Wendell Berry’s defense of controversial UK mural is getting stale | Opinion
Both Wendell Berry’s and Ann Rice O’Hanlon’s works draw similar criticisms for their romanticized depictions of rural America. Despite this, I have a measure of regard for Wendell Berry’s works. In fact, I have two family members named Wendell, after the great writer. However, for me it’s becoming harder to appreciate this Wendell as he digs his heels deeper into the issue of the University of Kentucky’s controversial mural.
O’Hanlon’s magnum opus was commissioned in 1934 by the Treasury Relief Art Project, a federal program that was part of the New Deal to provide income and create art during the Great Depression. Born in Ashland in 1908, O’Hanlon (née Rice) was privileged enough to graduate from UK with an art degree, then attend the San Francisco School of Fine Arts. She married another artist and briefly relocated to Kentucky for the creation of this federally funded mural. Just 55 years before O’Hanlon was born, the song “My Old Kentucky Home” was published about, by one interpretation, what a wonderful place Kentucky was to be enslaved. The context of this song, as well as the context surrounding the mural in question, is rich and interesting, and worthy of discussion. In 1986, the song was revised. Perhaps in 2023, Memorial Hall can be similarly revised to reflect a fuller and deeper understanding of the history of all peoples on this land commonly called Kentucky.
In his appeal to readers on Dec. 22, Berry seems to equate an artistic depiction with historical import. What inherent value does this “public work of art” contain? Berry only offers that it was considered significant at the time by “qualified critics,” including UK employees. Then he asks, “what would they think of the fresco if there were no black people in it?” The issue isn’t *whether* certain people are depicted in a near-century old mural, but *how.* To claim that it is of cultural and historical significance just because it already exists is similar to claiming Confederate shrines are also. Oh, wait, Berry said that too. That a thing exists does not necessarily warrant its continued existence, though the reasons for change should be well-examined. Change is not erasure.
Looking at the mural myself, I just don’t see great art. It comes across as a poor imitation of fellow TRAP artist Diego Rivera. The nostalgic, romantic representations of harmonious caricatures do not accurately represent Kentucky’s beginnings. Where is the genocide? The slave auctions? If it is free speech, as Berry claims, then it is inaccurate and misinformed speech. If freedom is in question, why does Berry’s freedom matter more than that of the students who protest the mural? An institution of higher education may do well to represent something else.
If UK’s Memorial Hall was to be a monument to honor the students and graduates killed in World War I, then this mural does no such thing. If it is indeed the property of the public, then why can’t the public have a say in what happens to it? “All Buildings Matter” to Wendell Berry, and rectifying a wrong is censorship. Whether Berry is grasping for his family’s legacy or his race’s, as a Kentuckian and UK employee, I am tired of this narrative.
We cannot know the intentions, motivations, or implicit biases of any person, even a family member. Berry’s insistence that his wife’s aunt was certainly not racist just doesn’t land. The (more-or-less) fictional citizens of Port William didn’t have to spend too much effort working on race relations in their historical, geographical, and literary context. Certainly the context surrounding the nostalgic and romanticized writings of Wendell Berry is complex and worthy of discussion. Now it seems to me that Berry and his family have said all that I care to hear about the history of Kentucky. He’s spoken well, and I took much of it to heart. Now I want to hear different voices.
Joy Miracle is a research assistant, old time musician, and small-scale farmer in Central Kentucky.
