. By looking at each reality separately, then comparing and contrasting themes that arise in each step, I was able to understand which memorial meanings are transferred across all three realities and which meanings are unique to one reality. My different methods for collecting data and developing themes are a result of the varying natures of each memorial reality, as well as limitations to the project. While the methodology for each reality differs, I was able to develop key points of meaning across all three realities that makes it possible to easily compare and contrast the three realities.

Memorial Planning

The first research question is, “How have the federal government and officials such as architects chosen to commemorate World War II and the Vietnam War on the

National Mall?” In order to answer this question, I read about the processes by which memorials move from an idea to becoming a structure on the Mall. This led me to collect

Congressional documents related to each memorial. These documents state the purposes for and debates about placing memorials on the Mall. Additionally, they bring many voices to the table from various organizations and individuals involved in the planning processes from that government side of the question. Congressional hearings, notes about 27 edits to the language of the bills, and the bills themselves provide a physical record of the meanings that officials wished to enshrine in the memorials.

Interestingly, through reading the Congressional documents it became apparent that the voices of those who had the largest role in designing the memorials were absent.

In order to hear those voices, I consulted other documents such as a publication by the

General Services Administration with quotes from an architect, an interview with a memorial sculptor, and the story of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s creation as told by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. As I read the documents, I pulled key quotes and notes from each text. With such a large amount of data, I used content analysis in order to extract themes and meaning from the documents. I first open coded those key quotes and notes in order to create “a word or short phrase that captures and signals what is going on in a piece of data” (Emerson et al. 2011, 177). From there, I developed focused codes from the open codes which then allowed me to highlight some of the common themes across all of the documents. To see an example of this process, please reference

Appendix A.

In-Person Experience

To answer my second research question- “How do visitors to the World War II

Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial utilize these spaces?”- I undertook participant observation by visiting these two memorials during the afternoon of August 5,

2020. Since I am a part of the intended audience of each memorial and my experience of visiting and taking photographs is similar to that of an Instagram user, my visit was able to shed light on some of the experiences that a visitor to these memorials might have. 28

Due to Covid-19, the two memorials were both far emptier than normal, and this impacted behavior and experience at the memorials. I understand that my experience cannot speak for that of every visitor, nor do I claim that my observation is representative of all experiences, especially given my specific purpose for visiting. Rather, this visit is a detailed description of one particular visit and the design elements that stood out as a visitor to the memorials. This type of observation also allowed me to see how others around me were interacting with the memorial space. While this was not a systematic observation with formal counts or time delimitations, the experiences and sights described in Chapter 6 are still representative of a summer visit to the memorials and some of the ways that people use these memorials.

During my experience as a visitor to the memorials, I made sure to pick up any publications that visitors may be given during their visit. I spent time walking through each of the memorial sites and made note via photograph of the elements of the memorials that stood out to me. While at the sites, I also took time to observe what others around me were doing at the site, if anyone else was around at the time. Given the Covid-

19 situation at the time of my observation in the summer of 2020, I recorded the ways in which this was represented at the memorial, as well as any unusual experience related to the pandemic.

When reflecting upon and recording my time at the site from my headnotes and photographs, I applied the lenses described by Dwyer and Alderman (2008) as

“landscape as text” (169) and “landscape as arena” (171). This view led me to analyse the memorial experience for the representations in the memorials, the ways that groups 29

“contest over whose conception of the past will predominate” (171) or ways in which a strong narrative is pushed, as well as the ways these memorials are “manifesting stories on and through the landscape” (169), among other features.

Instagram

My third research question, which asks “how do visitors to these memorial spaces represent them through Instagram’s location feature?”, is answered similarly to the first research question. I collected 100 images from Instagram for each memorial. The

Vietnam Veterans Memorial has two addresses listed on Instagram, so I collected 50 images from the “5 Henry Bacon Dr. NW, Washington D.C.” address and I collected another 50 from the “The Mall, Washington D.C.” address. The World War II

Memorial’s location tag has been consolidated into one address, thus I collected all 100 images from the address of “1750 Independence Ave SW, Washington D.C.” All of the images were selected from accounts that were public at the time of photograph collection from January 27-28, 2021.

Given Covid-19’s impact on daily life since March 2020, I selected my 100 images from throughout the year 2019 so that those images would be more representative of “typical” Instagram realities of the memorials. In order to avoid influencing the sample, I collected as much as possible images based on the date they were taken as opposed to selecting images based on the subjects of those images. For both addresses given for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, I collected the first two photographs and last two photographs of each month, as well as one image from January 15 and December 15.

Similarly, for the World War II location, in order to evenly distribute the 100 images 30 across the year, I collected three images from the start of each month, two from the middle of the month, and two from the end of each month, as well as one extra image from July 15 and December 15. Within those selected dates, I selected the first photographs posted at the start of the months, the middle photographs posted in the middle of the months, and the last photographs posted at the end of the months.

Additional requirements for the selection of photographs included that the post could only contain one photograph so as to reduce my influence so I did not have to select a single photograph from that set to analyse. I also did not accept videos, photographs posted by individuals whose Instagram name suggested this was their professional photography account, and photographs that were tagged as being at the memorial but were actually at a different site.

Once I had my sample of 200 photographs selected, or 100 per memorial, I analysed these photographs using content analysis. First I reviewed all of the photographs

I had pulled from Instagram into my sample and checked them to see that they were

“representative” of the larger data set from which I had taken them (Rose 2012, 89). This can be ensured through the number of photographs selected and the “systematic” sampling (Krippendorf 1980 and Weber 1990 in Rose 2012, 89) method employed as described above. As I reviewed my sample sets, the large number of photographs ensured saturation had been reached and that as I looked through the photographs no new subjects were appearing. The sampling method I employed also helped to minimize my influence on the selection of photographs, so that my thoughts about what should be in the sample 31 would not come through. This ensured that the sample is reflective of what is on

Instagram.

My goal was to understand how Instagram users present their experience at the memorial. With this in mind, I wanted to see what themes “emerge” from the photographs (Charmaz 2006, 46). I looked at all of my photographs and performed open and then focused coding. Emerson and his colleagues (2011, 172) suggest coding in order to reveal themes that are present in the data. Open coding allowed me to break down visually complex images into key components of the photograph. From there, I had the open codes guide the creation of focused codes. These focused codes organized the open codes into common elements and meanings across groups of photographs, which further revealed themes in each sample. These themes present topics that can be easily compared to the other two realities discussed in this project. To see an example of this process, please consult Appendix A.

As I performed coding on these photographs, I kept Dwyer and Alderman’s idea of “landscape as performance” (2008, 173) in mind. This concept suggests that visitors and their realities of memorial landscape recreation through photographs are “reflecting and refracting cultural norms” (174) as well as recognizing that “visitors will (re)act differently to what is ostensibly the same story” (175). This perspective guided my coding and development of themes for photographs. Through this lens, I searched for trends among the photographs, and saw what visitors were posting as meaningful from their memorial interaction. “Landscape as performance” (Dwyer and Alderman 2008,

173) presented a view of the photographs that understood them to be not necessarily a 32 perfect reflection of the other two realities in this study, but rather visitors’ own interpretation and ways of responding to memorial space. The ways that these three memorial realities were able to be broken down into themes allowed for a final comparison as to which themes are the same and different between the three realities.

This comparison allowed me to address and answer the fourth research question: “How do the intended uses of the memorials, the in-person experiences of the memorials, and the Instagram representations agree or disagree with one another?”

Chapter 4: Planning the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Purpose

The Vietnam War was an extraordinarily challenging time for the United States.

Unrest at home combined with great losses abroad put the country to the test and left the nation in a difficult place. For those who were called to fight in Vietnam, and for their loved ones at home, the war brought significant pain. Senator John Warner described the experience as “costly to millions of Americans in a very personal way” (U.S. Senate

Hearing [hereafter S. Hearing] 96-111 1980, 67). Even for those who did not fight on the ground, such as the nurses who served in Vietnam, those involved in the conflict carry an emotional toll from caring for the dying (Wheeler III in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 30).

57,661 Americans were killed in the conflict (S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71), and this left veterans and the nation as a whole in need of “psychological healing” (Scruggs in vvmf.org “History”). This was exacerbated by the conditions at home when veterans returned to the United States from Vietnam.

In a hearing, Senator Larry Pressler described the difference between veterans of the Vietnam War and every other war in terms of their experience of returning to the

United States. He explained that “those who returned were often-times shunned by society… heroes were not recognized” and that many veterans felt that “they were duped” since they answered “their country’s call to duty” only to receive poor treatment at home (in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 147). This is directly related to the unpopularity of the war, and Jan Scruggs, the President of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund at the time, even described the country’s “haste to forget the war” as leading to a lack of 34 remembrance for veterans and those who were killed (S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71). The

Executive Director of that same organization testified before the Senate after Scruggs and added that one of the purposes of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is to “recognize past service” (Doubek in S. Hearing 96-111, 143). Scruggs and Doubek were not only high ranking members of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, but also founders. They built the organization from the ground up to help with these issues. The painful and unusual experience of Vietnam for veterans, family, friends, and ultimately the country as a whole led to a specific set of goals that the Fund felt a memorial to Vietnam veterans could achieve.

Among the congressional documents related to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the publications of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, three goals were apparent:

“healing” (Evans in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 83; Hutchison in S. Hearing 96-111 1980,

152; vvmf.org “History”), “reconciliation” (Scruggs, Doubek, and Hutchison in S.

Hearing 96-111 1980, 71, 143, and 152; vvmf.org “History”), and to “honor the warrior and not the war” (vvmf.org “History”). These goals respond to the experience of the war at home and abroad, and the goal to not focus on the war itself provides a route around the divisiveness of the conflict while simultaneously allowing for a way to change how veterans are viewed. Scruggs noted that one of the purposes of this memorial was to push the country to see that veterans’ “sacrifices were honorable rather than dishonorable”

(vvmf.org “History”). These three main goals remain at the forefront of the discussions and decisions made in the planning of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial because of how poignantly they respond to the pain the country felt and the challenges that veterans faced 35 when they returned to the States. This memorial was truly designed to be in the service of the people, veterans and civilians alike.

Process

Nine years passed between the end of the Vietnam War and the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, which then had two more additions made to it in years after. Jan Scruggs and Robert Doubek felt that a memorial for Vietnam veterans would be crucial in helping American civilians and veterans to heal from the devastating conflict, as well as to work towards unity despite major disagreements at the time. With this in mind, they set a three-year timeline during which they would proceed through the entirety of the memorial planning process, including the actual construction, in time for an opening on Veterans Day 1982 (vvmf.org “History”). Within a short time of the organization’s formation, a following of Congressional members, namely Senators

Charles Mathias and John Warner, helped to push this memorial concept through the legislative process (vvmf.org “History”). This government support was important, but one element that made getting the authorization to build a memorial passed was the immense support that the bill carried.

Throughout the legislative process, it was clear that this memorial was not to cost the federal or local D.C. government any money; rather, it was to be privately funded

(U.S. House of Representatives Report [hereafter H.R. Report] 96-1229 1980, 1; Public

Law [hereafter P.L. 96-297 1980, 1; S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71; vvmf.org “History”).

This was made possible by considerable public support of the memorial. Individuals and associations with personal connections sent money to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 36

Fund in order to raise the necessary funds to construct a memorial to honor those involved in the conflict (Doubek in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 144; vvmf.org “History of…”). In addition to helping monetarily, “many established veterans organizations and military associations have given us their support” in favor of a memorial (Scruggs in S.

Hearing 96-111 1980, 72), which lent credibility to those voting on the bill that it has the support of the memorial’s target audience. These measures eventually proved to be effective, as at the time of the Senate hearing regarding the memorial, 85 Senators were signed on as co-sponsors of Senate Joint Resolution 119, which would give approval for the memorial’s construction (Warner and Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 67 and 71).

This support is noteworthy, but it must be recognized that the authorization was only one aspect of a highly complex planning process.

In order to meet the tight timeline set forth by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Fund, one member of the Fund suggested that “Congress pass legislation to award a specific area for a memorial site” (vvmf.org “History”). From that point forward, getting the right location is recognized as being crucial to achieving what this memorial set out to do. When introducing the bill to Congress, the second point about the memorial that

Senator Warner noted was the necessity of a good location (S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 67);

Doubek concurred, stating that “the site is the most important element of this concept (S.

Hearing 96-111 1980, 67). The bill was passed with language that reflected the importance of the memorial’s siting, as it stipulates that the memorial should be located in Constitution Gardens (P.L. 96-297 1980, 1), just a short walk northeast of the Lincoln

Memorial. The act read: 37

“The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc… is authorized to establish a memorial on public grounds in West Potomac Park in the District of Columbia, in honor and recognition of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in the Vietnam war.”

“The Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc. is authorized and directed to select with approval of the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission a suitable site of approximately two acres in size located in the area of West Potomac Park known as Constitution Gardens…” (P.L. 96-297 1980, 1)

The site selected was both meaningful and key to finding a design that fit the space well

(S. Hearing 96-111 1980), but as alluded to by the Act, while the site was already selected, thus removing a major responsibility of oversight groups, their role was not completely eliminated. The groups listed in the act were to be involved in approval of the final design, which was the focus of the next step.

The design selection process lasted one year and involved many different professionals as judges to help the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund select the design that would best honor veterans (vvmf.org “History”). The competition laid out four characteristics of a winning design:

“1) reflective and contemplative in character; 2) be harmonious with its site and environment; 3) make no political statement about the war itself; 4) contain the names of all who died or remain missing. ‘The hope is that the creation of the Memorial will begin a healing process,’ Doubek wrote.” (vvmf.org “History”)

The winning design was submitted by Maya Lin. Lin’s design featured a large V-shaped wall made of black granite cut into the hillside that names every individual who was killed or is missing in action (see Figures 4-1 and 4-2). This design was not without “a great deal of controversy” (Senator Bumpers in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 1). It was 38 described in one testimony to the Commission of Fine Arts as “a black trench that scars the Mall. Black walls, the universal color of shame and sorrow…” (Carhart in vvmf.org

“History”). Lin’s design, however, ultimately passed through the approval process with the “compromise” that a representation of a soldier in the form of a statue be added to the entry (Brown in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 18; vvmf.org “History”), because the design was deemed to best achieve the goals set forth by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund.

The Wall and the statue in combination with a large flag pole (vvmf.org “History”) completed the memorial that was dedicated in 1982.

Figure 4-1

The Wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Note. The black granite walls cut into the hillside. Photo by author.

Figure 4-2

The Washington Monument as Seen from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Note. The individual names of each person killed or missing in action are etched into the wall’s panels. Photo by author.

The memorial opened with a celebration that veterans did not receive when they returned home from Vietnam. Over “150,000 veterans, families, loved ones and friends” attended the opening ceremonies which included a vigil during which every name on the

Wall was read, a “three-hour parade down Constitution Avenue,” and a flurry of

“workshops, parties, events, and reunions.” (vvmf.org, “History”). Scruggs described it as “a Woodstock atmosphere in Washington for those who had served in Vietnam”

(vvmf.org, “History”). Such jubilation speaks to the pain caused not only by the experience, but also by the response to the veterans’ service when they returned to the 40

United States. The celebratory atmosphere is one that would have normally been seen at the conclusion of the war, but in this case it was not the end of the conflict that prompted celebration, but rather the opening of the memorial. The memorial was in “honor and recognition” (H.R. Report 100-948 1988, p.1; P.L. 96-297 1980, 1) of their experience and, in the words of Senator Pressler, the opening of this memorial was a gesture that would “help allow all veterans to finally come home” (in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 147).

The 1982 opening, however, would not be the end of this process.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial has had four notable additions to it since the

1982 Wall opening ceremonies. The first two were “the Three Servicemen statue and flagstaff… added in 1984” (vvmf.org “About”) as part of the compromise mentioned above to get the design approved. The third addition was the Vietnam Women’s

Memorial, a proposed statue representing women’s service in Vietnam, which proved to be rather controversial. This was proposed in 1983 by a nurse, Diane Evans, who spent time in Vietnam with the military (vvmf.org “About”), and it was in response to the language present in Public Law 96-297 that authorized the Vietnam Veterans Memorial:

“in honor and recognition of the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in the Vietnam war.” (1980, 1)

The piece about recognizing both men and women prompted the idea for a Vietnam

Women’s Memorial, because with the addition of the Three Servicemen Statue (see

Figure 4-3) some people felt “the memorial is not complete and does not adequately represent all those who served in Vietnam” (Bumpers in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 1), namely women. Senator Durenberger argued that a statue for women “would complete the mandate of Public Law 96-297” (S. Hearing 100-617 1998, 3). Others felt differently 41 and many groups and individuals questioned such a memorial with regard to both process and how Vietnam needed to be remembered. This ultimately became a discussion of the memorial planning process and “the most appropriate way to honor these women”

(Bumpers in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 2).

Figure 4-3

The Three Servicemen Statue

Note. The Three Servicemen statue with the flagpole visible in the background. Photo by author.

Arguments in favor of the women’s memorial see this statue as a way of ensuring women are receiving equal honor within the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, especially with the physical representation men were given through the Three Servicemen statue 42

(Durenberger in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 9). Female veterans also came forward and described their experiences in Vietnam in order to demonstrate the need for recognition of that experience which was filled with “fear” (Bouley in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 90), service marked by “life, hope, compassion, and courage” (Evans in S. Hearing 100-617

1988, 83), and the emotional toll of caring for the dying (Wheeler in S. Hearing 100-617

1988, 30). They describe an experience of being in a war zone (Bouley in S. Hearing

100-617 1988, 90), even if they were not playing the same role as the infantrymen shown in the Three Servicemen statue. The Director of the National Park Service said he felt

“the addition of the women’s statue in juxtaposition to the men’s statue would close the design concept” (Mott in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 28). Additionally, the Chairman of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund felt that it could be productive as a teaching tool for future women, just as the Three Servicemen statue seemed to speak to young boys

(Wheeler in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 29). The women’s memorial had a plethora of points in favor of its construction, but it raised many concerns as well.

Arguments against the Women’s Memorial were that the memorial is already

“complete” (Doubek in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 108; H.R. Report 100-948 1988, 3) and that adding more statuary dedicated to subgroups of veterans would “reduce the symbolism of the existing sculpture” (Doubek in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 108). The proposed statue also faced critiques on the grounds that it did not follow appropriate

“procedure,” referring to the newly passed 1983 Commemorative Works Act, for placing the statue on the mall (H.R. Report 100-948 1988, 4). It was so divisive that members of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund organization voiced both support and opposition to 43 it. The challenge with getting this memorial built certainly stems from some of the arguments made above, but also with its how the structure is classified.

While many spoke in favor of the women’s memorial as being added onto the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial, in order to assuage some of the concerns of planning groups and ensure application of the newly enacted Commemorative Works Act, the Committee on House Administrations explicitly stated that in their approval of the Vietnam

Women’s Memorial act that “this is an authorization for a new memorial, not an addition, alteration, or modification to an existing one” (H.R. Report 100-948 1988, 2), though it acts as part of the larger Vietnam Veterans Memorial for all intents and purposes. Indeed, the memorial was directed to be placed in the site allotted for the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial (P.L. 100-660). The requirement of adherence to the Commemorative Works

Act ensured that “precedent” was set for following the act’s guidelines and that the statue for the women’s memorial would be approved by oversight groups such as the

Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission (H.R. Report

100-948 1988, 3). Congress drove the point home that procedure was to be followed in their 1988 report about a subsection of Public Law 100-660 that ensures Congress’ approval is required for “significant modifications to completed commemorative works in the District of Columbia” (U.S. Senate Report [hereafter S. Report] 100-371 1988, 4).

However, this made its classification somewhat confusing as to whether it should be considered a separate memorial or an addition. It is nevertheless clear that the memorial demonstrates how devoted oversight groups were to protecting Washington’s precious memorial landscape and the National Mall. 44

After much debate and strategic agreements over how to proceed given the awkward timelines of the proposal of the memorial and the passage of the

Commemorative Works Act, a women’s statue to provide “an easily recognizable symbol of healing and hope, consistent with the spirit and experience of the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial” (Bouley in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 90) was authorized. The final addition, which was much easier to approve, was much smaller in scale and size simply provided for a “plaque to honor other Vietnam veterans who died as a result of service in the

Vietnam War” (P.L. 106-214 2000, 1). With those four additions, the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial was finished as its iconic and meaningful design stands today.

Location

The legislative processes followed in order to achieve the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial as it is known today were complex and filled with attention to every detail, particularly with regard to the importance of the location and design. As mentioned above, finding the most appropriate location for this memorial was seen as one of the highest priorities in the process from concept to a final product (Doubek and Warner in S.

Hearing 96-111 1980, 67). The Constitution Gardens location northeast of the Lincoln

Memorial was chosen for three primary reasons: it is “prominent” on the Mall (Warner,

Scruggs, and Doubek in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 67, 71, and 143), it has historical and

“symbolic significance” (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71; vvmf.org “History”), and it provides the type of setting needed to achieve the memorial’s goals (S. Hearing 96-

111 1980). These three reasons are evident today, and the case made for these goals is well recorded throughout the government documents. 45

The prominence of the site is fully evident, with its location being an easy walk from the Lincoln Memorial and the Reflecting Pool. Additionally, as one is ascending from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Washington Monument is in clear view (see

Fig. 2). Another historical reason given by Senator Mathias for placing it in this area of the Mall is that “the anti-war demonstrations had taken place there” (vvmf.org

“History”). The symbolism of the site does not end there, the proximity to the Lincoln

Memorial, honoring a man who stood for “reconciliation” after the Civil War, was meant to allow the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to convey a similar message about bringing the nation back together (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71). The Lincoln Memorial is not a celebration of Northern victory, rather it is shrine to the man and the values that he embodied to a torn country. Similarly, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial’s goal from the outset was “to honor the warrior and not the war” (vvmf.org “History”). The placement in

Constitution Gardens was appropriate symbolically (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980,

71), and it allowed for the achievement of other Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund goals.

Healing was certainly at the forefront of priorities in this memorial (Evans in S.

Hearing 100-617 1988, 83; Hutchison in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 152; vvmf.org

“History”), and the location here with its symbolism of bringing the country back together was key. It is important to note, however, that the healing was not only about the country’s divide, but the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was meant for individual healing for those who suffered losses as well (S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 68; vvmf.org, “About”).

Part of this healing comes from the siting near the Lincoln Memorial and Washington

Monument, of which the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts at the time approved 46 of because of the symbolism of those monuments. His view on the siting was that by locating it here, the memorial might “incorporate by reference the ideals for which our

Armed Forces suffered in Vietnam” (Brown in S. Hearing 100-660 1988, 17). As such, the memorial provides a purpose to what for many felt like a great loss, with nothing to show for it. The site’s characteristic “quiet” (Warner and Bumpers in S. Hearing 96-111

1980, 67 and 68; vvmf.org “History”) is considered by those involved in the project to be important to the memorial’s character and its goals, as it allows for people to have an intimate experience with the Wall. All these considerations are important to the siting of this memorial, and ultimately help to make it more effective at what it set out to do; however, it is indisputably the design of this memorial that stunned the country.

Design

The location was the major factor that speakers to the Senate hailed as crucial to completing the memorial’s mission, and while it did save time in the race to finish the memorial in roughly three years (vvmf.org, “History”), by the time the Wall was unveiled in 1982, it became clear that Maya Lin’s unique design had created what Senator Dale

Bumpers called “the most powerful memorial in Washington” (in S. Hearing 100-617

1988, 135). The memorial remains extraordinarily popular even now; according to the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, it is the “most-visited memorial on the National Mall” with “more than five million people” visiting annually (vvmf.org, “History”). Maya Lin’s design includes distinctive elements such as the black granite walls, the names of each individual listed chronologically (vvmf.org, “History”), and a “park” style setting. The 47 other pieces of the memorial, primarily the Three Servicemen Statue and the Vietnam

Women’s Memorial, carry their own symbolism as well.

The large black granite walls that comprise most of the memorial are widely acknowledged as artistically powerful today, but at the time of the design’s unveiling, some people were highly critical. Detractors held that the Wall’s simplicity was a “slap in the face to those who had served because it did not contain traditional symbols” associated with war memorials (vvmf.org, “History”). One veteran complained about the color of the walls, arguing that black is “the universal color of shame and sorrow and degradation” (vvmf.org, “History”). It is certainly true that the color stands in contrast to the typical white marble seen in Washington (Senie 2016, 20) and it lacks traditional war symbolism, but Vietnam was also unlike most other conflicts in which the country has been involved. The purpose of the memorial was not to celebrate the war, but rather to

“honor” veterans (vvmf.org, “History”), and bring “healing” (Evans in S. Hearing 100-

617 1988, 83; Hutchison in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 152; vvmf.org “History”) and

“reconciliation” (Scruggs, Doubek and Hutchison in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71, 143,

152; vvmf.org “History”). The absence of traditional motifs, a more sombre color, and a break from Washington’s narrative landscape speak to the conflict for which it stands.

Doubek testified before the Senate that “the genius of the wall is its equalizing and unifying effect” (in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 108). It can be argued that this is in large part due to the design contest’s requirement that the names of each individual killed must be listed (vvmf.org, “History”) and the manner in which Maya Lin chose to fulfill this requirement. In Lin’s layout of the names, she chose to list the names 48 chronologically, rather than alphabetically, which seems to be an odd choice at first, but as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund notes on their website, this layout depicts “the war as a series of individual human sacrifices” (vvmf.org, “History”). The chronological layout was also chosen because it “would allow a returning veteran to find his or her time of service on The Wall and those who died to remain together forever on The Wall”

(vvmf.org, “History”). The humanization of the losses in Vietnam ultimately helps achieve the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund’s goal to “honor the warrior and not the war” (vvmf.org, “History”). The personal impact of this memorial combined with its

“restful garden setting” that is intended to promote “contemplation” help achieve the goals of the memorial (Doubek in S. Hearing 96-111 198, 144).

Later additions to the memorial such as the Three Servicemen statue, the Vietnam

Women’s Memorial, and the plaque all serve to enhance remembrance of the conflict.

The Three Servicemen statue is designed to represent “the Vietnam veterans community as a whole” (Doubek in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 109). The Women’s statue and the eight yellowwoods (see Figure 4-4) were designed in such a way as to commemorate the eight women whose names are on the Wall, as well as being “for the families who lost loved ones in the war, so they would know about the women who provided comfort, care, and a human touch for those who were suffering and dying” (vvmf.org, “About”). These two statues provide a humanizing element to the memorial and they demonstrate that the memorial is not about the war; it is about the loved ones who sacrificed in this conflict. In combination with these two statues, the final addition of the memorial plaque to those killed after the war as a consequence of their service continues in the tradition of Maya 49

Lin’s unifying memorial that allows those who served together to remain together at this memorial. Overall, these powerfully symbolic designs are emotionally impactful, and they serve to fulfill the memorial’s original goals.

Figure 4-4

The Vietnam Women’s Memorial

Note. The Vietnam Women’s Memorial represents care and loss in a human form. Photo by author. 50

Conclusion

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund set out to honor the veterans and families whose lives had been impacted by the conflict in Vietnam, but whose sacrifices had been largely ignored. The group proceeded through the legislative and oversight processes for building a memorial at lightning speed relative to the typical bureaucratic processes that characterize Washington (vvmf.org, “History”). Through a design unlike any other in the

District, a location brimming with symbolism, and humanizing themes encoded throughout the memorial experience, this memorial proved to be highly effective, and it is widely acknowledged that it achieved its goals of healing, reconciliation, and honor for veterans. Today, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is dotted with personal mementos left by loved ones who, like the Fund, did not want to see their loved ones “forgotten”

(Warner in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 67). The Wall’s opening allowed for those who returned from Vietnam to finally receive the welcome (vvmf.org, “History”) that veterans of other wars received much earlier. The memorial’s status as “the most-visited memorial on the National Mall” (vvmf.org, “History”) speaks to the success of the design and its impact on not only the Vietnam veterans community, but the country as a whole.

Chapter 5: Planning the World War II Memorial

Commemoration

World War II has been described as “the defining moment of the twentieth century” (Grooms 2004, 6), and those who lived through the experience are often referred to as the “greatest generation” (Dole in Congressional Record- Extension of Remarks

[hereafter E. Record] “WWII” 2000, E2100; Norton in U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing [hereafter H.R. Hearing] 106-214 2000, 3; Grooms 2004, 12). The Vietnam Wall was completed relatively quickly after the United States withdrew from that conflict.

World War II, however, had no national memorial when Representative Marcy Kaptur first introduced the idea to Congress in 1987 (Grooms 2004, 110). The placement of the memorial, the purpose for creating the memorial, and the process by which the National

World War II Memorial was created all speak to a desire to commemorate this pivotal event at the national level.

The legislation that launched the memorial’s creation reflects the importance of commemoration, and in doing so, also defines what commemoration means for this memorial. Public Law 103-32 states:

“The American Battle Monuments Commission… is authorized to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor members of the Armed Forces who served in World War II and to commemorate the participation of the United States in that war.” (1993, 1)

The wording here expresses a desire to “honor” not just the members of the armed services, but to also celebrate the entire country’s involvement in the war. From this legislation, the purpose of the memorial is shaped around the principle of recognizing the nation as a whole for its involvement. This sets the requirements and tone for the 52 memorial in its design. Language around the desire to recognize World War II frequently appealed to a sense that “the entire world owes” “enduring respect” to those who participated in the conflict (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 2).

In addition to language that reflects “respect” (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214

2000, 2) for those who participated in World War II, there is a sense that this is a

“sacred” event (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 3). The conflict is also considered to be deeply emotional; one Congressman invoked the photo of the Marines at Iwo Jima saying “I do not think there is a person alive today who knows about World War II who can look at that photo and not have tears in their eyes” (Shows in U.S. House of

Representatives Congressional Record [hereafter H.R.] Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, sec.

1315). A publication by an employee of the General Services Administration’s Design

Excellence Program described the reasons for creating the World War II Memorial with sentiments that were often expressed in the various hearings:

“The purpose of the national World War II Memorial is to honor, inspire, and commemorate. It acknowledges the bravery of our allies, celebrates America’s unprecedented unity and solidarity in a time of peril, and honors the heroic achievements and sacrifices of an entire nation in the cause of liberty and freedom. It is a tribute to America’s “Greatest Generation” and a timeless reminder of the price of freedom.” (Grooms 2004, 12)”

This statement reflects the lofty patriotic language embedded throughout the

Congressional records and hearings about the World War II Memorial with words like honor, inspire, unity, sacrifice, liberty, and freedom occurring often. Importantly, a desire to commemorate does not end with recognizing this generation of Americans. Rather, this memorial was intended for both current and future generations as much as it was for the 53

World War II survivors. Senator Bob Dole described this as “a place to learn, reflect, and to draw inspiration for whatever tests confront generations yet unborn” (E. Record

“WWII” 2000, E2100). This memorial would serve as “a living educational forum”

(Smith in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 15), though the type of education here is important. According to the publication by the General Services Administration employee, “it was supposed to be a memorial to inspire, not a museum to teach” (Grooms

2004, 66). This memorial was designed to instill patriotism and to encourage Americans that the war was an appropriate way to respond to threats to “our ideals and principles,” and future Americans should be willing to “do the same” (St. Florian in Grooms 2004,

80). World War II is consistently marked as special, unlike any other time or event, and as a time when Americans acted in a way that many considered ideal; however, it is important to consider why World War II gained this reputation.

World War II

World War II is often considered the “defining event of the 20th century” (Parsons in U.S. Senate Hearing [hereafter S. Hearing] 105-288 1997, 8; Warner in U.S. Senate

Congressional Record [hereafter S. Record] “Expressing” 2000, S10117). There is general agreement among the people involved in the memorial’s creation that this statement is true. This is observed in the language surrounding the event and its participants, the noted global-scale outcomes of the war, and its significance in United

States history. Much as the defining events of the 18th and 19th centuries are symbolized on the National Mall are the creation of the United States (the Washington Monument) and the unification of the country in the face of internal conflict (the Lincoln Memorial) 54

(Brown in S. Hearing 106-278 2000, 6; Kaptur in Congressional Record- Extension of

Remarks [hereafter E. Record] Vol. 146, No. 132 2000, E1838), World War II was selected as the 20th century’s “defining” event (Parsons in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 8;

Warner in S. Record “Expressing” 2000, S10117).

The group of Americans that participated in World War II is consistently referred to as the “Greatest Generation” (Dole in E. Record “WWII” 2000, E2100; Norton in H.R.

Hearing 106-214 2000, 3; Grooms 2004, 12). Throughout the hearings and in government documents, the desire to commemorate every participant in the war is evident. Women were recognized for their strides in the workplace as “Rosie the Riveters” (Dole in H.R.

Hearing 106-214 2000, 11,) and Japanese-Americans were celebrated for some of the most prestigious accomplishments throughout the war (Grooms 2004, 9). So too, African

Americans and the battle for World War II abroad, together with the fight for civil rights at home, were mentioned both explicitly and implicitly in the documents (Dole in H.R.

Hearing 106-214 2000, 11; Grooms 2004, 6). Bob Dole also extolled the contributions of

“the people on the farms, the teachers and the preachers and the shopkeepers and those who provided the supplies and the equipment and machines and ammunition…” (H.R.

Hearing 106-214 2000, 11). Lists such as these illustrate that those involved in planning for the memorial wished to see World War II depicted in a specific light, one which celebrates not just combatants, but rather an entire generation of Americans.

The memorial was meant not only for soldiers or to memorialize the loss of life in the war. Various people involved in the planning process spoke of a commitment to honor anyone involved in any capacity, whether they saw combat or not (Kaptur in E. 55

Record “WWII” 2001, E2100; Warner in S. Record “Expressing” 2000, S10117). This specific choice, which differs significantly from other memorials on the Mall, reveals some of the deeper meanings behind the memorial. The World War II memorial was not entirely about a military victory; it is to celebrate a particular set of ideals that the Second

World War epitomizes. For Americans, it is the “defining event of the 20th century”

(Parsons in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 8; Warner in S. Record “Expressing” 2000,

S10117) precisely because of the way the conflict shaped the self-image of the United

States, and the way it clarified the relationship between the country and the rest of the world. It celebrates the “Greatest Generation” (Dole in E. Record “WWII” 2001, E2100) of Americans who are described by their “sacrifices” (Grooms 2004, 12), their “brave” character (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 3), and their “heroic” efforts (Grooms

2004, 12). Instead of celebrating the military, the goal of this memorial was to celebrate an entire American society that participated in the experience of World War II. The concept of the entire country being involved is key, because it implies that in some way everyone sacrificed and served, and in doing so helped achieve a significant victory that also so happened to launch the United States to the pinnacle of global hegemony.

The people who participated in the Second World War did indeed break through barriers, and they witness and suffered horrors in their service. This holds true for many wars and conflicts, yet it was argued by those involved in the memorial’s planning that

World War II was more influential in defining the 20th century than any other event or person in that period. One speaker in a Senate hearing for the planning of the memorial, for example, stated that “to place a memorial… with the historical importance of the 56

World War II in an almost similar situation to the Vietnam Memorial we feel is a disservice to… the memory of the Second World War II” (Atherton in S. Hearing 105-

288 1997, 15). While both conflicts had a substantial impact on the United States both at home and abroad, in the eyes of this speaker, it is inconceivable to place them into similar categories. An explanation for why this may be the case can be found in the descriptions of the war.

The head architect of the project, Friedrich St. Florian, described World War II as a time when American ideals were “challenged” (in Grooms 2004, 80). According to

Representative Kaptur who first brought the need for a World War II memorial to

Congress, it was a “triumph of liberty over tyranny” (in E. Record “WWII” 2000, 1).

Similarly, Congressman Stump, who served in the Navy in World War II, described the memorial as a “tribute to our Nation’s triumph over tyranny” (H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130

2000, Sec. 1315). These sentiments were later enshrined by the Senate in their resolution, stating “it is appropriate for the United States to memorialize in the Nation’s Capital the triumph of democracy over tyranny in World War II, the most important event of the twentieth century” (U.S. Senate Congressional Resolution [hereafter S. Resolution] 145

2000, 1). The way that the war is almost universally described is such that the focus is on a victory of one set of ideals, the American ideals, over another set of ideals. Indeed, it can be argued that the memorial is a commemoration of the defeat of “totalitarianism”

(Grooms 2004, 6) by American “democracy” (Brown in S. Hearing 106-278 2000, 6).

The ideas of democracy being a “force” for good (Dole in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000,

11), the way out of tyranny, and as a gift that the United States can offer to the world, 57 comprise a powerful set of discourses in the memorial’s landscape. The conceptual victory of American ideals over any other set of principles is precisely why many people involved in this production felt that World War II was the moment that shaped the United

States and why it deserves to be honored on the same level as Lincoln and Washington.

Planning Process and Design

One of the primary reasons the idea of a World War II memorial in Washington,

DC was raised was because the country lacked a national level memorial to the war.

While other more recent conflicts had been commemorated in DC, World War II was notably absent. The proposition was initially made by an Ohio citizen (Kaptur in E.

Record Vol. 146, No. 132 2000, E1838), but once Representative Marcy Kaptur introduced the idea to Congress the planning for the memorial was largely handled by people who held positions of power. The planning and design process was primarily “top down” with respect to the timeline, design, and specifications of the design’s principles.

This is crucial, because space takes on different meanings in part through the design and messages presented, and the groups in charge of the memorial’s creation played a sizeable role in giving the memorial its meaning.

Any citizen who has an idea for a memorial to be placed in the capital must go through a legislator in Congress, after which the idea is taken up by experts and those in powerful positions. The District of Columbia is the nation’s capital and the National Mall is its backyard, or at least this was the vision at its inception (Evans and York 2013, 119).

Lisa Benton-Short describes the purpose of the capital planning zone’s strict standards as being “to preserve its sweeping vistas and reciprocal views” (2006, 320). The Mall could 58 easily become overcrowded by the number of memorials that individuals and groups feel deserve a place on in the Nation’s limelight. The top down process acts as a protective procedure for the District’s space and vision. The planning process for memorials on the

National Mall is left in the hands of a relatively small number of people who are given the decision-making power to define elements of this national space.

The current process by which a memorial is placed and created on the National

Mall, or anywhere in or around Washington, DC, is laid out in the Commemorative

Works Act. This piece of legislation was passed in 1986 and amended in 2003, meaning that the last memorial for which it was not applicable was the Vietnam Wall; it was in place, however, during the creation of the World War II Memorial. The Act defines who should be involved in this process. The primary group created under this Act is the

National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission comprised of eight individuals as follows:

(1) “the Director of the National Park Service; (2) the Architect of the Capitol; (3) the Chairman of the American Battle Monuments Commission; (4) the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts; (5) the Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission; (6) the Mayor of the District of Columbia; (7) the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service of the General Services Administration; and (8) the Secretary of Defense.” (National Capital Memorials and Commemorative Works Act 2003, 6)

The Capital Memorial Advisory Commission is responsible for guiding the Secretary of the Interior through the memorial process, including decision-making about site and design. They help to bring the idea of a memorial from its initial sponsor into a more 59 focused vision as to where and what the memorial will be (National Capital Memorials and Commemorative Works Act 2003, 6). This focused vision is then passed onto another set of decision-makers.

Once the Capital Memorial Advisory Commission has created a focused vision of a few possible locations and designs for the memorial, the process is passed to “the

Commission of Fine Arts, National Capital Planning Commission, and the Secretary of the Interior” (National Capital Memorials and Commemorative Works Act 2003, 7). The

American Battle Monuments Commission was also significantly involved in the process of bringing the World War II Memorial to fruition, and their approval was required for the final memorial plan (E. Record “WWII” 2000, 1), though this is not always the case.

The initial proposal is considered by these groups with a focus on the location and design.

If it is decided that the memorial is important enough to be located in Area I of the capital’s planning zones (the cross of land centered on the National Mall stretching from the White House to the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, to the Capitol building) then

Congress becomes more intimately involved. The Committee on Natural Resources in the

House and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate are notified of the desire for a memorial in this important area of the capital (National Capital

Memorials and Commemorative Works Act 2003, 10).

When the World War II Memorial was in its initial stages and at certain points thereafter, the various groups involved in the planning process held meetings that were open to the public and sought opinions on various elements of the memorial. However, once the memorial’s process reached the point when it was brought before Congress, the 60 only recorded speakers all held noteworthy positions. A member of the National Capital

Planning Commission, several high ranking military officers, a member of the

Commission of Fine Arts, and many others (S. Hearing 105-288 1997, iii) are among those listed in the Congressional hearings. These individuals exemplify the positions and expert knowledge that was brought to the planning process by their required inclusion.

They bring the perspective of people who have served in the military, knowledge of the vision for the District’s urban planning, assurance of artistic merit, knowledge of funding, and other elements of the countless details that are involved in bringing the memorial from idea to completion.

The individuals and groups identified in the Commemorative Works Act volley ideas, propositions, changes, and issues between each other as the plan for the memorial becomes refined (Atherton in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 14). As the plan moves to a place where all of the involved planning parties are satisfied with their part of the project and do not see any major concerns, Congress needs to become increasingly involved and various hearings are held so that legislators may ask questions they have and gain more information about topics such as funding and public opinion about the memorial. Once the plan has become concrete, it must be passed by Congress, and ultimately the

President who plays a larger role than it initially appears.

As part of the passage of the Act that granted permission to construct the World

War II Memorial, Congress called for the President’s involvement through the appointment of members of a World War II Memorial Advisory Board. Additionally, the

President is already involved through their power to appoint members of the American 61

Battle Monuments Commission, a few members of National Capital Planning

Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commission of Fine Arts. Even though the President’s role is not prominently displayed in this process, their power to appoint people to almost every group that is required to bring a memorial to life is significant. Of the eight members of the Capital Memorial Advisory Commission, the President is responsible for appointing a plurality of those individuals to their positions. The hearings and bills passed make the role of the President feel largely ceremonial, with their presence being noted only at events such as the dedication of the site (Grooms 2004, 37;

H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000). In reality, their role is anything but ceremonial. Like much of the bureaucratic process in Washington, depending upon who is in office, these processes play out in many different ways because of the President’s enormous power to appoint hundreds of people to offices. The process is clearly influenced by who holds power at the time.

While the vast majority of the planning process is handled by people in positions of power and the memorial is handed to the American people in what feels like a top- down process, especially given the way the Commemorative Works Act defines this process, this is not to say that there is no participation by people outside of this elite circle. In fact, the public is present for a notable part of the journey from idea to memorial, even if they are not given the power to make final decisions about the memorial or its location. Public opinion is valued, and throughout the hearings legislators asked about what the public is thinking and doing in response to the proposed memorial

(S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 22). Public meetings and hearings where citizens were 62 encouraged to voice their opinions are noted in six of the various congressional records surveyed for this project (E. Record Vol. 146, No. 132 2000, E1838; H.R. Hearing 106-

214 2000; H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315; S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 1; S.

Record “Expressing” 2000, S10118; S. Resolution 145 2000). A member of Friends of the Mall is quoted as testifying before a Senate committee that “I would point out that the public dimension of this is critical” (Lewis in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 23). The public may not have the final say in memorial matters, but their voices and participation are important.

Participation in the Process

Today as was the case at the time of the World War II Memorial’s inception, the

Commemorative Works Act stipulates that the majority of memorial creation to be handled by professionals, government officials, or commissions with presidentially appointed members; however, it is evident in the congressional records that the public was involved in a multitude of ways. The public, for example, played an importantly role in raising funds for the memorial (E. Record “WWII” 2000, E2100; H.R. Hearing 106-16

1999, 15; H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 36-37), they were able to offer their input on location and design elements that they felt should be included (Grooms 2004), they offered criticisms and support (Senate Hearing 105-288 1997, 8), and in fact served as the subjects of honor (H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 13; H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000; S.

Record “Expressing" 2000; S. Resolution 145 2000). Unlike the roles of officials, the role of the public is almost completely voluntary. Practically this means that participation in some aspects of the process is not guaranteed, and at other times it presents challenges to 63 the plans being made by those appointed by the Commemorative Works Act. Funding is the only legally required role that is the responsibility of the public to fulfill.

The World War II Memorial was required to “be funded primarily through private contributions” (H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 24) and that the public cover a 10% fee for upkeep and maintenance by the National Park Service (National Capital Memorials and

Commemorative Works Act 2003, 8). Without public participation, the memorial would not have been completed. By 2001, the National World War II Memorial Foundation had raised roughly $130 million, which was “raised entirely from private donations from corporations, veterans organizations, school groups, and individuals” (E. Record “WWII”

2001, E2100). Funding proved to be challenging in the beginning, which was attributed to a lack of public awareness concerning the memorial, at least until Tom Hanks became involved in the fundraising process (Dole in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 12).

Amazingly, by June of 1999 the fundraising team led by Bob Dole had collected donations from “more than 325,000 individual Americans” (H.R. Hearing 106-16 1999,

16). The funding movement for this memorial involved participation from a significant number of people, rather than just a few donations by major companies or wealthy individuals. Funding was a major area of public participation in the creation of the World

War II Memorial, and there was a high response rate when awareness of the memorial’s need for funding was brought to the public’s attention.

The second primary area of public participation was through their input as to the memorial’s design and location. According to a historical account of the journey from the memorial’s proposal to completion, there were “more than two dozen public reviews” 64

(Grooms 2004, 65). As mentioned above, however, there was an issue with attempts to get the public involved at the start of the project (Dole in H.R. 106-214 2000, 12). John

Parsons, the chairman of the National Capital Memorial Commission at the time, further defends lack of public involvement at the time by explaining that “members of the general public simply are not yet interested at that stage” and that this is because “they have nothing visual to consider or react to” (S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 7). Rather, it was only after the various groups responsible for managing this process came to the decision to approve the final design by Friedrich St. Florian that “public support and opposition to a World War II Memorial galvanized” (Parsons in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 8). This proved to be difficult for the planning process, as the discussions and topics that would have been more conveniently raised at earlier meetings came much later.

Cooperation is crucial if a memorial is to actually make its way onto the Mall, and the groups designated by the Commemorative Works Act do try to garner public involvement in order to hear what the public is thinking about the plan as it evolves (S.

Hearing 105-288 1997, 14). In the case of the World War II Memorial, because no one from the public attended any of the public meetings or expressed opinions until late in the process, (S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 22), the journey to completion was far more complicated than previously imagined (Grooms 2004, 60). Once the public saw St.

Florian’s design, they had more to contribute to the discussion, with their concerns lying largely with the “site and its environs” (Parsons in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 8), followed by the design itself (Grooms 2004). In her speech continuing to express the need for the memorial in spite of challenges, Representative Kaptur noted that by October of 2000, 65 throughout the public meetings they did receive questions and suggestions from

“Members of Congress, the general public, and interest groups” (E. Record Vol. 146, no.

132 2000, 1). As crucial as this is, the public’s involvement was more extensive than tossing out ideas that they felt should be included or in offering their critique.

The memorial would not be in Washington today if not for the public’s financial support, critical input, and knowledge. Sculptor Raymond Kaskey, whose team ultimately created the bas-reliefs leading down to the memorial’s plaza (see Figure 5-1), came to rely upon World War II reenactors who offered support with their collections of uniforms and expertise. Kaskey received a call from reenactor Brooks Tegler, who read about the project in the news and asked if Kaskey could use his assistance, to which he replied

“Damned right I do” (Kaskey in Gurney 2004, 103). Those reenactors eventually became the models for the sculpted images, helping correct any historical inaccuracies before they made their way into the memorial (Gurney 2004, 103). This case demonstrates the variety of public groups and individuals that eventually became involved in the planning process for the memorial. Other groups are more prominent in the site selection, but it is nonetheless evident that without immense public support and input, this memorial would still be a dream, and the few members of the World War II generation left would have no commemoration on the Mall.

Figure 5-1

Close-Up of a Bas-Relief at the World War II Memorial

Note. A close-up of figures in a bas-relief. Photo by author.

Perhaps the most understated role that members of the public played was their serving as the subjects of honor in this memorial. Throughout the congressional hearings and various documents scoured for this project, there was widespread agreement that the veterans and the entire “Greatest Generation” (Dole in E. Record “WWII” 2000, E2100;

Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 3; Grooms 2004, 12) needed to be recognized, and quickly. This group of people was frequently invoked as a push to get this memorial from idea to concrete. Senate Resolution 145 implored that “expeditious action” was necessary:

“so that the completed memorial will be dedicated while Americans of the World War II generation are alive to receive the national tribute embodied in that memorial, which they earned with their sacrifice and achievement during the largest and most devastating war the world had known” (2000, 2).

At the time of the deliberations over site, design, and funding, Senator Mark Warner pointed out that there were “less than 6,000,000 surviving World War II veterans and we mourn the passing of greater than 1,200 veterans each day” (S. Record 2000, S10118).

This is reflected in the final passage of the legislation expressing approval for the final memorial design, as its language states that the memorial “shall be constructed expeditiously” (Public Law [hereafter P.L.] 107-11 2001, 1). This timeline that was imposed because of the age of the World War II generation is a recurring theme in the many debates and comments made throughout the process.

The justifiable rush to get the memorial built was used, in some cases, as something of a tool to shame those who opposed the location or elements of the design, as such oppositions mean that more deliberations would be required. Representative

Calvert painted opponents of the site to be people “who apparently do not believe that this event and the 16 million brave men and women who proudly wore the American uniform deserve this recognition” (H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315).

Representative Stump blamed those who did not agree with the site and design for causing a “delay in the groundbreaking of this already long overdue tribute to our

Nation’s triumph over tyranny” (H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315). It is rather easy to show that these statements are not accurate, as Representative Norton explained when she clarified the fact that some were “historic preservationists and others with a deep appreciation of the McMillan Plan… and the present Mall legacy of green space” 68 and that in some cases individuals in this group were even World War II veterans (H.R.

Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315). Yet, even with Representative Norton’s point that

“the controversy has nothing to do with a memorial to the veterans on the Mall,” (H.R.

Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315), the argument that the World War II veterans deserved that spot on the Mall, and anything otherwise would be denying veterans their right was common, though not always as pointed as in this particular House Record.

The desire to honor World War II veterans never proved to be a point of contention. While at times there was accusation that this became weaponized to rush the process (H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315), honoring the World War II generation is seen as a primary purpose in these records. In one House hearing, the Chairman of the subcommittee took a moment and asked the World War II veterans in the room to stand, introduce themselves, and be recognized (H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 13). This prompted a discussion in the room about those who lost family members in the war, and several people who had experienced that cost of war were acknowledged (H.R. Hearing

106-214 2000, 14). The idea that this generation should be honored was so strong that

Senator Craig Thomas mentioned within the first page of a hearing on the World War II

Memorial that “to my knowledge, nobody objects to a World War II Memorial. That is not the issue. The issue is the process and location” (S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 1). The members of this generation participated in the memorial’s creation through their role as the subjects of honor. This was invoked as motivation to get the memorial completed and constructed in a timely manner so that the desire to honor these people would be fulfilled 69 at a time where they would still be alive to see it. As Senator Thomas pointed out, the real challenges were with the location (S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 1).

Site and Design

Site

The process to bring the World War II Memorial to fruition was highly complex and involved a wide variety of groups and individuals. Part of the difficulty with this specific memorial’s passage from concept to completion was the location that was eventually selected by the National Capital Planning Commission (Grooms 2004, 37), a site that was both strong in symbolism and a point of serious contention. The final location had to fit a certain set of requirements, it needed to be a place worthy of the event it commemorates, and the meaning of the Mall had to be considered. Once the location was selected, St. Florian, the head architect, had to repeatedly amend the design in order to ensure it fit the space and that the design appropriately displayed the intentions that the entire World War II generation be honored. These two aspects proved to be the most complex parts of the memorial’s creation.

The first step in the location and design process was identifying an appropriate site in Washington, D.C., or the D.C. metro area, that could host the World War II

Memorial. According to Grooms, there were a few criteria that had to be met:

“(1) to look at sites that were already improved with plazas, pools, or other landscape features that were not yet named as a memorial, rather than consuming open space; (2) to determine whether the site should be contemplative and secluded or to be on a visually important axial location in the city plan; and (3) to avoid encroaching on an existing memorial.” (2004, 32)

Additionally, the groups selecting sites to submit for approval had to consider the goals of the Commemorative Works Act with regard to the District of Columbia, which include:

(1) staying faithful to “the integrity of the comprehensive design of the L’Enfant and McMillan plans” (2) respecting “open space in the District of Columbia and its environs” yet the Act needs to “encourage the location of commemorative works within the urban fabric” (3) creating memorials that are “appropriately designed, constructed, and located; and… reflect a consensus of the lasting national significance of the subjects involved” Adapted and quoted from the Commemorative Works Act (2003, 1)

On September 15, 1995, after reviewing several sites with these requirements in mind, it was appropriate that the “American Battle Monuments Commission and the National

Park Service submit and recommend approval of the Rainbow Pool site,” which was approved by the National Capital Planning Commission on October 5 (Grooms 2004,

111). The Rainbow Pool site is situated between the Washington Monument and the

Lincoln memorial, which is a powerfully symbolic place.

The National Mall has been given many descriptors, but it can be agreed that this is a place with great meaning and one that is limited in space. The view between the

Lincoln Memorial and the Wa shington Monument (see Figure 5-2) is one that throughout the various government records has been referred to as being almost “sacred” (Norton in

H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 3; Norton in H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315;

Parsons in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 8). The representative from Washington, D.C. at the time described the construction of a memorial in this section of the National Mall as “like trying to add something to a Picasso or a Michelangelo,” since she considered this to be 71

“the last remaining visionary vista left” in D.C. (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000,

3). This is precisely where the controversy begins: the space at the Rainbow Pool is one that is already recognized as being held in high regard and the groups tasked with selecting a location needed to find one that was worthy of World War II. The question then becomes is this space at the Rainbow Pool too sacred to be built upon, or is it appropriately important enough to house the World War II Memorial?

Figure 5-2

View from the Steps of the Lincoln Memorial

Note. View from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to the Washington Monument. This is the view that caused controversy in the World War II Memorial’s placement. Photo by author. 72

As noted in the above sections, many people were in support of giving the World

War II generation this impressive location. Representative Kaptur, who introduced the memorial’s idea to Congress, felt that it was “not only appropriate, but also historically coherent” because of the way that Washington and Lincoln “commemorate the defining national events of the 18th and 19th centuries” therefore, “it is only fitting that the event that reshaped the modern world in the 20th century… be commemorated on this site” (E.

Record Vol. 146, No. 132 2000, E1838). The idea that the World War II Memorial does not belong in this swath of the Mall was depicted as inconceivable in some government documents (Brown in Grooms 2004, 39; Calvert and Holt in H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130

2000, Sec. 1315). The Executive Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts explained that

World War II was above Vietnam in terms of how it should be remembered, thus it

“demands some place that is very, very special” (Atherton in S. Hearing 105-288 1997,

15). One side of this controversy took the position that nowhere else in the District was as important as the Rainbow Pool and that this was the only spot worthy of World War

II’s remembrance. This stands in stark contrast to the earlier descriptions that this space is too sacred to be built upon.

It is important to remember that “the controversy has nothing to do with a memorial to the veterans on the Mall… The controversy arose because of the memorial’s placement, obstructing one of the great American vistas.” Concerns were raised about the obstruction of the view between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial

(Norton in H.R. Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, Sec. 1315), the effect on the Rainbow Pool’s size, and over the fact that the placement would be disruptive to pedestrian traffic 73 between the two memorials (Feldman in S. Hearing 106-278 2000). These were legitimate concerns, and the placement of this memorial caused many people and groups to flock to the defense of this space. A member of the Friends of the Mall group spoke before a subcommittee with comments that the lack of public participation mentioned earlier that led to the approval of the memorial was reasons for concern (Lewis in S.

Hearing 105-288 1997). As the design developed, it was evident that some sort of compromise needed to be reached. While the site did not change from the contested

Rainbow Pool location, as the design evolved from its original concept it had to reflect a consideration for the concerns raised in these hearings.

Design

The Rainbow Pool site of the World War II Memorial was selected in October of

1995, and a nationwide competition to search for a head architect for the memorial took place the following year (Grooms 2004). A committee, “the majority of whom were nationally recognized design professionals” eventually selected Friedrich St. Florian’s design, with the construction to be undertaken by his team (Grooms 2004, 56). According to a publication by the General Services Administration about the memorial, this design was chosen because it

(1) “left the center of the site open; (2) created a strong sense of unity… (3) provided a north-south axis… establishing a desirable access along the north and south sides of the site; (4) used a vocabulary that linked to that of classical Washington while providing a contemporary abstraction; (5) offered a variety of spatial relationships; (6) made the landscape an integral part of the architecture; and (7) had the potential for growth.” (Grooms 2004, 56) 74

Several of these elements provide an excellent response to the concerns raised throughout the various congressional hearings about issues with the site and the way that this memorial had the potential to “invade its space” (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000,

3). The original design went through a series of changes over the next eight years in order to stay true to the purposes of the memorial and to address the concerns raised about its placement on such an important spot (Grooms 2004, 60; Kaskey in Gurney 2004, 96)

These factors helped push the design to the memorial that sits in the District today.

Three of the reasons listed for selecting St. Florian’s design speak to the concerns raised about placing the memorial at the Rainbow Pool site, and the final product reflects these points. The first point- that the design left the center of the memorial site open (see

Figure 5-3) was crucial in responding to concerns that the memorial would disrupt the view between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. As shown in Figure 5-

2, the World War II Memorial goes almost unnoticed in the sweeping view along the mall. The highest points, the baldacchinos and columns, are pushed so that they hide amongst the surrounding trees. Point four, which describes the memorial’s link to classical Washington, also speaks to the memorial’s ability to seamlessly fit into that space on the Mall, fulfilling the goal of the design for a memorial “that looked as if it had always been there, that respected the Mall, and that would not compete with the great central vista” (Grooms 2004, 16). Its classic Washingtonian colors blend into the Mall and do not cause it to stand out in the view between the Washington Monument and

Lincoln Memorial. These two points were key to a memorial that would respond to concerns about the vista. 75

Figure 5-3

The World War II Memorial with the Lincoln Memorial in the Background

Note. The open center of the memorial ensures that the view of the Lincoln Memorial is not interrupted. Photo by author.

The final point that made this memorial able to adapt to address concerns about the site is point six: St. Florian’s design “made the landscape an integral part of the architecture” (Grooms 2004, 56). The Rainbow Pool was included with no decrease in its size (Grooms 2004, 66), which was a concern raised in hearings (Feldman in S. Hearing

106-278 2000). In fact, the Rainbow Pool actually underwent repairs such that its fountains worked once again to create the rainbow effect (Grooms 2004, 22). Perhaps most importantly, St. Florian’s design was sunk six feet into the ground (Grooms 2004,

22, 67) which helps the memorial to disrupt the grand view as little as possible (see

Figures 5-2 and 5-4). These key points along with adjustments to the size and scale of the 76 memorial (Norton in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000), such as not allowing the memorial to disturb the elm trees (Herrling in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 33), ensured that the design addressed concerns about the site and gave the Mall appropriate respect. Aside from the location, it is in the design details that the World War II generation is honored.

Figure 5-4

Depth and Fountains at the World War II Memorial

Note. At the deepest point in the memorial, visitors will be at about eye level with the Reflecting Pool, showing how the memorial’s sinking helps maintain the vista. Photo by author.

Throughout the planning, it is clear that the purpose of this memorial is to impart a special honor upon the World War II generation. While they were given a place of incredible significance, the details of St. Florian and sculptor Raymond Kaskey’s design 77 are what pay explicit tribute to this group of people. The main design elements Kaskey cited were the “memorial arches representing the Atlantic and Pacific fronts, twenty-four bas-reliefs, elaborate flagpoles, wreaths, patterned water drains, and a wall of stars,” as well as “within each of the memorial arches, four eagles in a baldacchino hold garlands from which a two-and-one-half ton wreath floats” (in Gurney 2004, 96). Each of these elements has their own meaning to the honor of the World War II veterans. For example, the iconic columns represent “the individual strength of the States but also the idea of national unity…” (Herrling in H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000, 33), and the wreaths on those columns represent “military and industrial” and “agricultural and breadbasket functions”

(Kaskey in Gurney 2004, 98). The memorial is filled with symbolism such as these examples, more of which can be seen in the experience of the memorial in Chapter 6.

Conclusion

The World War II Memorial’s planning process was guided by a detailed Act and several sets of criteria that had to be met before it could take its place on the Mall.

Nonetheless, the journey from idea to completion was fraught with debate over the site, it faced challenges as people in positions of power sought to appropriately honor the World

War II generation while respecting the Mall’s space and coherence, and the public’s involvement was inconsistent. It was precisely the desire to honor the generation while facing these challenges and criteria that created the memorial on the Mall today. As seen throughout the hearings and debates, this process led to a memorial that was responsive to the concerns presented, the desires of those in power, as well as specific instances of public input. The values raised in these discussions and documents caused decisions to be 78 made in certain directions, and ultimately these ideals of the World War II generation and the National Mall shaped the final product which opened to the public in 2004.

Chapter 6: In-Person Experience on the National Mall

Introduction and Impacts of Covid-19

On Wednesday, August 5, 2020, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the

World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. in order to observe in-person visitor experiences at these two sites. The visit was significantly impacted by the effects of the

Covid-19 pandemic (see Figure 6-1). The National Mall had far fewer visitors than normal, and using the spaces did not have much interaction with each other. Each memorial normally has several National Park Service employees at the sites, but they were notably absent at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and short-staffed at the World

War II Memorial. The information desk near the World War II Memorial was closed, but informational brochures were available for each site. These were the most conspicuous effects of the pandemic at the two memorial sites.

Figure 6-1

National Park Service Sign about COVID-19

Note. Sign from the National Park Service about Covid-19 and the National Mall. Photo by author.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial

My companion, and another visitor to the memorial, and I were the only three people at the Vietnam Wall at the beginning of my visit around 2 p.m. Upon entering the space, visitors pass several stalls containing phone book-like directories that list on which panel of the Wall a name is engraved (see Figure 6-2). These books help visitors to participate in the memorial by seeing the names on the wall with which they have personal connections. Visitors also pass the Three Servicemen Statue depicting three men who participated in the war (Senie 2016). This stands adjacent to a flag pole that was 81 flying an American flag. Beyond this was the entrance to the path along the famous black granite wall.

Figure 6-2

Directory of Names at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Note. A directory of names listing the name, rank, and other information about individuals listed on the Wall. Photo by author.

The depression at the base of the Wall was lined with small American flags, and people had left items here, as is tradition. Among those items that I saw were bracelets with the names and ranks of individuals who participated in the war, a note from a mother to her son (see Figure 6-3), and a photograph of a man who had died that was signed by his sister. These mementos range from artifacts to deeply personal messages, but they were all brought to this space and the visitors felt they ought to be left here.

These mementos are easily seen by any visitor, though the personal items I saw were addressed to the deceased. The ability to find names along the Wall and leave mementos 82 are the primary ways that visitors are able to participate in this memorial, which is such a personal and emotional space. The listing of individual names and the sheer size of the large granite panels conveys the enormity of the loss of life in Vietnam.

Figure 6-3

Mementos Left at the Wall

Note. This flower and note are mementos left at the Wall. Photo by author.

As I began to leave (see Figure 6-4) the memorial five more people were entering on the other side; the visitors spoke in soft tones. To the right of the memorial, was a statue and interpretive sign devoted to the women who served in Vietnam. The statue depicted three women and a man, and it was offset in its own plaza (see Figure 6-5).

While the first statue and the directories are situated along a clear path into the memorial such that they cannot be missed, this statue was easier to miss, since the flow of the path does not necessarily direct visitors to this area. As they walk up out of the Wall area, their 83 view is that of the Washington Monument. This draws individuals when they reach the fork in the path to move in that direction, and not back towards the start of the memorial, where the women’s memorial is situated along the way. The placement of the plaza highlights the fact that this statue devoted to women was an after-thought to the Wall and the first statue depicting all male soldiers. The layout shows the results of a complex bureaucratic process that became piecemeal as a variety of different groups wanted to see their experience with Vietnam represented in this space.

Figure 6-4

View from the Crux of the Wall

Note. View at the crux of the Wall as visitors make their way up and out of the memorial. The Washington Monument is prominent in the landscape, while the Women’s Plaza is 90 degrees to the right of the photographer back towards the start of the memorial. Photo by author.

Figure 6-5

The Vietnam Women’s Memorial and Plaza

Note. The Vietnam Women’s Memorial sculpture and plaza dedicated to women’s service. Photo by author.

World War II Memorial

Approaching the World War II Memorial from the Reflecting Pool, its entrance is not obvious in the sight line of the National Mall, which was intentional since this view is considered to be iconic (Fisher 2000) (see Figure 6-6). The memorial has three entrances.

Two are located at the furthest right and left points running perpendicular to the main axis of the National Mall. The primary entrance is located along the path from the

Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial. Notably, there is not an exit opposite of the primary entrance. Instead, this space is used to separate it from the Reflecting Pool. 85

Figure 6-6

Vista Between the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument

Note. View looking to the Capitol from the Lincoln Memorial. The World War II Memorial is almost unnoticeable, while the Capitol, which is much farther away, is clearly visible. Photo by author.

As visitors enter the memorial, they descend lower into the ground, and they pass two sets of twelve bas-reliefs sculpted into metal sheets. The left side depicts scenes from the Pacific theatre of the war, and the right side depicts scenes from the Atlantic theatre.

These show a story of the experience of war and set the precedent that this memorial is dedicated to everyone who served in some capacity in the war, from battle scenes to women working in factories to farmers. The first panel on the Pacific theatre side depicts a family gathered around the radio “to hear President Franklin D. Roosevelt ask Congress 86 for a declaration of war after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor…” (World War II Memorial brochure) (see Figure 6-7). Three generations are present: grandparents, parents, and children, each of whom would have specific roles to play: recalling World War I, serving in the military or working, and collecting supplies from Victory Gardens and scrap.

Figure 6-7

First Bas-Relief of the Pacific Side at the World War II Memorial

Note. First bas-relief of the Pacific set depicting the announcement of Pearl Harbor. Photo by author.

Throughout the memorial, symbolism is notable in every piece. Indeed, the design has been critiqued as feeling incoherent and overly symbolic. Large pillars stand to the left and right of two towers at the other two exits. These pillars each have the name of a state or territory on them, and two wreaths are hung on each one. One wreath is made of oak leaves representing “industrial strength” and the other is made of wheat representing 87 agricultural strength (see Figure 6-8). These pillars are tied together by a rope connecting each of the states, showing “unity” (Raymond in Gurney 2004, 98, 100). At the center of the left and right side stand two large towers indicating the Atlantic and Pacific theatres complete with Victory seals on the floor that resemble the medals given to everyone who served (World War II Memorial brochure), and large wreaths held by eagles suspended in the air. At the base of each tower is a small fountain surrounded by the names of key battles in each theatre (see Figure 6-9). This accounts for much of the symbolism on the sides of the memorial, but it is the center that brings the two theatres together.

Figure 6-8

State Column with Wreaths and Rope

Note. Pillar with wreaths and rope. Photo by author.

Figure 6-9

Fountain Honoring the Pacific Theatre

Note. This fountain represents the Pacific theatre and lists location and battle names. Photo by author.

As visitors approach the center of the memorial, dominated by the Rainbow Pool and fountains, there are more quotes about the war and the heroism of the American people. These quotes are from famous individuals of the time such as Harry Truman and

Douglas MacArthur. At the complete opposite end of the memorial from the primary entrance lies the wall of stars. This is the only place in the memorial that recognizes the cost of the war, with each star representing 100 Americans who lost their lives in World

War II (see Figure 6-10). It is not an easy place in the memorial to reach, as visitors must walk around the Rainbow Pool to get there. The wall of stars does not list any individual who died, rather it shows the number of the loss by the number of stars on the wall.

Figure 6-10

The Wall of Stars

Note. The wall of stars with each representing 100 American lives lost in the war. Photo by author.

My visit to the memorial took place on an afternoon in August. In Washington,

D.C., August is almost always hot and humid; the combination of such weather and a large fountain being the centerpiece of the memorial gave the National Park Service space to create interaction with this memorial. The NPS had set up a sign imploring visitors to “Honor our veterans” stating that “sitting with your feet in the water is OK” and that “at the end of WWII, troops celebrated in the fountains of Europe. In honor of that time, you may sit with your feet in the Rainbow Pool, but you may not walk, swim, or sit in the water” (see Figure 6-11). Many people at the time of my visit were taking 90 advantage of this opportunity to relieve themselves from the heat, and aside from a couple of children, everyone was adhering to the request to refrain from walking in the fountain. The National Park Service created an opportunity for people to become involved in the memorial in a manner that is symbolic of the victory that the rest of the memorial so clearly glorifies. This is especially important because while the memorial is grandiose, it gives the individual visitor the ability to personally connect and become involved with the more broadly painted theme celebrating American war efforts.

Figure 6-11

National Park Service Sign about the Rainbow Pool

Note. This sign sets expectations of behavior at the memorial, while still allowing for interaction with the structure. Photo by author. 91

Comparison of Experiences and Representation at the Memorials

Structure

The World War II Memorial and Vietnam Veterans Memorial look considerably different from one another. The World War II Memorial does not stray from the typical white stone look for which Washington, D.C. is known. It is rich with symbolism from eagles to stars to quotes from prominent American figures. The plaza is large and sits directly on the main axis of the National Mall. The location of the memorial makes it easy for people who had no prior intention of visiting to stumble upon it. Fountains, large pillars with wreaths, and gold stars convey an air of success and victory upon those who visit this site. The structure of the memorial fits with the common narrative that World

War II was the Great War, fought by the greatest generation, and it was a conflict that was righteous. World War II’s public memory and structural representation as an overwhelming win for the United States is reflected here.

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is far more sombre than the World War II

Memorial. The Wall is notably made of black granite, in stark contrast to the white buildings and monuments found in the District. It is relatively simple compared to the

World War II Memorial, as its primary feature is a wall with names. This memorial is also not as easy to stumble upon, rather visitors to this site have to be more intentional about their visit. As a result of the phased building of the three pieces of the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial: the Wall, the statue of male soldiers, and the women’s memorial, this space feels less contained than the World War II Memorial. While the World War II

Memorial does have a large number of pieces involved in its structure, it is all contained 92 within the sunken plaza that only has three exits. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial has a simple flow from the Lincoln Memorial that allows visitors to pass the directories and the statue of male soldiers, and then proceed along the path that descends along the Wall.

This flow does not make it easy for visitors to see the women’s memorial, as they would need to backtrack towards the Lincoln Memorial, as opposed to continuing their direction to the Washington Monument. These memorials are structurally opposed to one another as a result of differences in the purpose for their creation.

Remembrance of Service

Vietnam Veterans Memorial

The means by which each memorial recognizes participants in their respective conflicts varies significantly, and the tones they carry match popular narratives. The

Vietnam Veterans Memorial recognizes participants in three locations: the Wall of names listing every person killed or missing in action, the Three Servicemen Statue, and the statue dedicated to women who served.

The Wall lists the individual names of every person who lost their life as a result of the conflict. Vietnam is not similar to other conflicts in which the United States was engaged. The conflict was not popular among sectors of the American population. For many, the tremendous loss of life was not worth the results that were achieved in

Vietnam, as it did fall into Communist hands. The loss of life is never easy, but unlike those who lost their lives in the World Wars, which were seen as victories for the United

States and as helping our allies, Vietnam left those who lost loved ones with a unique element to their loss. This is reflected in how the people are remembered. The Wall 93 shows each name, which is intimate and unusual for a war memorial. Many have compared the Wall to a “cemetery” because of the dark panels and how people descend deeper into the earth (Senie 2016, 12). Originally, this was to be the only element of the memorial, with no depictions of people, simply an overwhelming list of names showing how particularly personal and painful this conflict was to the American population.

Maya Lin intended the Wall as a place to “heal” (Savage 2005, 267), and the walk passing the Three Servicemen Statue, the Wall, and the Women’s Memorial is known as the “circle of healing” (Vietnam Veterans Memorial, visit 2020). Another way in which the Wall is made personal is through the directories that convey more about each individual, such as where they were from, when they died, and in which branch they served. This stands in stark contrast to other war memorials on the Mall that turn remembrance into a narrative depicting Americans versus some “other” foreign enemy.

They are shown by their American identity as those who died for a just cause, not as individual people who lost their lives. This is the primary difference between how the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial displays loss as an individual person, not an American, not a solider, rather just a person. As people leave personal mementos dedicated to their children, their friends, and their siblings, this further stands to personalize the wall. The people remembered here are not anonymous, rather they are shown as individuals whose loss is publicly recognized as deeply painful and personal.

The other two places that remember people who lost their lives in Vietnam are at the two statues, one called the Three Servicemen Statue, and the other dedicated to women who served in Vietnam. The dedication plaque at the base of the statue notes that 94 it is “In memory of the men and women who served in the Vietnam War and later died as a result of their service.” It is unclear whether this plaque is referring to the statue or the memorial as a whole. It was a later addition to the Wall, as some veterans were upset about the lack of a depiction of people. The Wall was unlike any other memorial on the

Mall, and while this was intentional and meaningful, some felt that it needed more (Blair et al. 1991 in Senie 2016), which led to the statue. Its depiction of human figures is more like other war memorials than the Wall itself, and its words openly acknowledging such loss are also more traditional. This, however, did depict three men, and to some it felt neglectful of the sacrifices that women made.

The lack of depiction of women’s experiences in the war led to the third major place of remembrance in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial: the women’s statue and plaza.

This statue, similar to the statue depicting all men, shows three women and a dying man together, and represents the many women who served in varying roles. This statue is accompanied by the most information dense sign in the entire memorial. It gives numbers of how many women served, how many wounded soldiers they treated, and their impressive success rate of “saving nearly 98 percent of those who eventually reached hospitals.” Women specifically are remembered here for their service, and the push to build the memorial was spearheaded by women. The sign also poignantly notes that there are women listed on the Wall. This statue acts to compensate for the Three Servicemen

Statue that was to represent all people who served but did not show any women. With the addition of the Women’s Memorial, a wider range of people’s service is recognized, though in a less personal manner than the way that individuals are remembered on the 95

Wall. Nonetheless, between these three pieces of the memorial, people are represented in the personal manner that Maya Lin intended, and with the addition of the statues an element of more traditional war memory is made.

World War II Memorial

The World War II Memorial has several different parts to it that can seem like an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink type of memorial. Dripping in symbolism, it shows a depiction of World War II through themes of sacrifice, togetherness, and victory. This stands in stark contrast to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial which is mostly about loss.

The memorial shows a remembrance of service primarily in three elements: the bas- reliefs, the state pillars, and the wall of stars. These three elements show the many different ways in which people served in the war, whether the effort was overseas or at home.

The bas-reliefs offer the clearest picture of what service looked like. Women are shown working in factories (see Figure 6-12), one relief shows the burial of a soldier, in another a child is shown carrying a sign telling people to buy war bonds, and others show combat such as storming the beach at Normandy. Importantly though, in the final reliefs, victory is seen. On the Pacific side, people are shown dancing in the street and kissing

(see Figure 6-13). On the Atlantic side, the Americans are shown meeting the Russians in

Berlin (see Figure 6-14). While each relief tells a story, themes of sacrifice, hard work, and the idea that all of society had a role to play dominate the narratives.

Figure 6-12

Bas-Relief Showing a Woman Working in a Factory

Note. A woman is depicted working in a factory to build airplanes for war. Photo by author.

Figure 6-13

Bas-Relief Showing a Celebration of V-J Day

Note. A celebration of V-J Day complete with dancing and an embrace. Photo by author.

Figure 6-14

Bas-Relief Showing American and Russian Soldiers Meeting in Berlin

Note. Russian and American soldiers are shown here meeting in Berlin amidst a rough landscape. Photo by author.

Notably, however, the service of African Americans is missing from the bas-relief panels. While men, women, children, farmers, soldiers, and factory workers are all depicted, the significant contributions of African Americans such as the Tuskegee

Airmen were not shown. The Double V struggle that African Americans were enduring at the time- fighting to win military victory overseas and civil rights victories at home- was missing from a narrative that at first appears to tell a story of how the entirety of the

American population played a role in the war effort. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial, after the addition of its statues, depicted women and African Americans as both having prominent roles. Women were incorporated from the start of the World War II Memorial, unlike their place as an after-thought to an after-thought in the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial. African Americans were depicted through the Three Servicemen Statue, but their absence from the World War II Memorial is conspicuous. During the Black Lives 98

Matter protests in the summer of 2020, someone spray painted a surface on the Memorial asking “DO BLACK VETS COUNT?” (Tibbetts 2020). For a memorial that depicted so many different people all contributing to the war effort, the decision to not include

African Americans is a glaring one.

This theme is also prominently seen through the pillars that surround the memorial listing all of the states and territories. The intentional layout of the state names, while confusing for visitors since it is not evident what this pattern is, alternates between sides of the memorial in the order that states joined the union. Delaware is listed on the

Atlantic side, then the second state, Pennsylvania, is listed on the Pacific side, and so forth. The idea of downplaying differences or concepts that some states are more important than others is negated by the fact that many visitors cannot discern the order at all. Instead it is simply a collection of all of the states. They are tied together by a twisted rope representing their strength through togetherness. The bas-reliefs set the narrative that every member of society was needed and sacrificed for the war effort, and this is reinforced through the idea that the states themselves needed one another and became stronger together. With the United States’ rise to become a global superpower after the war, the narrative of strength is important, especially with the reiteration of the concept that power comes from the people and that it is their individual strengths and efforts that make the nation strong.

Finally, the wall of stars also shows sacrifice and togetherness. While each star clearly represents lives lost, it is important to note that this downplays the role of the individual. While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is primarily concerned with individual 99 loss and personal loss, the World War II Memorial honors the lives of Americans lost.

They are depicted in a group and through their identity as Americans rather than as singular people. The placement of the wall of stars is also noteworthy. While the Wall is the primary focus of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the wall of stars is placed opposite of the entrance, and visitors must walk all the way around the Rainbow Pool to get there, first passing the bas-reliefs and other quotes about the heroics of World War II. Even if visitors enter through the side towers, the first message they see is that of the victory seal on the floor. The wall of stars is one of the most difficult places in the memorial to reach, and it is not as prominent as many of its other features such as towers, fountains, and large pillars. The loss of lives is portrayed in completely different fashions at these two memorials, and this combined with their prominence in each memorial speaks to the narratives about each event that carry the most weight.

While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial eventually did represent the many different people who participated in the conflict, the World War II Memorial is still notably lacking in that area. Loss of life is also treated differently at each memorial. For the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, this is the most important theme. It was designed in order to help the country face and hopefully heal from the enormity of the loss. The way each name is listed shows the message that it is not just a soldier who died, this was a person. The World War II Memorial places loss of life on the back burner relative to its overwhelming themes of victory, togetherness, and sacrifice. In the one place in the memorial where loss of life is prominently recognized, the idea of victory and togetherness still remain at the forefront. They are shown as heroes for their sacrifice, and 100 they are seen as Americans whose sacrifice meant that the Allies could go on to victory.

The goals of the two memorials are clear when visiting these spaces.

Behavior and Participation

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial was almost completely devoid of people at the time of my visit due to COVID-19. The few people that I observed on this visit to the

Wall were either silent or so quiet that I was unable to hear them. They processed slowly through the path alongside the Wall. Aside from those few people, no one was present at the Three Servicemen Statue or the plaza with the Women’s Memorial during my visit, so I was unfortunately unable to see what people do in those spaces.

The World War II Memorial was far more crowded. People in this space engaged in many different activities such as speaking to a park ranger, dipping their feet in the fountain, and riding electric scooters through the memorial. Families sat at the fountain talking at normal or even loud volumes to be heard over the jets of water. Other people took photos by their respective state pillars or at the overlooks from the Atlantic and

Pacific towers using the Rainbow Pool as a background. Behavior here was far more casual and people engaged with the memorial in ways that were not seen at the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial, such as using the memorial as a backdrop for photos of themselves.

Interestingly, the World War II Memorial had the sign posted about how visitors were allowed to engage with the memorial by dipping their feet in the fountain, while the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial had no posted guidance on how to act in the space, other than for COVID-19 purposes, yet behavior there was more controlled and uniform. This shows the impact that the design of the space, and the messages that they share, as well as 101 their representation in media, have a serious impact on behavior. This is the final of many ways that these two in-person memorial experiences compare and contrast with one another.

102

Chapter 7: The Memorials on Instagram

Introduction

Instagram allows for all photographs to be tagged with a location and for users to be able to search online for photographs by location. When users do this, they are presented with a collection of all of the public photographs that are tagged as being in that particular location. Since these photographs are viewed en masse, different themes appear as similarities arise among the photographs. Dwyer and Alderman’s understanding of memorials as “performance” is a lens through which these photographs can be read. According to the authors, in looking at the way visitors use this space, “their agency in shaping landscapes and the meanings attached to them” is being recognized

(2008, 174). Using photographs is crucial, because this is one major way visitors contribute to and highlight meaning in the memorial space (DeLyser 2005 in Dwyer and

Alderman 2008). Similarly, Schwartz and Halegoua contextualize the way that people post about themselves as “performance” of the self (2015, 1647). Here this is accomplished via photographs of individual experiences. This chapter examines the common subjects people found worthy of photographing and posting about on Instagram at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the World War II Memorial.

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Instagram Location

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial as represented on Instagram is full of appreciation for the memorial’s site and design, examples of how people behave in this space, and representations of the memorial’s humanizing power for those honored there.

While not every photograph reflects these exactly, these three themes indicate trends that 103 can be seen across the page on Instagram that connects each location-tagged photograph with all of the others that are also tagged in that location. These come together in a way that allows for the public to display the parts of the memorial that have meaning to them, and thus in their own way, the public creates a separate, yet not wholly different, memorial that is imbued with the meanings that they found most important about this space. The first of these is impact of the site and design on visitors.

Site and Design

Of the 100 photographs surveyed from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, 77 showed the Wall in some form. Clearly this piece of the memorial is important in

Instagram’s version of that space, but interestingly, the Wall took on one of two major qualities in the vast majority of those 77 photographs. The Wall’s reflective quality was notably highlighted in 42 of those photographs, while in the rest, that was not distinctly noticeable. This is a small detail, but once images of the Wall are classified into these two categories, it becomes apparent that the way that the Wall is shown on Instagram also takes on two different meanings. For those photographs in which reflection is a notable quality, the meaning of the Wall typically becomes more about the space of the whole site itself. For the remaining photographs where the Wall’s reflective quality is not a primary feature, the meaning is focused on the Wall itself and its contents. This is not a perfect distinction, but a trend certainly appears amongst the photographs when categorized as such. The Wall itself shows those who have been lost, and the reflection shows the visitors who have made their way to the Wall for one reason or another. 104

This reflective quality was a choice made by the designer when the large black granite panels were selected as the primary building material. Some Instagram users chose to highlight this, while nearly as many did not. For those who did not focus on the reflective quality of the Wall, their photographs allow them to demonstrate the contents of the Wall. The Wall lists every single person killed or missing from the Vietnam War, and for those photographs that focus on the Wall’s non-reflective qualities, the names become a powerful piece of the online version of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. A few images demonstrate this by showing the sheer enormity of the list of names displayed on the Wall through a panel filled with names. The size of some of the panels at the memorial also becomes more powerful in this photograph than in some of the others since the list of names is shown as the primary subject.

In contrast to the photographs where reflectivity is not a major feature, those photographs that focus on the Wall’s reflective quality show the importance not only of the people who came to visit, as mentioned previously, but the way that the memorial’s site is crucial to the experience as well. Many of the reflective photographs show how the memorial is set in a calm, natural setting, as trees are prominently featured in the reflection of the landscape. Notably, the Washington Monument becomes a key feature of the memorial’s siting because of the way it can be reflected by the Wall. The planning documents revealed a prioritization of the site, and the way that the reflective photographs show the impact of such an intentional location of this memorial confirms that it was worth making the case for the site. 105

The location between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument was recorded by several of the photographs in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial of Instagram.

Interestingly, the Lincoln Memorial is visible in three photographs, while the Washington

Monument is shown twenty times. This is likely because of the way that many people frequently walk from the Lincoln Memorial towards the memorial, thus pushing the flow of traffic to be facing the Washington Monument. Traffic does move both directions through the memorial, but as shown through this count, the predominant flow is towards the Washington Monument. Nevertheless, the significance of the placement of the memorial is easily seen through the online representation of the memorial and its proximity to other important landmarks. The site and design of the memorial are all crucial to its representation online as a space and as a place that people regularly use.

Use of Space

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built with certain goals in mind and people tend to behave in a certain way in that space. Aspects of this can be discerned in the online platform, but one of the most interesting trends that appears to emerge is the difference between people who have obvious connections with the Vietnam War and those whose purposes for visiting the memorial are not made clear by the photograph.

While some people visiting the memorial are there for obviously apparent personal reasons, other photographs do not immediately convey the sense of personal connection seen in such photographs. The photographs in which the subjects do not convey personal connection instead show an emphasis on the person or people photographed. If the background of the photograph was changed, for example, the photograph’s meaning 106 would not change much, if at all. These photographs illustrate that people do sometimes use this memorial space simply as a backdrop for portraits of themselves. Other photographs are not as disconnected with the event that this memorial commemorates, but they still do not invoke a sense of emotion that comes from the personal connection displayed in other photographs, such as one depicting a tour group standing in front of the

Wall.

The memorial’s significance is diminished in “backdrop” photographs since if replaced by a different background, the photographs’ meaning would not change. This can be compared to the subjects in a photograph from the sample of a tour group whose members do not display a specific reason for visiting the memorial, but the way that they are giving the Wall their attention draws the viewer to look at the Wall as well.

Additionally, the tour group photograph’s meaning would change if the subjects were in a different location. Thus, the memorial is given more significance and contributes to the vast collection in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Instagram location feed by demonstrating one of the ways of behaving in this particular space. It helps to create the online version of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial that has distinctive meaning, unlike

“backdrop” photographs which do not highlight the unique qualities and meanings of this space.

The meanings conveyed by individuals who do not have an overt connection with the Vietnam War contrast sharply with the meaning shown in photographs of people who have personal connections with that experience. Across the sampled photographs, this included veterans and Gold Star Mothers. Gold Star Mothers are mothers whose children 107 were killed in wars (vvmf.org, “History”). In these photographs, emotion and personal connection is immediately evident, and this subset of the sample translates that deeply personal element of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial into the online version of the memorial. In one such photograph, a veteran standing with one hand on the Wall as his head is lowered conveys remembrance and a sense of loss. His posture shows sadness, and he wears his credentials on a vest which conveys his connection, both through his use of the space and clothing. His hand on the Wall takes that emotional and experiential connection and moves it into the realm of a physical connection with the overwhelming loss shown by the way that the panels dwarf him in size. His connection to the Wall is abundantly clear and this brings emotion to the online version of the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial.

A collage from a Gold Star Mothers event likewise suggests strong emotional connections to the Vietnam War, and thus the memorial space. In two of the photographs, the mothers can be seen holding hands in front of the Wall in a circle, demonstrating a shared connection and understanding of what the memorial symbolizes. They have literally connected themselves to one another, an action which provides the relief of being understood by another person. In another photograph, a mother hugs a man in military uniform. Her face is not shown, but both of her arms are around this individual and her head is buried in his shoulder. It is unclear whether these individuals know each other, but their body language expresses the heavy feelings that the mother is carrying as she stands just feet from the Wall. Across the full collage, a sense of community is evident.

While it is not likely that all of the individuals in these photographs know one another, 108 they are brought together in this specific space through their common connection to the people it commemorates. Both of these examples show how for those who have a clear connection with what this space commemorates, the images in which they are the subject bring emotion to the online version of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

All of these images of different people at the memorial show the scope of Dwyer and Alderman’s idea that visitors either “voice- or betray- its [the memorial’s] vision of the past into the future” (2008, 174). Some individuals in the sample photographs who do not give much attention to the Wall illustrate how the original intent of the memorial as a place to commemorate those killed in the war is being lost over time. Contrastingly, the

Gold Star Mothers and the veteran shown alone at the Wall represent how that memory is being kept alive by their use of the memorial. The Vietnam War ended 46 years prior to this sample of photographs from Instagram. The memorial opened to the public 36 years prior to the photographs being taken. In time, it is likely that this meaning will continue to change, as in many cases it appears that level of personal connection with the event accounts for a large portion of the meaning conveyed in the photographs and the photographs taken. Nonetheless, time has not moved so far that individuals are no longer being recognized at the memorial, on the contrary, humanizing the names on the Wall is still prominent.

Humanization at the Memorial

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is unlike any other memorial on the National

Mall for many reasons, one of those being that it is the only war memorial that lists the name of every individual who was killed or is missing as a result of the war. This is in 109 stark difference to other memorials that place an emphasis on the war itself. Were it not marked as such, this memorial is so individual-focused that passers-by might not be able to tell which war it commemorates. As opposed to a mass of lives lost with a focus on war, the emphasis at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is clearly on the individuals. The online version of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial shows a similar focus on the humanization of the lives lost in this conflict through photographs highlighting names of individuals and gifts left at the Wall. All of these features act as an emphasis on the fact that these were not simply casualties of war and the means to an end. Rather, these people were individuals who had full lives beyond their involvement in Vietnam.

The seemingly endless list of names is part of what makes the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial distinctive, and this has certainly made its way into the online version of the memorial. While the Wall was featured prominently 77 times in the 100 photograph sample, names were the focus of those photographs 20 times. The names are highlighted in a variety of ways. In some cases, it is simply that the sea of names is portrayed, but in others there is a clear focus on just one name. Other ways that the individual names are emphasized is through a rubbing being made of a name, and through visitors pointing to a specific name. Aside from the portrayal of the overwhelming number of names, several of the ways that names are featured in the photographs show a personal connection with one particular individual. The pointing, rubbing, and focus on one name act to draw these individuals out of the vast list of names on the Wall and to give them personal significance beyond their experience in Vietnam. 110

Another significant way that individuals are recognized is through the gifts that are left at the Wall. Many visitors leave different gifts, a lengthy list of items that includes letters, photographs, toys, flags, and flowers. Among the sample of 100 photographs for this study, gifts were shown in some form 11 times. Some were generic, such as a toy cannon and a sign that says, “Never Forgotten,” while others were far more personal. One photograph depicts a small bottle next to a package of cigarettes at the base of the Wall. Within this sample, a Purple Heart was even included. This was laid at the

Wall with a note that says, “for J.D Richter my machine gunner he saved me...” This gift was deeply personal and brought by someone who understood the name of J.D. Richter beyond his death as a result of the war. This note adds a story and brings Richter to life in a way that the Wall alone cannot.

These gifts add to the humanizing effect of the Wall and continue to distinguish it as the most personal memorial in Washington. It is a fantastic example of Dwyer and

Alderman’s understanding of the memorial as an “arena” where people “compete for control over the commemorative process” (2008, 166). It is also an excellent example of the ways in which visitors are “refracting culture norms” (Dwyer and Alderman 2008,

174) by modifying the traditional memorial narrative that frames lost lives as war casualties, rather than the loss of individuals. By adding personal gifts to the Wall, visitors fight for the memory of the individuals commemorated here. These individuals are not only remembered for their own lives here, but as the Purple Heart note shows, they are also remembered by the ways that their lives touched others. The example of the

Gold Star Mothers collage illustrates this remembrance of those killed or missing as 111 individuals who are loved by family and friends and it acts to further humanize the loss beyond names and numbers. The Wall’s incredible personal impact and effect has not been lost in the online version of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

Summary

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Instagram location feed creates an online version of a physical place. Among these photographs, certain characteristics of the memorial and the experience of visiting the memorial are emphasized in the collection of images. The site and design of the space are celebrated in the photographs as the qualities of the memorial, such as its reflectivity and listing of individual names, and the impactful site that is peaceful, resting between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln

Memorial, are strongly represented. The myriad of ways that people utilize the memorial is revealed in the images, ranging from mourning those lost to using the memorial as a photograph backdrop. The final prominent theme is the way that the online version of the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a humanizing place for those who are listed on the Wall.

People are named, they are brought personal gifts and notes, and they are seen as part of a larger network of people even outside of the Vietnam War community. All of the themes seen across this sample of photographs from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial merge to create a space that is certainly reflective of the physical place, but somewhat different, which will be explored in Chapter 8.

The World War II Memorial Instagram Location

The Instagram location feed for the World War II Memorial has a different tone than the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It is certainly lighter, and its focus lies in different 112 places. Three major themes emerge across the 100 photographs sampled from the World

War II location. These themes include an emphasis on the memorial’s design, the way that people utilize the space, and the park-like function of this memorial. While a focus on the memorial’s design and the use of space are similar to the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial, the particular design and usage of space at the World War II Memorial, as represented on Instagram, are certainly different from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; the most obvious similarity between the two memorials’ Instagram versions is their emphasis on location.

Design and Location

On Instagram, the World War II Memorial conveys a significant emphasis on its design and location. Of the 100 photographs sampled, the memorial’s powerful location between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial appeared in some capacity twenty-eight times, with Washington Monument being featured twenty-two times and the Lincoln Memorial six times. Several photographs show a clear choice to angle the subject of the photograph such that the Washington Monument is more prominently seen in the final image. In one such image, a quote engraved in the memorial is clearly displayed in the foreground of the photograph, but it is angled such that this quote is placed in the context of the Washington Monument. Likewise one photograph of the Rainbow Pool has it placed in the foreground of the photograph, but this is not the best angle from which to display the Pool’s grandeur. Instead, the choice of this angle is enhanced by having the Lincoln Memorial in the background, which is seemingly being pointed to by the trees at the edges of the photograph. The World War II Memorial is 113 easily set within the context of these two other monuments because of its location.

Instagram users have taken advantage of this by framing those monuments with the

World War II Memorial itself.

The Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial are clearly appreciated and noticed by many visitors who photograph their experience and share it on Instagram.

Another common way that the World War II Memorial is represented by these photographers is largely through their focus on the various design elements of the memorial itself. There are eighteen photographs in the sample for this study in which the design is the primary focus of the photograph. The most common features in this subset of photographs include the Rainbow Pool fountains, the wall of gold stars, and the bas- reliefs. These are clearly an important part of the World War II Memorial on Instagram, and even when they are not the primary focus, they still play a role in many of the photographs beyond those eighteen. For example, the Rainbow Pool and its fountains are seen clearly forty-eight times throughout the 100 sampled photographs. The Pool provides a centerpiece to the overall design, and it is clear through the Instagram feed that many users also found this to be a noteworthy element of the memorial space in that it is shown more than any of the other design elements.

Another key design feature that was brought to the online stage is the wall of gold stars honoring those killed in World War II. The wall of stars was generally depicted as a whole, representing the sea of loss in this particular war, but in one photograph the emphasis was placed on the stars themselves, conveying more of an appreciation for the design element as opposed to recognizing loss. While these are two different 114 representations of the same element, both do showcase the patriotic display of loss as a gold star and an honor. Other design elements such as the large “World War II” victory seals, the beautiful wreaths housed in the baldacchinos, and quotes about the war also carry a traditionally patriotic design theme. They are filled with symbols that do not require any sort of interpretation from visitors. Rather, the elements in this memorial are easily read as patriotic and they contextualize the war in a valiant light.

One of the other highlights of this memorial’s design is the bas-reliefs created by

Raymond Kaskey and his team of sculptors. Many photographs that emphasize the design elements focus on the intricate detail of the bas-reliefs. These sculptures tell stories and capture a human element of the World War II experience that is otherwise largely absent from this memorial as there are no other human representations and the wall of gold stars can be seen as reductionist to the actual cost of human life, given that each star is accounting for 100 lives lost. The bas-reliefs show human faces and actions- even loss- in a way that other parts of the memorial cannot. While they are not as common in the sampled photographs as other design features such as the Rainbow Pool, they do appear and add to the way that the design is understood in the online platform. The other design elements on the World War II Memorial’s Instagram location are grandiose and blatantly patriotic, but these bas-reliefs show a side of the war experience outside of the dominant victory narrative. In fact, in the online World War II Memorial, the only blatant depiction of loss of life aside from the abstract wall of stars is found in a photograph of a bas-relief.

This subset of photographs provides a distinctive view of the memorial’s design elements. 115

While the design elements noted above transfer the memorial’s grand structure to the online platform, one design element that excels at inviting representations of the usage of space into the online platform is the state columns. Encircling the memorial, each column represents one state or territory. They are highly popular on the Instagram feed, with the columns being the focus of the photograph twenty-one times and appearing in several more. It is here that individuals find themselves able to show they relate to the memorial that is dedicated to an event to which many people may have no personal connection, given that it ended seventy-six years ago. This idea of interaction is part of the second major theme in this set of photographs.

Use of Space

The World War II Memorial Instagram location feed differs greatly from the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Instagram location especially due to the expression of this theme. While the Vietnam Veterans Memorial exhibits more sombre themes, the World

War II Memorial is regularly depicted in a more lighthearted way. The first major use of space relates to the state columns mentioned above. Fifty-two photographs of people are found throughout the sample, and of those, sixteen are people posing in front of the state columns. In the online version of the World War II Memorial, it is clearly important for many people to have their photograph taken by a state column. The order of the columns is not obvious to visitors, so finding the columns that are significant to individuals is an interactive part of the memorial experience that is demonstrated clearly on Instagram.

Many individuals alive today did not experience World War II firsthand, but they have connections with their states, and, in the online version, this appears to be among one of 116 the most meaningful aspects of visiting the memorial. While the states and their connection were meant to be read a certain way, the memorial’s “intended message may slip” (Dwyer and Alderman 2008, 175) as they are taken out of context and no longer read in relation to one another. Instead, a different meaning that is far more personal, and not related to World War II is displayed prominently on the location feed for this memorial.

A rare, but important use of the World War II Memorial space, as seen online, is as a stage for actions of commemoration. In just three photographs there are allusions to events recognizing World War II and commemorating it in action beyond the memorial itself. This is observed in the form of musicians performing in the memorial’s plaza, a wreath standing at the center of the memorial with the Lincoln Memorial in the background, and in a photograph of an older man wearing a military uniform whose pose suggests that he is speaking and explaining something. With the other uses of space making up the numerical majority of those categorized under the use of space theme, this could almost go unnoticed, but it hints at a lack of translation between the use of space in person and the use of space as shown online. For example, the wreath did not appear without National Park Service approval, a prompt that pushed someone to place it there, and the actual act of placing it at the memorial, which may have occurred with or without some sort of ceremony. While commemoration appears in the sample, it is clearly not as prominent as other uses of the space.

Another prominent use of this memorial space is utilizing the grand structure and special location as a backdrop for images in which the visitor is the subject of the 117 photograph. In such photographs taken at the World War II Memorial, people themselves are more important in this subset of photographs than any other element of the memorial.

This adds “memorial as a backdrop” to the list of uses in this space. While this was the case in only a few photographs at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, this is a theme in sixteen of the photographs in the online version of the World War II Memorial. The location of the memorial is highlighted in several of these photographs with the Lincoln

Memorial and the Washington Monument clearly noticeable in the background. In others the Rainbow Pool serves as a backdrop to the subject of the photograph. Rarely, but noticeably, this space is used for formal photographs such as those celebrating an engagement or marriage. None of these photographs are relevant to the subject of the memorial in any way, rather they contribute to the online version of this memorial by depicting everyday ways that people use this space. These casual uses are related to the third theme seen among photographs of the World War II Memorial.

Memorial as Park

The World War II Memorial is a notably large memorial space. It is also fairly open, and it offers many places for people to relax and enjoy spending time in the memorial environment outdoors. A somewhat less conspicuous theme emerging from the images is that this memorial space functions in several ways as a park. The use of the space for such activities as using the memorial as a backdrop, and spending time looking for states that have personal significance, do not have a clear connection to commemorating World War II. Regardless, the use of this space as a place where visitors can engage in activities that are more lighthearted than normally seen at memorials, such 118 as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, is present throughout the Instagram location feed.

These “park” activities include using this as a space for having one’s photograph taken, sitting and relaxing at the Rainbow Pool, and riding scooters around the perimeter.

Taking photographs while in costume, putting one’s feet in a memorial fountain, and riding scooters are not activities typical of a memorial space, rather what the photographs of the Instagram location feed suggest is that this space acts in many ways like a park that happens to be a memorial.

Summary

On Instagram, the World War II Memorial is shown to be a place that people can visit as a fun, lighthearted urban park. Such a use of this space has significantly altered the meaning of the memorial environment. Here, visitors are entertained by grand designs, by the iconic location between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln

Memorial, and by a space that is relaxing in keeping with the rest of the National Mall.

World War II’s commemoration is not particularly relevant to the online space that shares the same name as the physical location. Fifty-two of the 100 sampled photographs have people as the subject of the image. This means that in between the in-person experience and the online experience, some of the memorial’s qualities and features that may be more prominent in the physical world become less important than the individual experience. The memorial’s online version is more lighthearted and far less focused on loss than the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Instagram. The World War II Memorial’s meaning online is created almost exclusively by individual use of the space, eye-catching designs, and the memorial’s location. The meaning of the online memorial is more about 119 personal experience and personal understanding of the space than representing any larger narrative.

Conclusion

Instagram’s location feature allows for images taken at the same physical location to be collected such that users can create their own version of that space in an online location. This online location is made up of intentionally taken photographs, images that users found meaningful enough to post in a public forum, and some reflection of the in- person experience when the photographs were originally taken. Timeto describes the resulting collection of photographs and the version of the space they create as a mix between “reality and representation” (2015, 98 in Wilken and Goggin 2015). From large samples of each memorial, themes that are common across experiences and then posted about online paint a particular view of the memorial spaces that is impacted by what the photographer feels is important about that space. Instagram’s collection of location- tagged images cannot be understood as perfectly reflective of the planners’ intentions for the memorial, or even a “normal” experience in that space; however, it can be understood as a uniquely created version of the space that is made by compiling documentation of hundreds of memorial experiences in one online location.

Studying these online spaces affords geographers another way to understand the way that memorials are “contested” spaces that are not necessarily accepted for the meanings that planners ascribe to them (Dwyer and Alderman 2008, 173). Rather, online, publicly created versions of physical space are a fantastic way for visitors to impose their own meaning and to highlight what they feel is important about the space, while even, in 120 some cases, erasing the pieces they do not find significant. The online memorial is reflective of the physical space, but it must be viewed through a lens of understanding that hundreds of people have placed their own meaning on the memorial by deciding what is worth taking a photograph of, location tagging, and posting. The online space allows for viewing what is agreed upon as meaningful across the visits of hundreds of people coming from varying levels of personal connection with and knowledge of the event being commemorated. Ultimately, this is a way that the visitor gets to either affirm or contest the meaning and purpose of the memorial (Dwyer and Alderman 2008, 174).

121

Chapter 8: Comparing the Three Memorial Realities

This project has sought to answer four questions about three different realities through which the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the World War II Memorial can be understood. The final question posed was, “How do the intended uses of the memorials, the in-person experiences of the memorial, and the Instagram representations agree or disagree with one another?” Through a variety of research methods that are appropriate for each physical reality of the planning phase, in-person experience, and Instagram memorial realities, I uncovered themes that individuals involved with each memorial space deemed important about those spaces. These realities were explored in detail in

Chapters 4-7. This fourth research question can be addressed by examining the themes that surfaced from the data collected from the three memorial realities and comparing which themes carried across all three realities, and which did not.

The memorial realities follow a linear progression through time, and this research has been organized as such. In this final comparison it is important to acknowledge this linear progression. First, a memorial must be planned and designed by a group of people.

It is then experienced in person by visitors, and some of those visitors then choose to post about that experience on social media. When understanding themes that agree or disagree with one another, it can be useful to consider the temporal aspect of the memorial realities. While this project has largely analysed them separately, they are all clearly interwoven and cannot be fully separated from one another. This fourth research question aims to identify which themes are carried throughout the linear space-time progression across the three memorial realities. The memorial realities shift from a relatively top- 122 down imposed format in the planning stage to the almost entirely bottom-up format of social media, with in-person experience falling between the two. It is important to acknowledge the ways in which certain themes are powerful enough to make their way from the planning reality into the audience-created Instagram reality, and which themes arise later down the line. This concept is explored in detail for each memorial in the following sections.

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Realities

Themes

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial began as the idea of a Vietnam veteran

(vvmf.org “History”), then made its way through the various planning groups, Maya Lin who designed the memorial, and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Throughout the planning phase, the individuals involved in this project were determined that this memorial would be a place of “healing” (Evans in U.S. Senate Hearing [hereafter S.

Hearing] 100-617 1988, 83; Hutchison in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 152; vvmf.org

“History”). The planners understood the pain that Vietnam veterans and those who lost loved ones endured because of the conflict (S. Hearing 96-111 1980, S. Hearing 100-617

1988, vvmf.org “History”). They also recognized that the conflict had divided the country in such a way that “reconciliation” reminiscent of the Civil War’s aftermath was required

(Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71). The conflict was intensely emotional for a wide variety of Americans, and the planners of this memorial sought to alleviate some of the emotional turmoil the conflict engendered. 123

The founders of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund thought it best to promote healing and reconciliation through a policy of “honor the warrior and not the war”

(vvmf.org “History”). From the outset, the project was to be “apolitical” (vvmf.org

“History”), and by the time the memorial was being presented to Congress it was evident that the project remained “nonpolitical” (Warner in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 67). That the memorial was to focus on remembrance of the sacrifices of Americans impacted by the war distinguished this memorial from other war memorials. That is, the subject was not the war itself or why the conflict took place. All four of these goals were to be achieved through the location and site of the memorial (S. Hearing 96-111 1980; vvmf.org

“History”), as well as Maya Lin’s unique design that emphasized individuals rather than the war (vvmf.org “History”).

Individual positionalities, as well as the physical reality of the space, notably shape in-person visitor experiences. While my participant observation cannot speak to all visitors’ experiences, these observations disclose some of the elements that can arise during an in-person experience at the memorial. In my observation, the Wall itself took precedence. As I walked from the Lincoln Memorial toward the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial, I passed the Three Servicemen Statue, but the Wall was physically dominant in the landscape. As I walked into the sunken landscape, the sheer number of names became impossible to ignore. The gifts left at the wall are also prominent. I stopped to look at some of these. A note to a son from his mother stating that he was missed and loved brought me to tears. In combination with the listing of individual names, such gifts embody the individual-focused and humanizing effects of the memorial. Upon exiting, it 124 is impossible not to notice the Washington Monument. Unless one makes a concerted effort, however, it is entirely possible to overlook the Women’s Memorial at the site.

Nevertheless, the entirety of the site and its contents provide a personal, quiet, and reflective setting that feels separate, yet intimately connected to the surrounding memorial landscape on the Mall. Similar themes and emotions are apparent in the

Instagram reality of this space.

A largely “bottom-up” reality is created by the images of the memorial posted by visitors on Instagram. The 100 photographs sampled for this project revealed three major themes: site and design, use of space, and humanization. Site and design are prominent through the depiction of various pieces of the memorial, the physical site, and the inclusion of the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial. The ways these elements are photographed convey various meanings about the elements themselves and the memorial as a whole. Use of space is shown in a multitude of ways, with varying degrees of connection to the subject being depicted. Finally, humanization is depicted through a focus on names in a multitude of ways, as well as gifts and mementos emphasizing individuality that have been left at the Wall. The themes presented here are connected in different ways to the other two realities as described below.

125

Table 8-1

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Themes

Comparison

The themes found in each section may not immediately appear connected, but when the meaning of these themes is considered, the themes in the three different realities of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial are rather coherent. As noted above, there is a clear chronological progression from planning, to in-person experiences, to Instagram. The memorial must be planned, then experienced in person in order to be posted about on

Instagram. This comparison will reflect the chronological order of these memorial realities. The themes are identified by their respective realities; however, the answer to the fourth research question that seeks to understand where these themes agree and disagree can best be found in between the three realities in the transfer from one reality to the next. 126

Planning to In-Person Experience

The transfer of themes from planning reality to the in-person reality is accomplished with varying degrees of success. The final two themes of the planning reality- individual focus and remembrance- are connected through the planning goal that no individual be “forgotten” (Warner in 96-111 1980, 67). This is clearly displayed through the Wall’s planned design that lists every individual, and it is reflected in-person as well. The list of names is impossible to ignore. At the center of the memorial, the

Wall’s panels tower over visitors. Even if it is easy to walk past those shorter panels not necessarily recognizing the meaning of the names yet, by the time visitors reach the center, it is difficult to disregard the overwhelming number of names, and the loss of these individuals is felt and remembered. Similarly, the site and its location were argued for because of their “symbolic significance” (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71; vvmf.org “History”). The location between the Washington Monument and Lincoln

Memorial was chosen for several reasons, including the aforementioned symbolism, as well as its quiet and reflective setting. The Washington Monument and quiet setting are noticeable in-person, especially due to the typical flow of traffic through the memorial, and they provide for individual remembrance and a means to “honor” veterans (vvmg.org

“History”) in the presence of structures devoted to two of the United States’ greatest leaders. One way the site does not translate remembrance well is in the flow of visitor traffic at the site.

The planning documents stipulated that women veterans were to be remembered

(Public Law 96-297 1980; S. Hearing 100-617 1988), so the Women’s Memorial was 127 added to the site with the intention that this would “close the design concept” (Mott in S.

Hearing 100-617 1988, 28). In-person, however, the Women’s Memorial does not fit the flow of traffic well. Regardless of which side visitors enter the site, they must backtrack to reach the Women’s Memorial, unlike the Three Servicemen statue, which lies at the entrance that most visitors coming from the Lincoln Memorial use. While the intention was to remember the women who served in Vietnam, it is somewhat lost in the in-person experience, as getting to that place in the memorial complex is disjointed from the typical flow of traffic. The awkwardness of reaching the Women’s Memorial does not create a complete lack of transmission to the in-person experience from the planning reality’s desire to honor all who served, but it does hinder the impact of the statue. Given the immense focus on the Women’s Memorial in Congressional documents about the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial, it is far less significant in the in-person reality of the memorial.

The themes of focus on the individual and remembrance are further carried into the in-person experience through the mementos and gifts left at the Wall. Some of these gifts are deeply personal, such as a letter left by a mother to her son on the Wall reminding him that he is loved and missed. Another photograph of a young man was taped to the Wall with a note from his sister telling him that she loves him in the present tense, as opposed to the past tense. This photograph and letter show the transfer of individual focus through messages that were addressed to individuals. They were not meant for the public; they are simply for those individuals to whom they were addressed.

The gifts were meant for specific people, rather than a tribute to the group of people on 128 the Wall as a whole. These mementos highlight the individuality of those listed at the memorial, and they show clear remembrance of those individuals. These mementos and gifts are also in some cases a physical expression of the healing process.

“Healing” (Evans in S. Hearing 100-617 1988, 83; Hutchison in S. Hearing 96-

111 1980, 152; vvmf.org “History”) was emphasized repeatedly as a goal in the planning documents. Healing looks different for everyone, but it is clear that this remains an important element of the Wall’s purpose. Another way that planning and in-person realities are connected is healing being expressed through mementos and gifts. Although my personal connection to the Vietnam War is small, reading the letter mentioned above brought me to tears. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial provided the mother a place to express her pain through the action of leaving a letter. Another memento I saw on my visit were two bracelets that each listed a name and the day they were killed. These were left at the base of the Wall and were therefore no longer in the possession of the person who had kept those names. While I can only speculate as to what that action means for the individual who left the bracelets, any action is sparked by a feeling or a thought.

Leaving those bracelets behind may have been a step in their healing process. Healing is clearly transferred from the planning to the in-person phase.

The one major theme that does not transfer from the planning phase to the in- person experience is reconciliation. As I mentioned earlier, the site provides for healing and portraying the veterans in a positive light, in part through the listing of each individual and the immense presence of the Washington Monument. In fulfilling the planning reality’s “symbolic significance” goal (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71; 129 vvmf.org “History”), the meaning of the Lincoln Memorial was meant to be carried into this memorial through proximity. Proximity to the Lincoln Memorial was meant to convey “reconciliation” (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71) to a divided country, but because of the primary flow of traffic, many visitors often have their backs to the

Lincoln Memorial, and as such it can be hard to make that connection. Another reason that reconciliation may not be conveyed in-person as well is because the memorial was opened in 1983, ten years after the Vietnam War ended when that division was still fresh.

My observation in 2020 took place forty-seven years after the end of the Vietnam War.

The country’s divide over this issue is present, but not in the way that it was nearly fifty years ago. Today, the theme of reconciliation is almost entirely lost between the planning and in-person realities, but the most of the intentions of the planners are easy to feel and experience in-person today.

The in-person reality is characterized by the mementos and gifts left at the memorial, the presence of names, the flow of the site, and its location and feeling. This does not cover every in-person experience at the memorial, but these are major points that arose in my participant observation. It is clear that the mementos and gifts, names, and location largely support the themes presented by the planners, while the flow of the site hinders some aspects of the transmission of those themes to the in-person experience.

The themes were not conveyed perfectly between the planning and the in-person experience, but for the most part, they are expressed in one way or another. The second act of transfer between the in-person reality and the Instagram reality shows similar 130 themes, but with different expressions of the themes as the audience has even more power to give meaning in the online reality.

In-Person Experience to Instagram

Similar to the transfer between planning reality and in-person reality, the transfer between in-person reality and Instagram reality involves similar themes, but the online reality adds unique perspectives with respect to understanding the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial. Instagram emphasizes the site and design of the memorial, the use of space, and humanization at the memorial. These stem from the in-person reality where mementos and gifts, names, the flow of the site, and location and feeling are noteworthy.

Of the three Instagram themes, it is humanization that best displays and recreates themes from the previous two realities.

Humanization in the Instagram memorial reality is represented through a focus on names, mementos, and gifts. As illustrated above, these three subjects are ways that individual remembrance is transferred from the planning reality to the in-person reality, thus humanization finishes the line of the individual remembrance theme across all three realities. Within the Instagram reality, photographs of names reveal an emphasis on individual names by means of camera angles, depictions of rubbings, or simply by pointing at a name. One out of five photographs in the same feature names, making it a prominent theme here, similar to the other two themes. Likewise, mementos and gifts appear eleven times, and are thus a conspicuous aspect of the Instagram reality. The idea that this memorial would focus on individuals rather than the war (vvmf.org “History”) 131 has successfully been carried across all three realities in large part due to the design of the memorial that allowed for such a focus.

Site and design is another major theme in the Instagram reality of the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial. This theme is comprised of photographs that show different elements of the memorial, as well as the site itself and its relative position with respect to other locations on the National Mall. It is here that the flow of the site which is crucial to how visitors experience the in-person reality of the memorial, noticing some elements while potentially missing others is best expressed. While there was to be a focus on individuals at the memorial, and this is done well, it was also to be a place where the Vietnam War community as a whole could remember those veterans through components such as the

Three Servicemen statue and the Women’s Memorial. Similarly to how the site layout hinders access to the Women’s Memorial and leads to a minimizing of its impact relative to the Three Servicemen statue, this is carried into the online platform. The flow of the site directs most visitors past the Three Servicemen statue and onto the Wall’s path, and that statue appears fourteen times in the online reality. As mentioned above, the

Women’s Memorial feels disjointed in its location, and it does not appear at all in the

Instagram reality sample. This acts to completely erase that element, which figured prominently in the planning reality. The flow of the site can significantly impact what visitors see and what adds to their experience in-person, and thus the online reality.

Throughout the planning reality, the location was heralded as being of “symbolic significance” for the way the Wall’s arms would point to the Washington Monument and

Lincoln Memorial. This was promoted as especially true with regards to Lincoln as the 132 symbol of national “reconciliation” (Scruggs in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 71). However, five years after the opening of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, it became evident that many visitors “approach the memorial from the Lincoln Memorial” (Brown in S. Hearing

100-617 1988, 18). What this means practically is that many people follow the in-person flow towards the Washington Monument with their backs to the Lincoln Memorial. That symbolism is somewhat lost because of the in-person flow, and this flow is represented on Instagram given that the Washington Monument appears nineteen times compared to the Lincoln Memorial’s three representations. Similar to how the flow of the memorial in-person takes away from the remembrance power of the Women’s Memorial, it takes away from the reconciliation meaning of the Lincoln Memorial even further in the online space. While the design of the pieces themselves, especially the Wall, convey the original intentions well, the site is really only successful in its healing ability.

The planners hoped for a “parklike setting… one in which visitors can pay their respects in a serene and quiet setting” (Warner in S. Hearing 96-111 1980, 67). This is transferred well into the in-person reality of location, and it is represented well in the

Instagram reality, too. The entirety of the site is shown in a few photographs which depict the large grassy area, and many photographs of the Wall’s reflective character show the trees and natural elements that stand near the Wall. This idyllic setting is clear in several photographs in the Instagram reality, though it contrasts with photographs that show a use of space that feels contradictory to this ideal, or simply many people using the space at once, thus subtracting from that quiet, reflective setting that the planners wanted. 133

The use of space was the final major theme in the Instagram reality of the

Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Such images depict a wide range of uses from intense personal reflection to memorial ceremonies to activities that have nothing to do with the

Vietnam War whatsoever. In this way, the use of space is simultaneously the clearest carrier of the previous two realities’ themes, as well as the most unique of the online reality’s features. For those people depicted in the Instagram reality who show personal connection with the memorial, their use of space shows the prominence of the in-person name theme, and the planning reality’s themes of healing and individual remembrance.

On Instagram, Gold Star Mothers display a clear emotional investment in line with the aforementioned themes. Even individuals who are simply pointing to names on Instagram and who use this space to connect with a lost loved one are fulfilling that tradition of individual remembrance. Likewise, the photograph of a lone veteran standing with his hand on the Wall embodies remembrance and a connection with that Wall of names. In this way, the way individuals use the space and are posed in that space show some of the best crossovers and carry-overs of the themes across all three realities; others add an element unique to Instagram.

Use of space in the Instagram reality is described in Chapter 7 as existing on a scale from immense personal connection to no connection whatsoever. The individuals mentioned above are those with personal connections, for whom the memorial was designed, and thus they carry the themes of the previous two realities into the third. Yet, there is still a portion of the people using the Vietnam Veterans Memorial space who either show interest but not personal connection to the event or no interest at all. From the 134 beginning of the planning stage, it was clear that this memorial was designed for a certain audience (vvmf.org “History”). In-person, this purpose is clear and depending upon one’s own personal use of that space and one’s positionality, they embody the themes from the planning reality on a scale from spectacularly well to not at all. Instagram reflects this well by showing people who seem to show no interest in the memorial, typically by using it as a prop for a photograph of themselves while making no connection to names or the memorial other than as a backdrop. While at the memorial, even if people do not have a personal connection, they are typically quiet and display the sombreness that accompanies confronting a loss of life such at that displayed at the Wall. Instagram, however, gives more voice to those individuals who use the space in a way that does not show any connection to that which the memorial is commemorating, hence the use of space in the Instagram memorial reality is truly unique from any of the other realities.

Summary

Throughout the three Vietnam Veterans Memorial realities, this project was able to identify lines of connectivity between the themes as they were expressed in planning, in-person, and Instagram realities. Lines of agreement such as those from individual remembrance to mementos, gifts, and names to humanization show the ways that themes can be coherently conveyed across all three realities. Other lines begin strong in the planning phase, but entirely disappear by the time they reach the Instagram reality such as the planning’s reconciliation to in-person’s location and flow to Instagram’s site. Some features are largely unique to one theme or another such as the strong representation of disconnect from the Vietnam War in Instagram’s use of space. Nonetheless, when it 135 comes to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, it is clear that many of the themes, though expressed differently given the various reality forms they take and the differing degrees of audience voice, carry similar meanings across all three realities.

World War II Memorial Realities

Themes

For the purposes of this project, the World War II Memorial was explored in its three memorial realities: planning, in-person, and Instagram, just like the Vietnam

Veterans Memorial. The memorial began in its planning reality, moving from idea to a final concrete structure. In this planning phase five major themes surfaced in the documents reviewed: commemoration, World War II, process and design, participation, and site and design. Commemoration was laid out as a priority goal, and within that goal the planners made it clear that not just veterans of the war were to be celebrated, rather this memorial was a tribute to the “greatest generation” (Dole in Congressional Record-

Extension of Remarks [hereafter E. Record] “WWII” 2000, E2100; Norton in U.S. House of Representatives Hearing [hereafter H.R. Hearing] 106-214 2000, 3; Grooms 2004, 12) and their accomplishments that helped the United States to be victorious (P.L. 103-32

1993, 1). As evident in the title given to the group of people who fought overseas and on the home-front, World War II was referred to consistently as the “defining event of the

20th century” (Parsons in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 8; Warner in U.S. Senate

Congressional Record [hereafter S. Record] “Expressing” 2000, S10117). It is represented in the planning reality as a time when heroic men and women rose to a challenge and defined the United States as a superpower and idyllic society that is 136 deserving of commemoration. This led the memorial planning through a specific trajectory of choices.

In the process of planning for the World War II Memorial’s creation, its design and associated choices had to pass through many official planning groups for

Washington, D.C., and the National Mall (National Capital Memorials and

Commemorative Works Act 2003). As it moved through those different groups, it was clear that the site and design decisions were largely imposed from the top down. This meant that the memorial gave voice to what a small group of people felt was meaningful about World War II and that generation, and what they felt the World War II generation deserved through this memorial. This is not to say that the public had no input, but they did not attend the meetings until the memorial was far along in its planning process. The public was largely relegated to the funding of the memorial. Most of the people involved in decision-making roles for this memorial came from positions of power. They are the individuals and groups who had the final say in approving a design imbued with patriotism at a prominent site on the Mall. Neither the site nor design were approved without some turmoil over competing opinions as to how best to commemorate the

World War II generation. In the end, though, a grandiose memorial was placed in one of the most symbolic sites on the National Mall in a way that did not interrupt the Mall’s meaning; rather, it “looked as if it had always been there” (Grooms 2004, 16). With the site and design finalized, the memorial was completed and built. These themes characterize the major points of discussion throughout the planning process. 137

Themes from the in-person experience are drawn from my in-person participant observation, and while they cannot represent every visit or in-person experience, the themes are useful for understanding ways in which the in-person memorial reality can be compared to the planning and Instagram realities. These in-person themes include memorial location, design elements, the experience of exploring the site, and relaxing.

They characterize my experience, and many of these applied in some way to other visitors observed at the site. The first of these, memorial location, is crucial. It is conveniently located with regards to other sites on the National Mall without obstructing the view between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. Even if the memorial was not on one’s agenda, it is easily encountered. Once visitors enter the memorial, the grand design is immediately noticed with the Rainbow Pool as the central element. The quotes, the enormous wreaths with eagles, the beautiful bas-reliefs, and the state columns provide a significant amount of sensory input. The state columns add to the experience of exploring the site as well.

Many people can be seen at the memorial searching for their state’s column. This leads many to walk around many other elements of the memorial, since the order that the columns are placed in is complicated to guess by simply looking at it. The Rainbow Pool serving as the epicentre of the memorial and the lack of an exit on the west side towards the Lincoln Memorial also serve to direct visitors around the large plaza in order to see everything at the memorial, or to even just continue the walk down the Mall from the east. For visitors to see the entirety of the memorial, a notable amount of exploring and walking to try and find all the pieces is required, especially the elusive “Kilroy was here” 138 cartoon that is carved in an undisclosed spot in the memorial complex. As much as there is to find walking around the memorial, it is also a nice spot to relax. Locals and visitors alike were found on my summer visit cooling off by dipping their feet in the Rainbow

Pool. Washington, D.C. can be oppressively hot and humid in the summer, and on the walk down the Mall, the pool provides respite. The memorial also has benches built into its plaza walls. The design encourages people to spend time in the space relaxing and revelling in the celebratory atmosphere of the World War II commemorative site. This in- person experience memorial reality is crucial in shaping the Instagram memorial reality.

The Instagram memorial reality at the World War II Memorial entailed three major themes amongst the sample photographs: design and location, use of space, and memorial-as-park. The design and location are key characteristics of the memorial in all three realities. In the Instagram reality, this comes in the form of photographs that showcase the various elements of the memorial such as the bas-reliefs, the wreaths, the wall of stars, or a locational feature such as showing the Washington Monument or

Lincoln Memorial from the vantage point or framing of the World War II Memorial. The use of space theme illustrates the way that people act in this memorial and what they do there. These photographs include posing next to state columns and using the memorial as a backdrop for photographs of people. This theme is closely related to the idea of the memorial as a park. The memorial-as-park theme shows the ways in which the World

War II Memorial is utilized as a place where people can spend time resting in a public space or enjoying themselves. Photographs of people sitting by the Rainbow Pool or participating in cosplay are examples of the ways that the memorial space easily hosts 139 activities that may be less acceptable or cost money elsewhere. These themes are evident in most of the photographs comprising the Instagram memorial reality. They will be to be used to explore the ways that themes are transferred, or not, between the three World War

II Memorial realities.

Table 8-2

World War II Memorial Themes

Comparison

As with the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, to answer the fourth research question-

“How do the intended uses of the memorials, the in-person experiences of the memorial, and the Instagram representations agree or disagree with one another?”- it is important to examine the ways in which themes transfer between the three memorial realities. The themes originate in the planning stage, as that is the first stage chronologically. The in- person experience must then happen before the Instagram reality can be experienced. 140

Each of the three realities encompasses their own themes, but they are certainly influenced by one another as they are all related through the physical memorial in one way or another. This section will explore the way the themes carry, or do not carry, between the realities.

Planning to In-Person Experience

The planning themes found in this project include commemoration, World War II, process and design, participation, and site and design. The in-person experience themes are location, design elements, exploring the site, and relaxing. Commemoration from the planning reality is found in the World War II Memorial in-person reality, as this site is brimming with patriotic symbolism as soon as visitors enter from any direction. It is best displayed through the design elements that came to fruition from the drawing board to physical reality. The bas-reliefs show detailed scenes from major points in the war, as well as the at home experience. These are crucial in the fulfillment of the commemoration goal of the memorial, as the planners emphasized that they wanted the entire World War II generation celebrated, not just those who were fighting abroad (Dole in Congressional Record- Extension of Remarks [hereafter E. Record] “WWII” 2000,

E2100; Norton in U.S. House of Representatives Hearing [hereafter H.R. Hearing] 106-

214 2000, 3; Grooms 2004, 12). The quotes that were included in the design elements of the memorial also serve to commemorate various groups of people who comprised this generation. Names of specific battles inscribed on the fountains serve a similar function.

The final area that is blatantly devoted to commemoration in the in-person reality is the 141

Wall of Stars honoring those killed in the war. The design elements of the in-person experience are a manifestation of the commemorative goals of the planners.

World War II is the subject of honor, but the way that World War II is depicted in the memorial realities differs. In the planning stages, World War II was spoken about with much reverence, and it is consistently heralded as being unique in its significance in

United States history (Atherton in S. Hearing 105-288 1997, 15; Parsons in S. Hearing

105-288 1997, 8; Warner in S. Record “Expressing” 2000, S10117). Interestingly, at the

World War II Memorial in person, the quotes are lofty concerning the World War II generation. But, aside from the bas-reliefs which actually depict members of the generation in action concerning this event, World War II is not particularly evident at the site.

Compared to the Rainbow Pool, columns, and other flashy design elements, those elements that most clearly convey that this memorial is devoted to World War II are not as noticeable. For example, while the bas-reliefs line the entrance from the Washington

Monument, they are not particularly large, and visitors walk towards the stunning

Rainbow Pool and “one of the great American vistas” (Norton in U.S. House of

Representatives Congressional Record Vol. 146, No. 130 2000, sec. 1315). They are arguably the clearest depiction and commemoration of the World War II generation as a whole, yet they are easy to miss, especially if visitors are coming from the direction of the Lincoln Memorial and enter from a side entrance. Other elements, such as the names of battles on the fountains, are also not as clear in what they are commemorating; unless visitors are familiar with World War II battles, those names may not evoke much 142 meaning. While it is certainly possible to see World War II evidenced throughout the memorial, some of the elements are subtle enough that visitors may not notice them, such as the ropes symbolizing strength when the states unite. The memorial is more easily experienced as a patriotic plaza than a site dedicated to the World War II generation.

The process and design of the memorial as described in the planning documents is characterized by a long, complex series of events that included many individuals and groups. Within the World War II Memorial’s in-person reality, this is expressed well in the hodgepodge of “Generic Washington Memorials” (Thompson 2004, 11) type of symbols and design elements. According to Grooms (2004, 65), “there was pressure on

St. Florian to keep adding elements to the design. Some people perceived every blank space as an opportunity for decoration, inscription, or carving.” With so many people involved in the planning process, this resulted in an overwhelming amount of design elements to be experienced at the in-person memorial reality. Interestingly, though participation is a major theme in the planning reality, and many design elements were included in the enormous memorial site, the majority of individuals and groups involved in the planning reality are not recognized in the memorial’s design. The only people noted are George W. Bush, Friedrich St. Florian, and the American Battle Monuments

Commission (see Figure 8-1). Members of Congress, the Commission of Fine Arts, nor the public are mentioned at all. The process and design, as well as the participation make their way from the planning reality to the in-person reality, but their influence is decreased significantly.

143

Figure 8-1

Inscription Recognizing Planners of the World War II Memorial

Note. This image shows the only place in the memorial where anyone involved in the planning reality is recognized. Many groups and individuals from the planning reality are missing. Photo by author.

Unlike the aforementioned themes, site and design as a theme carries over well into the World War II Memorial in-person reality; its meaning, however, does differ. The location as a theme in the in-person reality is a nod to the serious debate that occurred over the site in the planning phase. Arguments over the site in the planning reality were characterized by concern over the Rainbow Pool’s future and whether the loss of the view between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial was worth the immense symbolism of the site. While the sinking of the memorial and the interesting vantage point the location of the World War II Memorial gives of the Washington Monument and

Lincoln Memorial largely solve the concerns of those opposed to the site while planning, the symbolism of the location is not explained in the memorial site. Rather, the Rainbow 144

Pool takes on more immediate meaning as the memorial reality shifts from planning to in-person.

In-person, the Rainbow Pool is arguably the most notable feature of the memorial, both as a site feature and design element. It is in the center of the plaza, and its fountains were restored when the memorial was built (Grooms 2004, 22). During my visit to the memorial, this was also a spot where many people were able to relax and enjoy cooling off from the August heat. The memorial was given an important spot in Washington, and the use of the Rainbow Pool honors that, as well as creating a memorial that encourages exploration of the plaza.

The siting at the Rainbow Pool, as well as the many different design elements, invite visitors to walk around the plaza and explore. Visitors must walk around the

Rainbow Pool to get to any other entry aside from the one they used to enter the memorial. Further, the variety of large and “flashy” features beckon visitors to explore the site. In this way, the design meant to commemorate an entire generation became so complex that it encourages visitors to engage in one way or another with the site. The addition of the state columns, especially, encourages visitors to walk around the site to find their state, while at the same time acting in a way to undermine the idea of the World

War II generation’s purported unity by organizing visitors by their state loyalties as they pose for photographs near the respective columns. Nevertheless, the arrangement of the columns in a confusing order, the layout of the plaza in an oval around the pool, and the general east-west trending movement along the Mall encourage exploration of the site, which is a goal of any memorial. The design, which incorporates benches and cooling off 145 in the Rainbow Pool (sanctioned by the National Park Service), also invites visitors to relax in this site, which was never mentioned as a memorial goal in the planning documents but is prominent in-person.

In some ways the World War II Memorial carries all of the themes from the planning reality to the in-person reality, but in many ways, aside from the site and design theme, the transition seriously erodes many of the themes due to the way that they are manifested in the in-person memorial landscape. Commemoration becomes primarily equated with stereotypical patriotic symbolism, except for the note in front of the Wall of

Stars stating “Here we mark the price of freedom.” The conflict itself becomes less obvious in the in-person reality than it was throughout the planning process, not because of a lack of elements, but rather because of the way that the World War II elements are more subtle than the more ostentatious elements. Process and design simply play out as a hodgepodge memorial landscape, while participation is almost completely erased with the exception of one area of inscription. Only site and design, which were given so much attention in the planning reality, are fully transferred. Even then, site and design’s foci are shifted slightly as symbolism could be lost on many visitors without interpretation from park guides. Instead, the Rainbow Pool as a site, the “wow” factor of standing between the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, and eye-catching, grand designs most easily capture the attention of visitors. These themes are further stretched when transferred between the in-person reality and Instagram reality.

146

In-Person Experience to Instagram

The transfer of themes from the in-person reality to the Instagram reality of the

World War II Memorial is generally more successful than from the planning reality to the in-person reality. The in-person reality themes are location, design elements, exploring the site, and relaxing. The Instagram reality themes are design and location, use of space, and memorial-as-park. The clearest of the connections is between the in-person themes of location and design elements and the Instagram theme of design and location.

The themes mentioned above are clearly transferred between the two realities.

The location is rather prominent, both in terms of its relative location with respect to the

Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, as well as the actual site itself at the

Rainbow Pool. In the Instagram reality, the Rainbow Pool is the second most featured subject in sample photographs, second only to people, with a total count of forty-eight.

The Washington Monument is included in twenty-two photographs, and the Lincoln

Memorial is shown six times. The location is prominently displayed in the Instagram reality. Likewise, the design is shown both in representations of sweeping views of the memorial plaza, as well as through a focus on specific design elements. Eye-catching elements such as the fountains, the large wreaths in the baldacchinos, and the Wall of

Stars are included in the Instagram reality. All of the design features of the memorial are included in the Instagram reality, though some are more common than others. The state columns as a design element appear prominently in the Instagram reality. They are shown twenty-one times in the sample of 100 photographs. This subject also shows an element of the memorial that is not always easy to photograph. 147

Through photographs of the state columns, the in-person theme of exploring the site is transferred to Instagram. The state columns are in an order, though it is largely undiscernible to visitors, unless a Park Service employee explains it. This exploration of the site is captured through the large number of photographs of state columns.

Exploration of the site is also shown through the fact that all of the design elements are shown in the Instagram sample, with the exception of the hidden “Kilroy was here” carving, which is not actually inside the memorial plaza. With the Rainbow Pool being at the center of the memorial, in order to reach the Wall of Stars and the fountains displaying battle names, visitors must walk around the plaza to reach these elements. The

Rainbow Pool is actually influential in every theme of the in-person reality and Instagram reality.

The Rainbow Pool also provides a primary means of relaxing in the in-person reality, both in the August of my experience, and the Instagram reality that reveals that people sit in the Pool even when it is emptied of water in winter. It functions like a bench, in addition to the actual benches built into the memorial. The Rainbow Pool represents the primary invitation to relax, which is shown as a part of the Instagram reality theme of memorial-as-park. Visitors sitting by the pool and dipping their feet into the water distinguish this memorial from other memorials in Washington. The National Park

Service makes it clear that this is an acceptable practice here through signage. The

Instagram reality theme of memorial-as-park surpasses the in-person theme of relaxing by including depictions of ways this site is used that would normally be odd for a memorial, though acceptable at a public park. People in the Instagram reality are shown 148 in costumes posing at the memorial, celebrating their engagements, and sitting at the

Pool. The idea of the memorial serving as a park was never mentioned in the planning reality, but it is unique to the in-person and Instagram realities.

While the idea of memorial-as-park develops in the realities as it is transferred from planning to Instagram, the theme of World War II is almost completely absent in the

Instagram reality. World War II was prominent in the planning reality, yet by the time the themes are transferred to Instagram, it has little to no presence. Both of these odd transfers can be explained through the commemoration theme: the memorial was meant as a tribute to a generation. The memorial is thus celebratory. Aside from the Wall of

Stars and brief references in the bas-reliefs and quotes, the hardship of war was never meant to be the focus of this memorial; it was to be celebratory in nature. As such, visitors do not experience the sombre wight of loss, but rather partake in the joy of victory that is represented jubilantly through features such as the fountains and victory seals on the floors of the baldacchinos. One member of the National Capital Planning

Commission, Margaret Vanderhye, suggested during the planning phase that the World

War II Memorial on the National Mall should be no more than “a simple plaque noting that if you want to know why Americans fought, you need only look around” (Fisher

2000). The World War II Memorial, while far more grandiose than a plaque, does hold true to such sentiment. With a space that is inviting and light-hearted, and that acts as a gathering place for Americans to simply enjoy their capital city, the goal of commemorating a generation and their values is brought to fruition. While World War II is not particularly explicit in the Instagram reality, the generation’s legacy of “unity” 149

(Herrling in U.S. House of Representatives Hearing 106-214 2000, 33; Grooms 2004, 12) is alive and well.

Summary

Between the three memorial realities of the World War II Memorial, lines can be traced between themes that arise in the various realities. These lines illustrate the ways that planning reality themes are manifested in the later realities, or how they end before reaching the Instagram reality. The lack of lines can also show which themes are unique to certain realities. At the World War II Memorial, lines such as those with an emphasis on location can be seen throughout all of the realities; however, the meaning does change slightly with each reality. Other lines begin strong in the planning reality and are almost completely absent by the time they reach Instagram, such as the themes of World War II or participation. Interestingly, at the World War II Memorial, themes like relaxing only appear in the in-person reality, though they continue strongly to the Instagram reality.

Overall, the World War II Memorial’s in-person reality is generally a vague reflection of the themes present in the planning reality. Given the execution of the in- person space and how it is used, this explains why the Instagram reality bears little resemblance to the planning reality. Instead, the in-person reality can feel like a patriotic hodgepodge placed in an interesting location where visitors have to pull their attention from the larger features in order to see World War II in the memorial. This results in the

Instagram memorial hardly reflecting the commemorative and World War II themes that figure so prominently in the planning reality. Site and design are concrete features that are hard to erase between phases, which explains their presence across all three, while the 150 execution of the design and the way the location’s symbolism is not immediately obvious explains why the meaning of site and design change so significantly between the three realities.

The World War II Memorial realities do share some commonalities, but overall, they are not particularly coherent, especially between the planning and in-person reality.

It is important to note, though, that the Instagram reality is inherently largely reflective of the in-person reality, and a result of the way that social media users often choose selective pieces of their real life experiences to portray online. Schwartz and Halegoua

(2015, 1657) describe the online photograph sharing process as “(re)productive practices of experience and reception of urban space,” which explains the similarities found uniquely between the in-person reality and Instagram reality, as well as the disjointedness between the planning and in-person realities. Much of the audience’s understanding of space comes from “experience and reception” (Schwartz and Halegoua 2015, 1657), thus as the reality becomes increasingly shaped by the audience, it is easy to understand their viewpoints more clearly, which is why the more grandiose elements garner more attention as the memorial progresses through the realities.

Conclusion

At the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, it is clear that there is a strong congruency between all three memorial realities. The themes that arise in the planning phase are often present in the Instagram phase. There are some unique features that arise in the later realities such as in-person or Instagram, but at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, there is a strong continuity of the themes presented in the early planning reality. Even if the themes 151 are manifested in different forms, their meaning is clear and aligns well with other realities. The World War II Memorial, however, does not show strong continuity between the planning reality and the other two realities. In my in-person experience, this is due to the way that elements intended to embody commemorative meaning are received as generic patriotism and those elements that are specific to World War II and commemoration are less eye-catching than other elements. Instead, the most similarities are found between in-person experiences and the Instagram reality, which could be attributed to the way that social media users selectively choose which photographs to post about their in-person experiences (Schwartz and Halegoua 2015, 1654). Either way, it is important to recognize that meanings and themes are present in each reality, and they differ to varying degrees between the realities studied in this project.

Meaning can always be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but through looking at the themes found in the three realities of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the World

War II Memorial the idea that realities are connected, yet somewhat independent, can be explored. The themes are connected in many ways, yet with each reality these become varied in their expression, and some realities bring completely unique features to the comparison. The degree to which this occurs and the way that it takes place, or does not take place, is unique to each memorial, though there are likely similarities between transfers given the constant of the forms of realities from concept to physical to online.

One conclusion that can be drawn from this analysis is that the three memorial realities do in fact influence one another, but as the audience is given a larger role to express themselves and as the memorial realities are translated from theory and plan to 152 physical to online, their messages change accordingly. In some cases, these messages and themes remain relatively true to the original themes first conveyed at the memorials’ inceptions, though this is held in light of allowances and changes stemming from more audience participation through memorial as “arena” and “performance” (Dwyer and

Alderman 2008, p. 166 and 174) due to the changing physical format of the memorial realities. In other cases, the memorial themes change significantly because of the way they are expressed. These conclusions may vary depending upon the memorials researched, but this project aimed to understand the ways that there may be disagreements and agreements among the meanings presented in various forms of memorial realities at two specific memorials, and in this case, it is clear that these three realities are connected, though to varying degrees, at both sites in spite of these memorial’s vast differences as described in Chapter 6.

153

Chapter 9: Conclusion

Summary of Findings

This project aimed to understand some of the ways space can exist in “realities” beyond the physical world, and how these realities compare to one another. To explore this concept, I examined three such realities- the planning and conceptual reality, the physical reality, and the online Instagram reality- for two public memorials in

Washington, D.C. Each of the realities was associated with a distinctive set of themes, which emerged through an analysis of the various sources that I employed to understand the nature of the individual realities. After identifying the respective themes for each memorial reality, I was able to compare them by assessing the ways that themes were transferred from one reality to another, even if they are manifested differently.

Importantly, this comparative process also allowed me to pinpoint the themes that were unique to certain realities. By studying two memorials, I was able to establish that one memorial was more successful in the transfer of its themes across realities than the other.

In the case of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the themes that arose in the planning reality through reading Congressional documents and Vietnam Veterans

Memorial Fund information were largely the same as those found in the Instagram reality. Ideas such as honoring individuals and the provision of a place for personal reflection endure in the Instagram reality. While the meanings manifest in slightly different ways, such as the addition of mementos and gifts, they can be traced back to themes that first appear in the planning reality. In the case of the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial, it is rare to find completely new expressions of themes, such as using the 154 space while outwardly demonstrating little to no connection or engagement with the memorial’s subject. The only major change is the loss of reconciliation as a theme across the realities. Thus, in the case of this memorial, themes generally remain the same across all three realities.

Unlike the Vietnam Veterans Memorial realities, the themes associated with the

World War II Memorial change markedly across the three memorial realities. While the planning reality places a strong emphasis on World War II itself and the importance of commemorating the generation that experienced the war, the Instagram reality envisions the memorial functioning more like a park that happens to be imbued with patriotic symbolism. As observed in the in-person reality, the World War II-specific elements are not as conspicuous as the more ostentatious elements, or even the state columns with which visitors can identify, thus partially explaining the loss of the war itself as a theme.

It is important to note that while the planners did emphasize World War II, the head architect responsible for the in-person structure stated that “the essence of the memorial is for future generations” who need to see the example of the protection of American

“ideals and principles” (St. Florian in Grooms 2004, 80). The architect’s focus on general patriotism instead of war partly explains the reason for the loss of the sense of World War

II as the memorial reality shifts from planning to in-person to online. The two memorials analysed in this project displayed two different progressions across the memorial realities.

155

Implications of the Research

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 6, it can be argued that the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial and World War II Memorial are the two memorials in Washington, D.C. that are most unlike each other. It is remarkable that this dissimilarity is even manifested in the general trend for how well each memorial’s respective themes transfer between memorial realities. It must be noted, however, that this study only considered two memorials and was is limited by the scope of the project. With more time, I might have consulted more documents, reached out to individuals involved in planning, spoken with more visitors and officials at the in-person sites, explored captions and hashtags, and interviewed Instagram users. Nonetheless, the results of the study point to some crucial takeaways. Different memorial realities can be compared, and depending upon the particular memorial and the execution of each reality the level of “success” in transferring themes from one reality to another can significantly vary. There are a few avenues that could provide more information as to how memorial meanings are transferred across realities.

One of the leading differences between realities is that as the memorial realities progress from planning to online, the primary responsibility for shaping the reality changes from top-down imposition by people in powerful positions to bottom-up creation by anyone with access to internet. The priorities of those that are responsible for the sort of decision-making that places well-designed and meaningful memorials on the National

Mall are likely to differ from those of the average visitor to the memorial who decides to post about their visit on Instagram. This is one reason that the themes change or manifest 156 themselves differently in the various realities. Another is the actual form of the memorial reality.

The realities vary significantly in their physical forms. In the planning reality, only professionals are involved and the memorial is entirely hypothetical. Anything is possible for these memorials, and this is the stage at which people can change the memorial, add the ideas and visions they feel should be included, and the goals of the memorial become defined. In-person, there is a concrete structure with a slew of messages embedded into it and it has been located in a specific place. While people can impose their own meanings, such as through the addition of gifts at the Vietnam Veterans

Memorial, there is some level of structure that is more difficult to question. In the summer of 2020 during the Black Lives Matter movement in Washington, D.C., the

World War II Memorial was spray painted with the question “DO BLACK VETS

COUNT?” (Tibbetts 2020). This is a rare example of push-back on the physical structure itself, what Richard Shein (1997, 663) refers to as a “materialized discourse.” This can be interpreted as a response to many different issues, but it should be noted that the World

War II Memorial does not include representations of African Americans (personal observation), in spite of the many achievements made by African Americans in this conflict (Grooms 2004, 6). The memorial’s physical structure in this case is not

“accepted,” and it was physically altered, if only temporarily. The Instagram reality is entirely online, and aside from being based upon a physical structure that exists in a different reality, it is made up exclusively of photographs that users decide are worth taking and then posting with a tag tying it to its in-person location. It is almost 157 completely dependent upon the subjects to which visitors assign significance. The varying formats and levels of concreteness in each reality can impact the way that themes are transferred, as well.

The process that this project followed to ascertain which themes transfer between memorial realities can be applied to other memorials. The identification of realities allows for future research to study different memorials in order to understand how specific planning elements and in-person features and behaviors ultimately create an online reality that can either closely resemble the planning reality, or differ significantly.

By taking an approach that compares the three realities, it is possible to identify the place in the linear transfer of themes between realities at which themes surface or are lost. This allows planners and those who are responsible for caring for the sites to make changes to better execute their goals either by adjusting to the in-person experience, adding elements to the memorial, or taking lessons for the next memorial they plan.

Bringing attention to the Instagram memorial realities is a particularly crucial part of this process, as it is within this reality that the audience has the most power to highlight what they feel is meaningful. This is important for planners and site overseers, as they can understand new ways to improve in-person experiences, and better recognize the elements of the memorial experience that are most meaningful to visitors. For example, the emphasis on location in the World War II Memorial’s Instagram reality might prompt the National Park Service employees who oversee the site to include more about explaining the symbolism of that location in their tours of the memorial, since that is a point of interest to many people and the symbolism that was so important to the 158 planners may not be obvious visitors. Understanding that the meaning of the memorial does not start or end with the physical structure is critical for allowing planners, visitors, and site overseers to make the most of the site experience and create memorials whose meanings will transfer well all the way into the online reality that occurs after visitors have experienced the memorial in-person.

Future Research

The benefits of understanding the different memorial realities are clear, but there is room for future research that could improve the ways that these realities are analysed and applied. While research has already shown that social media formats are not perfectly reflective of users’ in-person experiences, we do know that people utilize social media to share certain “curated” (Schwartz and Halegoua 2015, 1654) depictions of their lives.

Research has been done as to what images of their lives people select and why. It could be beneficial, however, to ask individuals who have posted about memorial spaces why they selected those particular images in order to understand what meanings people take from certain memorials, as well as how reflective of their experience they feel the post is.

Another avenue of research to be explored is how this online reality would change with different social media platforms. For this project, I selected Instagram because of its location feature that allows for a grouping of all public photographs tagged as being at a certain location. The concept of grouping all photographs taken at the World War II or

Vietnam Veterans Memorials into one or two specifically designated locations online is a convenient and helpful way of creating a space that represents the concept of an online version of these memorials. Even so, there are certainly benefits to researching how the 159 memorial reality exists on different social media platforms with different user demographics.

One of the limitations of this project is that by using Instagram as my representation of an online reality, I am working with an audience that is more likely to be female (Haffner et al. 2018) and younger. Wilken and Goggin (2015) also caution that social media users are limited to “a population who are reasonably tech savvy with the means to own and maintain a smartphone, who document what they do, who participate on social media platforms, and who share their daily activities publicly” (62).

Nevertheless, examining different online platforms could help alleviate some of these demographic issues and add more to our understanding of online memorial realities. The online reality certainly extends beyond the realm of Instagram, and this is worth investigating.

Final Thoughts

This project deployed qualitative research methodologies, and the results are specific to the memorials studied, which even in this project demonstrated two rather opposite outcomes for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and World War II Memorial.

These different outcomes are important, as they demonstrate how the application of this memorial reality model can shed light on the places at which themes are lost or gained in the transfer between memorial realities. Understanding “where” in memorial reality where themes manifest differently, appear, or disappear altogether can be useful for planners in recognizing how elements of memorials eventually make their way into online space. It is also useful for site overseers who can do more to tailor the experience 160 to the meanings that planners may have wanted but that did not come through as well in the in-person reality. Likewise, these tours could be tailored to the interests expressed by visitors in the online reality. Additionally, the three memorial reality model is crucial for understanding how the transfer of power from a select group to the public influences meanings at the memorial. This model of understanding memorials has many implications and suggests possible avenues of future research. It is my hope is that this project will shed light on the fact that a memorial’s reality is more than a marble structure and fountains.

161

References

Benton-Short, Lisa. 2006. “Politics, Public Space, and Memorials: The Brawl on the

Mall.” Urban Geography 27, no. 4: 297-329.

Breek, Pieter, Joke Hermes, Jasper Eshuis, and Hans Mommaas. 2018. “The Role of

Social Media in Collective Processes of Place Making: A Study of Two

Neighborhood Blogs in Amsterdam.” City & Community 17, no. 3: 906-924.

Burke, Peter. 2011. “From ‘History as Social Memory.’” In The Collective Memory

Reader, edited by Olick, Jeffrey K., Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy,

188-192. New York: Oxford University Press.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. “Coding in Grounded Theory Practice.” In Constructing

Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, 42-71.

London: Sage.

Daniels, Margaret J., Laurlyn K. Harmon, Marielle Barrow, Minkyung Park, Brayley

Russell, and Rodney Vese. 2015. “Heritage Tourism within a Capital City:

Symbolism and Dissonance.” Tourism Review International 19, no. 1/2: 1-18.

DeLyser, Dydia. 2005. Ramona Memories: Tourism and the Shaping of Southern

California. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dolbeau-Bandin, Cécile. 2016. “Are Social Media Networks Reinventing Museum

Education Tools? The Case of the Suzon Facebook Page at the Caen Memorial

Museum.” Essachess 9, no. 2: 141-152.

Dwyer, Owen J., and Derek H. Alderman. 2008. "Memorial Landscapes: Analytic

Questions and Metaphors." Geojournal 73: 165-178. 162

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing Ethnographic

Fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Evans, Jocelyn J., and Krysten B. York. 2013. “How the Mall Means: An Analysis of the

National Mall as a Cohesively Built Environment.” Perspectives on Political

Science 42, no. 3: 117-130.

Expressing the Sense of Congress on the Need for Construction of the World War II

Memorial on the Capital Mall. 106th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record-

Senate (October 6, 2000): S10117-S10118.

Fisher, Marc. 2000. “Varied Visions of Embattled War Memorial.” The Washington Post,

July 4, 2000.

Foote, Kenneth E. 1997. Shadowed Ground: America’s Landscapes of Violence and

Tragedy. Austin: The University of Texas Press.

Grooms, Thomas B. 2004. World War II Memorial: Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.:

General Services Office.

Gurney, George. 2004. “Sculpting the World War II Memorial: A Conversation with

Raymond Kaskey.” American Art 18, no. 2.

Haffner, Matthew, Adam J. Matthews, Emily Fekete, and G. Allen Finchum. 2018.

"Location-Based Social Media Behavior and Perception: Views of University

Students.” Geographical Review 108, no. 2: 203-224.

Jang, Kee Moon, and Youngchul Kim. 2019. “Crowd-Sourced Cognitive Mapping: A

New Way of Displaying People’s Cognitive Perceptions of Urban Space.” PLOS

ONE 14, no. 6:1-18. 163

Krippendorf, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Methodologies. London:

Sage. In Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the

Interpretation of Visual Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Lowenthal, David. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

National Capital Memorials and Commemorative Works, 40 U.S. Code From Title 40

Public Buildings, Property, and Works (2003).

National Park Service. 2004. “World War II Memorial Brochure.” Washington, D.C.

Government Printing Office.

National Park Service. 2019. “NPS Stats: National Park Service Visitor Use Statistics”

Accessed Fall 2019. https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/.

Paül i Agustí, Daniel. 2018. "Characterizing the Location of Tourist Images in Cities.

Differences in User-Generated Images (Instagram), Official Tourist Brochures

and Travel Guides" Annals of Tourism Research 73: 103-115.

Post, Chris. 2009. “Rejecting Violence on the Landscape in Lawrence, Kansas.”

Geographical Review 99, no. 2: 186-207.

Repič, Jaka. 2018. "Memorialization of the First World War in the Landscape of the

Julian Alps." Folklore 73: 27-46.

Rose, Gillian. 2012. Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of

Visual Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. 164

Savage, Kirk. 2009. Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the National Mall, and the

Transformation of the Memorial Landscape. Berkeley and Los Angeles,

California.

Schein, Richard H. 1997. “The Place of Landscape: A Conceptual Framework for

Interpreting an American Scene.” Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 87, no. 4: 660-680.

Schwartz, Raz, and Germaine R. Halegoua. 2015. "The Spatial Self: Location Based

Identity Performance on Social Media." New Media & Society 17, no. 10: 1643

-1660.

Schwartz, Raz and Nadav Hochman. 2015. “The Social Media Life of Public Spaces:

Reading Places Through the Lens of Geotagged Data.” In Locative Media edited

by Rowan Wilken and Gerard Goggin, 52-65. New York: Routledge.

Senie, Harriet F. 2016. Memorials to Shattered Myths: Vietnam to 9/11. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Sense of Congress on Need for World War II Memorial on the Mall. 106th Cong., 2nd

sess., Congressional Record- Extension of Remarks (October 19, 2000). E.

Record Vol. 146, No. 132.

Sense of Congress on Need for World War II Memorial on the Mall. 106th Cong., 2nd

sess., Congressional Record- House (October 17, 2000). H.R. Record Vol. 146,

No. 130.

Stroud, Scott R., and Jonathan A. Henson. 2019. "Memory, Reconstruction, and Ethics in

Memorialization." Journal of Speculative Philosophy 33, no. 2: 282-299. 165

Thompson, J. William. 2004. “Land Matters” Landscape Architecture Magazine, July

2004.

Tibbetts, Meredith. 2020. “National World War II Memorial Vandalized.” Military.com,

June 1, 2020. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/01/national-world

-war-ii-memorial-vandalized.html.

Timeto, Federica. 2015. “Locating Media, Performing Spatiality: A Nonrepresentational

Approach to Locative Media.” In Locative Media edited by Rowan Wilken and

Gerard Goggin, 94-103. New York: Routledge.

Trilupaitytė, Skaidra. 2014. “Monuments, Memory, and Mutating Public Space: Some

Initiatives in Vilnius.” Lituanus 60, no. 2: 24-41.

U.S. Congress. An Act To amend the law that authorized the Vietnam Veterans Memorial

to authorize the placement within the site of the memorial a plaque to honor those

Vietnam veterans who died after their service in the Vietnam war, but as a direct

result of that service. Public Law 106-214. (2000).

U.S. Congress. An Act To authorize the construction of a memorial on Federal land in

the District of Columbia or its environs to honor members of the Armed Forces

who served in World War II and to commemorate United States participation in

that conflict. Public Law 103-32. (1993).

U.S. Congress. An Act To authorize the Vietnam Women’s Memorial Project, Inc., to

establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia or its environs

to honor women of the Armed Forces of the United States who served in the

Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Public Law 100-660. (1988). 166

U.S. Congress. An Act To expedite the construction of the World War II memorial in the

District of Columbia. Public Law 107-11. (2001).

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on Benefits of the Committee

on Veterans’ Affairs. H.R. 1247, The World War II Memorial; H.R. 1476, The

National Cemetery Act of 1999; H.R. 1484, Authorization of Appropriations for

Homeless Veterans Projects; H.R. 1603, The Selected Reserve Housing Loan

Fairness Act of 1999; H.R. 1663, The Medal of Honor Memorial Act, and H.R.

2040, The Veterans’ Cemetery Assessment Act of 1999. 106th Cong., 1st sess., June

16, 1999. House of Representatives Hearing 106-16.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans

Affairs, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform.

The American Battle Monuments Commission and the World War II Memorial.

106th Cong., 2nd sess., June 6, 2000. House of Representatives Hearing 106-214.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Conference

Report (to Accompany S.J. Res. 119). 96th Cong., 2nd sess. 1980. House of

Representatives Report 96-1129.

U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Vietnam Women’s Memorial: Report (to

Accompany S. 2042). 100th Cong., 2nd sess. 1988. House of Representatives

Report 100-948.

U.S. Congress. Joint Resolution To authorize the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Inc.,

to establish a memorial. Public Law 96-297. (1980).

U.S. Congress. Senate Concurrent Resolution 145. (2000). 167

U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and

Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Commemorative

Works Act; Selection of the World War II Memorial; and Air Force Memorial.

105th Cong., 1st sess., September 11, 1997. Senate Hearing 105-288.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and

Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. DC Area

Monuments and Memorials. 106th Cong., 2nd sess., March 23, 2000. Senate

Hearing 106-278.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Renewable Resources of

the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Biscayne National Park,

Florida; Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania; Vietnam Veterans

Memorial; and Salinas National Monument in New Mexico. 96th Cong., 2nd sess.,

March 12, 1980. Senate Hearing 96-111.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Vietnam Women’s Memorial. 100th

Cong., 2nd sess., February 23, 1988. Senate Hearing 100-617.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Vietnam Women’s Memorial: Report together with Additional

Views (to Accompany S. 2042). 100th Cong., 2nd sess. 1988. S. Report 100-371.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C., World War II

Memorial. 2004. 168

Vázquez, David González. 2018. “Dark Tourism and Memorial Tourism: Nexus and

Divergences Between Theoretical Models.” European Journal of Tourism

Research 20: 46-58.

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. 2021. “About the Wall.” https://www.vvmf.org/

About-The-Wall/. In text as (vvmf.org “About”).

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. 2021. “History of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.”

https://www.vvmf.org/About-The-Wall/history-of-the-vietnam-veterans

-memorial/. In text as (vvmf.org “History”).

Weber, Robert Philip. 1990. Basic Content Analysis. London: Sage.

Wilken, Rowan and Gerard Goggin. 2015. Locative Media. New York: Routledge.

World War II Memorial Groundbreaking, 106th Cong., 2nd sess., Congressional Record-

Extension of Remarks (November 14, 2000): E2100-E2101.

169

Appendix A: Methodology and Coding Examples

Congressional Document Coding Example

In order to derive themes from the Congressional documents reviewed, they were first read, then the relevant pieces of the documents were open coded. Focused codes were created from the open codes. This section will show an example of that process.

Step 1: Reading and Open Coding

This is a selection from U.S. House of Representatives Hearing 106-214: The

American Battle Monuments Commission and the World War II Memorial. 106th Cong.,

2nd sess., June 6, 2000 [hereafter H.R. Hearing 106-214 2000].

- “Ms. Norton: “I appreciate the response of the National Capital Planning Commission to my plea and that of Senator Bob Kerrey and others in requiring that the original huge design for the memorial be reworked [design changes] to a more appropriate size [spa tial requirements]. Senator Kerrey and I also opposed the present Rainbow pool site [rainbow pool], the last remaining visionary vista left in this small compact city [views]. If this is the last opportunity to effect any change- and I would hope that it is not- then I would feel compelled to support the memorial, but only because of the eternal gratitude [gratitude] and enduring respect [respect] I have and I believe the entire world owes [owe] to the men and women who served [all who served] in World War II.” (page 2) Here, a quote from the hearing concerning the American Battle Monuments Commission and the World War II Memorial can be seen with the open codes that I made in brackets.

Some of these open codes are simply restating exactly what Representative Norton said and others are codes that I developed myself.

Step 2: Focused Coding

Once open codes were developed, I created a list of those open codes and organized them into focused codes. For example, the open codes shown above were 170 organized to help develop the following focused codes. The focused codes are shown in bold.

Process & Design Site & Design Commemoration World War II

- Design - Spatial - Gratitude - All who changes requirements - Respect served - Rainbow - Owe Pool - Views

Since all of the quotes were coded with open codes and those open codes were organized into focused code categories, I pulled the quotes that had the corresponding open codes and put them into focused code lists like this:

Process and Design:

“We all keep advised of each other’s actions. There is a great deal of coordination [planning coordination] and all of our meetings are public, all of our agendas are available ahead of time, and on certain occasions when we sense there is a strong public interest we go out of way actually to contact as many parties as we possibly can [outreach to the public]. This was certainly true in the World War II Memorial.” –Mr. Atherton in Senate Hearing 105-288: Commemorative Works Act; Selection of the World War II Memorial; and Air Force Memorial. 105th Cong., 1st sess., September 11, 1997.

Site and Design:

“The controversy surrounding the memorial has nothing to do with the veterans. The controversy has nothing to do with a memorial to the veterans on the Mall. All agree that the memorial to these veterans belongs on the Mall. The controversy arose because of the memorial’s placement, obstructing one of the great American vistas. [location] [views]” – Ms. Norton in Congressional Record Daily Edition 146, no. 130 Oct. 17 2000

171

The quotes were thus organized into focused coding categories with their original open codes attached so that I was able to see the original thoughts about the quotes. This system also allowed me to see those initial thoughts in a larger context and how the vast multitude of open codes joined together to form the final focused codes, thus continually grounding myself in the original sources. As I found the quotes tagged with open codes that were to be filed into focused code categories, I was able to see what quotes were relevant to the larger picture that was emerging and which were not useful at this later step in the process.

Step 3: Themes

The focused codes applied to many of the quotes pulled from the documents, so the focused codes developed became the themes later seen in the final write up of the project. When it came time to write a discussion about the findings, I was able to see how these initial open codes formed focused code categories, and I could remind myself constantly why the data led me to create those focused code categories since I was continually seeing the open codes that led to their creation.

Instagram Coding Example

Step 1: Initial Image Open Coding

For the first step, each image was looked at and major compositional pieces of the photograph became codes such as the example below. 172

Photo by author

Codes: State, Design, Washington Monument

These codes were applied because of the presence of the “Washington

Monument,” as an intentional choice of the photographer who could have selected an angle that did not include it. The “design” code was applied for the variety of elements shown in this photograph including the flag pole, the rope, wreaths, and columns themselves. The “state” code was applied because of the centering of the District of

Columbia column in this photograph.

Step 2: Focused Coding

After the initial open coding, I printed all of the photographs and organized them into groups that showed common subjects such as elements of the photograph that show the memorial’s relative location on the National Mall. Thus, photographs that were open 173 coded with phrases such as “Washington Monument” or “Lincoln Memorial” were placed into the focused code group of “location.” Some photographs could be used for multiple focused codes, such as the example given above. In this example, “location” is certainly applicable because of the photographer’s intentional inclusion of the

Washington Monument, but “design elements” can also be applied because of the way that this photograph shows many of the World War II Memorial’s design features as part of its composition. These focused codes then guided the development of themes.

Step 3: Themes

The focused codes guided the creation of themes and nuances within the themes.

For example, with the Vietnam Wall photographs, I placed all of the photographs open coded with “person” or “people” into one group in the focused coding section, yet I was able to see that the poses and behavior represented in the photographs of people varied significantly, thus leading to themes such as “use of space” and “humanization at the memorial” both of which rely upon the presence of people in the photographs, but display a differing relationship with the meaning in the photographs. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !