PHIL 347 Week 2 Discussion

Grace J.
August 12, 2025August 12, 2025
CU BSN, PHIL-347

Student Name

Chamberlain University

PHIL-347: Critical Reasoning

Prof. Name

Date

Week 2 Discussion: Context, Meaning, and Value

Selected Option 1: California Washington Mural

The Life of Washington mural was painted by Victor Arnautoff during the Great Depression era. Upon first viewing the images of this mural through a Google search, my initial reaction was one of offense and discomfort. The depiction of Native Americans being targeted by European settlers and the implied violence struck me as painful and inappropriate for public display. The mural seemed to portray Europeans as having a dismissive and unjust attitude towards human rights and devaluing minorities. However, after reading various news articles and reviews about the controversy surrounding these murals, I realized that the meaning, value, and historical context are complex and multifaceted.

Four Key Questions Regarding the Mural

Question	Answer
1. What should be done with the artwork?	The murals should not be destroyed but relocated from the school to an art museum where they can be viewed with historical context. Painted in 1936 during the Great Depression, the mural reflects the social realities and attitudes of that time. While offensive by today’s standards, it serves as an important historical record of the era’s struggles with human rights, war, and societal inequality. Preserving such artworks allows future generations to understand the brutal and complex history of the United States rather than erase it. As Facione (2016) noted, interpretation varies, and history should not be altered.
2. Should contemporary context influence what happens to the artwork?	Yes, modern perceptions and values should influence decisions regarding the mural’s placement. Today’s society recognizes the mural’s offensive and biased portrayal of minorities. Therefore, relocating the mural to a museum and replacing it in the school with artwork created by current students reflecting contemporary values and diversity would be appropriate. This approach balances historical preservation with sensitivity toward current social ethics.
3. What message does the artwork convey?	The mural conveys a political message meant to provoke thought and debate. It reflects the harsh realities of the American Revolutionary War era, highlighting the mistreatment of Native Americans and African Americans. The imagery forces viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about history, including violence, slavery, and genocide. It was likely intended to spark critical reflection on society’s past injustices.
4. Was the artist biased or prejudiced? Do viewers bring bias?	Victor Arnautoff likely used his art to critique society, possibly aiming for notoriety through controversy. His depiction reflects his perception of societal injustice and the brutal treatment of minorities. Viewers inevitably bring their own biases and prejudices to their interpretations, which can vary widely based on personal experiences and perspectives. I believe my interpretation recognizes the artist’s intent to reveal harsh realities rather than to celebrate them.

Expanded Discussion

The mural’s creation during the 1930s—a period marked by economic depression, social inequality, and the looming threat of global war—must be understood in that historical framework. At that time, public discourse around human rights was limited, and many minorities were marginalized. The mural serves as a historical document, albeit one that depicts painful truths in stark, unsettling ways.

While modern viewers might find the imagery disturbing or offensive, it is crucial to recognize the role of such art in challenging sanitized historical narratives. Removing these murals from educational settings and situating them in museums enables thoughtful engagement without perpetuating harm in everyday spaces.

Additional Perspectives: The Kara Walker Mural Controversy

In a related discussion, the placement of Kara Walker’s mural at the Newark State Liberty Library raised concerns due to its graphic content. The artwork portrays disturbing scenes of racial violence and sexual exploitation, which many argue are inappropriate for a public library frequented by children. The library’s decision to cover the piece sparked debate about censorship and artistic freedom. Interestingly, a previously covered painting depicting male nudity was later revealed, suggesting inconsistent standards over time (Carter, 2019).