Back in 2015, Paul Anderson came up with a line that summed up the challenge of figuring out what do with with all the artwork inside Minnesota’s state Capitol building: “The past, the present and the future went into a bar. It was tense.”
After more than a year of cataloging and indexing that art, of meetings and debates and public forums, Anderson, a former associate Supreme Court justice, couldn’t have been more right about that tension. He got the line printed on a T-shirt.
Anderson is one of three chairs of the Capitol Preservation Commission’s subcommittee on art, a group of 15 people from all walks of life selected to make recommendations on what to do with the nearly 150 pieces of art inside the building. Over the course of the last year, the group has discussed everything from diversity, religion and the Civil War to what to do with the 38 gubernatorial portraits that previously hung on the Capitol walls.
In doing so, the subcommittee has also found itself in the middle of a contentious and emotional debate, caught between those who want to preserve the Capitol as it was when it was built in 1905, and those who think the building’s art — particularly the way it portrays Native Americans — needs to be updated for the 21st century. In fact, the whole process nearly unraveled earlier this year when legislators expressed concern that the group’s recommendations might create a new entity to make future decisions about Capitol art.
“Nobody should be surprised that there is tension,” said Anderson. “Power just creates tension. Conflicting visions creates tension.”
By the end of this month, the group must finalize its recommendations to the Capitol Preservation Commission on what to do with all of the art. And the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that it’s a big opportunity — that nobody wants to waste.
As committee member Peter Hilger reminded the group at recent meeting: “When was the last time an art subcommittee got together? It was 100 years ago.”
Preservation versus interpretation
The Capitol art debate came out of the massive restoration of the 111-year-old Capitol, which is currently under construction and closed off to the public.
The art that decorates the walls and shelves of that building runs the gamut, from busts and portraits of prominent Minnesotans to giant murals depicting “historical” scenes. Most of the pieces were commissioned 100 years ago by the building’s architect, Cass Gilbert, who enlisted some of the most prominent artists of his day to produce the pieces.
The art subcommittee was established to look at big picture questions — primarily, how the Capitol should look when it reopens to the public next fall. And central to that question is a tension, one that revolves around the point of view of the art — almost all of which was created by white men.
Take the governor’s reception room, which might be considered ground zero for the debate. It’s one of the most prominent spaces inside the Capitol, and it includes six large paintings, including several depicting prominent Civil War battles.
Two of the room’s six paintings are considered controversial by the Native American community, including the “Treaty of Traverse des Sioux,” a warm and happy portrayal of the 1851 signing of a treaty that secured some 22 million acres that would make up much of the future state of Minnesota. In reality, nearly all of the Dakota land was at stake in the treaty, and the tribe was pressured by Territorial Gov. Alexander Ramsey to sign it quickly. The other controversial painting, “Father Hennepin at the Falls of St. Anthony,” shows an explorer and priest sitting with five members of a Dakota tribe, including a bare-chested woman. The painting has been criticized as a naive and skewed portrayal of Native American dress during that time period.
Some want the two pieces removed entirely from the Capitol and put on display in a museum that could offer more extensive interpretation of what’s depicted. Others believe the paintings should be left where they are, as the Capitol creators intended. Then there’s the Catholic church, which wants the Father Hennepin painting to stay.
Other Capitol art presents different sets of problems, like the paintings that can’t just be picked up and moved, even if everyone involved agreed they should (which, of course, they don’t). The giant mural on the north wall of the Senate chambers, for example, also know as the “Discoverers and Civilizers Led to the Source of the Mississippi,” shows a Native American man and women at the headwaters of the river, along with their “civilizers”: a group of white people.
“That’s the challenge, trying to find that balance between a historic building that has fantastic art that was created in a different day and age,” said David Kelliher, director of public policy with the Minnesota Historical Society, manages the tours and preservation of art in the building. “It’s about preserving what we have and also opening up some new opportunities.”
Some on the art subcommittee want to commission new pieces of art for the Capitol, which will have new public spaces on one level of the building and a room dedicated to Cass Gilbert on the third floor. The idea is to have the Capitol’s art cover all of the state’s history to date, including the history of women and people of color in Minnesota.
There was even a suggestion to create a new Capitol art curator position, an idea that prompted a meeting with legislative leaders in March, who quickly nixed it, though not before there were discussions of suspending the art subcommittee entirely. The new role, legislators feared, had the potential to dramatically alter the look of the historic Capitol, including the House and Senate chambers.
“The Capitol should not become an art institute or an art museum,” Department of Administration Commissioner Matt Massman said at a recent subcommittee meeting. “The Capitol is not intended to be the Walker or the Mia but the state Capitol.”
Who’s in charge?
The controversy over the curator position forced the committee to step back and re-focus its mission, which is to collect information and present recommendations to the full Capitol Preservation Commission. The committee released preliminary recommendations in February, and those proposals are now nearly finalized. Among them:
- Leave all the art inside the Capitol, but move controversial pieces — like the “Treaty of Traverse des Sioux,” and “Father Hennepin at the Falls of St. Anthony” — into new locations in the building.
- Include more interpretive plaques and presentations alongside the more controversial pieces of art.
- Keep portraits of Minnesota’s governors hung inside the Capitol, but the committee would like to display the portraits on a “wall of governors” and organize the pieces by time period or in some other way that would be more informative for visitors to the building.
- Leave any changes to art in the House and Senate chambers up to each legislative body, but require senators and representatives to draft an official proposal if they want to change anything.
After the recommendations are finalized by the subcommittee, they will head to the full Capitol Preservation Commission for review, but that’s likely not the last step in the process. The state law governing the preservation and care of the Capitol includes several players, including the Department of Administration, the Minnesota Historical Society and the Capitol Area Architectural Planning board. That’s led to even more debate — about who has the final say when it comes to Capitol art.
“In statute, the historical society, with a sort of vaguely defined role, has authority for art in the Capitol,” said Rep. Diane Loeffler, DFL-Minneapolis. “It was really more, I think, about maintaining it. I think we will have a discussion about should we have a broader group discuss new art and the themes in new art.”
For now, the historical society has played a role in the art committee debate, but it’s not a voting member of the group. “I think we’ve been kind of a half step removed,” Kelliher said. “We’ve attended and been advisers and jumped in when we’ve been asked to jump in. We have a different role in the process that will come later.”
Huge public interest
While at times frustrating, for most members of the art committee the process has been a worthwhile experience.
Among other things, the group made a complete catalog and listing of all the art in the Capitol, something that had never been done before, Anderson said. The committee also brought the public into the discussion, hosting public forums across the state. The Department of Administration created an online survey for people to weigh in on the Capitol art debate. More than 3,000 people replied.
The recommendations from the committee will also call for new funding to both preserve the Capitol’s current art as well as to commission new pieces that will be more representative of the state’s diverse population. That will have to head before lawmakers for a vote, but everyone involved in the committee says they’re on board with advocating for it.
“We have helped surface even more clearly how much Minnesotans love this building. They see it as a focal point of our state and something to be proud of,” Anderson said. “It’s a public building and it’s a working space, but it’s not an office building. It’s more than that. It’s a gathering place.”
Did you truly say
“big picture” problems? Very, very nice summary of the legislative session, as well.
“Leave all the art inside the Capitol, but move controversial pieces — like the “Treaty of Traverse des Sioux,” and “Father Hennepin at the Falls of St. Anthony” — into new locations in the building.”
Nope, can’t have controversial art, not here in Minnesota. Let’s have an online survey, that most likely has little to do with artistry.
Interesting, to see what this group has been doing and what they’ve come up with, along with next steps. As a life-long teacher, and an American who believes that the proper contradiction of a “wrong” idea is not to cancel, remove, or censor that idea (even if it’s an idea about how complacent native Americans were with the Travers des Sioux Treaty, or the idea that Father Hennepin had anything to do with discovering Minnesota), but to keep discussing it, presenting other ideas.
More speech. I’m glad that this committee sees that, and that the next layers of review continue to include the Minnesota Historical Society folks, who really do combine lots of positives to contribute to our saving even the negative parts (from today’s view) of our state’s history.
Huh?
“… even if it’s an idea about how complacent native Americans were with the Travers des Sioux Treaty.”
I have an ancestor (Red Iron) who was at that treaty. Care to elaborate?
Most interesting…
Do you have anything from your family that would give us the views of Red Iron or other tribe members there? This would be very worthwhile information here, given the general view of this event through Army and white settler eyes.
Many of us have read the conventional history, and some have tried to discern the true native view of this and other incidents. That has never been quite clear, given disruption of tribal continuities and general indifference of white historians.
The treaty painting
In the early 1900s when the Capitol was planned and constructed, White opinions of Native Americans were unabashedly racist. The treaty painting, in particular, needs to come down from there. Reading about treaties and the shameful history involved in them leaves little room for doubt that these events were not to be celebrated. I highly encourage people to listen to some Indigenous perspectives on this, or at the very least read Mary Lethert Wingerd’s book “North Country”, which covers this history in great detail. (See this Minnpost take on it: https://www.minnpost.com/arts-culture/2010/12/13-minnesota-books-you-really-ought-read) As a state government we need to accept our (white) role in what were genocidal policies. Put it in a museum, where we can frame the picture properly as part of a sad and still-troubling history.
Bill
I’d think you would want a few of these rotated before public eyes to remind many of “the shameful history,” as you say. What better place than our seat of government? Think continuity and evolution of sensibilities here.
Instead, you propose censorship here.
Mary Wingerd’s book basically says that white civilization should forever hold its head in shame because we ruined an idyllic stone age culture based on kinship and gifting and non-hierarchical leadership structures, etc. I’ve bought and read it, and appreciate all the work she put in.
But I have to say that I cannot blanket-condemn the existence of all the white people who ever came to Minnesota (or any part of North America–her lament casts a very broad net). Those white people and all their failings are part of history, and she slams and slams them for being who they were and doing what they did. It’s a point of view. But something in me still has compassion for the conditions of white lives, too.
We’re talking here of trying to erase part of our history. Trying to say that whites were never here and never made mistakes–just take them out of the picture (pun intended, in this case) and take the picture out of the Capitol–is really just the same thing as denying Native American existence and values. Just a different population, different culture wiped away.
The Treaty picture, incidentally, attempts to portray a stressless, amicable, totally-fair process. It’s a beautiful painting, but it shows only the white view of what went down in 1851 with the Dakota. Those who haven’t read a lot of historical research on 19th-century Minnesota might benefit from having that painting as a starting point for discussion of the complexity of the occasion portrayed, etc. In that sense, the painting, among others like it, is very valuable to our self-understanding as Minnesotans today.
Perhaps the more controversial pieces
could be placed in areas away from common photo-op backdrops so as not to invoke unwanted symbolism. But I don’t think they should be hidden away either. They could be accompanied by descriptions of how modern historians interpret the events depicted and how the contrast between today’s attitudes and those during the time the art was created makes the artwork controversial. The commentary would help dispel notions that merely displaying the artwork suggests tacit approval of the art’s content.
Although our history provides much to be proud of, it also calls for some measure of humility as well. Reminders that a variety of prejudices now considered unacceptable were once prominent in our own halls of government may help give us pause to humbly reflect on the importance of continuing to work for justice for all.
The capitol should be what we want it to be.
“The Capitol should not become an art institute or an art museum,” Department of Administration Commissioner Matt Massman said at a recent subcommittee meeting. “The Capitol is not intended to be the Walker or the Mia but the state Capitol.”
Obviously, Gilbert and the Legislature that funded the art placed in the building did want an element of grace and history. While that doesn’t appear to have improved the tone of the political process, one can always hope.
Gov
Why not keep a catalog of the art available and let the Governor select what he wants to display? There could be some of the existing art but also a chance for some local artists to display their work as well.
Some of the ‘classic’ (existing) art can stay and I am sure there are museums in the Metro would lend some art from their inventory to display at the Capital during a sitting governors term.
I like the idea of chronologically organizing past governor portraits and would keep those. Thank you.