WHERE'S IKE?

Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial

Downplays Accomplishments,

Despite Intriguing Design

The Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial proposed by the famed Frank Gehry is quantifiably a failure. But don't expect a talk radio-style rant against it on this blog. I'm not going to trash the whole design.

In fact, let me start with the strengths of the proposal: First, it's very different from other Presidential memorials and from other memorials in general. It is going to get attention and stand out when tourists visit Washington and make the rounds.

Second, it makes you think. A lot. Put aside a conversation-starting object like the Washington Monument, and consider the other memorials: While none-the-less impressive, they often have a very clear and literate message. And the standard large statue. Usually that is a good thing. I was glad that Dr. Martin Luther King received the full statuary treatment in his memorial this year. There is controversy about the design and quotations, but by making Dr. King as large or larger than many other historical figures around town, his large impact on our society is emphasized for future generations.

At the same time, Dr. King's memorial tells you what it's all about via text - literally - as you enter the memorial. While the regarding of the statue itself is a moving experience for most visitors, the art's message is not as open to interpretation.

Ike's memorial is the total opposite, and you can spend quite a bit of time considering "what it all means." In business or marketing, that would be considered a failure. In art that is a success.

An outdoor "indoor" space is created by hanging metal tapestries. It is vast, but visitors can also see what is outside of the memorial from within. You could say it represents grand scale, such as the massive scale of the American and Allied war effort Eisenhower led to victory in Europe. Grand scale, such as the truly incredible Interstate Highway System Ike transformed from blueprints into a national mobility revolution.

The tapestries are unique but make a lot of sense. Metal, of course, could reflect the guns, the tanks - the war machine. But the spaces in the exterior suggest Eisenhower's concern for the greater country beyond his military world, reflected in his famous and now-recited-as-cliche warning about the "military-industrial complex." (Before you jump to any conclusions, I am a strong supporter of our military and "military-industrial complex," and would very much like to have more firms like Lockheed Martin move their corporate headquarters here to Montgomery County. Of course, a majority on our county council have expressed just the opposite opinion, and have made that clear through their anti-business policies and public comments.) Ultimately, metal suggests the permanence of a leader who helped the country through two wars.

I think Ike deserves a notable monument for his accomplishments, and his skill as a manager of perhaps the most impressive period of economic growth in our nation's history. He certainly falls into the category of the calm, rational, firm-in-principle yet pragmatic and nuanced leader that one would place Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush into. It's no coincidence that those two men are - like Ike - among the most underappreciated presidents in American history.

That's where the monument fails, however. It will inspire much fascinating thought and discussion. But will the visitor who didn't appreciate Ike when he arrived understand why he was important when he left? Is all the educational heavy lifting strictly the responsibility of the visitor and not the memorial?

What did Eisenhower stand for? In the abstract, strength and mobility. In concrete terms, those were reflected by great military and economic achievements, and the interstate system.

I don't get a sense of either of these from the memorial.

We don't need another Colossus-style statue of a grim-faced Eisenhower towering over Washington. And I don't think the idea of a statue of Eisenhower as a boy is a terrible idea in itself. But we need something that says here was a man who harnessed military might and battlefield strategy to preserve our nation.

And something that at least suggests motion or movement. One of the overlooked founding principles of our nation was freedom of movement. It's changing for the worse today, but our country was meant to be a place where one could move about freely for business or pleasure. No border guards demanding paperwork. No pronouncements or dictates regarding where one could live or work (in theory!). No unwarranted recording of citizen movement. And the ability to move goods for commercial enterprise.

Nothing revolutionized or better fulfilled that goal than our interstate system. It continues to provide mobility and economic opportunity for all Americans some 50+ years later. Where is the intoxicating power of freedom in this memorial?

I won't say the Gehry design should be scrapped. But as it stands now, it is like the Lincoln Memorial without Lincoln's statue inside. Literally.

Check out some of the design yourself, and tell me what you think:

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/design.htm

I can sum it up in one sentence: Where's Ike?