Reframe: City Hall Mural
Phase I Report
January 2024
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
Executive Summary
Introduction
Reframe: City Hall Mural Background
Larger civic memory and public art landscape
Beginnings of the Reframe: City Hall Mural project
Preliminary work
About Our Process
The Working Circle
Selection and composition
Working CirclejJourney
Public programs
Feedback activity engagement
Interviews and small group engagements
The History of the Mural
Stanton Macdonald-Wright as WPA administrator
Some common misconceptions
Interpretations of the Mural
The southwest or “recreation” side of the mural
The northwest side of the mural
Debated figures and features
Historical context and potential sources
Are the representations in the mural objectionable?
Current Conversations and Case Studies in the Field
Monument removals and historical revisions: Los Angeles Columbus Statue (1973) in Grand Park
Serra Statue (1930) at El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument National monuments and artwork case studies
Early Days sculpture within the Pioneer Monument (1894) in San Francisco Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt and Old New York diorama at the American Museum of Natural History
Dangers of the Mail (1937) at the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building Life of Washington (1936) at George Washington High School Themes in the case studies
1 11
13 13
15 17
18 21
21 22
26 27
28 31
32 33
36 37
39 40
44 46
49 49
49 50
51 52
53 55
56 57
Table of Contents
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
Feedback Activity Responses
Sentiments about the mural in the feedback activity
Suggested actions in response to the mural in feedback activity responses Feedback from Particular Constituencies
Santa Monica First Peoples
Larger Indigenous community
African American or Black, Asian American, and Latine/x Santa Monicans Pico Youth and Family Center
Santa Monica historic preservation community
Marquez family descendants
City of Santa Monica employees
Recommendations
Values supporting the recommendations
Why are we not talking about removing or covering the mural Recommendations concerning the mural and new artwork
Recommendation 1 – Commission new artwork in City Hall lobby Recommendation 2 – Commission new interpretive panels
Recommendation 3 – Ensure that Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative landscape centers equity and belonging
Recommendation 4 – Create additional educational materials about the mural Recommendations for City of Santa Monica to lead beyond the mural and new artwork
Recommendation 5 – Expand DEI+ trainings for City staff Recommendation 6 – Adopt a Citywide land/territory acknowledgment initiative Recommendation 7 – Improve representation on Santa Monica committees Recommendation 8 – Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica Recommendation 9 – Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships Conclusion
Credits and Acknowledgements
Appendices
Appendix A: City Hall Mural Recent Historical Timeline
Appendix B: Working Circle Discussion and Development of Values, Statements, and Recommendations
Appendix C: Engagement Details
Appendix D: Letters from Tribal Communities
58 58
60 61
61 62
62 63
64 64
65 66
66 67
68 68
69 70
71 71
71 72
73 73
74 75
76 79
80 81
93 102
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 1
The Reframe: City Hall Mural project emerged from protest and debates around the Stanton MacDonald-Wright mural in the lobby of Historic Santa Monica City Hall entitled History of Santa Monica and the Bay District. The mural has long been a point of controversy, but in 2015 a renewed effort brought public criticism for its depiction of First Peoples and settlers and its portrayal of 1930s Santa Monica as an affluent, all-white, predominantly male, center of leisure.
Starting the Process
The City of Santa Monica began work on addressing longstanding concerns around the WPA-era mural in the lobby of Historic City Hall with direction from the Arts Commission in 2018. This direction informed initial planning for the project and included a 5-point plan of committee work, programming, and funding for new artwork commissions to address the mural. These were:
Executive Summary
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report
The City of Santa Monica Acknowledge + Reframe Together (Reframe) Initiative centers community voices with the aim of creating a more just and equitable Santa Monica. Through a deliberative and collaborative process, each Reframe project starts with community members who have been historically excluded from discourse about representation in civic spaces, especially communities of color. Reframe utilizes a combination of art, storytelling and deep community engagement, and results in the production of public art and civic memory projects.
This report is the culmination of Phase I of Reframe: City Hall Mural, summarizing the process of community engagement and subsequent community recommendations.
Background
The Working Circle meets at Historic Santa Monica City
Hall lobby. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 2
1. Form a Mural Subcommittee. The Subcommittee will inform and guide the planning process managed by City staff (formed in November 2018).
2. Issue an Art Bank call specifically requesting artworks that respond to Indigenous or other often overlooked histories of Santa Monica (resulting in the Lives that Bind exhibit in City Hall East).
3. Coordinate a panel discussion series that will host open public dialogues with experts from diverse perspectives including Indigenous Peoples, History, and Art (executed by Meztli Projects as part of Phase I).
4. Commission a temporary participatory artwork in City Hall to collect community voices (evolved into the Meztli Projects Phase I lobby display and feedback activity).
5. Informed by the community engagement and panels series, commission a permanent educational panel or other artistic interpretation at City Hall to recontextualize the Macdonald-Wright mural (part of the recommendations included in this report by Meztli Projects arising from the community engagement process of Phase I).
City Council Direction
In the midst of the Arts Commission’s recontextualization work, Public Works Department staff received additional direction from the City Council in May 2021 to install a temporary scrim to cover the mural prior to the return to City Hall for in person, public meetings.
Simultaneously, the Arts Commission and Cultural Affairs were directed to initiate a community engagement and education process around the representations depicted in the mural, as well as “engaging an artist to recontextualize the mural with artwork that does not whitewash our past but rather celebrates the diverse history of Santa Monica’s people, culture and its renewed commitment to acknowledging the movement for equity, justice and respect for all.”
The Mural Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by Council on September 28, 2021 to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks and Arts Commissions to help guide the process to recontextualize the mural. Following the community process and informed by community input, the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked to return to the full City Council with a set of recommendations for Council consideration (this report). The adopted recommendations would then inform an RFP to engage an artist or artist team to produce and install artistic recontextualization(s). This phase was overseen by the Arts Commission under its authority as custodians of the City’s public art collection.
In February 2022, Council directed staff to no longer install a temporary scrim over the Stanton Macdonald-Wright mural in the lobby and instead directed staff “to launch a process that engages and educates the community and results in the addition of artwork within the lobby to create a more inclusive and complete story of the City’s history and vision for the future” and directed staff to “explore the creation of a temporary lobby display around the themes that will be explored during the larger community education and engagement process.” Cultural Affairs contracted with consultants Meztli Projects in 2022 to design a City Hall Mural project Phase I to engage Santa Monica community members in conversations both in general around representation and belonging, and with the specific questions arising from the lobby mural.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 3
The Meztli Projects facilitation team is composed of four artists, curators, and researchers: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo.
Meztli was selected by the City for its novel approach and expertise in public art, qualitative research, experience working with Indigenous communities, expansive community engagement strategies, and most importantly, for its deep involvement in emerging conversations around authentic and new approaches to public memory and commemoration at a local, regional and national levels.
Meztli Projects’ approach to the work:
• A “Working Circle” focus group composed of 13 individuals with strong ties to very different parts of Santa Monica that committed to attend public programs as well as meet as a cohort to act as an advisory body and think tank for six months. At the end of this process, the Working Circle discussed actions that could be taken in response to the mural. Their discussions informed the recommendations in this report.
• A series of Public Programs on relevant themes including a bus tour of sites of memory; virtual and in-person panel discussions about art, civic memory and alternate histories of Santa Monica; a virtual tour of relevant educational resources; a reflective listening workshop and a screening of the documentary Town Destroyer. Additionally, they created programming through the perspective of First Peoples as a starting point to engage issues of equity and inclusion.
• The creation and installation of Lobby Displays in Historic City Hall that explained the project and presented updates to City Hall visitors. • A Feedback Activity to survey members of the public about their perceptions of the mural and spark ideas for new public artworks.
• Interviews and Small Group Engagements with a broad spectrum of individuals who have a stake in the mural conversation or have voiced opinions about it, subject matter experts, and local content experts. Meztli also visited existing community meetings and had one-on-one conversations with targeted constituencies.
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Interviews &
Small Groups
Report
Over six months, the team produced 8+ public programs, conducted 15 interviews with key stakeholders, surveyed over 300 people across Santa Monica, and convened a Working Circle made up of 13 individuals with ties to distinct communities and diverse perspectives on Santa Monica’s history and public art.
The Working Circle engaged one another in an ongoing deep group process to learn together and ultimately develop and prioritize recommendations.
Method
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 4
The Working Circle met a total of 13 times as a group – 4 of these were in person, with the rest taking place on Zoom. Working Circle members also attended the public programs when possible. Meetings were facilitated to create an environment that would allow trust to grow, make sure that all members felt that they had space to speak, and create a “brave” space where members ask difficult questions, and bring their authentic perspective. Meztli prioritized small group breakout discussions, as well as a “circle” format intended to make sure everyone had equal opportunity to speak.
The public programs explored themes of Indigeneity, art history, innovative civic memory projects, local sites of memory, alternative archives and public history projects based in Santa Monica, reflective listening and healing through story, and related controversies about public art and history. At each of these events, Meztli found an audience that was fully engaged by the topic and often eager to voice their opinions on the mural. Meztli was focused on expanding the conversation to engage a larger landscape of questions and concerns around inclusion, repair, civic memory and public space.
Meztli also conducted extensive research using archival materials and interviews with content experts. The findings from each of these kinds of engagement can be found in the following report.
History of Santa Monica and the Bay District is a “petrachrome” (similar to terrazzo) mural installed on the interior walls of the lobby of Santa Monica’s City Hall building, designed by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, an American artist who spent his early years in Santa Monica. The mural was commissioned through the Works Progress Administration’s (WPA) Federal Art Project. MacdonaldWright also acted as the administrator of the WPA project’s Southern California division, supervising numerous other artists and their projects. MacdonaldWright’s mural was completed in 1939 along with the building itself. The City of Santa Monica owns the mural and it is part of the City’s public art collection.
Santa Monica City Hall was landmarked in 1979 and the mural was mentioned in the designation. In 2011, the exterior of City Hall was given a supplemental landmark designation.
About the Mural
Detail of the mural “History of Santa Monica and the Bay District” by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, 1939. Southwest
panel shown to the left, northwest panel shown to the right.
Photos: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 5
It appears Macdonald-Wright had no outside guidance or oversight over the content, considering the complete absence of archival materials relating to the mural. Typically, mural artists would be asked to submit drawings and sketches before being permitted to produce and install public projects. The City Hall mural has almost no paper trail, suggesting that Macdonald-Wright, because he was both artist and commissioner, did not submit any concepts, written descriptions, drawings or plans to any oversight body.
Macdonald-Wright did speak explicitly about the mural in an interview about the objects, places, and figures in the southwest side: Will Rogers and his polo field, automobile racing on San Vicente or Wilshire Blvd, the Douglas Building, Harry M. Gorham, tennis players May Sutton and Tom Bundy, as well as the artist’s own dogs.
There are no recorded descriptions of who or what Macdonald-Wright was intending to render on the northwest side of the mural. We can only speculate about who or what is depicted, outside of the mural’s general title: History of Santa Monica and the Bay District.
It is mostly agreed that the northwest panel includes depictions of a Franciscan monk (most likely Father Serra); a man with a helmet (possibly Gaspar de Portolá); a figure on horseback (which could represent the Spanish period or an extension of the Portolá expedition); waterfalls (perhaps Kuruvungna Springs); and the two figures on the bottom right, who are intended to be Indigenous people.
The largest point of interpretive contention is whether the overall scene presented is objectionable. Throughout this process, Meztli encountered three different major kinds of objections and three major defenses regarding the First Peoples’ portrayal.
Objections
1. The figures are showing deference or subservience to the conquerors.
This portrayal is traumatic to survivors of generational violence because it depicts a triumphant moment of subjugation.
2. The figures are showing collaboration and goodwill towards their soonto-be oppressors. This portrayal is traumatic not only because it erases a history of extreme violence and cruelty but suggests that Native people welcomed it.
3. The figures are generally shown as less than the other white/Spanish figures and whether they are revered or vilified, they are not portrayed as real humans or on the same level as one another.
Defenses
1. The figures are shown in a way that honors Native people, because they relate to the earth, look strong, or their posture might reference East Asian figures such as bodhisattvas.
2. The figures are helpful because they acknowledge that people lived here before European invasion.
3. The figures are neutral and just happen to be in the higher and lower positions they are in because it makes a dynamic composition. The figures may or may not even be having an interaction.
These interpretations cannot be resolved definitively. While some viewers feel no offense at seeing these images, it is beyond debate that many other viewers most certainly do and feel very harmed by them.
Detail of the City Hall mural. Photo: Kenneth Lopez,
Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 6
Through a public feedback activity, Meztli had people engage directly with the mural images to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but also their emotional responses and attachments to the mural. They collected feedback activity responses from February 6, 2023, through May 10, 2023 and received 337 responses to the feedback activity.
The mural images are offensive, disturbing, or exclusionary. A majority of the respondents found one or both of the mural panels to be offensive, disturbing, or exclusionary. Overall, these respondents felt that the mural represented the hierarchies inherent in settler colonialism and white supremacy. In the northwest panels, they noted the lower position of the Native figures and the difference in detail in facial expressions and clothing between the European and Native figures. They reacted to the fact that the colonizing figures are shown facing the viewer in active positions (mid-stride). Many people read the images as representing the Native figures in a subservient position and noted that they appear to be faceless or turned away from the viewer.
In response to the southwest panels, respondents overwhelmingly noted the fact all the figures represented are white and appear to be upper class. Many noted that there is only one woman represented in either panel, and she also does not have facial detail. Children felt they were not adequately represented either.
Many respondents found this “recreation” panel to be the more problematic image in its representation of white elitism. Especially paired with the northwest panel and as a representation of “Santa Monica of the 1930s/present day,” it appears to suggest an erasure of both Indigenous people and anyone non-white in a contemporary Santa Monica.
The mural images are beautiful or valuable, but also contain troubling aspects that need addressing. Another, smaller group of respondents appreciated the mural for its artistic or historical significance, but also recognized that the images have significant flaws that require a response. Many of these respondents found the images beautiful, particularly the natural landscape depicted and how the images coordinate with the tile work and other architectural elements of the City Hall lobby. These respondents often placed a value on historic preservation, and some were aware of the New Deal origins of the artwork or other pieces by the artist. However, the concerns articulated by these respondents mirrored the concerns of the larger group of respondents who found the images particularly lacking in terms of Native representation and missing large groups of Santa Monicans.
The mural images are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with them. A roughly similarly sized group of respondents felt that the mural is perfect, and nothing needs to be done to address it. Many of these respondents provided less detail in their responses, but they have mostly positive or neutral interpretations of what is depicted in both panels. A few have negative interpretations but feel strongly that the images are still beautiful or valuable because of their historic significance. This group might have some minor suggestions about what is missing or how the images could be improved, but these suggestions, if they have them, are in the realm of “quibbles.” They are not offended by the mural.
Quite the contrary, overall, the artwork makes these respondents feel happy or proud, and some have very strong attachments to the mural.
The mural images are neutral or negative, but as historical artifacts, they have little bearing on the present. Another roughly similarly sized group of respondents was somewhat indifferent about the artworks. Some of them interpreted the images as having negative or exclusionary elements, but they were not particularly concerned about the images. As historic images were created in the past, some felt that these images are either unrelatable or have Summary of
Feedback
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 7
little import for today. Some felt that because they are historic images, they cannot or should not be changed.
The discussion about the mural is a distraction from other pressing issues in Santa Monica. A small number of respondents felt that the process of engagement around the mural was a waste of time and resources. They would have preferred that Santa Monica spent those resources addressing qualityof-life concerns and development pressures. Some of these respondents also expressed their strong attachment to the mural. Others were more indifferent or felt the mural had no bearing on the present.
While no group of such diverse people will ever agree on everything, there was substantial agreement about values among the Working Circle members and the following values helped drive the discussion about the recommendations in this report.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that Santa Monica should:
• Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural. • Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was important to:
• Center working class people and other people of color in the City’s response to the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that people have with the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
• Make sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/ like they belong.
And about three-quarters of the group felt it was important to:
• Attend to the people who feel harmed by the mural.
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide considerations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples. • Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning images. • Create new opportunities for artists.
• Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural. • Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
The harm that this mural has caused is important and considerable, and removing or covering the mural would guard against continuing this harm.
However, removal or covering does not address the harm that has already been done. Therefore, the immediate and urgent focus should be on actions that move towards repair for the communities harmed, such as those we have laid out in these recommendations.
Our Working Circle discussions supported this direction, even though some in the Working Circle would still like to see the mural removed. Several Working Circle members reflected at the end of the process that they believed, knowing Shared Values
Note About Actions
to Remove or
Cover the Mural
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 8
more about the histories represented in the mural and the history of the mural, that simply removing the mural would be letting the City “off the hook” for tacitly endorsing the images by letting them remain unaddressed for so long. This was a concern that was echoed by some throughout our engagement process, including City of Santa Monica employees, feedback activity respondents, and interviewees.
Just as the Council reversed their decision to cover the mural so that the mural would be visible during the process of public engagement, continuing to leave the mural up and uncovered can provide further opportunities to engage and address the harm that mural has caused. However, leaving it up does create an ongoing risk of continued harm if no other actions are taken. As a result, the Working Circle members were in strong agreement that the City should NOT “do nothing” with the mural, nor should the City sell or cover it at this time.
In addition, Santa Monica First Peoples are clearly among the most impacted by this artwork, but the process to remove and or cover the mural was not initiated by them. When advocacy efforts such as these are not rooted in the community that faces the biggest impacts by any issue (in this case First Peoples), they are burdened with uncompensated emotional, cultural, and intellectual labor that responds to the issue raised within a frame that First Peoples did not help construct. Not removing the mural offers an opportunity for First Peoples to uplift these issues from their perspective so that the outcomes and futurity of their reflections are driven by them. Many of the recommendations in this report speak to the reparative actions community members signaled were of utmost importance and were possible while keeping the mural in place for the time being.
Therefore, the City should make clear commitments to addressing the mural, including reasons for leaving the mural on display. This could include taking full accountability for the mural and making the lobby a space to publicly and clearly condemn the attitudes made manifest by the mural.
Recommendation 1:
Commission new artwork in City Hall lobby
This emerged as the highest priority. The art should present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented as “historically significant.” City Hall is a center of power, and the new work needs to balance or redress the exclusions exemplified in the existing mural.
The new work should address the hierarchies in the southwest panels as well— Black, Brown, Asian American, working-class people, unemployed people, and poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939 and deal with themes of ongoing Indigenous presence in Santa Monica. The new work should create a welcoming environment for Indigenous people, working-class people, and people of color.
Recommendation 2:
Commission new interpretive panels
The City should create interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced religious conversion, white supremacy generally and the mural’s portrayal of First Peoples in particular. These panels should be written by an advisory group including an Indigenous person and other people of color and should be at a scale and placement that is unmissable for viewers of the mural, ideally installed in close visual proximity.
Recommendations
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 9
Recommendation 3:
Ensure that Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative landscape centers equity and belonging
The Reframe: City Hall Mural process should be the beginning of a series of steps taken by the City of Santa Monica to revisit the policies and processes that govern public artwork and civic memory, including processes to support emerging and underrepresented artists in receiving new commissions. As part of this, the City should conduct a survey of the existing public art, monuments and sites of civic memory throughout Santa Monica, so that gaps and opportunities can be identified. The City should also commission new artwork on the theme of inclusion and representing other views of Santa Monica’s history in a location that is much more publicly visible and meaningful.
Recommendation 4:
Create additional educational materials about the mural Many believe that the mural can serve an educational purpose. All agreed that this would be a deep challenge and not something to be taken on lightly. Many felt that City staff are ill-equipped to do this work and would need substantive partnerships with other institutions to make this meaningful. This is a good opportunity for Santa Monica to invest in the creative and scholarly development of underrepresented communities.
BEYOND THE MURAL AND NEW ARTWORK
There was an extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle that the City’s response should not be limited to actions related to the cultural sphere or the City Hall Lobby and that the City should act to materially address issues related to the exclusions seen in the mural. Centering the perspectives of First Peoples and “doing something concrete” were highly rated values consistent with the following recommendations. Implementation of the following recommendations would require collaboration and resources and may be considered in the context of developing a Citywide Equity Plan.
Recommendation 5:
Expand DEI+ trainings for City staff
City should build on actions taken since its Racial Equity Statement of 2020, which included the formation of an Office of Equity and Inclusion and the subsequent launch of an Equity Plan process. It should expand DEI training for all City staff. To be successful, future efforts should focus on implementation strategies and tools for staff, moving away from a white worldview and centering the overlapping experiences, shared spaces and mutual accountability of underrepresented peoples.
Recommendation 6:
Adopt a Citywide land/territory acknowledgment initiative Land Acknowledgements, although extremely important, can become diluted as these acknowledgments are the bare minimum of the protocols from which they originate. Santa Monica has an opportunity to adopt a city-wide land acknowledgment initiative that includes the actionable practices such as a new Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC) to help advise its decision-makers on issues similar to those raised through Reframe.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 10
Recommendation 7:
Improve representation on Santa Monica committees
As of the writing of this report there are no First Peoples serving as part of the Arts Commission or Landmarks Commission, among other bodies. Some of the issues raised from the City Hall Mural could have been mitigated if members of the communities excluded from and/or misrepresented in the mural had been included in these kinds of decision-making bodies.
Recommendation 8:
Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
There is an opportunity for Santa Monica to develop creative ways for First Peoples communities to practice sovereignty and self-determination. Santa Monica could partner with First Peoples to create opportunities for their members to return home.
Recommendation 9:
Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships
While not in Santa Monica, Working Circle members had strong agreement that the City of Santa Monica continue to build relationships with the Kuruvungna Springs Foundation and support their efforts to have the land transferred back to them.
The mural and the controversy around it have created a rare and critical focal point of civic energy. The key is not to squander the moment and let it further perpetuate ill-will and distrust, but rather to use it to move towards equity, justice and a better Santa Monica. The mural has provided an incredible opportunity to reframe the conversation.
Authors
Meztli Projects Facilitation Team: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo
Reframe Working Circle Members
Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon Alvarado, Miguel Bravo, Lizette Hernandez, Bob Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde, Sharon Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco, and Zora Zajicek Santa Monica Arts Commission Mural Subcommittee
Public Art Committee Member Francois Bar and Arts Commissioners Michael Baroff, Kathleen Benjamin (Working Circle liaison), Janeen Jackson, Iao Katagiri and Deepa Subramanian
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Mural Subcommittee
Commissioners Roger Genser (Working Circle liaison), Amy Green, and Dolores Sloan
Santa Monica City Council Mural Ad Hoc Committee
Councilmembers Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre
Credits
Acknowledgements
from City of
Santa Monica
Reframe: City Hall Mural Project Phase I is a project of the City of Santa Monica.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 11
The Acknowledge + Reframe Together (Reframe) Initiative of Santa Monica Cultural Affairs produces public art and civic memory projects that center community voices with the aim of creating a more just and equitable Santa Monica.1 In particular, Reframe focuses on centering the voices and experiences of communities of color who have been historically excluded from discourse and representation in civic spaces. Belmar History + Art (2019-2021) was a demonstration project that inspired this initiative.2 The Reframe initiative also aligns with other recent City of Santa Monica equity and inclusion efforts. In 2020, the Santa Monica City Council voted to advance equity and inclusion work within the City organization, including the formation of a Racial Equity Committee and adoption of the Racial Equity Statement developed by staff participants in the Government Alliance on Race and Equity.3 In 2022, the City adopted a Statement of Apology to African American Residents and their Descendants.
With the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, the City has embarked on a public engagement process to reconsider the WPA-era mural by Stanton MacdonaldWright in the Historic City Hall lobby. The City of Santa Monica engaged Meztli Projects to create an engagement process and gather community feedback.
Meztli Projects is an Indigenous-based arts & culture collaborative centering Indigeneity by using arts-based strategies to highlight Native and Indigenous Artists and systems-impacted peoples. Meztli Projects has been successful in empowering community members, centering community interests, bringing in civic entities and finding ways to align goals.
Our facilitation team for this project is made up of four artists, curators and researchers: Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo.
We were selected by the City for our novel approach and expertise in public art and qualitative research, experience working with Indigenous communities, expansive community engagement strategies, and most importantly, because we have been deeply involved in emerging conversations around authentic and new approaches to public memory and commemoration at local, regional and national levels. Additionally, Santa Monica selected our team’s proposal because our approach flattens hierarchies, expands notions of historical and artistic expertise and offers ways to resource community members with tools around the values of shared leadership.
1 For more information about the Acknowledge and Reframe Together initiative, visit https://santamonica. gov/programs/acknowledge-and-reframe-together.
2 For more information about the Belmar History + Art project, visit https://www.santamonica.gov/belmar-history-art. 3 For more information about the City of Santa Monica’s Equity work, visit https://santamonica.gov/equity.
Meztli Projects
Introduction
In the last decade, the City of Santa Monica has been focused on prioritizing equity, diversity, inclusion and justice in response to societal changes in understanding about the impact of systemic exclusion in our communities. The intent of this work is to address the unmet and unheard needs of marginalized community members, to center their experiences and respond with new policies and actions to address long-term harm.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 12
This report, written by Meztli Projects, is the summation of a six-month engagement process commissioned by the City of Santa Monica. The report contains specific recommendations for City staff to present to the City Council.
After delivery of this report, the Meztli team will produce bridge programming intended to continue engagement with the themes of this project between Phase I (public engagement and Working Circle meetings) and Phase II (actions in response to the mural and recommendations as directed by the City Council).
Bridge programming will set the stage for Phase II and continue the important conversations begun in Phase I.
Santa Monica
Arts Commission
Santa Monica
Landmarks
Commission
Santa Monica
City Council
City of Santa
Monica Cultural
Affairs
REFRAME
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
PHASE I:
Report and
Recommendations
• Allocates budgets
• Provides policy direction
• Appoints commissioners,
reviews appeals
• Will deliver Reframe
report and staff report
based on Reframe
Report to City Council
• Commissions and
promotes cultural
projects in Santa
Monica (including a
Phase II of Reframe)
• Approves public art
and selects artists
• Decision-making
body on any proposed
changes to designated
City Landmarks.
PHASE II:
Implementation of
Recommendations
Reframe: City Hall Mural Roles & Next Steps
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 13
Reframe: City Hall Mural Background
Larger civic
memory and
public art
landscape
This initiative is situated in a larger spectrum of projects that re-examine and re-imagine the landscape of civic memory and public art in ways that decenter white supremacist or settler colonial depictions of U.S. history and uplift other stories and perspectives. At a national level, beginning in 2013, movements such as Black Lives Matter responded to police brutality by activating a national response to white supremacy and called for intervention in policing and the criminal justice system. This spurred local and national efforts to reconsider, and in many cases, remove Confederate statues and monuments across the United States. This movement energized long-standing projects to engage portrayals of U.S. history that valorized colonizers like Christopher Columbus and colonial institutions like the Mission System. On the West Coast, this includes a reconsideration of figures like Junipero Serra, whose 2015 canonization by the Catholic Church was widely protested by Native American tribes up and down the West Coast.
This narrative change work requires new voices to lead efforts to tell their own stories. Local and regional governments are beginning to recognize this need and are working to provide tools, resources and support to these communities. Organizations like Monument Lab in Philadelphia have led the way in both creating an audit of our existing commemorative landscape as well as prototyping new forms and structures for producing civic memory.4 Progressive local and regional governments as well as major funders like the Mellon Foundation have invested heavily in this work; the Mellon Foundation has funded over 1,300 projects with $250 million since 2020.
Local examples of this work include the 2018 removal of the Columbus statue at Los Angeles’ Grand Park because of the political pressure brought on by Indigenous communities and the Native American Indian Commission. 4 “National Monument Audit,” Monument Lab. Philadelphia, PA. 2021. https://monumentlab.com/audit 5 Ashley Dobson, Tremayne Nez, and Representatives from the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, “‘We Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes” (Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission & Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture, January 2023). 2013
Black Lives Matter
protests
Photo: Fibonacci Blue
2018
Grand Park Columbus
statue fell
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Local Tribes
The land that we call Santa Monica was originally and is still inhabited and cared for by the Tongva, Kizh, and Chumash peoples, and by the Tataviam and Serrano in the larger present day Los Angeles region. “As the Spanish expanded into Alta California, they enslaved Native peoples, forcing them to build and maintain the missions, pueblos, and presidios for the Spanish settlers while enduring unspeakable abuse at the hands of Spanish soldiers. Local Tribes were forced to move from their villages and give up their languages and culture.
Tribes were given new names after the missions, which is reflected in the names of many local Tribes today.”5 There are six Tribal groups in this region today:
• Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission
Indians
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal
Council
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• San Fernando Band of Mission Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 14
In 2020, local community activists removed the Junipero Serra statue on Olvera Street in downtown Los Angeles, and that same year, the Columbus Statue was taken down in San Francisco. This, along with the racial reckoning taking place in the country, initiated a larger conversation around contested public art objects across Southern California. After the removal, as a step towards addressing the harm of the statue, the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture (LACDAC) partnered with Meztli Projects to produce Memory and Futurity in Yaangna/Yaanga,6 a series of programs looking at the authentic and multi-layered history of Yaangna/Yaanga (Downtown Los Angeles). The project explored memory culture, public space and civic art and presented works by Tongva7 artists Mercedes Dorame and Cindi Alvitre.
Also as part of the project, LACDAC hired a team of consultants to create a Land Access toolkit to guide the County in thinking through how to engage questions around land access and the various injustices done to Native communities.
The team released “ʻWe Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes, which shares recommendations around land return and land access and provides some frameworks to think about the importance of public art in that conversation.8 Concurrently, as an extension of WE RISE 2022, the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and Cause Communications in collaboration with Meztli Projects created the Oak Tree Rehoming Project to revitalize cultural spaces important to the Gabrieleno/ Tongva community. The project will plant sacred Oak Trees as an initiative to raise awareness about native plant life, land, and land access. These ancestor Oaks act as an alternative form of memorialization and have the power to anchor Gabrieleno/Tongva communities to their ancestral lands.
Simultaneously to this work at the County level, a conversation began in the City of Los Angeles with the Mayor’s Office Civic Memory Working Group, which convened for the first time in November 2019. In June 2020, local community activists removed the Junipero Serra statue on Olvera Street in downtown Los Angeles. The Civic Memory Working Group issued their report in April 2021, which included 18 key recommendations complemented by subcommittee reports, essays and photo essays, interviews and roundtable discussions.9 These conversations laid the foundation for a formal apology to Los Angeles First Peoples delivered by Mayor Eric Garcetti along with Councilman Mitch O’Farrell (Wyandotte) at Olvera where the Serra statue was toppled and other significant civic memory projects, such as the Memorial to the Victims of the 1871 Chinese Massacre.
Along a similar timeline in the Los Angeles region, the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Tribe accepted a small parcel of land from a private donor and established the Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa10 Conservancy. The Conservancy is a Tongva-led organization created to care for this land and future land return. The Conservancy is composed of members from various Tongva Tribal Councils as a way to expand inclusivity across the various Gabrieleno communities that are situated in different parts of Los Angeles County. Because there is no mechanism in California to return land to First Peoples, the Tongva community established this land conservancy to create opportunities to receive and steward their homelands. Other local efforts to generate resources include the AcknowledgeRent initiative, established by the Fernandeño Tataviam Band 6 Pronounced: Yang-Na
7 Pronounced: TONG-və
8 Dobson, Ashley et al. “‘We Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes.”
9 “Past Due: Report and Recommendations of the Los Angeles Mayor’s Office Civic Memory Working Group” (Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West, April 2021), http://civicmemory.la. 10 Pronounced: Tar-a-haht pah-hava
2020
Virginia Confederate
statues toppled
2020
Serra statue toppled
2021
Garcetti issues apology,
renames Serra park,
creates land easement
2019
Newsom issued an
apology for the state’s role
in violence toward and
displacement of Native
Americans in California
Photo: Ronnie Pitman
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: California Gov. Newsom’s Office
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 15
of Mission Indians to help fund the Tribal Administration operations, education, language revitalization, culture, wellness programming and federal recognition.
Similar conversations and interventions have been happening in the Bay Area as well. In 2018, the Early Days sculpture was removed from the Pioneer Monument.
In 2019, projects were commissioned to reclaim the space that the monument took up, including a portrait series in which 150 members of the Bay Area Indigenous community were photographed standing on the plinth where Early Days stood. In June 2020, the Columbus Statue was removed from Coit Tower by the San Francisco Arts Commission. In 2023, the San Francisco Arts Commission, Human Rights Commission and Recreation and Parks Department released the “Final Report of the Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee,” with recommendations from the community and amendments to their public art policies and guidelines.11 Also in the Bay Area, the Shuumi Land Tax was established by the Sogorea Te Land Trust to support the return of Indigenous land, repatriation of ancestral remains and building Ohlone cultural spaces. The land tax is a suggested tax for organizations operating on Ohlone land.
Many of these interventions use creative tools to tell the stories of communities historically left out of political participation and civic engagement. It’s important to note that in all of this work, cultural issues are inherently bound up in other intersecting dimensions of life. While discussing the mural, we heard echoes of much larger conversations around settler colonialism, white supremacy, the displacement of Native Peoples, the rising costs of housing and displacement of working-class and people-of-color communities and affordability in Santa Monica. As such, the Reframe: City Hall Mural project is not only a response to the representations in the mural, but also the systems that produced the mural, and the systems that the mural reinforces, which are still very real today.
The mural in the lobby of Historic City Hall has long been a point of controversy and source of trauma among community members. In 2015, the controversy came to a head when members of Pico Youth and Family Center and other activists called for the mural’s removal, as a symbol of racism particularly because of its representation of Native people.12 The removal of the Columbus statue from Grand Park in 2018 and the Serra statue in 2020 from Olvera Street created opportunities to intensify pressure on the City of Santa Monica to reconsider the WPA-era mural as a way to connect to the larger national movement regarding monuments and civic memory. Elias Serna, artist, educator and organizer with the Pico Youth and Family Center remembers, During the George Floyd protests, Confederate statues were coming down.
I remember having a conversation with some friends and we were like, hey? You know what? Now’s the time to go to this mural. This is a monument.
It’s a tile mural. Our murals get painted over all the time. They’re taking down all those racist images. This is ours.13
Members of the Pico Youth and Family Center have a long history of engaging Santa Monica around issues of affordability, representation, gentrification, the justice system and youth-based issues. The mural became a focal point for the organization because of its presence in Santa Monica City Hall and its representation of Native people in relation to land, land loss and displacement. 11 “San Francisco Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee Final Report” (San Francisco Arts Commission, Human Rights Commission, Recreation and Parks Department, May 2023). 12 Hector Gonzalez, “Activist Calls City Hall Mural of Kneeling Native Americans Santa Monica’s Confederate Flag,” Santa Monica Lookout, June 25, 2015, surfsantamonica.com. 13 Elias Serna. Interview with Meztli Projects, April 7, 2023.
Beginnings of the
Reframe: City Hall
Mural project
2022
Tongva Taraxat Paxaavxa
Conservancy starts with
land acquisition
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 16
In 2018, the City of Santa Monica Arts Commission and its Public Art Committee approved a Percent for Art budget allocation and 5-point plan of committee work, programming and new artwork commissions to address the mural. Before all elements of this plan could be implemented, the Belmar History + Art project was launched in response to a Coastal Commission requirement to acknowledge the history of the Black neighborhood that was displaced from the Civic Center site through eminent domain actions in the 1950s. The City Hall Mural project was put on hold for this time-sensitive priority and restarted in 2021, after the Belmar History + Art Project was completed.
In May 2021, City Council directed staff to install a temporary scrim to cover the mural.15 In response to this direction, the debate garnered renewed public attention and the City Council received letters for and against covering the mural. The Mural Ad Hoc Committee was appointed by the City Council on September 28, 2021 to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks and Arts Commissions to help guide the process to recontextualize the mural. In December 2021, the Public Works Department sent an Info Item about the covering project to Council.16
However, in February 2022, Council reconsidered and canceled the directive to cover the mural, instead directing staff to continue with the Arts Commission plans to engage the community and in the interim, to create a temporary lobby display.17 Following the community process and informed by community input, the Ad Hoc Committee was tasked to return to the full City Council with a set of recommendations for Council consideration (this report). The adopted recommendations would then inform an RFP to engage an artist or artist team to produce and install artistic recontextualization(s). This phase was overseen by the Arts Commission under its authority as custodians of the City’s public art collection. For a more detailed timeline of events leading up to the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, see Appendix A.
14 For more information about Japanese incarceration, visit https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/ japanese-relocation
15 Santa Monica City Council, “Staff Report 4575” (City of Santa Monica, May 11, 2021) http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1266&MediaPosition=&ID=4575&CssClass=. 16 Susan Cline, Assistant City Manager, “Information Item: Recontextualizing City Hall’s Stanton Macdonald Wright Murals” (City of Santa Monica, December 23, 2021) https://www.smgov.net/Departments/council/ infoitems.aspx.
17 Santa Monica City Council, “Staff Report 4999” (City of Santa Monica, February 22, 2022) http://santamonicacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1307&MediaPosition=&ID=4999&CssClass=.
Successive Displacements
After First Peoples were forced into the missions, many others have been displaced from the land that is now Santa Monica, often for racist reasons. When California became a US state, many people of Spanish descent began to lose their claims to their Ranchos, large tracts of land granted originally by the Spanish and Mexican governments. During World War II, Japanese Americans were removed from California and incarcerated purely because of their race.14 After the end of slavery, Black Americans were prevented from owning property by means of redlining and racial covenants. Eminent domain was employed by governmental agencies to seize and raze disproportionately Black and Brown communities for public projects, including the I-10 freeway and the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 17
Before the selection and contracting of the Meztli Projects team for the Reframe:
City Hall Mural project, the City of Santa Monica created a preliminary online survey about place and belonging in March 2022. This survey, directed to residents of Santa Monica, received 110 responses. The same survey was distributed to Santa Monica employees and received 13 responses. This survey was intended to begin a public conversation around the mural and to create a foundation for the Meztli Projects team to design their programming.
In the summer of 2022, artist Glenna Avila engaged local youth as a way to lay the groundwork for the Reframe process and to generate a temporary lobby display.
Avila is an artist and educator dedicated to the intersection of art, community and youth. For 28 years, Avila was the Director of the California Institute of the Arts Community Arts Partnership program, creating murals in Los Angeles County elementary schools while incorporating children and the community.
For the Reframe project, Avila prompted youth with questions around belonging in Santa Monica. The youth’s artwork was collected and showcased in a City Hall lobby display from August 2022 to January 2023.19
18 Ashley Gallagos, interviewed in “Striving Toward a World of Belonging Without Othering,” Independent Sector (blog), March 17, 2022.
19 For more information on this display, see https://www.santamonica.gov/blog/reframe-s-youth-art-display-in-the-historic-city-hall-lobby.
Preliminary work
Belonging
Belonging continues to be an important concept that surfaced throughout the Reframe project. In this context, belonging is the idea that communities need and deserve more than just access to resources; they also deserve a voice and decision-making power in political and social structures. Understanding the pre-colonial history of places, critical racial theory and politics alongside the impacts of spatial planning (visible and invisible markers and boundaries) helps us identify why and when people feel they don’t belong.18 Photo: City of Santa Monica
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 18
About Our Process
In line with the stated goals of the Acknowledge and Reframe initiative, our team created a process that proposed to flatten hierarchies and uplift the lived experience of community members who are experts of their own realities and who have systematically been excluded from building narratives of Santa Monica’s history, value systems and societal norms.
We designed this process to open up the discussion about the mural to include voices and perspectives far beyond who is typically considered an “expert” in murals or history.
We considered what perspectives are traditionally centered and worked to radically expand that field. For instance, our work aimed to consider information about WPA murals (which as a whole are presented by white experts for white audiences) but also decenter and place this information within the context of a much broader field of lived experiences, perspectives and histories.
Our approach consisted of the following four parts:
• A “Working Circle” composed of 13 individuals with strong ties to very different parts of Santa Monica that committed to attend public programs as well as meet as a cohort to act as an advisory body and think tank for six months. At the end of this process, the Working Circle discussed actions that could be taken in response to the mural. Their discussions have informed our recommendations to the City Council.
• A series of Public Programs on relevant themes including a bus tour of sites of memory; virtual and in-person panel discussions about art, civic memory and alternate histories of Santa Monica; a virtual tour of relevant educational resources; a reflective listening workshop and a screening of the documentary Town Destroyer. Additionally, we created programming through the perspective of First Peoples as a starting point to engage issues of equity and inclusion.
• The creation and installation of Lobby Displays in Historic City Hall that explained the project and presented updates to City Hall visitors. A Feedback Activity to survey members of the public about their perceptions of the mural and spark ideas for new public artworks.
• Interviews and Small Group Engagements with a broad spectrum of individuals who have a stake in the mural conversation or vocal opinions about it, subject matter experts, and local content experts. We also visited existing meetings and had one-on-one conversations with targeted constituencies.
These four strategies allowed us to touch a broad cross-section of Santa Monica, engage in deep qualitative discussions, support Santa Monica residents with tools to think about the mural in new ways as well as connect with one another, and pursue a transformative, deliberative process to reach new understandings.
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Interviews &
Small Groups
Report
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 19
Frameworks
In our design of the project, we drew on our experience and expertise in facilitating public engagement processes through a non-hierarchical, trauma-informed lens. Here are some specific frameworks that informed our approach.
• Centering First Peoples
The decision by Santa Monica to launch the Acknowledge and Reframe Together initiative was in response to harms committed towards First Peoples and other communities. A clear deduction is that the harms to First Peoples must be understood and acknowledged and that they must help shape the space in which a portion of this work is done. This means that language, phrasing and worldviews that are central to their lifeways and interrupted by colonization should be normalized within the Reframe: City Hall Mural project considerations. One way that we did this was through a workshop for Working Circle members and City staff to understand the differences between terminologies such as Indigenous, Native American and First Peoples and when each term is best used to empower and prevent exclusion. • Trauma-Informed Practices
Trauma-informed practice is an approach that asks, “What happened to you?” rather than “What is wrong with you?” This shifts the tone from victim-blaming to recognizing the person as a survivor. Traumainformed practices are not a specific or technique-heavy modality, rather it includes a set of guiding principles that recognizes that trauma has significant effects on people and is often under-recognized, under-reported and addressed. A reflective listening session for the Working Circle was one way to model these practices that helped expand the understanding of how each respective member was experiencing the mural and how those feelings were connected to systems of power. • Survivor Centered Approach
A survivor-centered approach means establishing a relationship with the survivor that promotes their emotional and physical safety, builds trust and helps them to restore some control over their life. This approach informed how the team established a baseline of acknowledgments on the impact of colonization so that First Peoples did not have to retell the trauma they experienced. • Healing Informed Practices
We hope that the recommendations in this report can open the door to First Peoples directing a series of reparative actions in Santa Monica. A healing centered approach requires a different question that moves beyond “What happened to you?” to “What’s right with you?” and views those exposed to trauma as agents in the creation of their own well-being rather than victims of traumatic events. • Monument Lab’s Approach
Our team has been engaged in a long dialogue with colleagues at Monument Lab, and we have been inspired by their approach based on deep research, broad public engagement and experimental prototypes for participation.19 We have re-mixed this approach to fit the Reframe: City Hall Mural project and its particular engagement needs.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 20
Public Programs Working Circle
Convenes
Interviews &
Small Groups
Lobby Display &
Feedback Activity
Town Destroyer
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 21
At the heart of our process was the creation of a Working Circle. This group was based on a “citizens’ assembly” model.20 A citizens’ assembly is an increasingly popular form of policy-making that uses elements of a jury process. Its members form a representative cross-section of the public and are provided with time, resources and a broad range of viewpoints to learn deeply about an issue.
They are then asked to work together and create policy recommendations.
This model is premised on the belief that community members themselves have expertise and when given time and resources will come to their own sophisticated analysis and just solutions. Instead of using so-called experts to generate recommendations privately OR engage in a process that attempts to put a series of questions up for general referendum-style voting, our process emphasized discussion, group-learning and the wisdom of everyday people to make decisions that impact their communities.
We believed that if individuals from different communities in Santa Monica met with one another with open minds they would learn from each other and reach new understandings rather than simply asking individuals to “vote” or debate one another in a town hall. So, in addition to the citizens’ assembly model we also often brought in strategies from talking circles and story circles. A talking circle is an Indigenous way of gathering and being in community, characterized by allowing each person to speak without interruption in a circular format with an emphasis on intention, listening with attention and self-monitoring the impact of one’s contributions to the discussion. Examples of these forms are recounted in the book The Gatherings: Reimagining Indigenous-Settler Relations, which chronicles a decades-long series of discussions that took place between Indigenous and settler communities in the Northeast of North America.21 Another approach that inspired the way we resourced the Working Circle and community members who participated in this process was Metro’s work in Boyle Heights in the mid-2010s. Los Angeles County Metro’s Review Design Advisory Committee (RDAC) is responsible for building housing along transportation corridors as part of their Joint Development program. They utilized a meaningful and different approach to community engagement. Metro, along with community organizers, empowered RDAC community members and resourced them with a knowledge base of architects, city officials and other decision-makers so that RDAC members could make critical recommendations informed by their lived experience rather than selecting from predetermined outcomes. For example, at previous meetings, Metro would present proposed building plans to the RDAC and one Elder would respond that the building was ugly (communicating in Spanish). At the next meeting, Metro presented the same design but painted bright colors to reflect a more “Latin” flavor. Still, the RDAC member insisted the building was ugly. Following the knowledgebuilding sessions, the RDAC member was able to articulate the deficiencies in the proposed building design in architectural language. This resourcing of RDAC members led to approximately 4-5 new affordable housing buildings with designs that better served the needs of the community.
Selection and composition
To select Working Circle members, we held an open call for applicants, sending out the call via email newsletters, to individuals who had filled out the earlier City survey and to leaders of communities invested in this conversation. We tried to recruit as diverse a group as possible. We aimed for the group to be committed 20 For more information on citizen assemblies, see https://citizensassemblies.org/. 21 Mawopiyane and Shirley N. Hager, The Gatherings: Reimagining Indigenous-Settler Relations (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 2021).
The Working
Circle
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 22
and consistent in order to build accountability to the process and to each other.
We also wanted this group to be connected to communities that felt they had a strong stake in the questions that the mural brought up. Eligible participants were offered a $1000 honorarium.
We received 32 applications and selected 13 members with an additional two appointed by the City of Santa Monica to serve as liaisons to the Landmarks Commission and Arts Commission. The City later determined that these two members should recuse themselves from the final stages of the process when we were developing recommendations in order to retain their voting responsibilities for future commission work related to the mural or the Reframe process. Staff members from Cultural Affairs, Planning, and the Office of Equity and Inclusion attended Working Circle meetings as observers and to provide information when appropriate.
The Working Circle brought together engaged individuals with diverse perspectives, histories and ties to Santa Monica communities. These communities include local First Peoples, Marquez family descendants, Pico Youth and Family Center, other local nonprofits and activists, Santa Monica Conservancy, Santa Monica College students and young adults, Santa MonicaMalibu Unified School District, City of Santa Monica employees and others who work and live in Santa Monica. Members included Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon Alvarado, Kathleen Benjamin (Santa Monica Arts Commission), Miguel Bravo, Roger Genser (Santa Monica Landmarks Commission), Lizette Hernandez, Bob Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde, Sharon Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco, and Zora Zajicek.
The Working Circle composition was intended to reflect not only the demographic nature of Santa Monica but also balance out the level of representation of folks who have been historically excluded from decisionmaking processes. Applicants who were not selected for this cohort were invited to participate in other forums—as panelists and in interviews, etc. We intentionally attempted to demystify the idea of the cohort as a set of experts with titles and clout; instead, they were a group of community representatives.
The diagram on the next page of the Working Circle offers some insight into the spectrum of communities they are connected to.
Working Circle journey
The Working Circle met a total of 13 times as a group – 4 of these were in person, with the rest taking place on Zoom. Working Circle members also attended the public programs when possible. Our team facilitated the meetings and attempted to create an environment that would allow trust to grow, make sure that all members felt that they had space to speak, and create a “brave” space where members ask difficult questions and bring their authentic perspective.
We prioritized small group breakout discussions, as well as a “circle” format intended to make sure everyone had equal opportunity to speak.
We also sought to resource the Working Circle with tools, knowledge, and perspectives that could expand their frames of reference and allow them to work together. The Working Circle members were taught techniques of reflective listening to allow them to try to take in what each other said and slow their need to respond. They used these techniques to describe the mural to one another and reflect what they heard.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 23
Tribal First
People LA Native
American
Indian
Commission
Volunteer
Equity
development
subcommittee
Community
Corporation
Chrysalis of SM
The People
Concern
St. John’s
Growing
Hope
Gardens
Pico
Neighborhood
Virginia
Avenue
Community
SM
Resident
SMMUSD
SMMUSD
Preservation
Architect
City Fire
Dept
Generational
West LA
Resident
Indigenous
activism and
education
Combating
Anti
Blackness
Training
Pico Youth
and Family
Center
SMC Art
Department
SMC Pride
Center
SMC
Racial
Justice
Center
SMC
Student
government
Broad Stage
SM Resident
Art historian
CADRE
community
organizer Quilombos
Capacity
Builders
SM
Conservancy
Rancho Boca
Santa Monica
descendant
SM History
Museum
SM
Conservancy
Bandini
Foundation
City
Office of
Equity and
Inclusion
AWARE-LA
SM
Northeast
Neighbors
Lizette
Ruthann
Ramon
Tafari
Mona
Cathy
Kimberly
Bob
Sharon
Paolo
Zora
Emily
Mike
Santa
Monica
College
Barrett
Gallery @
SMC
West
LA-Sawtelle
Neighborhood
Council
Working
Circle
Network
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 24
The Working Circle attended public programs about civic memory, local history and public art and debriefed about them together. They met with art historian and Stanton Macdonald-Wright expert, Will South, viewed the film Town Destroyer about a similar controversy around a WPA mural in San Francisco, attended a photography exhibition by Swinomish and Tulalip artist Matika Wilbur at Santa Monica College and heard from members of Gabrieleno/ Tongva and Kizh tribes. They also had several general discussions about the mural, public art and the Reframe process. Our intent was to create a learning environment where we all could gain perspectives without having to move toward deliberation or recommendations immediately.
Understanding that the Working Circle process would be somewhat fluid given the situations of each member, we built in strategies to balance out positionalities, privileges and other power skewing factors. Our team facilitated individual check-ins with Working Circle members and did regular check-ins as a team to make sure we responded to both individual needs as well as collective feedback and ideas on how to move forward. Working Circle members also provided a throughline throughout the process and were a touchpoint for communities to engage in the nuanced and complex conversations that emerged.
Towards the end of their time together, the Working Circle was tasked with discussing recommendations for actions in response to the mural. First, they were asked to brainstorm a long list of possible actions and then given a series of anonymous surveys about priorities and perspectives on the mural (roughly based on the Delphi survey technique). Through this process, the group was able to come to agreements on values and statements about the mural and, finally, create a ranked and prioritized list of recommended actions. These final meetings emphasized in-person engagement and dialog, and we were able to gain additional nuance and direction from these heartfelt conversations.
More detail about the exact process used to create these statements of values, perceptions and recommendations, including survey results and questions, can be found in Appendix B.
At times, the Working Circle process proved difficult. Frequently it was uncomfortable, especially when habits of leadership and expertise were challenged. Some Working Circle members had difficulty letting others speak and were impatient about letting the process unfold. Many underwent profound shifts in the way they related to the topics and to each other. In the end, we feel confident that all Working Circle members encountered and listened deeply to perspectives that were not their own and were also able to speak to their experience and knowledge.
Specifics of Language
As an example of the ways we tried to resource the Working Circle, we can look at some specifics of language.
At the start of this Reframe process, many Working Circle members would use the term Native or Native American to refer to the two Brown persons depicted in the City Hall mural. These terms create a really broad and therefore ineffective narrative to respond to. Those bodies depicted reference Santa Monica’s First Peoples, and it is this specific group of “Native Americans’’ that are most impacted by these issues. We encouraged the Working Circle to reflect on these differences and refine their language. This language shift has also created efficiency in building partnerships between Santa Monica and the Gabrieleno/Tongva community. This is important because settler colonialism prefers to deal with abstract issues, so that the most accessible “Native Americans’’ are invited into these conversations. This creates instances where “First Peoples’’ can become excluded.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 25
Step Prompt
Final Recommendations
Recommendation Development Process
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 26
Our team produced programs that created connection and education for the public and provided crucial tools and resources to the Working Circle. We brought together guest presenters with connections to the topic from the region and beyond. The events were designed to draw out perspectives and approaches to thinking about public space, local history, public art, Indigenous representation, sites of civic memory and related controversies. We tried to balance local, national and international perspectives on these issues.
Initially, we intentionally left the schedule of the latter half of the public programs open so that we could adapt our programming to be responsive to community needs and conversations. We also organized an “open house” at City Hall to answer questions and foster open dialog with anyone interested in the project. On average we had 30-40 people at each event. The documentation from these events is available at santamonica.gov/city-hall-mural.
Prisms of Indigeneity (in-person)
In this first event, we focused on conversations about the expansiveness of Native and Indigenous identities across North America and the importance of uplifting the First Peoples of the communities we live in. The event took place at Matika Wilbur’s “Project 562: Changing the way we see Native America” exhibition which reflected on the diversity of Tribal Nations across the country. This event quickly surfaced the tensions that would demand response throughout this project and highlighted how much work there was to come.
It was an excellent demonstration of the complexity of Native and Indigenous identities even within the Santa Monica region.
Lunch and Learn - Reframe: City Hall Mural Project
This event followed up on some of the themes brought up in the Prisms of Indigeneity event and provided an overview of the Reframe project and ways to get involved for City employees. The goal of this event was to refocus the lens of City Hall staff, learn new language, and use the preferred terms by First Peoples to better address their current needs and arising issues related to the City Hall mural.
Sites of Memory Tour (in-person)
This public tour explored three significant places in Santa Monica history and how they express remembrance in public space: Kuruvungna Village Springs, Historic Santa Monica City Hall (with the Stanton Macdonald-Wright mural in the lobby) and Historic Belmar Park. This tour allowed Working Circle members to connect with members of the public, explore diverse approaches to creating and preserving civic memory in Santa Monica and the work involved in creating and maintaining these sites.
What Do You See Here? - An educational resources and Feedback Activity workshop
This Zoom event served as an introduction to our feedback activity and an overview of teacher and library resources for using the activity in an educational setting. These resources covered the history of the WPA, the artist, Santa Monica First Peoples, and recreation and segregation in Santa Monica, as well as resources for analyzing and contextualizing historical visual culture.
Memory Work Today - New approaches to telling stories about the places we live This Zoom event highlighted the work of contemporary artists, designers, technologists and historians thinking about ways of interpreting and presenting history in public. The event featured idris brewster and Christine Wong Yap.
This event inspired much discussion of ways that innovative storytelling could be brought to bear on Historic City Hall.
Public programs
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Kinfolk
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 27
Community Listening Workshop with Anu Yadav (in-person) This event focused on the wide diversity of thought around the mural at historic Santa Monica City Hall. The workshop was designed to develop participants’ empathetic listening skills. Critically acclaimed actress, writer, and theaterbased educator Anu Yadav led this workshop using a variety of large and small group exercises to surface values, questions, challenges, and hopes and dreams about the mural. The group began to develop a long-list of possible actions regarding the mural and the issues presented by the mural. A summary of the responses gathered at this workshop can be found in Appendix C.
City Hall Mural Open House (in-person)
This event was designed to create a casual environment for the public to discuss the Reframe project with members of the facilitation team at City Hall.
Conversations here included ways that Santa Monica’s art commissioning process could be made more inclusive, details about the production of the mural, and further exploration of public interpretations of the piece.
Other Histories of Santa Monica and the Bay District (in-person) This event, co-hosted with the Santa Monica History Museum (SMHM), featured the work of local historians, archivists and tradition bearers looking at Indigenous, Latinx and African American stories. Members gained inspiration from local models of history, archiving, and storytelling. Speakers included Mona Recalde, Jaime Cruz, and Carolyne Edwards, with an SMHM gallery tour by Anne Wallentine. The event conversation highlighted ways that communities can better document their stories and ways that non-Native people can support the work of Native groups like the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians.
Screening of Town Destroyer mural documentary (in-person) This event was a screening of the compelling film Town Destroyer that offers histories and commentary of a relevant case study—the Life of Washington mural in San Francisco. This film frames numerous key perspectives around the controversial mural, its role in public space, censorship and community control.
Our team facilitated a discussion of the film as a way to broaden conversations about contested public artworks and possible interventions and responses.
Three things were echoed by those in attendance: continue having these difficult conversations with the support of a facilitation team, focus on the reparative work needed to address past harms towards First Peoples, and develop more tools to address similar issues involving public art, public space and representation.
In order to engage more people in this process, we designed a feedback activity containing a three-page worksheet that individuals could fill out online or complete on paper and return to City Hall or the Santa Monica Public Library.
Overall, we hoped to engage people in reflecting on the mural and to go deeper than a survey listing options for or against the mural. One of the goals of the feedback activity was to have people engage directly with the mural images and to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but also their emotional responses and attachments to the mural. Therefore, the first two pages of the activity provided reproductions of the two mural panels and asked participants what they saw in each panel, what they felt was missing, and how the images made them feel about being in City Hall or Santa Monica. We also wanted to understand what participants felt would be essential in depictions of Santa Monica to get a fuller sense of the values and perspectives that shaped their interpretations of the existing mural. So, the last page asked participants what they would include if they were creating or commissioning an artwork that would represent the history of Santa Monica. These responses would also be useful if the process generated recommendations around commissioning new Feedback activity
engagement
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Fatosh Arabacioglu, courtesy of Snitow-Kaufman Productions Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 28
artwork. Finally, we asked participants to tell us about themselves, provide their zip code and optionally, offer their email addresses to receive updates on the project.
We collected feedback activity responses from February 6, 2023, through May 10, 2023. We initially intended to stop collecting responses on April 1st but chose to extend the deadline to make sure that all the core constituencies had a chance to respond.
The feedback activity was shared intentionally with Santa Monica residents and key stakeholders in the process inside and outside of Santa Monica. Additionally, Working Circle members circulated it in their networks so that the diverse scope of Santa Monica community members and voices were included. We sent out the link to the activity widely, via City of Santa Monica email and social media channels and throughout our networks. The paper worksheets were available in the Historic City Hall lobby, City Hall East and at the Main, Pico and Montana branches of the Santa Monica Public Library. We installed a poster display in the Historic City Hall lobby describing the project, which included a QR code link to the activity.
We featured the feedback activity along with resources for educators in our “What Do You See Here?” virtual event, and we promoted the activity during all of our public events. We also staffed a booth at the Art and Literacy Festival in Virginia Avenue Park, engaging children and parents who attended the festival.
To make sure that the perspectives of Spanish-speaking Santa Monicans were captured, the feedback activity was also available in Spanish. The facilitation team also visited the Familias Latinas Unidas, a Spanish-speaking parents group at Virginia Avenue Park to talk about the project and collect feedback activity responses. A summary of the responses to the feedback activity is in the “Feedback Activity Responses” section of this report and fuller details about the responses are available in Appendix C.
We conducted individual interviews to explore certain perspectives in depth and connect at length with people who were highly invested in the issue but not part of the Working Circle, willing or able to engage in other events. Our team conducted interviews with key Santa Monica stakeholders, including Santa Monica First Peoples; the larger Indigenous community; members of the Pico Youth and Family Center; Latinx, African American/Black, Asian American and Pacific Islander stakeholders who have a relationship to public art or the Reframe process; City of Santa Monica employees; the descendants of the Marquez family who are mentioned in the City Hall mural; historians and preservationists; and art students and educators.
Overall, we conducted 15 interviews and asked questions about perceptions and feelings related to the mural, what is missing from the mural, potential interventions, the mural’s location, alternative representations of Santa Monica, new art commissions and who should be involved. What became evident through the interviews was that responses revealed a great deal about interviewees’ own subjectivities in relationship to the depictions showcased in the mural. In that sense, responses illuminated the mural’s varied levels of impact. We drew heavily on these interviews for the “Feedback from Particular Constituencies” section of this report. Relevant interviews are also woven through this report and shed light on diverse entry points into the conversation.
Interview and
small group
engagements
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 29
Interviewees:
• Tafari Alan, student, Santa Monica College
• Alex Aldana, Executive Director, Pico Youth & Family Center • Margaret Bach, local historian, former member of the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
• Angie Behrns-Dorame (Gabrieleno/Tongva), Kuruvungna Springs Foundation • Kathleen Benjamin, Belmar History + Art advisory group member, Arts Commissioner
• Jamie Cruz, educator, historian
• Gina DeBaca, artist, cultural worker
• Mary (Terri) de la Pena, author, Marquez family descendant • Bill Deverell, American West historian, USC professor & Director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West
• Nina Fresco, board member, Santa Monica Conservancy; former chair of the Santa Monica Planning Commission
• Jeremy Gonzalez (Gabrielino Kizh Nation), community member • Paulina Sahagun, educator, artist
• Elias Serna, Ph.D., M.F.A., artist, educator, professor, and board member, Pico Youth & Family Center
• Will South, artist, art historian, Stanton Macdonald-Wright specialist • Angel Villaseñor, former City of Santa Monica employee, community member We supplemented the interviews with targeted outreach events for specific communities and many informal conversations. The facilitation team put special effort into connecting with Santa Monica First Peoples and the larger Los Angeles Indigenous community. We distributed the feedback activity at the CSU Puvungna (Long Beach) Pow Wow, the Annual Native Voices Short Play Festival at the Autry and a clean-up event exploring Native land starting in Tongva Park. We reached out to many community leaders and community members, ultimately receiving a letter from the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and from Nick Rocha, Chairman of the Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California (both letters are reproduced in Appendix D). The letter from Chairman Rocha was also read aloud at the mural during the Sites of Memory tour.
As part of these more targeted engagement efforts, we hosted another Lunch and Learn with City of Santa Monica staff, who have a particular relationship to the mural as part of their workplace. This event was an opportunity for a staff member on the Working Circle to share their experience with the process and to collect feedback about the mural from City staff more broadly.
Working Circle members took the lead on organizing events in their own communities such as
• workshops for K-5 elementary school teachers and administrators at Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD)
• a presentation to a Working Circle member’s church
• a town hall at the Pico Youth and Family Center
• a feedback activity session with the Santa Monica Conservancy members at City Hall
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 30
• a teach-in with Community Corporation of Santa Monica staff and residents • a field trip for a Santa Monica College art class.
Working Circle members also connected us with and invited us to existing meetings in their communities, including the Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council, Human Resource Council, Santa Monica Conservancy, and the Puente parents’ group at SMMUSD. In this way, the Working Circle connected the process to a wider network of Santa Monica residents and relevant community events and conversations. While the feedback activity acted as a tool to record individual reactions, it was also a conversational tool and often promoted complex conversations that could not be captured in the activity. Those conversations helped shape our programs and the Working Circle agenda and added nuance to the recommendations detailed in this report.
Lunch and Learn I Lunch and Learn II
Distribute the
feedback
activity at the
CSU Puvungna
(Long Beach)
Pow Wow
at the Annual Native
Voices Short Play
Festival at the Autry
Receive a letter from
the Gabrieleno/
Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission
Indians
Receive a letter
from Nick Rocha,
the chief of the
Gabrielino
Shoshone
at a clean-up event
exploring Native
land starting in
Tongva Park
Reach out to many
community leaders
and community
members
Workshops for
SMMUSD K-5
school teachers and
administrators
Presentation to a
Working Circle
member’s church
Town hall at the
Pico Youth and
Family Center
Booth at Arts and
Literacy Festival,
visit to Familias
Latinas Unidas
at park
Feedback
activity session
with the Santa
Monica
Conservancy
members at
City Hall
Visits to Human
Resource Council,
Santa Monica
Area Interfaith
Council, Puente
meeting
Teach-in with
Community
Corporation of
Santa Monica staff
and residents
Field trip for a
Santa Monica
College art class
Additional
outreach to specific
constituencies
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 31
History of Santa Monica and the Bay District is a “petrachrome” mural installed on the interior walls of the lobby of Santa Monica’s City Hall building. The mural was designed by Stanton Macdonald-Wright, an American artist who spent his early years in Santa Monica. It was commissioned through the Works Progress Administration’s Federal Art Project—a government program designed to employ artists during the Great Depression, bolster the economy, and restore national pride. Macdonald-Wright also acted as the administrator of the WPA project’s Southern California division, supervising numerous other artists and their projects. This mural was completed in 1939 along with the building itself.
The City of Santa Monica owns the mural and it is part of the City’s public art collection. Santa Monica City Hall was landmarked in 1979 and the mural was mentioned in the designation. In 2011, the exterior of City Hall was given a supplemental landmark designation.
The mural was created using a process invented by Macdonald-Wright called “petrachrome,” which is very similar to terrazzo.22 Blocks of colored liquid cement material (including crushed tile, marble, and granite) are poured in place to create the image. A flexible frame is used to block off each colored section and the material hardens when it dries. The images are created in panels that are roughly three feet by three feet. These panels are then installed as an architectural facing to a wall surface and polished. This technique was employed in several other murals in the Federal Art Project and WPA program in Southern California that were directed by Macdonald-Wright.
In 2003, the City’s Cultural Affairs Division, as part of a comprehensive project to survey and restore thirteen murals in the city, commissioned Rainer, Stavroudis & Zebala to perform a conservation and restoration project on the lobby mural.
In a follow up assessment of Santa Monica’s public art collection in 2015, the mural was noted to be in good condition.
22 Charles Epting, “The New Deal’s Forgotten Art Form,” Living New Deal, June 19, 2015, https://livingnewdeal.org/tag/petrachrome/.
The History of the Mural
City Hall mural being prepared in FAP workshop.
Photo: Public domain, FDR Library Collection
Photograph of man working on a floor mural, circa 1940.
Photographs relating to the WPA Southern California Art Project, circa 1937-1941. Photo: Archives of American
Art, Smithsonian Institution
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 32
Prior to his work with the WPA, Macdonald-Wright came to some prominence as one of the first proponents and practitioners of abstract, non-figurative art in America. With artist Morgan Russell, he developed a style called Synchromism, meaning “with color.” In his later career, after returning to the West Coast, Macdonald-Wright returned to figurative work. Particularly in his public mural work, like the City Hall mural, Macdonald-Wright used historical figures.
In 1934, Macdonald-Wright volunteered to paint a 200-foot mural at the Santa Monica Library entitled Technical and Imaginative Pursuits of Early Man or Man’s Two-fold Development. This mural included 160 figures represented in a fantastical tableau together including such figures as Edgar Allen Poe, Bach, Confucius, Lao Tsu, Copernicus and Newton, as well as individuals from Santa Monica, including himself, Gloria Stuart, Leo Carillo, Judge Carillo and film director Frank Tuttle.
He also included several “hidden portraits,” including notable Santa Monicans cast as anonymous figures—nephews of Senator John Percival Jones (co-founder of Santa Monica) in Renaissance costume, Mayor William H. Carter working in a machine shop and a self-portrait as a flute player.23
This library commission led to Macdonald-Wright’s appointment as lead administrator of the Southern California division of the WPA in 1935, a position that he held for seven years. During his tenure, Macdonald-Wright produced nine murals. These murals, in mosaic tile and petrachrome often showcased innovative, durable techniques and dealt with themes relating to California history, depictions of recreation and technological advances. Macdonald-Wright was admired as an energetic and ingenious administrator but also criticized for altering and censoring the work of other artists and his highly unconventional choice to award a disproportionate number of mural commissions to himself.
In contrast to Macdonald-Wright’s nine murals, five other artists had three each, twelve artists had two and the remaining 32 artists had one each, according to a public complaint letter written by Edward Bilberman of the Artists’ Congress.24 23 This mural was eventually reinstalled in the current Main Library in 2006. For more information about the Santa Monica Public Library mural, see https://smpl.org/mural/index.htm. 24 Marlene Park, “A Romantic in a Frenzied Office: Macdonald-Wright and the Federal Art Projects, 1934- 1943,” in Color, Myth, and Music: Stanton Macdonald-Wright and Synchromism (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Museum of Art, 2001), p. 127.
Stanton
MacdonaldWright as WPA
administrator
Detail of Macdonald-Wright mural at Santa Monica
Public Library. Photo: City of Santa Monica
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 33
To the best of our knowledge, Macdonald-Wright had no outside guidance or oversight over the content of the City Hall mural. The foremost historian of Macdonald-Wright’s life, Will South, agrees with this, pointing to the complete absence of archival materials relating to this mural.25 Because FAP/WPA murals were government-commissioned works, most of them have extensive documentation in government archives. Typically, mural artists would be asked to submit drawings and sketches before being permitted to produce and install public projects. The City Hall mural has almost no paper trail, suggesting that Macdonald-Wright, because he was both artist and commissioner, did not submit any concepts, written descriptions, drawings or plans to any oversight body. This arrangement, as noted by the Artists’ Congress in their complaint letter, was highly unusual.
The WPA in Southern California is distinct from the majority of other WPA divisions because of the leadership of Macdonald-Wright. Whereas much of WPA art is known for its social realist approach and content, MacdonaldWright was actively averse to this style and worked to eliminate it. MacdonaldWright believed social realist content was “political” and viewed this approach as anathema to “true” artistic content. This was a personal perspective that Macdonald-Wright admits was not held by his employer, the federal government.
According to his oral history interview with Betty Hoag, he actively colluded with other anti-socialist members of the art world to identify and censor artistic content without bringing it to the attention of his employers.26 His approach to this censorship was by his own description, covert. He knew the Federal government did not share his views so he worked to personally paint over and alter other artists’ work without due process.
Macdonald-Wright was, at the end of his life, openly critical of the Federal Art Project, the art that it produced and the artists that it fostered and supported, believing that it “set back art all over the United States a hundred and fifty years… it was absolutely the worst thing that could possibly have happened.”27 There are a few misconceptions about the mural that we feel are beyond interpretation and deserve to be clarified.
“The mural is painted directly on the wall.”
The mural is not a painting. It was created through a terrazzo-style process called petrachrome, assembled in panels off-site, and then installed as a facing on top of the structural wall.
“The mural could not be moved because it is part of the building.” Petrachrome is a durable stone composite material that has been successfully moved several times. At least two of the known petrachrome murals have been relocated and restored (Helen Lundgren’s History of Transportation and Macdonald-Wright’s Typical Activities of a Beach and Harbor City/Recreations of Long Beach). The petrachrome process was deliberately designed as a material that can be assembled off-site and attached to an existing wall. “The mural is landmarked.”
The mural is not itself landmarked but is mentioned in the description of City Hall in the initial 1979 landmark designation.
25 Will South, “Q&A with Reframe Working Circle,” April 26, 2023. 26 Betty Hoag, Oral History: Stanton Macdonald-Wright, September 13, 1964, Archives of the American Art New Deal and the Arts Project, https://www.aaa.si.edu/collections/interviews/oral-history-interview-stanton-macdonaldwright-11673. 27 Hoag, Oral History: Stanton Macdonald-Wright, September 13, 1964.
Some common
misconceptions
Helen Lundgren’s “History of Transportation,” one of
several petrachrome murals that have been relocated.
Photo: Andrew Laverdiere, Living New Deal
Macdonald-Wright “Landing of the Vikings in Vinland” at Santa Monica High School. Photo: Richard A. Walker, Living New Deal Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 34
Detail of southwest panel of “History of Santa Monica and the Bay District” without the list of dates. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 35
Detail of northwest panel of “History of Santa Monica and the Bay District” without the list of dates. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 36
The City of Santa Monica describes the mural this way in the Public Art Archive entry:
The section in the northwest corner depicts a group of five figures meeting on a beach rimmed by mountains, with rocks in the waves at the shoreline. A Spanish conquistador stands with a padre in a Franciscan robe holding a walking stick. They face two Native Americans, kneeling and sitting at a stream, drinking with their hands. Behind them is a standing, bearded figure who wears a blue hat and cloak, and behind him are two bridled horses. A waterfall is seen in the middle distance, the source of the stream. A bird soars in the sky.
A timeline accompanying the mural indicates dates of historic significance for both the city and the state.
The section in the southwest corner of the lobby portrays a Santa Monica of the 1930’s: the cliff-side coastal landscape, with people engaged in recreational pursuits evocative of the locale. A road race, sailboats and airplanes are seen behind large foreground figures, including two polo players (one mounted), a boy kneeling with a model airplane, a pair of tennis players, and a chow dog, modeled on Macdonald Wright’s own pet.
While Macdonald-Wright speaks at length about the specific figures in the southwest side of the mural, there is no further discussion about his intentions regarding the overall theme or intention of the mural as a whole. In this part of the report, we’ll address common ideas about who and what is depicted in the mural, whether those depictions are accurate, and highlight some key differing interpretations.
Interpretations of the Mural
It’s important to note that the mural is a constructed image, not a factual event or a photograph. There are many possible interpretations of what is in the mural. Some are more plausible than others, but fundamentally an image is open to interpretation, and no interpretation can be said to be definitively true or untrue. Because of the nature of the mural and the depth of feelings that the mural evokes, we have found that interpretations of what is depicted, how it is depicted, and what ideas, worldviews and sentiments that depiction evokes vary greatly. Many interpretations of the mural that we imagined to be uncontroversial have turned out to be hotly debated.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 37
What we know about the artist’s intentions for the images in the mural is via an interview with the artist conducted in 1964 by Betty Hoag, for the Archives of American Art New Deal and the Arts Project.28 In this oral history, MacdonaldWright speaks explicitly about the objects, places and figures in the southwest (second) panel, sometimes known as “recreation.” He talks about Will Rogers and his polo field, automobile racing on San Vicente or Wilshire Blvd, the Douglas Building, Harry M. Gorham, tennis players May Sutton and Tom Bundy, as well as the dog, modeled after his own two dogs named Min Wong and Yung Wevay.
This image touches on some of the most renowned features of Santa Monica at that time, highlighting automobile racing, aviation, tennis and film stars. Will Rogers was one of Santa Monica’s most well-known residents in the 1920s and had a famed polo field. While it is not evident in the depiction in this mural, Will Rogers was Cherokee and grew up in Indian Territory, now part of Oklahoma. 28 Hoag, Oral History: Stanton Macdonald-Wright, September 13, 1964.
The southwest or
“recreation” side
of the mural
Detail of southwest panel of “History of Santa Monica
and the Bay District” without the list of dates. Photo:
Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 38
The dates that appear on the right side of this panel refer to significant moments relevant to City of Santa Monica government, which emphasizes the location of the mural in City Hall. The 1924 round the world flight of Douglas planes is the only date listed that does not pertain to City of Santa Monica government.
An airplane in flight and a toy airplane depicted in the mural seem to be visual references to this date.
Many interviewees, Working Circle members and feedback activity respondents have noted all of the figures in the recreation scene are portrayed as white.
Certainly, this speaks to who had power and standing in 1939 Santa Monica, but is not an accurate portrayal of either Santa Monica or even the scope of leisure in Santa Monica at the time. As was made explicit by the Belmar History + Art29 project, there was a thriving Black residential and leisure community in Santa Monica at the time–prior to the urban renewal that destroyed the neighborhood in the 1950s. Nina Fresco notes that there were Black polo clubs and famous African American pilots in the 1930s.30 Kathleen Benjamin notes that we know there were Black surf clubs and famed Black surfers like Nick Gabaldon.31 As historian Bill Deverell notes, it’s all a matter of where you point your camera. “Predominantly white, sure. 100% white, no. It’s all a question of where you point your camera, right? So you put your camera at the tennis club, 1939…It’s going to be racially segregated.”32
29 https://www.santamonica.gov/belmar-history-art)
30 Nina Fresco, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 6, 2023. 31 Kathleen Benjamin, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 28, 2023. 32 Bill Deverell, Interview with Meztli Projects, May 3, 2023.
Southwest panel dates
1875 - Senator John P. Jones
Founds Santa Monica
1907 - City Charter Approved
by State Legislature
1914 - Commission Form of
Government
1924 - Round the World Flight
of Douglas Planes
1939 - New City Hall Completed
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 39
There are no recorded descriptions of who or what Macdonald-Wright was intending to render on the northwest side of the mural. We can only speculate about even who or what is depicted, outside of the mural’s general title, History of Santa Monica and the Bay District. Nonetheless, we have surfaced numerous valuable interpretations and present them here, with some evaluation of competing claims.
The northwest
side of the mural
Detail of northwest panel of “History of Santa Monica
and the Bay District” without the list of dates.
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 40
List of dates
The dates in the northwest panel receive a great deal more focus than the dates on the southwest panel, both in their content and how they relate to the images in the mural. Overall, the list focuses on European political structures and moments, though it contains more names than actual descriptions of events.
Notably, the list does not begin with any mention of Native history or First Peoples of the area. The first date, 1769, references the Portolá expedition into what the Spanish referred to as Alta California and includes Junipero Serra, but not Juan Crespi, even though both priests accompanied parts of the expedition.
The Portolá expedition seems to be the context for the image, because of the inclusion of the particular figures as we discuss below. Another significant date in the contemporary discussion of the mural is the 1838 land grant to Francisco Marquez and Ysidro Reyes that became Rancho Boca de Santa Mónica. The inclusion of these names is a point of great pride for the descendents of these families, many of whom have lived in Santa Monica since then and are active in preserving the history of the Rancho period. Some observers have also noted the lack of women in this list, especially Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker, Colonel Robert Symington Baker’s wife. Bandini was an early benefactor of Santa Monica and had arguably more influence in shaping early Santa Monica than her husband.
The leftmost figure
This figure is a Franciscan monk. We think almost everyone agrees on at least this much based on the commonly told histories of the area and the distinctive style of dress. However, there are two interpretations about which Franciscan monk this is in particular: Father Juan Crespi or Father Junipero Serra.
Father Juan Crespi. This interpretation is based on the fact that Father Crespi’s diary describes a scene of water discovery and contact with Indigenous people by the shore at a place Crespi calls the “Pools of Santa Monica” and also describes another encounter in an area that could be nearby Kuruvungna Springs. There is also another legend that the Springs are the source of the name “Santa Monica,” which is recorded and combined with references to Father Crespi’s diary in a book titled History of Santa Monica and the Bay District. 33 However, it is unknown, as we discuss below, whether Macdonald-Wright used any of these sources. Aside from the general dress of a Franciscan monk, there are no other indications in the mural itself that this is Crespi.
Father Junipero Serra. This interpretation is very compelling based on three factors. First, Serra is almost always depicted with an extremely distinct and iconic baldness pattern that is unique from a generic tonsure. This pattern creates three distinct tufts of hair above the monk’s face. Second, the figure’s left foot is stepped forward and the figure is holding a cane; the injured foot and use of a cane are also iconic components of Serra’s depictions. Third, Serra’s name is written on the mural to the left of the scene. In addition, it should be noted that Serra is an extremely common, almost stock figure in historical depictions of early California, particularly those made in the early and mid 20th Century. 33 Charles S. Warren, History of the Santa Monica Bay Region: In Two Parts Narrative and Biographical (Santa Monica, CA: A. H. Cawston, 1934).
Debated figures
and features
Northwest panel dates
1769 - Gaspar de Portolá,
Junipero Serra
1822 - Mexican Territory
1827 - Xavier Alvarado, Antonio
Machado
1838 - Francisco Marques,
Ysidro Reyes
1848 - U.S. Territory
1872 - Col. R.S. Baker
Detail of northwest panel. Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 41
The figure with a helmet standing next to the Franciscan monk Many interpret this figure as Gaspar de Portolá. This also appears to us to be the most likely explanation given the style of military dress and the name Gaspar de Portolá that appears on the mural. This identity is assumed by many observers of the mural. There is some disagreement as to whether this figure’s shirt is made of metal or cloth or leather. Depending on the interpretation of what the shirt is made of, there is also some disagreement about whether this style of dress is appropriate to the kind of outfit Portolá would have worn, which would have most likely been leather. Some interpreters, like Nina Fresco, believe that this figure is dressed more like Juan Cabrillo than Portolá.34 However, Cabrillo is not named on the wall and did not travel with Serra or Crespi. This figure also has no other identifying markers to connect it to Cabrillo.
The waterfall
Some, especially those who believe that Crespi’s diary was a source for the mural, interpret the waterfall as Kuruvungna Springs. This is an intriguing and coherent interpretation. There is no formal evidence that this is true but also nothing to dispute it.
The figure on horseback
There are two common interpretations of this figure. One reads this image as representing an extension of the Portolá expedition. Another reads the mural as a historical tableau in which the figures represent different time periods, rather than one historical moment. In this interpretation, the figure on horseback represents the later Spanish period after colonization.
The two Native figures
The two figures on the lower right of the panel are intended to be First Peoples of the area. This is not widely disputed; however, much of the rest of what we can say about them is highly disputed and different constituencies are highly invested in their interpretations of the scene. Ultimately the image is just that, an image, and open to interpretation. The following statements are difficult to prove decisively, and different viewers have each suggested the below with great conviction.
They are showing the water to the standing figures.
They are drinking the water.
They are drinking water that the horse is standing in.
They are kneeling in subservience to the standing figures.
They are enslaved.
They are or are not kneeling. One of the figures is on their knees and the other is seated cross-legged. Both are positioned on the lower right, lower than the other figures. On the one hand, it seems almost impossible to argue that one of these figures is not kneeling, but we have heard from people who dispute this claim. Some use the word “sitting” to describe their posture, potentially to avoid the connotation of “kneeling before someone” in the word “kneeling.” Their lowered position and orientation toward the central figure, the Franciscan monk, adds to the interpretation of these figures in a subservient position and not just lower for access to the water.
34 Nina Fresco, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 6, 2023.
Details of northwest panel. Photos: Kenneth Lopez,
Meztli Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 42
Debated figures in the northwest panel
This character in
the mural strongly
resembles iconic
depictions of Father
Serra due to the
unique baldness
pattern as well as the
cane and pronounced
left foot.
This figure is unlikely to
be Father Crespi, with a
more traditional monk
tonsure.
This character could
be either Gaspar de
Portolá or Juan Rodriguez
Cabrillo. Portolá seems
likely, because his name
is on the adjacent wall.
The rider on
horseback is
ambiguous but
seems to be dressed
consistently with
the way that Spanish
soldiers from the
Portolá expedition are
depicted.
The lowered, kneeling position of
the Native bodies is consistent with
many depictions from this time
period, including this one from a
mural by Macdonald-Wright entitled
Landing of the Vikings in Vinland at
Santa Monica High School.
Gaspar De Portolá:
Father Serra:
Juan Rodriguez
Cabrillo:
Spanish soldier:
Native figures:
Father Crespi:
All images under public domain
except where noted.
Detail of northwest panel
of “History of Santa
Monica and the Bay
District” without the list
of dates. Photo: Kenneth
Lopez, Meztli Projects
Photo: Richard A. Walker, Living New Deal
Photo: Wally Gobetz
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 43
We believe that the discussion of whether the figures are kneeling or not is particularly charged because of the widespread existence of kneeling Indians as a visual trope in American art, commercial graphics and advertising. While it is true that perhaps the intent of the artist was to associate the Native bodies with the springs and water, which would lead to positioning the Native bodies as stooped towards the water, this image exists within a landscape of many other popular representations of Native Americans in a kneeling or lowered posture before white bodies. This array of images includes another work, Landing of the Vikings in Vinland (1939) by Macdonald-Wright, other WPA murals in California and nationally and many other examples.35
They are or are not dressed in a historically accurate way. The figures are wearing very little clothing. One wears a headband and a dark colored loincloth.
The other wears a white loin cloth. Both have shoulder-length hair. It’s difficult to say what would be a truly accurate representation of First Peoples’ dress at this time. Their clothing is also so generally and vaguely portrayed that it’s hard to say much about its accuracy. The people are dressed in a way that could plausibly be worn by an Indigenous person in the area during a warm season, but not in a way that is specifically readable as belonging to a particular group.
The contrast between the Europeans and the Native figures is notable, in that the Europeans are heavily clothed in outfits that would be appropriate for cold weather and that communicate distinctive roles and identities.
Illustrative renderings available at the time when the mural was created depict Gabrielenos wearing different attire, particularly feather headdresses and skirts. A five-volume study of the Missions and Missionaries of California (1929), commissioned by Franciscan scholar Zephryrin Engelhardt and illustrated by Alexander Harmer, was available at the time and was widely popular.36 Father Juan Crespi’s diary was also available and contained various descriptions of encounters with First Peoples, sometimes noting their clothing. The mural’s depiction is not egregiously incorrect or geographically incongruent, as in the case of something like the Early Days monument in San Francisco that includes an Indigenous figure dressed in clearly incorrect clothing (discussed under Case Studies below). Nor is the mural specifically correct or clearly a representation of any tribe. This lack of specificity is a common issue raised about representations of colonization.37
They have no faces or eyes. Interestingly, the figures do in fact have faces. The eyes are turned away from the viewer and the contrast in the petrachrome material is so low that many people looking directly at the mural fail to register the facial features. It is clear that their faces are not given much visual focus in the mural. 35 “Santa Monica High School: Macdonald-Wright Murals-Santa Monica, CA,” Living New Deal, n.d., https:// livingnewdeal.org/sites/santa-monica-high-school-macdonald-wright-murals-santa-monica-ca; “Alameda County Courthouse: Exploration,” New Deal Art Registry, n.d., https://www.newdealartregistry. org/rendersite/AlamedaCountyCourthouse/Oakland/CA/.
36 “Alexander Harmer - Colorized,” California Missions: Keeping the Past Present, n.d., https://www.missionscalifornia.com/galleries/alexander-harmer-colorized/. 37 Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2014).
Drawing by Alexander Harmer depicting the first
baptism in California taking place at Mission San
Juan Capistrano (1929). Photo: University of Southern
California Libraries and California Historical Society
Detail of northwest panel. Photo: Joel Garcia, Meztli
Projects
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 44
As mentioned above, there is no known statement from the artist about what or who he intended to portray or why for the northwest panel. So the following is speculation based on interviews with scholars whose work focuses on the artist, the time period, and the program that facilitated the mural: Will South, Bill Deverell and Natalie McDonald of the Living New Deal project.38 Missions, Junipero Serra and the origin story of California. The mural seems to reflect a romanticized depiction of the origin story of the State of California, which was very commonly told for most of the 20th century. Father Serra and the Mission System he designed were very much at the center of this history.
Serra founded 8 of the 21 Spanish Missions in California, from San Diego to San Francisco. These structures were restored and presented as tourist attractions by the National Park Service in the 1930s as part of a project to create a unified narrative about the history of California.
The Mission Play (1912) by John Steven McGroarty was also widely popular in the years leading up to the mural; it was performed hundreds of times and even led to the construction of its own ballroom. The three-act play celebrates the Missions, Serra and the conversion of First Peoples to Christianity, and it bemoans the loss of the Spanish Missions to Mexico.”
The Mission Play was a popular transmitter of a mythic narrative regarding the origins of California and the encounter between Spanish priests, soldiers and the Gabrieleno people. As early as 1946, as shown in Carey McWilliams’ essay “The Indian in the Closet,” countervailing treatments of this historical period that emphasized the rape, murder, slavery and forced conversion were readily available, and these histories were based on primary sources, such as Serra and Crespi’s journals.39 Nonetheless, the romantic narrative about California’s founding was heavily promoted by the State through mandatory curricula, the restoration of the Missions as tourist attractions by the National Park Service, and through popular media like The Mission Play. Until 2017, all 4th Graders in California were assigned a Mission curriculum and asked to create a diorama of a Mission.
Father Crespi’s diary, Kuruvungna Springs and the origin story of Santa Monica. Some observers feel that Father Crespi’s diary is the source material for Macdonald-Wright’s mural. Published in 1927, the diary remarks on several encounters between the Spanish and groups of First Peoples. In the entry of May 4, Crespi notes that the group traveled along the shore until they reached a hill that juts out into the sea containing several pools of fresh water, which they name the “Pools of Santa Monica.” Crespi records a report from a second division of explorers about a large village of First Peoples in this place:
The reverend father says in his diary that they were with them all day; that they were Indians of good appearance, affable and cheerful; and that they were much in love with these good-looking heathen [unbaptized]. They gave the Spaniards fish and mussels, for which they went to fish in their little canoes; and they danced for them in their fashion to entertain them, and begged them to remain there a second night…The men all go about naked, with quivers on their shoulders, while on their heads they wear a kind of crown made of skins of beaver and other animals. They wear their hair cut like perukes and daubed with white and green with some taste. The women go modestly covered with woven fibers and skins.40
38 Will South, Bill Deverell, Natalie McDonald, Personal Communication with Meztli Projects, 2023. 39 Carey McWilliams, “The Indian in the Closet,” in Southern California: An Island on the Land (New York:
Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1946).
40 Herbert Eugene Bolton, Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast 1769-1774 (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1927), p.100-101.
Historical
context and
potential sources
Pamphlet from 1920. Photo: Public domain
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 45
In another entry recorded for August 4, the group traveled from tar pits (likely La Brea) about two hours northwest to come to a site of two springs at the foot of a higher mesa and village of First Peoples. The site of that encounter is thought to be Kuruvungna Springs, a sacred site near University High School in West Los Angeles that is accessible and maintained today by the Kuruvungna Springs Foundation.
After two hours’ travel, during which we must have covered two leagues, we stopped at the watering place, which consists of two little springs that rise at the foot of a higher mesa. From each of the two springs runs a small stream of water which is soon absorbed; they are both full of watercress and innumerable bushes of Castilian roses. We made camp near the springs, where we found a good village of very friendly and docile heathens [unbaptized] who, as soon as we arrived, came to visit us, bringing their present of baskets of sage and other seeds, small, round nuts with a hard shell, and large and very sweet acorns. . .
They made me a present of some strings of beads of white and red shells which resemble coral, though not very fine. I understood they were asking us whether we were going to stay, and I said “No,” that we were going further on.” I called this place San Gregorio, but to the soldiers the spot is known as the Springs of El Berrendo, because they caught a deer alive there. . . 41 Another source, a book published in 1934 with a similar title to the mural–History of the Santa Monica Bay Region by Charles S. Warren, locates the naming of Santa Monica at Kuruvungna Springs. In this story, Spanish soldiers traveling from the Pueblo of Los Angeles associated the Springs with the tears of Saint Monica for her son Augustine. Warren recounts this story specifically as a “legend” originating in 1769 with no factual basis:
Soldiers were given furloughs now and then to explore the territory in all this section. Even then they must have seen that the best growth would be toward the ocean. The travels of these soldiers brought them one day, weary and thirsty, to a point on what is now the grounds of the University High School in West Los Angeles. There their eyes were gladdened with the sight of water from bubbling springs. They sank to their knees in gratitude. After drinking of the dancing waters, they lay down to rest, and in gratitude for their refreshment, bethought themselves of a fitting name for the place. “We will call it Santa Monica,” said the one with the quick imagination, “for the springs resemble the tears of the good Santa Monica, shed for her erring son.42
Confusingly, Warren then conflates this legend associated with the Springs with the encounter at the “Pools of Santa Monica” by the shore recorded in Crespi’s May 4 diary entry, saying that May 4 is the feast day of Saint Monica. He then quotes and paraphrases at length from the description of the encounter with the First Peoples recorded on May 4 in Crespi’s diary.
It’s impossible to know what sources of inspiration the artist used, especially given the lack of documentation around his designs. It is plausible that Macdonald-Wright knew of the legend about the origin story of Santa Monica and may have included the waterfall as a reference to this story. If he used Father Crespi’s diary or Warren’s History of Santa Monica and the Bay Region, he does not seem to have drawn from either source’s description of the “Native inhabitants.” Also, the mural does not include gifts of any kind from the Native figures or any other representations of Indigenous civilization recorded in Crespi’s diary, such as canoes or structures. These inconsistencies are a reminder that the mural is not itself a recording of history, but an artist’s creation that references historical events through constructed images.
41 Bolton, Fray Juan Crespi: Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast 1769-1774, p.149-150. There are later translations, notably from 2001, that have different translations of this entry and slightly differing details.
We have chosen the edition that would have been available to the artist. 42 Charles S. Warren, History of the Santa Monica Bay Region: In Two Parts Narrative and Biographical, p. 15.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 46
Obviously, the largest point of interpretive contention is whether the overall scene presented is objectionable. While it is clear that some viewers feel no offense at seeing these images, it seems to us beyond debate that many other viewers do. Throughout our process, we have encountered three different major kinds of objections and three major defenses.
Objections
• The Native figures are showing deference or subservience to the conquerors.
This portrayal is traumatic to survivors of generational violence because it depicts a triumphant moment of subjugation.
• The Native figures are showing collaboration and goodwill towards their soon-to-be oppressors. This portrayal is traumatic not only because it erases a history of extreme violence and cruelty but suggests that Native people welcomed it.
• The Native figures are generally shown as less than the other white/ Spanish figures and whether or not they are revered or vilified, they are not portrayed as real humans or on the same level as one another.
Defenses
• The Native figures are shown in a way that honors Native people, because they relate to the earth, look strong, or their posture might reference East Asian figures such as bodhisattvas.
• The Native figures are helpful because they acknowledge that people lived here before European invasion.
• The Native figures are neutral and just happen to be in the higher and lower positions they are in because it makes a dynamic composition. The figures may or may not even be having an interaction.
These interpretations cannot be resolved definitively, but we offer here some further considerations around the objections. In alignment with our commitment to centering First Peoples and to a trauma-informed, survivorcentered approach, we need to take seriously the objections that First Peoples have shared, particularly around how these images cause harm.
Representations of the Mission System and Junipero Serra. Regardless of whether the scene in the mural depicts a moment of deference or a moment of collaboration, the images in the mural are associated with colonization and the Mission System for many Indigenous viewers. While the mural does not contain images of explicit violence (in contrast to Victor Arnatauff’s Life of Washington mural, which we discuss below), for First Peoples and other Indigenous Peoples, images of Junipero Serra and other references to forced conversion or colonization are reminders of the violence of the history of the Mission System.
In fact, romanticized or “whitewashed” images can be all the more galling and traumatic, as they reinforce romanticized narratives of this history and make it easy to pretend that real violence did not happen.
As we noted before, the State of California actively promoted an origin story for the state with the Missions at the center. The Missions remain popular tourist sites, but they are deeply ambivalent sites for Indigenous Peoples. In her An Indigenous People’s History of the United States, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz highlights how the Mission sites and the celebration of Serra are perceived and reinscribe generational trauma:
Are the
representations
in the mural
objectionable?
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 47
Very few visitors notice, however, that in the middle of the plaza of each Mission is a whipping post. The history symbolized by that artifact is not dead and buried with the generations of Indigenous bodies buried under the California crust. The scars and trauma have been passed on from generation to generation.
Putting salt in the wound, as it were, Pope John Paul II in 1998 beatified Junipero Serra, the first step toward sainthood. California Indigenous peoples were insulted by this act and organized to prevent the sanctification of a person they consider having been an exponent of rape, torture, death, starvation, and humiliation of their ancestors and the attempted destruction of their cultures. Serra would take soldiers with him, randomly kidnapping Indigenous individuals and families, recording these captures in his diaries, as in this instance: “[When] one fled from between their [the soldiers’] hands, they caught the other. They tied him, and it was all necessary, for, even bound, he defended himself that they should not bring him, and flung himself on the ground with such violence that he scraped and bruised his thighs and knees. But at last, they brought him. . . He was frightened and very disturbed.’ In 1878, a old Kamia man named Janitin told an interviewer of his experience as a child: “When we arrived at the Mission, they locked me in a room for a week. . . Every day they lashed me unjustly because I did not finish what I did not know how to do, and thus I existed for many days until I found a way to escape; but I was tracked, and they caught me like a fox.” He was fastened to the stage and beaten to unconsciousness.43
Not just a memory, the impacts of the Mission System are very much still present with Indigenous People today, as noted by Deborah A. Miranda, an enrolled member of the Ohlone-Costanoan Esselen Nation of California. In her widely acclaimed book, Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir, she shares a compilation of documents, photos and memoir that recounts the establishment of Missions in California and the impact on Indigenous people—then and today.44 One of the ongoing impacts of the Mission System is shame. For example, “That is, in fact, the case with psychological research on the subject of shame; it creates a situation that naturally inhibits people from opening up and sharing their experiences with others.”45 Shame and other feelings associated with it make it difficult for First Peoples to engage, which is a repeated and ongoing harm that anyone who descends from the original inhabitants of Santa Monica can rightfully claim. It is this historical lineage of both the Mission System and representations of colonization that leads to objections about the Native figures showing either deference or goodwill to a Franciscan monk and a soldier.
The impact of dehumanizing or romanticized representations. The comparative lack of detail for the Native figures, including their faces, and their lowered position both in design and how their bodies are placed on the ground, whether intended to depict subservience or not, raises a variety of issues when viewed from the perspective of Indigenous Peoples. These elements of the image contribute to the interpretation of this as a portrayal of Indigenous Peoples as less human and lower than the other figures, who, in contrast, merit a detailed portrayal as individuals with distinctive styles of dress that suggest their identities, active postures that communicate power, and full detailed facial expressions that indicate personhood.
43 Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Boston, Beacon Press, 2015. p. 128-129.
44 Deborah A. Miranda, Bad Indians: A Tribal Memoir (Berkeley, CA: Heyday, 2013). 45 Scot N. DuFour, “Shame, Anger, and Guilt: The Hierarchy of Emotions in Restorative Justice,” Inquiries Journal 8, no. 04 (2016).
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 48
This image must be taken in light of the many, many images from this time period that portray Native figures kneeling or in subservient positions before white figures and the many other images in popular culture that include romanticized or negative representations of Indigenous Peoples. According to the Reclaiming Native Truth project, this kind of representation “reinforces negative stereotypes among the dominant culture and can harm the self-esteem and aspirations of our own people, and especially our children.”47
Even if intended to be or interpreted as heroic, a romanticized “historical” image without any particularity reinforces the idea that all Indigenous Peoples are the same and that they are in the past. The Reclaiming Native Truth Project research confirmed that “contemporary Native Americans are, for the most part, invisible in the United States.”48 The lack of visibility and sense of relevance in modern culture is particularly dangerous in the way that it can undermine support for Native issues and can lead to dehumanizing policies. Secretary Deb Haaland, when speaking at Sherman Indian High School, the oldest Indian boarding school in Riverside, California, stated, “There are current impacts [of the Indian boarding schools] in drug addiction and poverty and the lack of economic development, and health disparities. When people are invisible, you don’t have to pay attention. We should care about every single community in this country. So bringing all of these things to light; it will make us become a better country.”49
Racialized representations in a place of power like City Hall. It’s important to consider the physical context of the mural when considering the objections to the mural and its potential impact. It’s not in an educational or leisure space, but in a space of government where decisions are made that affect all of Santa Monica. In other words, it’s a place where power is exercised, and the imagery displayed both reinforces that power and is imbued with power by being displayed in this place.
Taking this context into account, the fact that the majority of the figures in both the mural panels are represented as white and the only people of color in either panel seem to many to be subservient is significant. During this process, we did not encounter any interpretations that called into question the whiteness of the other figures. The central figures in both panels—Will Rogers in the southwest and (likely) Junipero Serra in the northwest—appear to be white men and are celebrated by being the focal point in the composition. The relative positioning of the Native figures below the Franciscan friar effectively “others” and alienates Indigenous Peoples, other Brown people and also women, since there is only one female figure in the mural. In this context, what the artist, the mural and the WPA program ended up doing, whether intentional or not, is exercising “soft power” by communicating who is “other” and who, by extension, belongs in this space and who does not.
This mural is in an unavoidable location within a civic building that is a place of work for many and must be entered to conduct certain kinds of business with the City. In this process, some community members remarked that it is difficult to be confronted with the mural without their consent every time they enter the space. This lack of consent can feel violent, especially when the harm of othering and shaming is experienced repetitively. When entering this space, Indigenous People, people of color and women are more likely to take the images in the mural as a cue to who belongs in the space of City Hall. In these instances, the representations in the mural matter as a symbol of power, and its location not only amplifies the content of the mural, it also authenticates the potentially harmful representations it contains. 46 Kendra Cherry, “How Othering Contributes to Discrimination and Prejudice,” Very Well Mind (website), May 1, 2023, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-othering-5084425. 47 Maria Elena Campisteguy, Jennifer Messenger Heilbronner, and Corrinne Nakamura-Rybak, “Research Findings: Compilation of All Research: Reclaiming Native Truth, a Project to Dispel America’s Myths and Misconceptions” (Echo Hawk Consulting & First Nations Development Institute, June 2018). 48 Ibid.
49 “Haaland Seeks Healing for Native American Boarding School Survivors,” All Things Considered, May 22, 2022.
Othering is a phenomenon
in which some individuals or
groups are defined and labeled
as not fitting within the norms
of a social group. It is an effect
that influences how people
perceive and treat those who
are viewed as being part of
the in-group versus those who
are seen as being part of the
out-group.46
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 49
Two approaches to removing harmful iconography from public space have been employed in Los Angeles County. The City Hall mural differs from these cases in that it is not explicitly a monument to an individual, as was the Columbus statue in Grand Park or the Serra statue at Yaangna Park (unofficially called Serra Park until 2022). Still, these cases speak to the concerns about the likely depiction of Father Serra in the City Hall mural and about depictions of similarly controversial figures in public space. The Columbus statue was removed by Los Angeles County officials through the advocacy and creative action of community members; while the Serra statue was toppled by community members. Although they took different paths, these approaches opened opportunities to support First Peoples and their efforts to seek recognition, justice and equity across many sectors, including opportunities to heal past and current harms.
The Columbus statue was dedicated in 1973 and was a gift to Los Angeles County by the United Lodges of Southern California, Order Sons of Italy in America.
Community members have protested for the statue’s removal since at least 1995.
The statue was covered when the County first celebrated Indigenous Peoples Day on October 9, 2018.50 The Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission (LANAIC) also formally requested removal and deaccession in October 2018.51The statue was removed from Grand Park on November 10, 2018. 50 Pamela Avila, “Christopher Columbus Disappears from View in L.A. on Indigenous Peoples Day,” Los Angeles Magazine, October 8, 2018.
51 Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission, “Statement on the Removal of the Columbus Statue at Grand Park,” October 18, 2018.
Current Conversations and Case Studies in the Field
This mural controversy is part of a global reckoning with monuments and memorialized space, which has intensified in the last decade. To situate the Reframe project, we explore here artworks that have provoked similar questions and controversies, and we look at how communities have worked to resolve them. We will touch on a few that directly relate to this situation: monuments to controversial historical figures, artworks depicting a relationship between colonizers and Indigenous Peoples, and some also produced in the early part of the 20th Century. Throughout, we note the actions that have been taken, if any, in response to these controversies, including removal, covering and interpretive efforts.
Monument
removals and
historical
revisions:
Los Angeles
Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects Photo: palewire
Columbus Statue (1973)
Grand Park, Los Angeles
2018: Statue removed
2021: LACDAC commissions
temporary artwork by
Tongva artists
2021: Board of Supervisors
issues apology and
commissions report
2023: “We Are Still Here”
report released
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 50
LANAIC Vice-Chair Chrissy Castro shared her experience of the removal, That day was one that I will always hold in my memory, as far as the at-large Indigenous community in LA coming together and claiming a small victory, a much needed victory. After decades of demonstration, protests and dialogue, it was very emotional when the statue finally came down. You know, we had singers. Folks were clapping and yelling. And it was just a sense of release, of finally being heard. And we know that there’s a lot more work to do, but it was an important step towards really telling the true history of the place that we now call Los Angeles.52
In July 2020, the Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture put out a call for artists, in collaboration with LANAIC, to create a temporary artwork or program in response to the removal. Two projects were selected: a virtual engagement program by the Puvungna Collective and a temporary art installation by Mercedes Dorame.53
Following the removal of the Columbus statue, the George Washington statue in Grand Park was toppled on August 13, 2020.54 The George Washington statue now remains part of the civic art collection but was relocated to Bob Hope Patriotic Hall, a decision that also has been protested. In June 2021, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors apologized to First Peoples and commissioned “‘We Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes.”55
The Junipero Serra statue, a replica of the original done by sculptor Ettore Cardin for the U.S. Capitol’s National Statuary Hall (1930), was initially installed at the intersection of Spring Street and Sunset Boulevard (now Cesar Chavez 52 Paul Farber and Chrissie Castro, Taking Down the Columbus Statue in Downtown L.A. with Organizer Chrissie Castro, vol. Episode 8, Monument Lab Podcast, n.d.
53 For more information on these projects, see https://www.lacountyarts.org/experiences/civic-art/memory-and-futurity-yaangna 54 Colleen Shalby, “7 Arrested in Vandalism of George Washington Statue near L.A. City Hall,” Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2020.
55 Ashley Dobson, Tremayne Nez, and Representatives from the Local Tribes, “‘We Are Still Here.’ A Report on Past, Present, and Ongoing Harms Against Local Tribes” (Los Angeles City/County Native American Indian Commission & Los Angeles County Department of Arts and Culture, January 2023).
Father Serra statue (1930)
El Pueblo de Los Angeles
Historic Monument /
“Serra Park,” Los Angeles
2015: Serra canonized amid
protests
2020: Statue toppled
2021: City of LA issues
formal apology and
announces renaming and
cultural easement initiative Photo: Kenneth Lopez, Meztli Projects Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 51
Avenue) on August 26, 1934 by the Knights of Columbus. It was later relocated to El Pueblo de Los Angeles historical monument, a department of the City of Los Angeles. The statue was donated to and is part of the City of Los Angeles’ public art collection. The statue is an “idealized” portrait of Father Serra. He holds a small replica of Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Rio Carmelo in his proper left hand and a cross aloft in his proper right hand.
The statue had been protested for decades, especially leading up to Serra’s canonization in 2015.56 The statue was toppled by community members on June 20, 2020, at the Olvera site where it had stood since at least the 1960s. Following its toppling, the Los Angeles City Council deemed the removal an act of civil disobedience.
On June 30, 2020, City Council members introduced a motion to address controversial statues, plaques and other symbolic honorifics. Among the actions following this motion, the park has been renamed by the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners in collaboration with local tribal communities.57 On October 11, 2021, Mayor Eric Garcetti along with Councilman Mitch O’Farrell, a member of the Wyandotte Nation, formally apologized to First Peoples at Olvera where the Serra statue was toppled.58 O’Farrell introduced other proposals, such as updating the City’s seal and flag to include Indigenous representation, the City issuing a formal apology to Native American tribes, and plans to introduce a resolution that calls on federal and state governments to rename the Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway, as part of the 10 Freeway is labeled.
Additionally, the City established an Indigenous Cultural Easement in the area where the statue was toppled so that the Tongva community could use the site in ways that increase their visibility.59 This easement, initially recommended by the Civic Memory Working Group in April 2021, is an example of how a City can take concrete actions to support the efforts of First Peoples to seek recognition and justice.
These local examples are mirrored in many national cases, but we have selected a few particularly relevant cases to discuss here. Some of these cases, like the Pioneer Monument in San Francisco’s Civic Center, the Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt by James Earle Frasier outside the American Museum of Natural History, and the Old New York diorama inside the same museum, feature similar concerns about representations of Native figures in relationship to colonizers as in the City Hall mural. We have also included two cases of New Deal era interior murals that represent Native figures within historical tableaus.
The City Hall mural differs from these cases in that it does not depict explicit violence, as do Victor Arnautoff’s Life of Washington and Frank Mechau’s Dangers of the Mail. However, these cases illustrate similar questions about artistic representations of historical narratives and their impact. These national cases also represent a wider range of responses, including and beyond removal. 56 Joe Mozingo, Matt Hamilton, and Jeff Gottlieb, “Decision to Canonize Father Junipero Serra Draws Divided Reaction,” Los Angeles Times, January 16, 2015. 57 Mitch O’Farrell and Curren D. Price, Jr, “Citywide Policy / Acceptance and Placement / Removal and Renaming / Statues, Monuments, Honorifics, and Naming Rights / City-Owned Land, Property, and Public Right-of-Way” (Los Angeles City Council, June 30, 2020). 58 Julia Wick, ““We’re Sorry’: L.A. Moves to Make Amends for Wrongs Committed against Indigenous People,” Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2021. 59 City News Service, “LA Officials Announce ‘Indigenous LAnd Initiative’ to Address Past Wrongdoings,” Spectrum News, October 11, 2021.
National
monuments and
artwork case
studies
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 52
The Pioneer Monument was erected in 1894 by Frank Happersberger and financed by the estate of James Lick, who made a trust for bronze statuary representing the history of California.60The monument was originally located in front of the Old City Hall in San Francisco, which was destroyed in the earthquake of 1906.
In 1996, the monument was relocated to Fulton Street between Hyde and Larkin Streets next to the San Francisco Public Library. The monument consists of a central column bearing statuary, bronze reliefs and plaques, surrounded by four smaller plinths bearing statuary facing the cardinal directions. The plinth titled Early Days depicts a Catholic monk converting an “Indian” on the ground who appears to be from an entirely different part of the continent, wearing attire appropriate to Indigenous People of the North American Plains. A Spanish vaquero stands with his hand raised triumphantly next to them.
Complaints from Indigenous Peoples about the Early Days sculpture arose at least as early as 1995, during the plans for the relocation. A 1995 letter from the American Indian Movement Confederation called Early Days “a symbol of the humiliation, degradation, genocide, and sorrow inflicted upon this country’s indigenous people by a foreign invader through religious persecution and ethnic prejudice.”61 Upon its relocation in 1996, a small plaque was added linking the fate of Native Americans to “whites’ diseases, armed attacks, and mistreatment,” which was quickly deemed insufficient.62
This statue was eventually removed on September 14, 2018. The San Francisco Arts Commission had voted to take down the statue in April 2018, but the Board of Appeals, catering to opposition, overturned them, blocking the statue’s removal. The Board of Appeals then reversed itself, and the statue was removed and placed in a storage facility. In 2019, projects were commissioned to reclaim the space that the monument took up, including a portrait series in which 150 members of the Bay Area Indigenous community were photographed standing on the plinth where Early Days stood.63 In 2023, the San Francisco Arts Commission, Human Rights Commission and Recreation and Parks Department released the “Final Report of the Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee”, with recommendations from the community and amendments to their public art policies and guidelines.64
60 Smithsonian American Art Museum, “The Pioneers Monument, (Sculpture),” Art Inventories Catalog, Smithsonian Institution Research Information System, n.d., accessed October 19, 2023. 61 Daniela Blei, “San Francisco’s ‘Early Days’ Statue Is Gone. Now Comes the Work of Activating Real History,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 4, 2018. 62 Ibid.
63 San Francisco Arts Commission, “Bay Area’s Indigenous Community Takes Center Stage in New Exhibition and Temporary Light-Art Installation,” Press Release, August 2, 2019. 64 “San Francisco Monuments and Memorials Advisory Committee Final Report” (San Francisco Arts Commission, Human Rights Commission, Recreation and Parks Department, May 2023).
Early Days within the
Pioneer Monument
(1894)
Civic Center, San Francisco
1996: Protests result in
addition of plaque
2018: Statue removed
2019: New projects
commissioned
2023: Final Report of the
Monuments and Memorials
Advisory Committee
Photo: Beyond My Ken
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 53
The Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt by James Earle Frasier was commissioned in 1925 to stand on the steps of the American Museum of Natural History, a city-owned property in Central Park West in New York City. It was unveiled to the public in 1940 as part of a memorial to Roosevelt also at the museum, which has a long association with the Roosevelt family. People have protested the statue for decades because of the way it presents a racial hierarchy through the placement of the figures with a clearly elevated white man with an identity (Roosevelt) on horseback, flanked by anonymous Native American and African figures. It was addressed in a 2017-2018 Mayoral Advisory Commission to consider controversial monuments and the commission was unable to reach consensus on what to do with it.65 The mayor decided at that time to retain the statue in place with additional context, and in 2019, an exhibit opened at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) called “Addressing the Statue.” The exhibition highlighted many different viewpoints on the statue.66 In June 2020, in response to the widening movement for racial justice after the murder of George Floyd, the museum requested that the City remove the statue. In 2021, the New York City Public Design Commission approved the relocation, and the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library Foundation and City of New York agreed to a long-term loan of the statue. In January 2022, the Equestrian Statue of Theodore Roosevelt was removed from the front steps of the Museum.67 65 Mayoral Advisory Commission on City Art, Monuments, and Markers, “Report to the city of New York,” January 2018.
66 American Museum of Natural History, “Addressing the Statue,” n.d., https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/ addressing-the-statue.
67 American Museum of Natural History, “Statement about the Relocation of the Equestrian Statue,” June 21, 2020, https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/addressing-the-statue.
Equestrian Statue of
Theodore Roosevelt (1940)
and Old New York (1939)
Diorama
American Museum of
Natural History, NYC
2017-2018: NYC Mayor’s
commission unable to reach
consensus. Mayor decides
to retain the statue in place
with interpretive signage
2019: “Addressing the Statue”
exhibit opens
2022: Statue relocated
2020: Museum requests that
the City remove the statue
Photo: Edward H. Blake
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 54
Also at the American Museum of Natural History, this 1939 diorama in the Old New York exhibition depicts Dutch leader Peter Stuyvesant receiving a delegation of Lenape. The museum acknowledges that this depiction of the Lenape reflects common clichés and a fictional view of the past that ignores how complex and violent colonization was for Native people.68 In 2018, very large labels were added to the glass front of the diorama with context and commentary. Bradley Pecore, a visual historian who is Menominee and Stockbridge Munsee from northeastern Wisconsin, offered an Indigenous perspective on the diorama for the labels. In a short video that the museum produced about the updates, Pecore comments:
If the diorama was simply covered up and blacked out, all it would do is put that history in a cupboard, in a box that we don’t have to look at. Is it somewhat shameful? Sure. But we need to talk about that.69
The labels are unmissable and clearly condemn the stereotypical representations and the colonial violence that the depiction masks. They also provide information about Lenape people now to counter the idea that the diorama depicts people who were once in this place but are now gone. The museum also developed curricula for teaching the Old New York diorama for grades 3-5 and 6-12.
68 American Museum of Natural History, “Old New York Diorama,” n.d., https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/ permanent/theodore-roosevelt-memorial/hall/old-new-york-diorama#:~:text=This%201939%20diorama%20 depicts%20Dutch,colonization%20was%20for%20Native%20people. 69 Behind the Updates to Old New York Diorama, n.d., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndj59hGuSSY&t=2s.
Photo: American Museum of Natural History
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 55
This painting by Frank Mechau depicts, quite graphically, a massacre by stereotypical “Indians,” who are killing white men and scalping naked white women at the scene of an overturned stagecoach. The painting was one of several commissioned in 1935 by the New Deal Section of Painting and Sculpture as “Romantic Subject Matter in History of Post” for the Post Office Department Building. Completed in 1937, it was controversial even before it was unveiled, primarily for the depictions of violence against and nudity of the white female figures.70
The painting is in what is now the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, home to the Environmental Protection Agency since 1996. The building is not open to the public, but for many years, EPA employees communicated their concern that its presence created a hostile work environment and harmed relationships with Tribal leaders who visited the EPA for collaborative work.71 EPA employees attempted to resolve the issue internally, and a temporary display was placed in front of it to partially obscure it from view as early as 2000. In 2003, employees enlisted the help of the Society of American Indian Government Employees (SAIGE), and the National Congress of American Indians passed a resolution objecting to the work. After the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law argued that the images created a hostile work environment on behalf of Native EPA employees, the EPA passed the issue over to the General Services Administration (GSA). The GSA responded in 2005 with a historic preservation review of the painting under the National Historic Preservation Act 106.72 They held two public consultations, in 2006 and 2007, before issuing a decision in 2007 on a mitigation plan for the painting, including installing a new screen and revised interpretive materials as part of a comprehensive interpretive program for all 22 New Deal paintings in the building.
After an additional lengthy review process, a permanent metal mesh curtain was installed as well as interpretive panels in 2018.73 The curtains remain closed, but can be opened by viewers if they wish to see the painting, and members of the public can view the painting by appointment.
70 U.S. General Services Administration, “Frank Mechau,” William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, n.d., https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties/visiting-public-buildings/william-jefferson-clinton-federal-building/whats-inside/wheres-the-art/frank-mechau. 71 Barbara Leigh Smith, “Whose Story Should Be Told,” Enduring Legacies Native Cases Project (The Evergreen State College, 2014), https://nativecases.evergreen.edu/. 72 Sandra Starr, “Indians in the Post Office: Artworks Offer Mixed Messages,” National Museum of the American Indian, Fall 2010, p. 41.
73 Jessy J. Ohl and Jennifer E. Potter, “Traumatic Encounters with Frank Mechau’s Dangers of the Mail,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 16, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 26–42.
Dangers of the Mail
(1937), William Jefferson
Clinton Federal Building,
Washington, DC
1937: Protested before
unveiled
2000: Temporary display
placed in front of mural
1996: EPA employees raise
concerns
2005: Native employees file
hostile work environment
complaint
2008: GSA conducts historic
preservation reviews
2018: Permanent mesh
curtain and interpretive
panels installed
Photo: Public domain
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 56
Life of Washington is a mural cycle in San Francisco’s George Washington High School. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, a Russian-born social realist artist, for the WPA in 1936. Composed of 13 panels and spanning 1600 square feet, the work was painted directly on the wall in wet plaster as a fresco. In this mural, depictions of atrocities and murder are intended as social commentary on America’s origin myths. As part of this commentary, the mural includes several disturbing images including enslaved people and the dead body of a Native person at the feet of pioneers. While this is also a WPA-funded mural, this work is distinct from the City Hall mural because of the artist’s social realist approach to depicting George Washington as someone who enslaved people and led a violently colonizing nation.
In 1968 and 1969, Black students raised objections to the mural, not because of the violence of the images, but because of the “one-sidedness of the presentation.”74 Students wanted depictions of the contributions of Black people to the U.S. in sciences or in fighting for the nation’s independence. After some debate, the students withdrew their demand for the mural’s removal, proposing that plaques explaining its deficiencies be placed alongside the mural and a new mural be commissioned. The response mural Multi-Ethnic Heritage was completed in 1974 by the young artist Dewey Crumpler, after studying muralism in Mexico. It does not appear that explanatory plaques were ever installed.
More recently, the mural cycle has been at the center of a protracted public controversy that gained national attention. In 2018, a proposal by San Francisco Heritage to designate George Washington High School as a city landmark was opposed by San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Board of Education because it could complicate the potential removal of the mural.75 In 2019, the SFUSD Board voted to paint over the mural, then decided to cover it with curtains or panels.76 In response, George Washington High School Alumni Association filed a lawsuit against the SFUSD Board. In 2021, the Court ruled that the school board’s original decision violated state law by deciding on covering before undergoing a CA Environmental Quality Assessment (for historical preservation) process.77 Finally, in 2022, the Board, with new members, voted to rescind the previous decision to cover up the mural and to abandon their appeal.78 The controversy has attracted many high-profile critics and defenders, many of whom are documented in the film Town Destroyer. 79 74 Robin D. G. Kelley, “We’re Getting These Murals All Wrong,” The Nation, September 10, 2019. 75 Laura Waxman, “Education Leaders Oppose Landmark Designations for Three SF Schools over Controversial Mural,” San Francisco Examiner, March 8, 2018. 76 Sam Lefebvre, “‘This Is Reparations:’ S.F. School Board Votes to Paint Over Controversial High School Mural,” KQED, June 25, 2019.
77 Carol Pogash, “Murals at San Francisco School Should Stay for Now, Judge Says,” The New York Times, July 29, 2021.
78 Jill Tucker, “Post-Recall S.F. School Board Rescinds Vote to Cover Controversial Washington High Mural,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 22, 2022.
79 Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman, Town Destroyer (Bullfrog Films, 2022).
Life of George Washington
(1936), George Washington
High School, San Francisco
1968–69: Black students protests
1974: Response mural produced
by Dewey Crumpler
2019: SFUSD Board votes to
paint over the mural, then
decides to cover it with
curtains or panels. Alumni
Association files a lawsuit
against the School Board.
2021: Court rules that the
SFUSD Board’s original
decision violated state law
2022: SFUSD Board votes to
rescind the previous decision
to cover up the mural
Photo: Richard Evans, Living New Deal
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 57
Each example we have discussed contains its own unique mix of factors—the origin of the artwork, the holding institution, the degree to which the work is available to the public, as well as the mode and content of the representation.
The impact of the work varies significantly based on location and therefore the immediate audience for the work. Outdoor sculptures have a wide-ranging impact on the general public, but indoor artworks tend to have a narrower and more specific audience and impact–museum attendees such as children on school field trips, federal government employees and visitors meeting about environmental policy, or high school students on their way to class everyday. The City Hall mural is in this second category of indoor artworks, but its audience and impact are still wide ranging given that it is located in a government building where employees and residents attend to the day to day business of running the City of Santa Monica and which is also open to the public most of the time.
Additionally, the interventions around these controversial public artworks vary depending on location, context, community desires and the willingness of agencies to respond. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. There are many voices and perspectives that were involved and considered in each case, and often government agencies were responding to long-standing protests. In each example, there was a long series of steps that led to the current status, with the eventual interventions reaching different levels of compromise, with the exception of the recent controversy around Life of Washington, in which no action has been taken. Still no situation was resolved definitely and forever, because the conversation continues.
Themes in the
case studies
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 58
We received 337 responses to the feedback activity. Of the 337 responses, 276 or (82%) of the respondents gave a valid zip code. The majority (74%) gave a Santa Monica zip code, and most of the rest (22%) gave a zip code in Los Angeles County.
Is there a way to add 1-the
earlier lunch and learn with
the City (even though its
listed under public
programs) 2-the events listed
in the feedback activity
section: Art and Literacy
Event, visiting Families
Latinas Unidas 3-something
about the interviews 4-visits
to Human Resource Council,
Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council, Puente meeting? Also, or alternatively, we could organize it by
constituency. Label as
additional outreach to
specific constituencies. . .
remove categorizations
Rather than ask multiple demographic survey questions, we asked one openended question where we asked respondents to tell us about themselves and what perspectives might have shaped their responses to the activity. About 30% of respondents (N=100) chose to share some aspect of their racial or ethnic identity. For more demographic information about respondents and the full dataset of responses, see Appendix C.
Overall, we hoped to engage people in reflecting on the mural and to go deeper than a survey listing options for or against the mural. One of the goals of the feedback activity was to have people engage directly with the mural images and to understand not just how they interpreted the images, but also their emotional responses and attachments to the mural. We grouped the responses we received into a handful of larger themes that we discuss below. Since people can and do have multiple emotional responses to an image, some responses were grouped into multiple themes. Therefore, the percentages are offered to give a general sense of the size of the groups and do not add up to 100. Also, in the feedback activity, we presented the northwest side as the first panel and the southwest or “recreation” side of the mural as the second panel, so we have referred to them as “first (northwest)” and “second (southwest)” below.
The mural images are offensive, disturbing or exclusionary. A majority of the respondents (59%) found one or both of the mural panels to be offensive, disturbing or exclusionary. Overall, these respondents felt that the mural represented the hierarchies inherent in settler colonialism and white supremacy.
In the first (northwest) panel, they noted the lower position of the Native figures Feedback Activity Responses
In order to engage more people in this process, we designed a feedback activity containing a three-page worksheet that individuals could fill out online or complete on paper and return to City Hall or the Santa Monica Public Library. We collected feedback activity responses from February 6, 2023, through May 10, 2023. The feedback activity was shared intentionally with Santa Monica residents and key stakeholders in the process inside and outside of Santa Monica.
Sentiments about
the mural in the
feedback activity
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 59
and the difference in detail in facial expressions and clothing between the European and Native figures. They reacted to the fact that the colonizing figures are shown facing the viewer in active positions (mid-stride). Many people read the images as representing the Native figures in a subservient position and noted that they appear to be faceless or turned away from the viewer.
In relation to the second (southwest) panel, these individuals overwhelmingly responded to the fact that all the figures represented appear to be white and upper class. Many respondents noted that there is only one woman represented in either panel, and she also does not have facial detail. Children felt they were not adequately represented either. Many respondents found the second (southwest) panel to be the more problematic image in its representation of white elitism in Santa Monica of the 1930s or present day. Especially paired with the first (northwest) panel, it appears to suggest an erasure of the Indigenous people and anyone non-white in contemporary Santa Monica.
There was a range in this group of responses in terms of whether these images contain an accurate representation of the history of Santa Monica.
Some respondents felt that the hierarchies of the time periods in the panels are captured and told through the images. Others felt that the images are romanticizations that misrepresent the violence of settler colonialism. Others felt that the images left out important aspects of the history and representations of Indigenous peoples, colonization, Black and Asian Santa Monicans and working-class Santa Monicans.
The mural images are beautiful or valuable, but also contain troubling aspects that need addressing. Another, smaller group of respondents (15%) appreciated the mural for its artistic or historical significance, but also recognized that the images have significant flaws that require a response. Many of these respondents found the images beautiful, particularly the natural landscape depicted and how the images coordinate with the tile work and other architectural elements of the City Hall lobby. These respondents often placed a value on historic preservation, and some were aware of the New Deal origins of the artwork or other pieces by the artist. However, the concerns articulated by these respondents mirrored the concerns of the larger group of respondents who found the images particularly lacking in terms of Native representation and missing large groups of Santa Monicans. This group generally holds artwork and artists in high esteem and feels that new artworks could ameliorate the problems with this mural.
The mural images are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with them.
A roughly similarly sized group of respondents (16%) felt that the mural panels are perfect, and nothing needs to be done to address them. Many of these respondents provided less detail in their responses, but they have mostly positive or neutral interpretations of what is depicted in both panels. A few have negative interpretations but feel strongly that the images are still beautiful or valuable because of their historic significance. This group might have some minor suggestions about what is missing or how the images could be improved, but these suggestions, if they have them, are in the realm of “quibbles.” They are not offended by the mural. Quite the contrary, overall, the artwork makes these respondents feel happy or proud, and some have very strong attachments to the mural.
The mural images are neutral or negative, but as historical artifacts, they have little bearing on the present. Another roughly similarly sized group of respondents (12%) was somewhat indifferent about the artworks. Some of them interpreted the images as having negative or exclusionary elements, but they were not particularly concerned about the images. As historic images that were created in the past, some felt that these images are either unrelatable or have little import for today. Some felt that because they are historic images, they cannot or should not be changed.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 60
The discussion about the mural is a distraction from other pressing issues in Santa Monica. A small number of respondents (4%) felt that the process of engagement around the mural was a waste of time and resources. They would have preferred that Santa Monica spent those resources addressing qualityof-life concerns and development pressures. Some of these respondents also expressed their strong attachment to the mural. Others were more indifferent or felt the mural had no bearing on the present. Some had a very negative view of Santa Monica government and proposed new artworks that represented Santa Monica as corrupt or overrun by development.
We did not design the feedback response activity to gather feedback on what the City of Santa Monica should do about the mural. Rather, we were focused on having respondents engage directly with the images and gathering their emotional responses. However, in this open-ended format, many respondents chose to share their ideas and suggestions about actions to take in response to the mural. Since we asked respondents to imagine an artwork to represent the history of Santa Monica, many respondents may have been primed to make suggestions related to commissioning new work. (We provide the list of proposed locations and the themes in the imagined artworks in Appendix C.) Also notably, some respondents (about 15%) answered the question about where they would place an artwork in Santa Monica as if we had asked about where they would place the existing mural. It’s important to remember that this was not a survey, and the open-ended questions did not present any options to the respondents, therefore many more individuals could be in support of or against these actions than it appears. So, we have not provided numbers or percentages of respondents attached to each particular action.
Suggested actions:
• Commission new artwork with more updated, positive or accurate images • Commission new artwork visually near the existing mural to address it • Replace the existing mural with new artwork
• Preserve the existing mural
• Create interpretive panels and other educational materials related to the existing mural
• Relocate the existing mural to another location
• Destroy or cover the existing mural permanently
• Create interpretative materials that would partially obscure the existing mural
• Modify the existing mural
Except for actions that would move, alter, obscure or destroy the mural, which were not suggested by people who thought there is nothing wrong with the mural, all of these actions were suggested by people who had a range of opinions and responses to the mural. Notably, there were respondents who found the mural deeply offensive and disturbing and who also argued that the mural should remain in place. They felt that removing or covering the mural permanently could erase the troubling history of white supremacy and settler colonialism that it represents without addressing that history or the harm caused by the images. For these respondents, keeping the mural in place can offer a springboard for truth-telling, education and repair. In addition, people who found the mural offensive and those who found it beautiful both argued Suggested actions
in response
to the mural in
feedback activity
responses
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 61
that the image could benefit from interpretation, such as interpretive signage or programming. Some felt that a museum or another location besides City Hall would be a more appropriate location to offer the necessary context and interpretive support. Ultimately, all these possible actions and more were discussed and considered by the Working Circle.
From the beginning of our process, we thought carefully about the constituencies that have been particularly impacted by the mural’s depictions and absences, as well as those who have been significantly invested in the outcomes of the Reframe process. In addition to recruiting members of these groups for the Working Circle, we also reached out for individual interviews and smaller engagements when possible. This section compiles the feedback we collected from these groups from all the different engagement methods we used, especially where constituents self-identified themselves in the feedback activity responses and from our interviews, where possible.
Santa Monica First Peoples
The individuals who filled out the feedback activity and identified themselves as Santa Monica First Peoples (Gabrieleno, Tongva, Chumash, Tataviam, Acjachamen) almost all found the mural images offensive. They felt the first (northwest) panel communicated disrespect for Indigenous people and clear hierarchy of the European figures, noting that the Native men (1) did not have eyes–symbolizing that they are soulless, (2) are kneeling while the white men are standing over them, and (3) are drinking from the stream that also had a horse’s hoof in it.
Some saw the image as depicting the Native men as subservient or bowing.
Several felt that this image depicted an invasion and the beginning of colonization and subjugation of Native people. These feedback activity respondents felt that the first image was missing women and accurate or respectful historical and present-day representation of Native people, flora and fauna.
A few Santa Monica First Peoples did not have as strongly negative reactions to this first (northwest) panel. One of the feedback activity respondents noticed the dominant position of the priest and felt the images represented only one side of the historical narrative, but they did not feel personally offended by the images.
In our interview with her, Angie Behrns-Dorame (Gabrieleno/Tongva) had some critiques of how key aspects of Santa Monica’s history seemed to be missing from the mural but did not find the representation of Native figures demeaning.
Overall, she was against changing artwork and removing a piece of Santa Monica history but was enthusiastic about new opportunities for Tongva artists.80 In response to the second (southwest) panel, the feedback activity respondents noted the whiteness of the image and the privileged leisure activities like many other respondents did, but they also felt that this image represented the erasure of the Native figures in the first panel. This echoes what Jeremy Gonzalez stated in our interview with him, “It looks like a bunch of colonizers enjoying the fruits of my land.”81 Feedback activity respondents again felt that women were missing, but they also noted that the “rest of society,” including other people of color and middle-class or working-class people, was missing. They also noted the lack of contemporary or present-day Native representation, as if all the Indigenous people had become extinct.
80 Angie Behrns-Dorame, Interview with Meztli Projects, May 6, 2023. 81 Jeremy Gonzalez, Interview with Meztli Projects, December 20, 2022. 82 Nicholas Rocha, Chairman, Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California, “Letter to City of Santa Monica,” February 25, 2023.
Feedback from
Particular
Constituencies
So let us tell you how it is
perceived and interpreted
by those descendants whose
ancestors were held in captivity
at the supposed era this image
depicts. While you may see my
ancestors drinking water, we
see slaves granted a drink while
under guard. We see slaves being
used for a water contamination
test while the sword of the
mounted conquistador pointed
directly at the neck of the native
as he condescendingly sits
above, for it was those swords
that struck down many of my
ancestors who were unwilling
to worship a foreign religion.80
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 62
These images made these feedback activity respondents feel unwelcome in civic participation, demeaned or belittled and angry. They felt like at best, the images made Santa Monica seem “way behind the times” and at worst, like Santa Monica is a place that supports white supremacy. They questioned the values of the City and whether it uplifts or supports white people only. One felt the artwork should be removed because it is not the type of positive representation Native people need. One person, who was more indifferent about the images, felt that the artwork should be preserved because it represents “a period of time and how we perceived history.” Overall, their imagined new artworks of Santa Monica history (via the feedback activity exercise) focused on representation of Native history, land, culture and dress pre-colonization, as well as present-day Native representation and visions of a multicultural society with everyone on an “equal playing field.”
Additionally, Santa Monica First Peoples we spoke to directly linked the mural to issues of land access and Land Back83 as well as other important issues Native communities in Santa Monica face. For example, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians state in their letter to the City of Santa Monica, stated, “rather than focus on the mural itself we view this as an opportunity to discuss additional education that can assist in promoting the awareness of our Tribe, history, and culture.”84 They urged the City to engage in a series of actions oriented to land acknowledgments, Land Back, affordability and historical representation, etc.
Their full list of recommendations can be found in Appendix D.
Larger Indigenous community
We also collected feedback from the larger Indigenous community largely by attending Indigenous Los Angeles cultural events like the CSU Puvungna Pow Wow and soliciting responses through the Los Angeles City and County Native American Indian Commission. This group of respondents to the feedback activity identified as Indigenous, Native, Native American Indian, from Zia Pueblo and Laguna Pueblo, Mayan, Mayo, Quechua, Quechuan or Yaqui. A third of this group of respondents gave a Santa Monica zip code and described a close connection to Santa Monica. The rest identified as living in Los Angeles County. Unsurprisingly considering the wider range of backgrounds, this group’s responses to the mural were more varied, but still three quarters of them had similar responses to the mural as the Santa Monica First Peoples respondents.
Several of them centered Santa Monica First Peoples in their responses and explicitly called for Santa Monica First Peoples to be consulted in any next steps. Of those who recommended a course of action, several recommended that the existing mural be replaced with new artwork or that the existing mural be relocated to a museum. One of the respondents who felt there was nothing wrong with the mural felt it should remain in City Hall where everyone can enjoy it and draw lessons from it.
African American or Black, Asian American, and Latine/x Santa Monicans The team collected feedback activity responses from other Santa Monica community members who have been historically excluded from civic processes and specifically excluded from representation in the mural. Of those who responded to the feedback activity, a number self-identified as African, African American, Black, Asian, Asian American, Cambodian American, Chinese American, Filipino or Japanese American. A few other respondents identified as a Person of Color or Brown. Notably, almost all of these respondents felt 83 Often referred to with the shorthard “Land Back,” the movement to return land to First Peoples has been a decentralized effort across North America to reestablish Indigenous sovereignty, with political and economic control of their ancestral lands. These same efforts have also been replicated in New Zealand and Fiji. 84 San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrieleno/Tongva), “Letter to City of Santa Monica,” May 12, 2023.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 63
the mural was offensive and exclusionary. They noted the representation of colonization and the racial hierarchy in the northwest panel and felt that the image communicated how the City would likely treat them or other marginalized populations. In response to the southwest panel, several felt the exclusion of people of color personally, again noting that the image communicates that they don’t belong in Santa Monica. In terms of new artwork, these respondents suggested a fuller representation of Native history, the contributions of people of color in building Santa Monica and the multicultural society of present-day Santa Monica. A Japanese American respondent noted how the legacy of the Japanese American concentration camps shaped their response. They noted that “reframing the truth of our past is important given the desires of some in this country wanting to try and erase the truth of historical facts.” We also made the feedback activity form available in Spanish and visited Familias Latinas Unidas, a Spanish-speaking parent group at Virginia Avenue Park, to collect responses. We also received responses from people selfidentifying as Chicana, Chicano, Cuban, Hispanic, Latina, Latino, having parents from Mexico, from Mexico City, Mexican American, of Mexican descent or submitted their response in Spanish. About three-quarters of these respondents found the mural offensive, and the remaining quarter were either indifferent about the mural or felt there was nothing wrong with it.
Like other groups of respondents, many who identified as Latine/x felt this mural reflected poorly on the City of Santa Monica. In our interview with her, local resident and artist Paulina Sahagun stated:
I grew up seeing this. I grew up, you know, seeing our people always being treated like we don’t belong. I mean, the 1930s was when a lot of people, a lot of my people, were deported. This is when it was painted. I mean, it really goes back to the whole thing of the doctrine of discovery.85 From this perspective, the mural itself reveals the history and view that Santa Monica institutional power structures historically had during the period. This group of Latine/x responses contains suggestions that run the whole gamut of possible actions around the mural, from asserting that the mural doesn’t belong anywhere until the true history of what happened is acknowledged and represented to suggesting that the mural could be relocated outside City Hall with lighting so that more people would be able to see it.
Pico Youth and Family Center
Organizers of the Pico Youth and Family Center (PYFC) have been at the forefront of getting the City to address the mural. Rooted in the predominantly Latine/x Pico neighborhood in Santa Monica, some members of the PYFC community identify as Chicana/o and some as part of the larger Indigenous community. Their concerns about the mural are rooted in the depictions of Brown bodies and how they are perceived as subservient or less human than the white figures in the mural. For the PYFC community, these depictions are connected to larger issues that they want addressed in their community, particularly youth issues, affordable housing, homelessness and gentrification.
It was important for us to continue to engage the PYFC community, even as we decided to center Santa Monica First Peoples and as we sought to bring others into the conversation. Members of the Working Circle have deep ties to the community there and helped facilitate meetings in conversation with community members to gather feedback along the way. We also conducted interviews with PYFC leaders.
85 Paulina Sahagun, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 5, 2023. 86 Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback activity response gathered by Meztli Projects, 2023.
It reminds me not only how
unwelcome my history is in the
story this place wants to talk
about itself, but also how the real
experiences of my family and
friends need to be made invisible
to make this story make sense.
It reminds me that City Hall is
not accountable to me at all,
which I think is a relatively true
fact about the way that Santa
Monica city governance behaves.
Unfortunately, this mural’s
revisionist histories tell some
actual truths about it.85
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 64
Many PYFC community members wanted the mural to come down, while others were interested in programming and other art commissions to offset the settler colonial narrative perceived as coming through the mural. Elias Serna, an organizer with PYFC, suggested that bolts be drilled into the mural as a way to retain it, but disrupt it at the same time.87 Other community members at the Pico Youth and Family Center had similarly creative ideas including moving the mural to the Museum of Tolerance, creating alternative narratives to honor Indigenous Veterans, adding additional context to the history of Santa Monica that details various oppressions, and creating a documentary to talk about Santa Monica history from a people’s perspective.
Santa Monica historic preservation community
The Santa Monica historic preservation community has been a vocal part of the discussion of the mural since before the Reframe: City Hall Mural process began.
We continued to engage these communities through interviews, a visit to a Santa Monica Conservancy board meeting and through the feedback activity. One of the Working Circle members affiliated with the Santa Monica Conservancy held a viewing and feedback activity collection session at the mural. While there are likely more members of this community who filled out the activity but just didn’t identify this way, some respondents self-identified as interested in history or historic preservation, connected to the Santa Monica Conservancy or indicated that they were former Landmarks Commission members. This group had fewer responses that found the mural offensive and more responses that found the mural beautiful without flaw. There were also a significant number of responses that found the mural beautiful but acknowledged important pieces missing and responses that seemed to evaluate the images from an aesthetic or historical lens. Some of these both appreciative and critical responses indicated significant knowledge of local history, which was included in both what they liked about the mural and what they saw to be missing.
Marquez family descendants
A few feedback activity respondents identified themselves as Marquez family descendants. Marquez family descendants shared how proud they are that their ancestor is named in the mural, along with their knowledge of the history of the Rancho period. For example, in her interview with us, Terri de la Pena states:
Francisco Marquez came to Alta California in 1825, but his father-in-law Jose Manuel Valenzuela was a soldier in the 1781 expedition that brought Los Pobladores to found El Pueblo de Los Angeles. Thus, the Valenzuela side of the family has been in California for 242 years; the Marquez side for 198 years.
Estéban de la Peña, my grandfather, arrived here from Parras, Coahuila, Mexico in 1894, and married my grandmother Amelia who was one of the Márquez grandchildren. In contrast, my maternal grandmother and mother came to Santa Monica from Chihuahua during the 1920s. So one side of my immediate family has been in the Santa Monica area for over 200 years, and the other side for almost 100 years.89
For the Marquez family descendants, the mural represents a sense of pride and acknowledgment of the history of the land grant families whose time in the US predates contemporary immigration from the Americas. For them, the mural anchors their history in the region. The Marquez family descendants we spoke to were opposed to removing, covering or altering the mural, but were also 87 Elias Serna, Interview with Meztli Projects, April 7, 2023. 88 Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback Activity response gathered by Meztli Projects, 2023. 89 Terri de la Pena, Interview with Meztli Projects, December 16, 2022.
The beauty of Santa Monica’s
coastline shows through time,
connecting us to this place and to
people who have come before us.
I am intrigued to learn more
about the water portrayed in
different ways - the rivers, the
waterfalls, and the engagement
of the birds, horses and people
with water. Technically I am
intrigued by the tile formations
of the mural itself - the horizontal
and vertical lines - I’ve read
about petrachrome and would
like to know more about how the
artist created this.88
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 65
strongly in favor of telling the fuller history of Santa Monica that includes the stories of people of color, such as a nuanced picture of the Rancho period, the removal of Japanese Americans during WWII, waves of Mexican immigration after the Mexican Revolution, and African Americans who came to Santa Monica to work in the aerospace industry as part of the Great Migration.
City of Santa Monica employees
A handful of feedback activity respondents identified as current or former City of Santa Monica employees. Of these respondents, most felt that the mural is offensive or exclusionary; the remaining respondents felt the mural was beautiful but also missing important representations, that there was nothing wrong with the mural, or were indifferent. Those who found the mural offensive were embarrassed by it and were concerned about the message the mural communicates to those who come to City Hall. There was some concern that the mural will make some feel unwelcome and that feeling will contribute to a mistrust of government workers or an “us vs them” mentality (“us” being the public and “them” being the government workers). One respondent felt that the elitism of the second panel made them feel unseen as a government worker.
Angel Villasenor, for example, states:
I would have to walk by that mural going to my office. The Native Americans don’t have eyes. It’s just a reminder of colonialism, and you know the deep oppression suffered by Indigenous communities. I think that has no place in the city. The fact that the city is using this whole historical landmark conversation to keep it, is an excuse. I think it’s institutional racism. I remember walking in, and how I felt every single day going to my office. Aside from that, the framed headshots of prior leadership that hang in the second floor hallway were all white men. You know what I’m saying. I think the city must do a better job of understanding what kind of message these things send.90 For many City workers having to see the mural on a daily basis was traumatizing and a reminder of the racist history of the institution.
In addition to collecting feedback activity responses from City of Santa Monica employees, we held a lunchtime Zoom session where attendees were invited to share their thoughts and feedback about the mural. During the session, those who shared felt that the mural should be preserved to serve as a jumping-off point for discussion of difficult historical events and also that contemporary artwork should be commissioned to offer a better and full representation of history. One participant shared examples of how Dachau was preserved to tell the story of the Nazi concentration camps and how the Whitney Plantation has been preserved to tell the full story of U.S. slavery. One participant noted that if you get rid of the mural, “you deny that this is how we perceived our past for so long and that it infiltrates the way that we see our present.” Another participant was concerned with the fact that the only two people of color, in either panel, are depicted in an implied subservient position. They suggested, “If any of these murals are to be kept, they need to be adjusted to a manner that is for teaching, remembering, and including, instead of a celebration of conquest.” 90 Angel Villasenor, Interview with Meztli Projects, April 11, 2023.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 66
Recommendations
These recommendations were developed through a collaborative process that unfolded over seven months as the Reframe Phase I Facilitation Team received input from the Working Circle, the feedback activity responses, one-on-one interviews and other engagements with Santa Monica community members and groups.
The recommendations development process was supported by and marked by its breadth through outreach to and connection with a cross-section of people from markedly diverse perspectives, the quality and the depth of discussion and deliberation, and the degree of agreement found amongst these very diverse viewpoints. For instance, the Working Circle was selected to bring together individuals with diverse perspectives, histories and ties to Santa Monica communities. The people who engaged through the feedback activity, interviews, small group engagements and public programs widened the discussion even more. Everyone who engaged with us through all these methods brought deep feeling, knowledge and thoughtfulness to the issue. The following recommendations are infused with the learnings from the Working Circle’s journey and all of the voices of those who engaged in the Reframe:
City Hall Mural process. For more detail on the Working Circle’s discussion of recommended actions and the results of the Delphi surveying process, see Appendix B.
These values-based recommendations center on reparative work that can advance the ideas of justice and healing that many cities and communities are moving towards. The recommended actions are paired with implementation recommendations developed by the Meztli team and informed by ongoing initiatives and efforts in Santa Monica.
We felt it was important to ground the recommendations in a collectively articulated set of values. The lengthy Working Circle process allowed us to consider values after the group was able to get to know each other and begin to have deeper conversations with each other. While no group of such diverse people will ever agree on everything, we were pleased to find substantial agreement around values. These values helped frame the Working Circle discussions around possible actions in response to the mural.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that Santa Monica should:
• Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural. • Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was important to:
• Center working-class people and other people of color in the City’s response to the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that people have with the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
• Make sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/ like they belong.
Values
supporting the
recommendations
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 67
And about three-quarters of the group felt it was important to:
• Attend to the people who feel harmed by the mural.
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide considerations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples. • Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning images. • Create new opportunities for artists.
• Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural. • Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
As you read through the recommendations in this report, you will see these values woven throughout and as recurring themes. Ultimately, these values undergird the recommendations and helped to prioritize which actions in response to the mural were the most important to pursue. The actions recommended are presented here in the order of importance, not necessarily in the order of how they might be implemented. For instance, commissioning new permanent artwork can be a lengthy process, but some actions like creating interpretive panels might be able to be more quickly implemented.
The conversation around not removing the mural is multi-faceted. The harm that this mural has caused is important and considerable, and removing or covering the mural would guard against continuing this harm. However, removal or covering does not address the harm that has already been done. Therefore, the immediate and urgent focus should be on actions that move towards repair for the communities harmed, such as those we have laid out in these recommendations.
Our Working Circle discussions supported this direction, even though some in the Working Circle would still like to see the mural removed. Several Working Circle members reflected at the end of the process that they believed, knowing more about the histories represented in the mural and the history of the mural, that simply removing the mural would be letting the City “off the hook” for tacitly endorsing the image by letting it remain unaddressed for so long (over 80 years since installed and at least 10 years of protest). This was a concern that was echoed by some throughout our engagement process, including City of Santa Monica employees, feedback activity respondents and interviewees. As Pete Galindo, former staff member of Social and Public Art Resource Center states in the Town Destroyer documentary, “the trick of white supremacy is the ability to make itself invisible,” and removing the mural obscures the systems that made the mural possible. Leaving it there, for now, is a reminder of the historical injustices that many of our municipal agencies are built on and continue to operate through.
Just as the Council reversed their decision to cover the mural so that the mural would be visible during the process of public engagement, continuing to leave the mural up and uncovered can provide further opportunities to engage and address the harm that mural has caused. However, leaving it up does create an ongoing risk of continued harm if no other actions are taken. As a result, the Working Circle members were in strong agreement that the City should NOT “do nothing” with the mural panels, or sell them or cover them at this time.
In addition, Santa Monica First Peoples are clearly among the most impacted by this artwork, but the process to remove or cover the mural was not initiated by them. When advocacy efforts such as these are not rooted in the community that faces the biggest impacts by any issue (in this case First Peoples), they are burdened with uncompensated emotional, cultural and intellectual labor that responds to the issue raised within a frame that First Peoples did not help Why we are not
talking about
removing or
covering the
mural
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 68
construct. Not removing the mural offers an opportunity for First Peoples to uplift these issues from their perspective so that the outcomes and futurity of their reflections are driven by them. Many of the recommendations in this report speak to the reparative actions community members signaled were of utmost importance and were possible while keeping the mural in place for the time being.
The recommendations below provide longer-term pathways toward meaningfully including First Peoples and other impacted communities in Santa Monica’s equity work. Therefore, the Council should make clear commitments to addressing the mural through the recommended actions in this report, including their reasons for leaving the mural up. Reasons could include taking full accountability for the mural, using limited funds to work on issues that are of greater value and importance to the impacted communities, and making the lobby a space to publicly and clearly condemn the attitudes made manifest by the mural.
Recommendation 1:
Commission new artwork in City Hall lobby
The City should commission new additional work in the City Hall lobby. New artwork should present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented as “historically significant.” City Hall is a center of power and the new work needs to balance or redress the hierarchies created by the existing mural. The new work should address the exclusions in the “recreation” mural as well—Black, Brown, Asian, working-class people, unemployed people and poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939 and deal with themes of ongoing Indigenous presence in Santa Monica. The new work should create a welcoming environment for Indigenous people, working-class people and people of color.
This recommendation emerged clearly as the highest priority recommendation from the Working Circle process and indeed echoes the initial directive from the Arts Commission and its Public Art Committee. During the deliberations, several Working Circle members felt that a focus on the reparative opportunities that this process has offered, such as potential land return, should be a priority rather than simply addressing the harm by covering the mural or adding a plaque.
There was also a collective feeling that simply recommending removing the mural would disrupt the potential for larger cultural and economic shifts that are needed to make Santa Monica the equity-oriented community it aspires to be.
Further implementation recommendations:
• Include Santa Monica First Peoples in the commissioning process, such as the RFP development, community engagement, design review and approval process, etc. A preference to commission an artist from Santa Monica First Peoples was noted by the Working Circle.
• The commission should be scoped with a great deal of clarity to avoid creating future conflict and miring the project in new controversy once an artist or artists is selected and begins their process. • The artwork should not further highlight horrors or injustices experienced by BIPOC people. The interpretive panels can work to explain and condemn those activities. This new artwork should not force people to confront more potentially traumatizing imagery while conducting business with the City. • The new work should be produced at a scale that visually balances MacDonald-Wright’s mural to offset the message of that work, both the historical inaccuracies and the misrepresentations in the northwest panel as well as the exclusions of people of color in the southwest panel. The overall Recommendations
concerning the
mural and new
artwork
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 69
goal is to create an overwhelmingly inclusive statement at this particular location that has great symbolic importance and functional significance for all residents of Santa Monica.
• The work should not be ONLY digital or Augmented Reality. The Working Circle and several community responses affirmed this recommendation.
The concern was that the work would be easily missed by people who visit City Hall or eventually disappear when the technology is not functioning or outdated.
• While the spaces to create a new artwork at the necessary scale in the City Hall lobby are limited, there are multiple options available, including the 2nd floor balcony frontage (the strip of horizontal upper wall space that is facing the main entrance), available walls of the 1st floor, the walls of the 2nd floor, and potentially the ceiling or the space below the ceiling (for a suspended artwork). Other site opportunities may also arise or be developed in Phase II.
Recommendation 2:
Commission new interpretive panels
The City should also create interpretive panels that offer context, but make clear statements against the misrepresentations in the mural. The panels should give basic information about the mural but must also clearly condemn the depiction of Native people, the Mission System and white supremacy in general. The interpretation of the southwest panel should clearly indicate the communities excluded from the mural’s depictions, namely African Americans and the descendants of the Santa Monica First Peoples along with other Indigenous groups who were stolen by Spanish colonizers and brought to Santa Monica.
The new interpretive panels should be written by an advisory group that includes at least one Indigenous person and Black, Latine/x, Asian American, people and others who are excluded from the southwest mural panel. The final interpretive panels should be reviewed by the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians along with the various Gabrieleno Tribal Councils connected to Santa Monica.
The panels should be unavoidable when looking at the mural–it should not be minor or a small plaque. The interpretive overlay on the Old New York diorama at the American Natural History Museum is a good precedent. They could include deeper audio or QR/AR/VR content but should not require digital devices to access the basic information.
Potential area for interpretive
signage/new artwork
Potential area for new artwork
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 70
Recommendation 3:
Ensure that Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative landscape centers equity and belonging
Santa Monica’s public art and commemorative landscape needs to foster a greater sense of inclusion and belonging. The Belmar Art + History project and future new artwork in the City Hall lobby are much needed correctives, but there is much still to address as part of the larger Reframe initiative.
The Reframe: City Hall Mural process should be the beginning of a series of steps taken by the City of Santa Monica to revisit the policies and processes that govern public artwork and civic memory. These steps should begin with developing a set of equity and inclusion principles to govern decisions about existing works and how they might be addressed or deaccessioned, as well as future works and how they are commissioned. Then, the City should review the rest of the artworks, monuments and forms of civic memory (such as street names) in the City of Santa Monica using the criteria established. The Chicago Monuments Project report provides examples of criteria for review (e.g. artworks that promote white supremacy) and examples of how such artworks might be addressed. Other recent examples for this kind of both policies and collection review have included the San Francisco Monuments & Memorials Advisory Committee and the City of Los Angeles’ Civic Memory project. All new and existing policies should be accessible and include how members of the Santa Monica community can engage with these processes.
The policies around commissioning new work should create pathways to support emerging and underrepresented artists in receiving new commissions.
Throughout the Reframe process, we repeatedly heard the value of creating more opportunities for artists, especially artists from Santa Monica First Peoples, Black, Brown and Asian communities. A Tongva elder who participated in the Community Listening Workshop stressed that there should be artwork by Santa Monica First Peoples throughout the city, and the letter from the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians (Gabrieleno/Tongva) notes the opportunity to hire First Peoples artists.
The City should also commission new artwork on these themes of inclusion and representing other views of Santa Monica’s history in a location that is much more publicly visible than the City Hall lobby. While the City Hall lobby is an important and symbolic place to communicate belonging to many different groups of people, relatively few Santa Monicans come through that space on a regular basis. Many of the proposals for new artworks we received through the feedback activity felt that other locations outside of City Hall would be preferable for new artworks, because they felt new artwork should be located outdoors in highly accessible locations where many people gather, like the Pier or Third Street Promenade. Other respondents felt that new artwork should be in multiple locations or “everywhere” throughout the city. One suggested a kind of Santa Monica history “scavenger hunt” of connected artworks. Others stressed that artworks should be installed in locations that are significant for Indigenous Peoples and other communities of color, noting that the artwork should be where history happened. For more info on the artwork proposals in the feedback activity responses, see Appendix C.
This recommendation advances Santa Monica’s “Citywide Equity Work” by expanding the grants, commissions and creative support to under-resourced artists. For more information on the City of Santa Monica’s ongoing equity priorities, see the Diversity Equity and Inclusion Update shared with the Santa Monica City Council in July 2023.91
91 David White, City Manager, “Information Item: Diversity Equity and Inclusion Update for FY 2022-23” (City of Santa Monica, July 7, 2023).
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 71
Recommendation 4:
Create additional educational materials about the mural Many believe that the mural can serve an educational purpose in telling fuller histories about Santa Monica, including histories of First Peoples, the Rancho period, Black, Brown, and Asian communities, and working-class folks in Santa Monica. In order to make good on this, the City should partner with a qualified educational institution. There was thoughtful discussion about using the panels as educational materials. All agreed that this would be a deep challenge and not something to be taken on lightly. Many felt that the City staff was ill-equipped to do this work and would need substantive partnerships with other institutions to make this meaningful. This is a good opportunity for Santa Monica to invest in the creative and scholarly development of First Peoples and Black folks. The curricula designed by the American Museum of Natural History for the Old New York diorama described in the case studies section are a good model for youth teaching guides.
Our framework, pedagogy and analysis of the data gathered throughout this process helped us articulate the below recommendations. We also found an extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle that the City’s response should not be limited to actions related to the cultural sphere or the City Hall Lobby and that the City should act to materially address issues related to the exclusions seen in the mural. A large number of recommendations in this category found almost unanimous support from the Working Circle. The full list can be found in Appendix B, but the following five recommendations rose to the top as most critical. These recommendations echo the desires expressed by Gabrieleno/Tongva tribe’s formal letter (see Appendix D). “Centering the perspectives of First Peoples” and “doing something concrete, not just words” were highly rated values consistent with these recommendations.
The suggestions here are not prescriptive for future processes, but pathways to open up opportunities for continued work in this area as well as deal with community members’ immediate concerns. They are framed around a few specific areas:
• Equity in art & culture, art commissions, and other decision-making bodies that impact the livability of residents.
• Centering Indigenous communities in processes and representational practices in this recommended order: Santa Monica First Peoples, Los Angeles First Peoples, Native Americans, North American Indigenous Diaspora, Larger Indigenous Diaspora.
• Affordability and access for working-class people and people of color in Santa Monica.
Recommendation 5:
Expand DEI+ trainings for City staff
The City should build on actions taken since its Racial Equity Statement of 2020, which included the formation of an Office of Equity and Inclusion and the subsequent launch of an Equity Plan process. It should expand DEI training for all City staff. We understand that, since 2020, the City of Santa Monica has offered a number of trainings for City staff around implicit bias and racial equity in local government, interrupting microaggressions, and civility in the workplace with a focus on equity and inclusion. To be successful, future efforts should focus on implementation strategies and tools for staff that center the overlapping experiences, shared spaces and mutual accountability of underrepresented peoples.
Recommendations
for City of Santa
Monica to lead
beyond the mural
and new artwork
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 72
We also encourage the City to continue to go deeper to develop staff capacities around cultural exchange, decoloniality and social justice. Training approaches that center building leadership around cultural exchange have significant transformative power. The Intercultural Leadership Institute’s approach to DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility, Belonging, etc.) proposes to invert current efforts that funnel underrepresented peoples into norms created and dominated by a white worldview. The approach challenges dominant social norms while honoring differences of histories, traditions and vocabulary. It develops leaders specifically within the arts & culture field to adeptly respond to significant changes that impact society, politics, the environment and the economy.
To follow this approach, Santa Monica should partner with practitioners who understand how to bridge different worldviews and support the creation of tools that hold communities together while strengthening each respective perspective.
One example of a useful framework is LA County Creative Strategist Anu Yadav’s “Healing Through Story” toolkit. The toolkit focuses on the power of story as an arts-based healing process that promotes wellbeing and connection. It highlights community-building methods for listening and facilitation and includes interviews with community groups on how we heal.92 Another helpful example, artEquity’s National Facilitator Training program is a two-weekend intensive retreat with a purpose: deep analysis and skills building paired with meaningful discourse on issues of inclusion, equity and the role of art makers. Participants attend cultural events, join a national cohort of colleagues in the field, and help sustain a national arts movement.
Recommendation 6:
Adopt a City-wide land/territory acknowledgment initiative Land Acknowledgements, although extremely important, can become diluted as these acknowledgments are the bare minimum of the protocols from which they originate. The recognition of place between Indigenous communities stems from the important practices between peoples to understand each other’s worldviews and often were paired with cultural exchanges, ceremonies and other important community-building functions.
It is important to understand the longstanding history that has brought you to reside on the land, and to seek to understand your place within that history.
Land acknowledgements do not exist in a past tense or historical context:
colonialism is a current ongoing process, and we need to build our mindfulness of our present participation.93
Santa Monica has an opportunity to adopt a City-wide land acknowledgment initiative that includes the actionable practices that often have been stripped from the original intentions of land acknowledgments. In one example of putting a land acknowledgment into action, in January 2022, Seattle launched its new Indigenous Advisory Council (IAC)94 to help advise its decision-makers on issues similar to those raised through Reframe. In another example, in Oct 2020, Minneapolis launched a truth and reconciliation process with a focus on Black and Indigenous residents.95 In developing this initiative, the City should involve 92 The “Healing Through Story” toolkit is available here: https://www.anuyadav.com/healing-through-story 93 Northwestern University, “About Land Acknowledgment,” Native American and Indigenous Initiatives (website), n.d., https://www.northwestern.edu/native-american-and-indigenous-peoples/about/Land%20 Acknowledgement.html.
94 Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, “Newly Formed Indigenous Advisory Council Now Accepting Applications for Members,” Front Porch (blog), January 25, 2022 95 Melissa Turtinen, “Minneapolis Will Create a Commision to Confront History of Racism,” Bring Me the News. (website), October 12, 2020.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 73
but not overtax local First Peoples. The recommendations in the letter from the Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians are a great place to start (Appendix D).
Recommendation 7:
Improve representation on Santa Monica committees
Some of the issues raised from the City Hall Mural could have been mitigated through a holistic process that included members of the communities excluded or misrepresented in the mural. As of the writing of this report, to our knowledge there are no First Peoples serving as part of the Arts Commission or Landmarks Commission. It is unclear if there are any self-identified Native Americans or Indigenous Peoples serving in these kinds of City roles.
Many of the issues across the country relating to the misrepresentation of peoples stems from systems that exclude marginalized communities. For Santa Monica to remedy these issues it should add First Peoples representatives to decision-making bodies such as the Airport, Landmarks, Arts and Planning Commissions among others as well as the Clean Beaches & Ocean Parcel Tax Citizens Oversight Committees, Metropolitan Water District and Urban Forest Task Force among similar bodies. One example of this approach is Seattle’s Indigenous Advisory Council, created in 2022 through a bill sponsored by a Council Member to help strengthen the City’s unique political relationship with tribal nations and to work to fulfill political, legal, and racial equity obligations to American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian people that reside in Seattle.
Recommendation 8:
Facilitate Land Back in Santa Monica
The movement to return land to First Peoples has been a decentralized effort across North America to reestablish Indigenous sovereignty, with political and economic control of their ancestral lands.96 These same efforts have also been replicated in New Zealand and Fiji. These efforts are distinct from efforts to provide reparations for descendants of enslaved people, but there are opportunities to bring Land Back efforts and reparations efforts into conversation.97 In Santa Monica, there have been discussions about providing a right to return for displaced groups, such as incarcerated Japanese Americans, African Americans removed by urban renewal, and working-class people of all backgrounds pushed out by gentrification. Land Back considerations have not yet been part of the discussion in Santa Monica, but they can be brought into conversation alongside, not at the expense of, these other considerations.
Land Back strategies shift from place to place because the federal relationships to Indigenous Nations varies—where some Tribes are federally recognized, others are simply state recognized and some lack any recognition at all. None of Los Angeles County’s six Tribes are federally recognized, and California has a much more severe and complicated history between First Peoples and the state than many of the other states in the union do with their First Peoples.
Given the economic power California has, this extremely large gap within the federal government’s responsibility to Indigenous Nations in the boundaries of the US presents an opportunity for counties like Los Angeles and cities such as Santa Monica to develop creative ways for First Peoples communities to practice 96 For more information, see “About the Land Back Movement” https://clockshop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Final_LandBack-2-sheeter-1.pdf 97 For more information, see “About the Reparations Movement” https://clockshop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/LB2-infosheet.pdf Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 74
sovereignty and self-determination. Land transfers have taken place across the US with many burdening Tribes with the costs of remediation and other costs that at times are waived for corporations and nonprofits.
Santa Monica can be a leading example by partnering with First Peoples to create opportunities for their members to return home such as setting aside housing at the Santa Monica Airport redevelopment project. “Set Aside” housing has historically faced many barriers because many believe that this strategy isn’t possible using public funds.98 However, one example of how this has been achieved before is the Actors Fund’s new affordable housing development in Hollywood.99
Another example of creative opportunities for Land Back are temporary cultural easements that lead to a land transfer. One example of this is the new cultural easement at Yaangna Park, the site of the Serra statue toppling in 2020, that allows for the Tongva community to use that site as a space for cultural practices, art projects, cultural initiatives, etc. with the goal of transferring the land to develop a site of learning for and by First Peoples so they are better represented at the El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument, the “Birthplace of Los Angeles.” Identifying unused sites as surplus land for potential land return is another. For example, the current surplus land designation of the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium might enable consideration for Land Back.100 Recommendation 9:
Facilitate Kuruvungna Springs relationships
Open green space is an important facet of the well-being of communities and their members, as has been established by institutions such as the California Endowment. This is increasingly more important to First Peoples as their origin stories are connected to places such as Kuruvungna Springs. While it is not in the City of Santa Monica, Kuruvungna Springs is an important site for repair and sovereignty for Santa Monica First Peoples. The Tribe named the return of the land at Kuruvungna Springs from the Los Angeles Unified School District to the Tribe in their letter to Santa Monica. In addition, Kuruvungna Springs is connected to the City Hall mural in that one of the primary legends concerning the naming of the City appears to be the encounter between Spanish settlers and the Kuruvungna Springs—an event that many believe is centrally depicted in the mural.
Working Circle members also had a strong agreement about recommending this action, and there are many within the Santa Monica community who have developed strong connections to this cultural site. We recommend that the City of Santa Monica continue to build relationships with the Kuruvungna Springs Foundation and support their efforts to have the land transferred back to them.
In the meantime, the City of Santa Monica should explore how they can support the expansion of Kuruvungna Springs staffing and programs as an extension of Santa Monica cultural priorities.
98 A “Set Aside” policy is a requirement that developers keep a portion of new or rehabilitated units affordable to people with low incomes. 99 Anousha Sakoui, “Actors Fund Breaks Ground on Affordable Housing Project in Hollywood for Performing Arts Workers,” Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2021. 100 For more information about the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium designation as surplus land, see https:// www.santamonica.gov/blog/faqs-for-designation-of-the-civic-auditorium-as-surplus-land.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 75
Conclusion
We end this phase of the process heartened by the seriousness with which this community took the work. Representations matter. Civic art matters. The stories we tell about who we are, where we have been, and what we have done matter. Santa Monica’s people came out to participate in these events with great conviction. It is clear that people have a deep emotional connection to this issue—whether this is rooted in their trauma of past harms, their love for civic art and culture, their fear of censorship, a feeling of exclusion, or a fear of lost or distorted history.
We were encouraged by the ability of the Working Circle–a group picked to represent the full gamut of perspectives and community connections across this issue–could find large swaths of agreement and encouraged by the nuance and depth of what we heard from communities across the region.
The debate around the mural—whether it’s a valuable piece of art, a traumatic reminder of colonization and forced conversion, a beautiful representation of the history of Santa Monica, or a monument to white supremacy that creates a hostile civic and work environment—will never be completely resolved until the larger social contradictions that the mural represents are also resolved.
Producing programming that centers a First Peoples’ perspective, employing a citizen assembly, and facilitating meetings with a healing and trauma centered lens has allowed us to explore how to bring more equity to public art and also think about the relationship between artistic storytelling and larger social issues.
The two are linked and this project is an example of the incredible importance of their intimacy.
The mural and the controversy around it have created a rare and critical focal point of civic energy. The key is not to squander the moment and let it further perpetuate ill-will and distrust, but rather to use it to move towards equity, justice and a better Santa Monica. The mural has provided an incredible educational opportunity to reframe the conversation. As Jaime Cruz, professor at Santa Monica College states, “It’s important to understand that over the last several years specifically, monuments and plaques have come down. Christopher Columbus, among other people, have come down because of the counter story.
People have now become more aware, very empowered by what they learn.”101 The recommendations that surfaced from our process followed from the key values of centering First Peoples and taking productive action, not just offering platitudes. Santa Monica should take proactive steps to commission new works that foster belonging for BIPOC and working-class people, both within City Hall and other more highly trafficked locations. They should take ownership of past actions by producing highly visible interpretive panels that condemn white supremacy in connection with the City Hall mural. Just as important as these actions are actions that work to repair harm in the present day: developing better standards of representation, expanding DEI initiatives and staff training, initiating a land acknowledgement process, facilitating Land Back, and the preservation and improvement of sacred sites. The recommendations above provide longer-term pathways towards putting First Peoples at the center of Santa Monica’s equity project. These are the things that will allow Santa Monica to emerge from this stronger, at the forefront of national conversation and transformational change.
The recommendations that emerged from our process are clear and resounding.
Now the work of the City Council and Santa Monica’s civic institutions remains to implement them and lead the way forward.
101 Jaime Cruz, Interview with Meztli Projects, June 6, 2023.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 76
Meztli Projects facilitation team and report authors
Joel Garcia, Robin Garcia, Susannah Laramee Kidd and Rosten Woo Meztli Projects would like to thank all of the many people who contributed to Phase I of the Reframe: City Hall Mural project, especially all of the community members who attended public programs or community meetings and submitted a feedback activity response. We would also like to thank the following people and organizations for their contributions and support for this process.
Reframe Working Circle members
Tafari Alan, Brock Ramon Alvarado, Miguel Bravo, Lizette Hernandez, Bob Knight, Ruthann Lehrer, Kimberly Marshall, Mona Morales Recalde, Sharon Reyes, Emily Silver, Cathy Taylor, Paolo Velasco and Zora Zajicek Meztli Projects support
Alicia Bella, Kenneth Lopez, Khayra Mentado and Isaac Michael Ybarra City of Santa Monica Staff
Cultural Affairs
Sofia Klatzker, Manager; Shannon Daut, Former Manager; Naomi Okuyama, Public Art Supervisor
Planning
Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Human Services
Carla Fantozzi, Community Services Supervisor
Office of Equity and Inclusion
Lisa Parson, Manager; David Gardinier, Coordinator
Public Works
Amelia Feichtner, Capital Program Manager; Amber Richane, Acting Chief Operating Officer
Santa Monica Public Library
Erica Cuyugan, City Librarian; Cecilia Tovar, Assistant City Librarian; Jennifer Ulrich, Principal Librarian; Librarians Kathy Lo, Karen Reitz and Jeff Schwartz Event assistance
Miles Friesen, Alfonso Manzo, Lesley Ramirez and Kimberly Soo Credits and Acknowledgements
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 77
City of Santa Monica Advisory Bodies
Santa Monica City Council Mural Ad Hoc Committee
Councilmembers Christine Parra and Oscar de la Torre
Santa Monica Arts Commission Mural Subcommittee
Public Art Committee Member Francois Bar and Arts Commissioners Michael Baroff, Kathleen Benjamin (Working Circle liaison), Janeen Jackson, Iao Katagiri and Deepa Subramanian
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Mural Subcommittee
Commissioners Roger Genser (Working Circle liaison), Amy Green and Dolores Sloan
Public program speakers and facilitators
Prisms of Indigeneity
Walter Meyer, Art Department Chair, Santa Monica College Emily Silver, Director, Pete and Susan Barrett Gallery, Santa Monica College Matika Wilbur
Isaac Michael Ybarra
Sites of Memory
Kathleen Benjamin
David Kipen
Robbie Jones, Black Santa Monica Tours
Bob Ramirez, Kuruvungna Village Springs
Memory Work Today
idris brewster, Kinfolk Tech
Christine Wong Yap, artist
Community Listening Workshop
Anu Yadav, artist and facilitator
Other Histories of Santa Monica and the Bay District
Jaime Cruz, History Department, Santa Monica College
Carolyne Edwards, Co-founder, Quinn Research Center
Mona Morales Recalde, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Rob Schwenker, Executive Director, Santa Monica History Museum Anne Wallentine, Collections Manager/Curator, Santa Monica History Museum Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 78
Individuals consulted for their expertise and advice
Annie Danis, PhD, California State Polytechnic University-Pomona, Art and Archaeology Bill Deverell, PhD, Director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West Paul Farber, Monument Lab
Natalie D. McDonald, Living New Deal
Will South, PhD, art historian, Stanton Macdonald-Wright specialist John Thomas, Living New Deal
Alexander Tarr, PhD, A People’s Guide to the San Francisco Bay Area Sue Bell Yank, Clockshop, formerly 18th Street Art Center Samuel “Sandy” Zipp, PhD, Brown University, American Studies and Urban Studies Interviewees
Tafari Alan, student, Santa Monica College
Alex Aldana, Executive Director, Pico Youth & Family Center Margaret Bach, local historian, former member of the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
Angie Behrns-Dorame (Gabrieleno/Tongva), Kuruvungna Springs Foundation Kathleen Benjamin, Belmar Art + History advisory group member Jamie Cruz, educator, historian
Gina DeBaca, artist, cultural worker
Mary (Terri) de la Pena, author, Marquez family descendant Bill Deverell, American West historian, USC professor & Director of the Huntington-USC Institute on California and the West
Nina Fresco, board member, Santa Monica Conservancy; former chair of the Santa Monica Planning Commission
Jeremy Gonzalez (Gabrielino Kizh Nation), community member Paulina Sahagun, educator, artist
Elias Serna, Ph.D., M.F.A., artist, educator, professor, and board member, Pico Youth & Family Center
Will South, artist, art historian Stanton Macdonald-Wright Angel Villaseñor, former City of Santa Monica employee, community member Groups that sponsored listening sessions and events for their communities
Community Corporation of Santa Monica
CSU Puvungna (Long Beach) Pow Wow
Families Latinas Unidas, Parent Council, Virginia Avenue Park Pico Youth and Family Center
Santa Monica Area Interfaith Council
Santa Monica College
Santa Monica Conservancy
Santa Monica Human Relations Council
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 79
Appendices
Appendix A: City Hall Mural Recent Historical Timeline
Appendix B: Working Circle Discussion and Development
of Values, Statements, and Recommendations
Appendix C: Engagement Details
Appendix D: Letters from Tribal Communities
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 80
Appendix A: City Hall Mural Recent Historical Timeline
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 81
As described above in the process section, we employed a “Working Circle” to create recommendations. Similar to a citizen jury, the Working Circle was made up of 13 individuals selected to represent a broad range of perspectives, life histories and community connections.
The Working Circle model pulled in people with connections to key Santa Monica communities to democratize knowledge and illuminate a diversity of community views. This was designed to be an intimate community group and over the course of Phase I of the project, Working Circle members engaged in open dialogue on civic history, representation and public art in Santa Monica.
Additionally, this group of folks connected to one another and gained new perspectives. Some members already knew each other, but this process offered each one an opportunity to connect using new tools and perspectives and to learn some new ideas and maybe unlearn others.
A major task of the Working Circle was to develop recommendations together.
All of the recommendations in this report were discussed and given priority by the Working Circle. The legitimacy of the Working Circle’s recommendations stems from the broadness of the group–everyday citizens from astonishingly diverse starting points–and the quality and the depth of their engagement and discussion. This truly diverse group was able to find extremely significant points of agreement through deep engagement. The Working Circle used a highly facilitated process similar to “Delphi Surveying’’ in which the group was given three rounds of anonymous surveys to develop and refine their statements and recommendations.
This appendix includes the details and results of the final rounds of surveying and discussion. Note that the survey tables below include 12 survey responses, because one Working Circle member stepped down from the Working Circle before the recommendations development process. The Working Circle liaisons to the Landmarks Commission and the Arts Commission did not attend any of the Working Circle meetings once we moved into the recommendations development phase to avoid having to recuse themselves from any matters that would come before their respective commissions. City of Santa Monica staff from Cultural Affairs, Planning and the Office of Equity and Inclusion attended the discussions around recommendations but did not fill out the surveys or prioritize actions.
Appendix B: Working Circle Discussion and Development
of Values, Statements, and Recommendations
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 82
Values from the Working Circle
We felt it was important to ground the recommendations in a collectively articulated set of values. Based on the interviews, small group engagements and feedback survey responses, we drafted a list of Values statements that represented values (not positions or recommendations) that we heard from the public. The Working Circle anonymously voted on these values to highlight those they thought were very important for the City to uphold, somewhat important, not a priority, not important, or unsure. After each round of surveys, the Working Circle discussed the results and proposed changes.
The Working Circle members were unanimous in their belief that it is very or somewhat important for Santa Monica to:
• Center Santa Monica First Peoples in the City’s response to the mural. • Do something concrete, not just words.
Nearly unanimously, the group felt it was very or somewhat important to:
• Center working-class people and other people of color in the City’s response to the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that people have with the mural.
• Make sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white supremacy worldview depicted in the mural.
• Make sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/ like they belong.
And about three quarters of the group felt it was very or somewhat important to:
• Attend to the people who feel harmed by the mural.
• Address the material consequences of colonialism and provide considerations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples.
• Protect future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning images.
• Create new opportunities for artists.
• Have the City response deal with other things in addition to the mural. • Generate meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 83
What do you feel is most important to address
in the City of Santa Monica's response to the mural?
Very
important
Somewhat
important
Not
sure
Not a
priority
Not
important at all
Centering Santa Monica First Peoples in the City's response to the mural 11 1 0 0 0 Doing something concrete, not just words 11 1 0 0 0
Centering working-class people and other people of color in the City's response to the mural
10 1 1 0 0
Making sure visitors to City Hall know that the City understands the issues that people have with the mural
10 1 0 0 1
Making sure visitors to City Hall know that the City condemns the white supremacy worldview depicted in the mural
10 1 0 0 1
Making sure everyone who visits the Historic City Hall lobby feels welcome/like they belong
9 2 1 0 0
Attending to the people who feel harmed by the mural 9 0 1 1 1 Addressing the material consequences of colonialism and providing considerations including financial considerations to Santa Monica First Peoples
9 0 1 0 2
Protecting future visitors to City Hall from the harm of seeing demeaning images
8 0 2 0 2
Creating new opportunities for artists 7 3 1 1 0
The City's response should deal with other things in addition to the mural 7 3 1 1 0 Generating meaningful public discussion and engagement around the mural
7 3 1 0 1
Centering other Indigenous Peoples in the City's response to the mural 7 0 2 2 1 Adding new artworks to the City Hall lobby 6 3 2 1 0
Adding new interpretive works to the City Hall lobby 6 2 2 1 1 Telling the story of the Mission period in a way that acknowledges the horror of the time
5 6 0 0 1
Telling the story of Santa Monica 4 0 2 4 2
Using City Hall Lobby as a teaching space 3 4 4 0 1
Representing the story of Santa Monica prior to 1769 3 4 2 1 2 Making sure the mural is viewable by everyone who comes to City Hall 3 0 1 4 4 Representing the story of Santa Monica between 1939 and 2023 2 2 3 4 1 Representing the story of Santa Monica between 1769 and 1848 2 3 0 5 2 Preserving the physical integrity of the mural as a historical artifact 2 1 2 2 5 The City's response should only deal with the mural 2 0 1 3 6 Representing the story of Santa Monica between 1848 and 1939 1 4 1 4 2 Telling the story of the Rancho period 1 3 0 6 2
Making City Hall beautiful 1 6 1 1 3
Helping the City of Santa Monica avoid scandal or controversy 1 2 0 4 5 Helping the City of Santa Monica save money 1 1 0 4 6
Protecting the artistic legacy of the artist Stanton Macdonald-Wright 1 1 0 1 9 Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 84
Statements About the Mural
Because one of the key issues in this process was the issue of interpretation, we thought it would be useful to have the group consider statements about the mural. What can be said to be true about the mural? We gathered statements (again, adapted from things we had heard through the interviews and feedback activity responses) and engaged the group in the same process of anonymous surveying.
The group had a somewhat more difficult time finding agreement here.
With the exception of one member, the group agreed that it was true and important that:
• People feel harmed by the mural.
More than 80% thought it was true and important that:
• Although the mural is representative of its time, it still problematic and • The mural’s location at City Hall is important to the way we think about it, • The mural is a dehumanizing portrayal of First Peoples, and • The mural is harmful.
More than 75% felt it was true and important that:
• The mural represents a white supremacy world view
And two thirds believed it was true and important that:
• The mural represents a classist view of the world
• The mural shows a misleading view of the history of Santa Monica • The mural is embarrassing
• The mural made them feel uncomfortable
False statements
Conversely, no one in the group believed these statements to be true:
• The mural makes me feel happy
• The mural is inspiring
Most of the working circle believed the following statements were false:
• The whiteness of the people in the mural is simply factual of Santa Monica in 1939 • There’s nothing wrong with the mural
• The mural is from the past and has no bearing on the present • The mural represents objective history
• This mural celebrates Santa Monica
• This mural represents Santa Monica in 1939 accurately • The mural was a neutral or positive portrayal of First Peoples Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 85
Please respond to the following statements about the mural. True and important
True
but not
important
Not sure
if this is
true or
false
FALSE
People feel harmed by the mural 11 0 0 1
Although the mural is representative of its time, it still problematic 10 0 1 1 The mural’s location at City Hall is important to the way we think about it 10 1 0 1 The mural is a dehumanizing portrayal of First Peoples 10 0 0 2 The mural is harmful 10 0 0 2
The mural represents a white supremacy world view 9 1 0 2 The mural represents a classist view of the world 8 3 1 0 The mural shows a misleading view of the history of Santa Monica 8 0 2 2 The mural is embarrassing 8 1 1 2
The mural makes me feel uncomfortable 8 2 0 2
The mural could be used as a teaching tool 6 3 2 1
The mural needs interpretation 6 2 2 2
Mural would be more productive at another location 5 0 4 3 The mural represents Stanton Macdonald Wright’s values and worldview 3 5 3 1 The mural represents the mainstream viewpoint of history of its time 3 3 4 2 The mural is of historic significance 3 4 1 4
The mural condemns Santa Monica 3 0 2 7
The wealth of the people in the mural accurately represents Santa Monica at the time the mural was produced
2 0 4 6
The mural is beautiful 2 2 1 7
The whiteness of the people in the mural is simply factual of Santa Monica in 1939
2 0 1 9
There’s nothing wrong with the mural 2 0 0 10
This mural represents Santa Monica in 1939 aspirationally 1 4 4 3 The mural is from the past and has no bearing on the present 1 0 2 9 The mural represents objective history 1 1 1 9
This mural represents Santa Monica in 1939 accurately 1 0 2 9 This mural celebrates Santa Monica 1 0 2 9
The mural is a neutral portrayal of First Peoples 1 0 1 10 The mural is a positive portrayal of First Peoples 1 0 1 10 The mural represents an allegorical story of Santa Monica 0 3 3 6 The mural represents what Santa Monica stands for 0 1 4 7 The mural makes me feel happy 0 0 2 10
The mural is inspiring 0 0 1 11
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 86
Recommended Actions from the Working Circle
Alongside the process of anonymous surveys about values and perceptions of the mural, the Working Circle generated a list of possible actions to be taken by the City of Santa Monica. To begin with, this list was unedited and broad and included actions having to do with the mural itself, the City Hall lobby and the underlying issues brought up by the mural. We then used anonymous surveys to rank this list and find the recommendations that found strongest agreement.
Since the list of possible actions was so lengthy, we grouped the survey questions into four areas: actions dealing with the mural, actions related to commissioning new artwork, recommendations about new artwork itself, and actions beyond the mural.
In the following charts, we include all of the responses for the actions surveys.
Some actions received only weak support from most Working Circle members; others were strongly recommended by some and strongly opposed by others.
Yet, we found an extremely high level of agreement amongst the Working Circle that the City’s response should not be limited to actions related to the mural or the City Hall lobby and that the City should act to materially address issues related to the exclusions seen in the mural. Centering the perspectives of First Peoples and doing something concrete were highly rated in the values survey, which is consistent with these recommendations.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 87
Actions Dealing with the Mural Recommend
- High
Priority
Recommend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recommend
Against
Strongly
Recommend
Against
Add interpretive panels written by an Indigenous person 9 1 1 0 1 Add interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced religious conversion and white supremacy
9 1 0 0 2
Add interpretive panels that condemn the murals' portrayal of First Peoples
8 1 2 0 1
Add interpretive panels about atrocities and injustices committed towards Indigenous people
6 2 1 0 3
Move the murals: to a historical or cultural institution 5 3 1 0 3 Create educational and/or interpretative programming about the murals
4 5 1 1 1
Cover the murals: permanently 3 3 2 2 2
Move the murals: to storage 3 2 4 0 3
Add interpretive panels vetted by a committee 3 3 2 0 4 Add interpretive panels "explaining" or interpreting the artwork 2 3 1 3 3 Add interpretive panels vetted by a historian 2 1 4 1 4 Cover the murals: in a way that allows for temporary viewing (opaque curtain or scrim)
2 1 2 3 4
Move the murals: to a private location 2 0 3 2 5
Occasionally cover the murals on certain days (such as Indigenous People's Day)
2 0 0 2 8
Do nothing about these murals 2 0 0 1 9
Add interpretive panels that cover up portions of the mural 1 2 4 2 3 Add interpretive panels about the artistic process 1 1 2 4 4 Add interpretive panels about artist Stanton MacDonald Wright 1 1 3 2 5 Cover the murals: in a way that allows for artist engagement (transparent, clear acrylic)
1 2 2 2 5
Add interpretive panels about the WPA and New Deal artworks 1 3 0 1 7 Sell the murals 0 2 4 0 6
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 88
Actions Related to Commissioning New Artwork Recommend - High
Priority
Recommend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recommend
Against
Strongly
Recommend
Against
New artwork should be created by: a member of Santa Monica First Peoples
10 1 1 0 0
Commission new work elsewhere in Santa Monica 9 1 2 0 0 Commission new work in the City Hall lobby 9 1 0 1 1
New artwork should be created by: an Indigenous person 9 2 1 0 0 New artwork should be created by: a person of color 6 4 2 0 0 New artwork should be created by: multiple artists 5 1 5 0 1 New artwork should be: permanent 5 3 3 1 0
The artist should: present to a special committee 5 3 3 1 0 Commission new work on the City Hall facade 4 4 1 0 3
New artwork should be created by: anyone in consultation with Santa Monica First Peoples
3 2 3 2 2
New artwork should be: installed for at least 10 years 3 3 5 1 0 The artist should: use a process typical of what Santa Monica presently does (present process and concept to Public Art Committee of Arts Commission)
3 4 4 1 0
Do not commission new artwork 2 1 0 0 9
New artwork should be: performance-based 2 2 6 1 1
New artwork should be: rotating temporary works 2 5 3 1 1 New artwork should be: installed for at least 1 year 1 4 5 0 2 The artist should: have total artistic freedom 1 5 3 1 2 New artwork should be created by: anyone 0 1 1 3 7
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 89
New artwork should: Recommend
- High
Priority
Recommend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recommend
Against
Strongly
Recommend
Against
Deal with themes of Indigenous presence in Santa Monica 10 0 2 0 0 Be representative of all the races and ethnicities that have been and are part of Santa Monica
8 1 3 0 0
Deal with themes of African American presence in Santa Monica 8 0 4 0 0 Deal with themes of Belonging generally 8 1 2 1 0
Deal with themes of Mexican presence in Santa Monica 8 1 3 0 0 Deal with themes of Mexican-Indigenous (Yaqui, etc.) presence in Santa Monica
8 2 2 0 0
Present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented as "historically significant" 8 1 3 0 0
Deal with themes of Latinx presence in Santa Monica 8 0 3 0 1 Address the exclusions in the "recreation" mural -- Brown, Black, Asian, working people, unemployed people, poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939
7 2 2 1 0
Be physical 7 1 4 0 0
Deal with themes of Asian presence in Santa Monica 7 1 4 0 0 Represent Santa Monica today 4 1 5 2 0
Deal with themes of history in Santa Monica 4 2 3 2 1
Specifically engage the Stanton MacDonald Wright mural 2 2 3 2 3 Be digital/augmented reality 2 1 3 1 5
Deal with themes of the Rancho period in Santa Monica 1 4 3 2 2 Be projected 1 1 6 1 3
Be non-figurative 0 3 5 3 1
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 90
Actions Beyond the Mural and the City Hall Lobby Recommend - High
Priority
Recommend
- Low
Priority
No strong
feelings
either way
Recommend
Against
Strongly
Recommend
Against
Evaluate current artistic commissioning processes to ensure that they are more equitable and inclusive
12 0 0 0 0
Facilitate Kuruvungna Village Springs | Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation and or Kuruvungna Springs Cultural Center & Museum via financial resources or support of land return
11 0 1 0 0
Formal land acknowledgment protocol for City of Santa Monica 11 0 1 0 0 Provide cultural sensitivity, cultural humility and anti-racism training for City officials and employees to promote a more inclusive and respectful working environment
11 1 0 0 0
Support ongoing public programming for Santa Monica histories not represented in the mural
11 1 0 0 0
Indigenous Cultural Celebrations: Regularly host Indigenous cultural celebrations and events to raise awareness about Indigenous heritage, history, and contributions to the city
10 0 2 0 0
Provide museum space to allow Santa Monica First Peoples to display about themselves or facilitate development of connections with existing organizations like the Santa Monica History Museum or historical society 10 0 2 0 0
Support educational programming about and led by Santa Monica First Peoples for City staff and the general public
10 0 2 0 0
Add a First Peoples representative to other important commissions such as Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment, Housing Commission, Urban Forest Task Force 10 0 2 0 0
Add a First Peoples representative to the Arts Commission 10 0 2 0 0 Public Apology: Issue a formal public apology for past actions that led to the displacement and suffering of Indigenous people, acknowledging past wrongs as part of the healing process
10 0 1 1 0
Allocate space in the airport redevelopment project to build a First Peoples Cultural Center and Museum
10 0 1 0 1
Consider ways to cede land in Santa Monica back to First Peoples 10 0 1 0 1 Incorporate the Tongva language and place names into Santa Monica infrastructure
10 0 1 0 1
Create a tribal liaison staff position at the City of Santa Monica 9 0 3 0 0 Evaluate areas where landscape can be cultivated by Native Plants and partner with tribal groups to allow for gathering
9 2 1 0 0
Add a First Peoples representative to the Landmarks Commission 9 0 3 0 0 Create expansive curricula about Santa Monica history for use in Santa Monica schools
9 1 2 0 0
Support ongoing public programming to empower Santa Monicans to archive and tell the history of Santa Monica
9 3 0 0 0
Allocate financial resources, such as a district tax, for Santa Monica First Peoples
9 0 2 0 1
Language Revitalization Programs: Support initiatives to revive and sustain Indigenous languages in Santa Monica, promoting cultural heritage preservation
8 1 3 0 0
Incorporate the Tongva language and place names into Santa Monica infrastructure
8 2 1 0 1
Identify and change street names to Tongva inspired names, ex; Kuruvungna Blvd
7 2 2 0 1
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 91
Recommendations Prioritized by the Working Circle
In the end, the list of recommended actions that found substantial agreement was surprisingly long. In order to make sure we highlighted the most critical actions, in our last session we asked each member of the Working Circle to place stickers next to the recommendations they felt were the highest priority.
Each member had one red dot to place next to the action that they felt that the City must take, at all costs. This red dot sticker would count for two votes. Each member also received four green dots to place next to actions that they felt should be prioritized in addition. Each green dot would count for one vote. After the Working Circle members placed their dots, we concluded with a discussion to affirm the slate of recommendations and talk through some of the additional nuances of the prioritized actions. It’s important to note that four members of the Working Circle were absent for this final meeting. As a result, we went to great lengths to follow up and confirm the results with the absent members. The chart below shows the results of the prioritization exercise.
Clearly, the highest priority recommendation from the Working Circle was that the City should commission new work in the City Hall lobby. This artwork should be created by a member of Santa Monica First Peoples. It should present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented as “historically significant.” The Working Circle discussed the location of the new work at length. City Hall is a center of power and the new work needs to balance or redress the feeling of exclusion created by the existing mural.
The Working Circle also believed that the City should create interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced religious conversion, white supremacy generally and the mural’s portrayal of First Peoples in particular. These panels should be written by an Indigenous person and should be at a scale that is unmissable for viewers of the mural. Educational and interpretive programming about the mural should support these panels.
The Working Circle was also clear that they did not feel that these actions would be sufficient. The top actions also include creating a formal Land Acknowledgement process for the City of Santa Monica. The priorities were less clear for other actions beyond the mural and the City Hall lobby, but the fact that so many received at least one vote in the prioritization process shows how important it was to the Working Circle that actions to address the harm of the mural accompany the City’s actions around the mural itself.
The Working Circle process did not always achieve total consensus, but frequently came close and did produce an overwhelming amount of agreement.
At the close of our work together, the direction was clear, the group ratified the results collectively, and we feel confident that the process produced a collective understanding of the way forward.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 92
Prioritized Actions Red Dot Green Dot Total
Commission new work in the City Hall lobby 5 10
Add interpretive panels that condemn colonization, forced religious conversion and white supremacy
1 1 3
Create educational and/or interpretative programming about the murals 1 1 3 New artwork should be created by: a member of Santa Monica First Peoples 3 3 Formal land acknowledgment protocol for City of Santa Monica 3 3 New artwork should: Present history from different perspectives and celebrate and reframe what is traditionally presented as "historically significant" 3 3
Commission new work elsewhere in Santa Monica 2 2
The artist should: use a process typical of what Santa Monica presently does (present process and concept to Public Art Committee of Arts Commission) 2 2
Provide cultural sensitivity, cultural humility and anti-racism training for City officials and employees to promote a more inclusive and respectful working environment 2 2
Allocate space in the airport redevelopment project to build a First Peoples Cultural Center and Museum
2 2
Consider ways to cede land in Santa Monica back to First Peoples 2 2 New artwork should: Address the exclusions in the "recreation" mural--Black, Brown, Asian, working people, unemployed people, poor people who were in Santa Monica in 1939 2 2
New artwork should: Deal with themes of Indigenous presence in Santa Monica 2 2 New artwork should be created by: anyone in consultation with Santa Monica First Peoples 1 1 New artwork should be created by: multiple artists 1 1
Add a First Peoples representative to other important commissions such as Commission on Sustainability, Environmental Justice, and the Environment, Housing Commission, Urban Forest Task Force
1 1
Evaluate current artistic commissioning processes to ensure that they are more equitable and inclusive
1 1
Facilitate Kuruvungna Village Springs | Gabrielino-Tongva Springs Foundation and or Kuruvungna Springs Cultural Center & Museum via financial resources or support of land return
1 1
Support ongoing public programming for Santa Monica histories not represented in the mural 1 1 Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 93
Engagement Overview
Phase I of the Reframe: City Hall Mural process engaged people approximately 1300 times from March 2023 to November 2023. The number of unique participants is likely smaller, considering that many people engaged with the process in multiple ways.
• 123 respondents to March 2022 survey distributed to Santa Monica residents and employees
• 100 youth participants in Summer 2022 Belonging in Santa Monica workshops with Glenna Avila
• 13 Working Circle members selected from 32 applications • Approximately 270 participants at 9 public events featuring 12 guest speakers or facilitators
• 15 interview participants
• Approximately 240 participants at 14 presentations or listening sessions with community groups
• At least 200 Feedback Activity sheets distributed at 5 additional community events
• 337 respondents to the Reframe: City Hall Mural Feedback Activity Community Listening Workshop
One of the public community listening sessions was a workshop focused on the wide diversity of thought around the mural at historic Santa Monica City Hall. The workshop was designed to develop participants’ empathetic listening skills. Critically acclaimed actress, writer and theater-based educator Anu Yadav led this workshop using a variety of large and small group exercises to surface values, questions, challenges and hopes and dreams about the mural. The group began to develop a long-list of possible actions regarding the mural and the issues presented by the mural. A summary of the responses gathered at this workshop is included here.
Values that participants brought into the workshop
• Connection
• Dignity
• Community
• Togetherness repair
• Listening
• Respect
• Visibility
• Loving kindness
• Unity
• Kindness
• Generosity
• Equality
• Transformation
• Fairness
• Seeing Indigenous people
• Honesty
Appendix C: Engagement Details
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 94
Questions that participants had about the process
grouped by themes
How can the process be more authentic, generative, effective and healing? • How can we get more Natives/Chicanos involved in discussions? • Who decides on the progress of the mural project?
• Will the City take this truly seriously or are we doing all of this just for optics?
• Why do we waste time and money to answer the misknowledge and understanding of this mural?
• I’ve been to numerous community meetings and asked 5 separate City Managers what has changed because of community meetings, not one of them could come up with anything. Is this just an exercise to placate the masses or does it really matter?
• How can we come together to imagine a more just and inclusive future? • How can we learn to treat each other better?
How can we engage First Peoples and address the impact of colonialism? • How do the Tongva people want their story portrayed in art and around City Hall?
• What can I do as an uninvited guest to support Native folks in Los Angeles/ Santa Monica?
• How do we make sure that Native people feel respected in this process? • Can we agree to disagree and do what’s best for the folks most affected? • How can we center decolonizing narratives in the neoliberal and colonized matrix?
• While we wait/not expect the City to fully listen/support/repair, are there any Santa Monica residents here or anywhere who would return to their house to Tongva conservancy?
How can we tell/understand fuller histories?
• Know your town/city’s story
• What if the current murals area was turned into a museum showing the problematic history City Hall/the City lies on?
• ¿Por qué es tan difícil reconocer la historia de que este país está formado por todos las razas? [Why is it so difficult to recognize the history that this country is made up of all races?]
What is the function and power of art?
• What makes this one display of art capable of bringing light to a situation long misunderstood and ignored?
• Why is the content of public art so powerful?
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 95
Challenges that participants saw in responding
to the mural grouped by themes
Understanding each other or working together
• Getting people to let go of their preconceived prejudices • Close-minded people who won’t facilitate sharing of public walls or spaces • Community members who are ignoring Indigenous perspectives • People are set in their position/perspective
• That enough white people (in City Hall power) will have enough courage to empathize with Indians
• Everyone understand everything a little differently than everyone else • Getting people with different understanding of the murals to respect various points of view
Dealing with ambiguity or plurality
• Justice in this situation? I don’t think it exists
• The attachment to a singular word vs. the approach to what constitutes “reality”
• People who do not wish to let go of the way the world has been (cannot imagine a world where settler colonialism isn’t the center and only story told) • Honoring all voices, history and perspectives in the next steps overcoming people’s certainty even when things are gray
• Rewrite your story
Understanding the process
• Why do you want to change the mosaic in City Hall?
• Stop misinformation
Creating real change
• How is Santa Monica dedicated to meaningful repair? Who benefits from these choices?
• The mural is still on Gabrielino/Tongva land where many Native people can’t afford to live (regardless of what it ends up looking like) • Seguir luchando contra el racismo, niveles economicos, y marginacion [Continue to fight against racism, economic levels, and marginalization.] Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 96
What if…? questions and thoughts from participants
grouped by themes
Positive learnings from the process
• We could come to an agreement on the mural?
• We could better hear and understand each other?
• We get a legal breakdown of what’s really possible?
• The politics of the possible became our default?
Centering Indigenous or People of Color’s perspectives
• We included/centered Indigenous experience and feelings centered around representation in public space. What if we listened to them and their perspectives instead of centering our own?
• We could see from the place this causes the most pain and lead from there? • People understand the impact the images of the mural have on people of color?
• That the racist image of “Indians” is removed. –An Indian New artwork centering different people and narratives
• Should have more murals -by a Tongva elder
• We had larger positive art displays of more dignified portrayals of local Native folks?
• We create a new space to have one Indigenous artist to create artwork close to City Hall?
• We do or create a new mural at City Hall (outside wall of new City Hall):
rancho, Japanese villages, Tongva people?
• This provided space for Gabrieleno/Tongva visibility and art within Santa Monica?
• This process launched an Indigenous arts renaissance? • The mural contained positive representations of workers, Black or brown people, the women who worked at the Douglas airport?
• We maintain the mural at City Hall and have another art piece that tells a different story?
• White supremacy was not the only story that is allowed to be told? What if other stories could be at the center and could feel seen when you walk around the city?
• Que tal si enseñamos más nuestra ciudad diversa llena de historia lucha y colaboración? [How about showing more of our diverse city full of history, struggle and collaboration?]
Understanding the mural and its content
• We can use digital technology to interpret the murals and provide deeper understand of our cultural history?
• Recognize that art as art and not seeing it as something derogatory? • People understood the history of what’s portrayed: Father Crespi’s journals, naming the City of Santa Monica?
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 97
The mural as learning tool
• The murals were recognized as an example of behavior that must not be repeated?
• We can use digital technology to interpret the murals and provide a deeper understanding of our cultural history?
• We move the mural to a place like a museum that preserves it but puts it in context with problematic histories?
• This mural proves the way for expansion into other topics necessary for all to understand?
Repair and systems change
• The whole story of Santa Monica was being taught in schools? • The City of Santa Monica transferred the airport to the Tongva Conservancy in 2028 for housing and repair?
• Santa Monica used resources and took steps to engage in meaningful repair for Native folks?
• The histories of colonialism were able to be shown/unearthed everywhere? • We saw the whole of City Hall as an archaeological site or art installation? • That City Hall recognized that Mexicans/Chicanos are Indians? • The City created a “physical” Land Acknowledgment?
• The City added Tongva artists to the City collection? • Kuruvungna Village was returned?
• The Kuruvungna bulletin was digitized?
• All staff and electeds have “Tongva history training”? Feedback Activity Responses Detail
A spreadsheet containing the complete dataset of responses received is available at www.santamonica.gov/reframe-city-hall-mural.
We received 337 responses to the feedback activity.
Digital Form 230
Paper Form 107
Spanish 7
Of the 337 responses, 276 or 82% of the respondents gave a valid zip code. The majority (74%) gave a Santa Monica zip code, with most of the rest (22%) giving a zip code in Los Angeles County.
Santa Monica 74%
Los Angeles County 226%
Other CA 3%
Other US 1%
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 98
Demographics
Rather than ask multiple demographic survey questions, we asked one openended question where we asked respondents to tell us about themselves and what perspectives might have shaped their responses to the activity. About 30% (N=100) of respondents chose to share some aspect of their racial or ethnic identity.
Santa Monica First Peoples 9
Other Indigenous (North, Central,
and South Americas)
12 African/African-American/Black 6
Asian/Asian-American 10
Hispanic/Latino/a/e/x/Chicano/a 26
Iranian/Persian/Turkish-American 4
Person of Color/Brown 6
White 32
Respondents also chose to share many other aspects of their identities and experiences, especially in terms of how they relate to Santa Monica. We look a bit more closely at some of these groups of people and their responses in the “Feedback from Particular Constituencies” part of our report. • Multigenerational Santa Monica
resident
• Lifelong Santa Monica resident or
Born and raised here
• Longtime Santa Monica resident
• Santa Monica resident
• Born and raised in nearby Los
Angeles (Venice, Mar Vista, etc)
• Lifelong Los Angeles resident or
Born and raised in Los Angeles
• Displaced resident
• Work in Santa Monica
• Went to school in Santa Monica
• Business/property owner in Santa
Monica
• Santa Monica City employee
• Grade-schooler
• College student
• Educator/teacher
• Marquez family descendant
• Artist/art or art history major
• Historian/preservationist/history
major
• Santa Monica Conservancy
• Former SM City Commissioner
• Retired professionals
• Immigrant/child of immigrants
• Catholic/Jewish/Muslim
• LGBTQ+
Imagined New Artworks
We asked respondents to imagine an artwork to represent the history of Santa Monica and to tell us what it would look like or include. The responses were varied and rich, capable of filling multiple galleries with visions of Santa Monica past, present, and future. We offer a high level review of the themes in these responses, while noting that a deeper analysis is warranted. • An inclusive, multicultural vision of Santa Monica: Many respondents noted who was missing from the existing mural and proposed that new artwork would include all of these groups of people, such as Black, Brown, Asian, Hispanic, Indigenous, Muslim, Buddhist people; women and children; people of different income levels; workers, farmers, and businesses.
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 99
Respondents also noted the hierarchy in the existing mural and proposed that new artwork would include all of these types of people on “an equal playing field” and the contributions to diverse groups of people to Santa Monica’s history and development. Some wanted representations of more modern aspects of what Santa Monica looks like today, including more inclusive and updated recreation activities or landmarks like the Santa Monica Pier. Some also mentioned that a new artwork should make people feel welcome in civic life in Santa Monica.
• Positive and accurate representations of Santa Monica First Peoples: Respondents also proposed artworks that would include fuller representations of Indigenous people, culture and history. There were many ideas for the direction of these artworks, which could include maps of significant places, dates for Indigenous history prior to colonization, or specific Tribal cultures and villages including Kuruvungna Springs. Some noted the importance of representing Indigenous people in the present or recent history. Others noted the importance of telling the true story of how colonization impacted Santa Monica First Peoples, even while still others noted that they wanted the truth to be told, but did not want violent images of colonization to be portrayed. Several respondents noted that an Indigenous artist should be commissioned for new artwork or that Santa Monica First Peoples should direct the content of new artwork.
• The natural landscape of Santa Monica: Some respondents really appreciate the oceans, beaches and mountains depicted in the existing mural; one even suggested that mural could be improved by removing all the figures. Others emphasized the native flora and fauna of the region that Santa Monica First Peoples were and are stewards of. These respondents suggested new artworks that would more directly feature these elements. • Inclusive processes for the development of new artwork: Some respondents expressed opinions on the media of new artwork or the processes by which it would be commissioned. They were interested in artists who would work with the community on development and making sure that the City asked for input broadly. Some were interested in how new artwork could be educational and could even include QR codes for further information, especially as it related to current information on Santa Monica First Peoples.
Artwork location
We also asked respondents where they would place their imaginary artwork. The following is an analysis of the themes in these responses, in which responses could count towards multiple themes.
• City Hall and environs (163 responses)
• The most frequent response to this question was that the new artwork should be at City Hall without specifying exactly where in the City Hall complex (54 responses).
• The next most frequent response was that the new artwork should be outside City Hall, with many people noting that City Hall is not open during the daytime and so that artwork inside is not accessible all of the time (27 responses).
• A very similar number of responses specifically suggested that the new artwork be in place of the existing mural (26 responses) or near the existing mural (21 responses).
• Another large number of respondents thought that the new artwork should be placed in Tongva Park, echoing those who thought it should be outside City Hall (20 responses).
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 100
• Some other respondents specified that the mural should not be in the Historic City Hall, but in City Hall East (6 responses) or in the City Hall courtyard (4 responses).
• A handful of other respondents had specific ideas for where new artwork should go in City Hall 2nd floor, the entrance to the Council chamber, in the overhead space between the two existing mural panels (4 responses). • One respondent suggested that there should be a “land acknowledgment seal” placed next to the City Hall seal in the lobby, separately from and in addition to new artwork that would be placed elsewhere. • Other prominent locations in Santa Monica (60 responses) • Many other people felt that new artwork should be placed in an easily accessible or highly trafficked location outside of City Hall, like the Santa Monica Library (18), Santa Monica Pier (16), Third St Promenade (16), Annenberg Beach House (5), Bergamot (2), the Santa Monica Airport (2) or Civic Center (1).
• Multiple locations or everywhere (29 responses)
• Many people felt that there should be multiple new artworks spread throughout the City, like all City properties, exteriors of important buildings, on infrastructure like overpasses and underpasses, along the E line, along the 10 freeway or from downtown to Bergamot. One these responses imagined that these artworks would be connected by a scavenger hunt.
• Public spaces and parks in Santa Monica (18 responses) • Several other people indicated that they thought the new artwork should be in any easily accessible and high traffic location like a park or other non-commercial space (8 responses). Several others mentioned a specific park or outdoor public space like Palisades Park, the Millenium Wall, Wilshire and 26th, Douglas Park, Virginia Avenue Park, Lincoln Park, Ocean Park, along the beach (9 responses). One person specified that the artwork should not be at the Third St Promenade or the Pier. • Educational facilities (10 responses)
• Another collection of responses thought that the new artwork should be sited in an educational facility like Santa Monica College (5), Santa Monica High School (2), every or any school or library (2) or near a middle school (1).
• Sites of significance for the City or a particular group of people (9 responses) • A handful of respondents were interested in siting a new artwork in a location of significance, to enhance the meaning of the artwork. Some mentioned specific locations where they thought an artwork would be meaningful (5 responses): Inkwell Beach (2), Kuruvungna Springs, La Veinte or the Pico Neighborhood, 4th Street and Pico Boulevard. Some wanted the new artwork to be placed in consultation with or in sites significant for the Indigenous, Asian and Latinx communities (2), and some noted only that the artwork should be placed in a historically significant location, “where it represents what happened” (2).
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 101
Some respondents interpreted this question to mean we were asking where they would place the existing mural. We analyzed the themes in these responses separately, since these responses spoke more specifically to actions around the existing mural.
• Keep it where it is in City Hall (19 responses)
• Move it outside of City Hall so that it is visible to more people (6 responses) • Move it to a museum or other location where it could have contextualization (Woodlawn Cemetery, Annenberg Beach House, Library, Bergamot, Santa Monica College) (8 responses)
• Remove from public view permanently, including burying in the ground in front of City Hall (5 responses)
• Do nothing or place it anywhere, because the money should be spent on something else (5 responses)
• Keep it where it is in City Hall, but modify it, add a plaque, or additional artwork (3 responses)
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 102
Appendix D: Letters from Tribal Communities
Santa Monica City Council
Santa Monica, CA
February 25, 2023
To the City Leadership of Santa Monica,
It comes to our attention that the controversial mural is going to be once again displayed in City Hall due to the pressure by those ignorant of our people's painful history. Ironically the image portrayed is not one of historical accounts, but instead, an artist's conception based on which we and the State of California know as disturbingly inaccurate storytelling.
Conception is just that: an idea that is left to the interpretation of those who view it. So let us tell you how it is perceived and interpreted by those descendants whose ancestors were held in captivity at the supposed era this image depicts. While you may see my ancestors drinking water, we see slaves granted a drink while under guard. We see slaves being used for a water contamination test while the sword of the mounted conquistador pointed directly at the neck of the native as he condescendingly sits above, for it was those swords that struct down many of my ancestors who were unwilling to worship a foreign religion.
What you leaders need to ask yourselves is, "what if one is to replace the natives with black men, and Junipero Serra with a slave owner? Would it still be as appropriate? Would it still be acceptable art?” The answer is NO. Because it brings the same content to our minds as it would a black man if he were to see that imagery in a place where all men are supposed to be considered equal. Or if you can, imagine the Spaniard Soldiers replaced with any other military that had a history with the natives here and it would STILL be of negative connotations at ANY past historical level. We ask you to please reconsider your intentions to display this mural and have the common decency to think of those who this image offends and help move us forward not backwards.
Chairman Nicholas Rocha
Gabrielino-Shoshone Nation of Southern California
Reframe: City Hall Mural Phase I Report 103
May 12, 2023
To Whom it May Concern:
The purpose of this email is to provide the Tribal response to the Santa Monica mural. Our tribe, the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians is the tribe immemorial of the Los Angeles and Orange County. We are Gabrieleno/Tongva and likely the Native Americans depicted in the mural.
We understand the mural has created conversation and varied views. To that point, the mural has proved to be a point of education. It has created conversation that extends beyond the First People of Los Angeles to also look at the lack of inclusivity the mural provides. We support education about our people and increased visibility of our ancestors and continued presence.
Rather than focus on the mural itself we view this as an opportunity to discuss additional education that can assist in promoting the awareness of our Tribe, history, and culture.
There are ways the Tribe can partner with the City Santa Monica, this is not an exhaustive list however it does present a few ideas to extend the conversation beyond the mural:
• Land Acknowledgement: We recommend the City adopts a Land Acknowledgement • Art: Hire First People Artists to create art
• Education: Partner with our Tribe for education about our people on our ancestral land • Land Back: Evaluate areas of the city that can be used for Land Back to the tribe, like the Santa Monica Airport
• Landscape: Evaluate areas where landscape can be cultivated by Native Plants and partner with our tribe to allow for gathering
• Historical Society: Create a connection with the First People and acknowledge our presence • Provide Museum Space to allow our people to display about our people • Kuruvungna Springs: Although it is owned to LAUSD, facilitate the land return to our tribe • Tribal Office Liaison: Create a staff position that allows for the city to thoughtfully consider the First People
Santa Monica specifically is a city that is committed to justice. This was exhibited with Bruce’s Beach.
Although our tribe does feel over looked in the reparations and lack of acknowledging the First People, it does provide hope of a moral conscious that can guide future conversations to create space and visibility for our people on our ancestral land.