Dylan Brogan
So now what are we going to have to talk about?
The UW athletics department moved “Nails’ Tales” on Aug. 21 from its prominent location in front of Camp Randall to an undisclosed location. (That’s not exactly true. It was disclosed as being someplace in the middle of nowhere.)
The sculpture had provided Madisonians with something to talk about since it was installed back in 2005. And one thing it accomplished for sure was that it brought the community together. There was little disagreement. Pretty much everyone thought it was horrible or just kind of bad.
Opinions of the piece ran from loathing to indifference. To my knowledge, no one stepped up to say that it was a great piece of art, but some may harbor that view in the way a Trump supporter on Willy Street would talk about his support for the president, which is to say very sparingly.
My own reaction was “eh.” I didn’t think it was beautiful, that’s for sure, but I didn’t think it was all that ugly either. It wasn’t worth defending as a work of public art that challenged the public in any meaningful way because it didn’t. The artist said that he named it after his college roommate Eric “Nails” Nathan. Nails Nathan is not a controversial figure in the community. As far as I can tell he’s not a person anybody has ever heard of in the community.
Anyway, the art that bore Nails Nathan’s name wasn’t exactly garish. Its cement color seemed to blend in with the surroundings. It was sort of ugly but in an unassuming kind of way. So, I never quite understood why “Nails’ Tales” evoked such hatred with more than a few folks.
For me it evoked a yawn. I only got worked up about it once. A few years ago when there was another serious discussion of removing it the artist, Donald Lipski, invoked an agreement that he claimed gave him veto rights on locating it anywhere else. I thought that that was outrageously arrogant on his part. If the public doesn’t like his work, and the work doesn’t have anything challenging or particularly interesting to say, where does the artist get off jamming it down their throats? I’m not sure what changed this time but Lipski is not objecting to its removal now. Good for him.
“Nails’” actually sparked a refreshingly benign debate here. Not too many people really took it all that seriously. With no political controversy behind the work — unless you felt strongly about Nails Nathan — we weren’t playing with live ammunition.
The same can’t be said for other works of public art, like the many Confederate statues in the South or of the mural at George Washington High School in San Francisco.
In San Francisco, a Russian immigrant painter created a mural in the 1930s with funding from the Works Progress Administration. It depicted the life of Washington, but with a surprisingly contemporary and critical twist. It shows Washington pointing west over the heads of slaves and a dead Native American. The work was intended to be critical of both Washington and of the whole concept of Manifest Destiny. It’s generally regarded as an important work by a noted artist. It was intended to spark critical thought, so of course, why would anyone want something like that in a school?
The San Francisco school board was poised to spend $600,000 to have it destroyed on the grounds that it might traumatize some students. They’ve since backed down and the plan now is to cover it up instead, though preservationists are still fighting to keep it visible.
So, it could be a lot worse. “Nails’ Tales” did not tear apart our community. It just gave us something to talk about that didn’t go to anything very deep. It was like the weather if you don’t get into climate change. My barber, Tim, at Stadium Barbers across the street from the statue, even said that he used it as a conversation starter with new customers.
And when we did talk about “Nails’ Tales” we all pretty much agreed we didn’t like it or didn’t care enough not to like it. I don’t know. Maybe the right thing to do would have been to leave it in place as a symbol of community solidarity.
