ID
stringlengths 6
8
| title
stringlengths 3
136
| question
stringlengths 33
235
| answer
stringlengths 51
15.3k
| image_url
stringlengths 57
817
| entities
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
17151_T | Appeal to the Great Spirit | Focus on Appeal to the Great Spirit and analyze the Other versions. | In 1929 a full-sized bronze version, personally overseen and approved by Dallin, was installed in Muncie, Indiana, in the intersection of Walnut and Granville streets in the Wysor Heights Historic District; it is considered by many residents to be a symbol of the city. The statue was erected "In Loving Memory of Edmund Burke Ball" by "His Wife and Children".
An edition of nine 40-inch (1,000 mm) bronzes of Appeal to the Great Spirit was produced around 1922. One was the centerpiece of the Tower Room of Dartmouth College's Baker Tower, the college's main library and most iconic building, but has since been removed.A plaster example in this one-third scale is at the Cyrus Dallin Museum in Arlington, Massachusetts, and another is in the Rockwell Museum in Corning, New York. Central High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma, possesses another plaster example, which was used in 1985 as the model for a bronze version. The casting was done by American Artbronze Fine Arts Foundry under the direction of Howard R. Kirsch. The bronze is now installed in Woodward Park in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the intersection of 21st Street and Peoria.Examples of the 21-inch (530 mm) bronze statuette are at the White House, the US Department of State, and many American museums.An 8+1⁄2-inch (220 mm) miniature edition was produced by the Gorham Manufacturing Company in 1913; in 2009, No. 263 sold for $9,375. | [
"Rockwell Museum",
"Cyrus Dallin",
"Cyrus Dallin Museum",
"Great Spirit",
"Corning, New York",
"US Department of State",
"Dartmouth College",
"Muncie, Indiana",
"White House",
"Gorham Manufacturing Company",
"casting",
"Tulsa, Oklahoma",
"Edmund Burke Ball",
"cast",
"Wysor Heights Historic District",
"Massachusetts"
] |
|
17151_NT | Appeal to the Great Spirit | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Other versions. | In 1929 a full-sized bronze version, personally overseen and approved by Dallin, was installed in Muncie, Indiana, in the intersection of Walnut and Granville streets in the Wysor Heights Historic District; it is considered by many residents to be a symbol of the city. The statue was erected "In Loving Memory of Edmund Burke Ball" by "His Wife and Children".
An edition of nine 40-inch (1,000 mm) bronzes of Appeal to the Great Spirit was produced around 1922. One was the centerpiece of the Tower Room of Dartmouth College's Baker Tower, the college's main library and most iconic building, but has since been removed.A plaster example in this one-third scale is at the Cyrus Dallin Museum in Arlington, Massachusetts, and another is in the Rockwell Museum in Corning, New York. Central High School in Tulsa, Oklahoma, possesses another plaster example, which was used in 1985 as the model for a bronze version. The casting was done by American Artbronze Fine Arts Foundry under the direction of Howard R. Kirsch. The bronze is now installed in Woodward Park in Tulsa, Oklahoma, at the intersection of 21st Street and Peoria.Examples of the 21-inch (530 mm) bronze statuette are at the White House, the US Department of State, and many American museums.An 8+1⁄2-inch (220 mm) miniature edition was produced by the Gorham Manufacturing Company in 1913; in 2009, No. 263 sold for $9,375. | [
"Rockwell Museum",
"Cyrus Dallin",
"Cyrus Dallin Museum",
"Great Spirit",
"Corning, New York",
"US Department of State",
"Dartmouth College",
"Muncie, Indiana",
"White House",
"Gorham Manufacturing Company",
"casting",
"Tulsa, Oklahoma",
"Edmund Burke Ball",
"cast",
"Wysor Heights Historic District",
"Massachusetts"
] |
|
17152_T | Appeal to the Great Spirit | In Appeal to the Great Spirit, how is the In popular culture discussed? | An early instance of the sculpture's place in American culture is its appearance (as photographed by Baldwin Coolidge) on the cover of "A-M-E-R-I-C-A" (1917), a World War I song by May Greene and Billy Lang and published by D. W. Cooper.
The sculpture is used as the logo for the Beach Boys' vanity record label Brother Records. It was first seen in the lower-left corner on the band's 1967 album Smiley Smile and its attending single "Heroes and Villains", and was used more prominently on the cover of their 1973 album The Beach Boys in Concert. When Beach Boy Carl Wilson was asked in 1975 why the group used this as their logo, he said the Indian was chosen because Brian, Dennis, and Carl's grandfather believed that there was a spiritual Indian "guide" who watched over them from the "other side". The choice of the logo was Brian's. Carl called the logo "The Last Horizon".
A painting of the sculpture appears on the cover of the album The Time Is Near (1970) by the rock group Keef Hartley Band.
A painting of the sculpture appears on the cover of the album Spirit of God (1984) by the Native American Gospel recording artist Johnny P. Curtis.
A painting of the sculpture appears on the cover of the album Lysol (1992) by rock group The Melvins.
In the vinyl release of Directions to See a Ghost (2008) by the American rock band The Black Angels, the poster inside features a skeleton form of this sculpture with a psychedelic background. | [
"May Greene",
"Billy Lang",
"Melvins",
"Directions to See a Ghost",
"Johnny P. Curtis",
"The Time Is Near",
"Smiley Smile",
"The Beach Boys",
"Lysol",
"Native American",
"Keef Hartley",
"The Black Angels",
"Brother Records",
"Carl Wilson",
"The Beach Boys in Concert",
"Keef Hartley Band",
"Heroes and Villains",
"the Beach Boys",
"The Melvins"
] |
|
17152_NT | Appeal to the Great Spirit | In this artwork, how is the In popular culture discussed? | An early instance of the sculpture's place in American culture is its appearance (as photographed by Baldwin Coolidge) on the cover of "A-M-E-R-I-C-A" (1917), a World War I song by May Greene and Billy Lang and published by D. W. Cooper.
The sculpture is used as the logo for the Beach Boys' vanity record label Brother Records. It was first seen in the lower-left corner on the band's 1967 album Smiley Smile and its attending single "Heroes and Villains", and was used more prominently on the cover of their 1973 album The Beach Boys in Concert. When Beach Boy Carl Wilson was asked in 1975 why the group used this as their logo, he said the Indian was chosen because Brian, Dennis, and Carl's grandfather believed that there was a spiritual Indian "guide" who watched over them from the "other side". The choice of the logo was Brian's. Carl called the logo "The Last Horizon".
A painting of the sculpture appears on the cover of the album The Time Is Near (1970) by the rock group Keef Hartley Band.
A painting of the sculpture appears on the cover of the album Spirit of God (1984) by the Native American Gospel recording artist Johnny P. Curtis.
A painting of the sculpture appears on the cover of the album Lysol (1992) by rock group The Melvins.
In the vinyl release of Directions to See a Ghost (2008) by the American rock band The Black Angels, the poster inside features a skeleton form of this sculpture with a psychedelic background. | [
"May Greene",
"Billy Lang",
"Melvins",
"Directions to See a Ghost",
"Johnny P. Curtis",
"The Time Is Near",
"Smiley Smile",
"The Beach Boys",
"Lysol",
"Native American",
"Keef Hartley",
"The Black Angels",
"Brother Records",
"Carl Wilson",
"The Beach Boys in Concert",
"Keef Hartley Band",
"Heroes and Villains",
"the Beach Boys",
"The Melvins"
] |
|
17153_T | Chigi Altarpiece | Focus on Chigi Altarpiece and explore the abstract. | The Chigi Altarpiece is an altarpiece by Perugino, dating to around 1506–1507. It is named after its commissioner Agostino Chigi, a Sienese banker, for the Chigi family chapel in the church of Sant'Agostino in Siena, where it still hangs.Like most altarpieces by Perugino, it has two registers. The upper heavenly one shows Christ on the cross surrounded by a symmetrical arrangement of angels and cherubim. The lower earthly register shows eight lamenting saints connected to the commissioner, the church and the chapel - on the right are John the Baptist and Jerome, for example. The deep landscape backgrounds shows hills and a clear sky. The work originally also had a predella, which is now divided between the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Art Institute of Chicago. | [
"Art Institute of Chicago",
"John the Baptist",
"Sant'Agostino",
"cherubim",
"New York",
"Siena",
"Jerome",
"Perugino",
"predella",
"Agostino Chigi",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
] |
|
17153_NT | Chigi Altarpiece | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The Chigi Altarpiece is an altarpiece by Perugino, dating to around 1506–1507. It is named after its commissioner Agostino Chigi, a Sienese banker, for the Chigi family chapel in the church of Sant'Agostino in Siena, where it still hangs.Like most altarpieces by Perugino, it has two registers. The upper heavenly one shows Christ on the cross surrounded by a symmetrical arrangement of angels and cherubim. The lower earthly register shows eight lamenting saints connected to the commissioner, the church and the chapel - on the right are John the Baptist and Jerome, for example. The deep landscape backgrounds shows hills and a clear sky. The work originally also had a predella, which is now divided between the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Art Institute of Chicago. | [
"Art Institute of Chicago",
"John the Baptist",
"Sant'Agostino",
"cherubim",
"New York",
"Siena",
"Jerome",
"Perugino",
"predella",
"Agostino Chigi",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
] |
|
17154_T | Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut | Focus on Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut and explain the abstract. | Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut is an 1889 still life painting by French artist, Paul Gauguin. It is currently in the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Tehran, Iran. | [
"still life",
"Tehran",
"Woodcut",
"Paul Gauguin",
"Museum of Contemporary Art"
] |
|
17154_NT | Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut is an 1889 still life painting by French artist, Paul Gauguin. It is currently in the collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Tehran, Iran. | [
"still life",
"Tehran",
"Woodcut",
"Paul Gauguin",
"Museum of Contemporary Art"
] |
|
17155_T | Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut | Explore the History of this artwork, Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut. | In 1888 and 1889 Gauguin's enthusiasm for Japanese ukiyo-e woodcuts emerged. Japanese prints appeared in the background of his Apple and Vase painting, his portrait of The Schuffenecker Family and also Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut, which depicts an ukiyo-e portrait of an actor.The painting was formerly owned by Josef Rosensaft, a Holocaust survivor who led the community of Jewish displaced persons, who died in September 1975. He left a formidable art collection that had to be sold to settle debts related to the acquisition of the art and by some accounts an extravagant lifestyle. The 1976 sale arranged by Sotheby's was bought in its entirety by the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, where it all remains today and is one of the oldest paintings in the museum's collection. This sale set a record for Still Life with Japanese Woodcut at $1.4 million, and the work is currently valued at $45 million.During the direction of Mahmoud Shalouithe, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and the Tate Modern in London tried to borrow the painting but the requests were rejected. | [
"Holocaust",
"Gauguin's",
"National Gallery of Art",
"Tehran",
"ukiyo-e",
"Woodcut",
"Tate Modern",
"Washington, D.C.",
"The Schuffenecker Family",
"Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art",
"Museum of Contemporary Art",
"Mahmoud Shalouithe",
"woodcut",
"Josef Rosensaft",
"London"
] |
|
17155_NT | Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut | Explore the History of this artwork. | In 1888 and 1889 Gauguin's enthusiasm for Japanese ukiyo-e woodcuts emerged. Japanese prints appeared in the background of his Apple and Vase painting, his portrait of The Schuffenecker Family and also Still Life with Head-Shaped Vase and Japanese Woodcut, which depicts an ukiyo-e portrait of an actor.The painting was formerly owned by Josef Rosensaft, a Holocaust survivor who led the community of Jewish displaced persons, who died in September 1975. He left a formidable art collection that had to be sold to settle debts related to the acquisition of the art and by some accounts an extravagant lifestyle. The 1976 sale arranged by Sotheby's was bought in its entirety by the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, where it all remains today and is one of the oldest paintings in the museum's collection. This sale set a record for Still Life with Japanese Woodcut at $1.4 million, and the work is currently valued at $45 million.During the direction of Mahmoud Shalouithe, the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and the Tate Modern in London tried to borrow the painting but the requests were rejected. | [
"Holocaust",
"Gauguin's",
"National Gallery of Art",
"Tehran",
"ukiyo-e",
"Woodcut",
"Tate Modern",
"Washington, D.C.",
"The Schuffenecker Family",
"Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art",
"Museum of Contemporary Art",
"Mahmoud Shalouithe",
"woodcut",
"Josef Rosensaft",
"London"
] |
|
17156_T | Jet Kiss | Focus on Jet Kiss and discuss the abstract. | Jet Kiss is a 2015 sculpture by American artist Mike Ross, installed at the Capitol Hill light rail station in Seattle, Washington. The 90-foot-long (27 m) sculpture consists of two decommissioned A-4 Skyhawk fighter jets that were sliced and arranged nose-to-nose; the piece is suspended above the station's platform level.
Jet Kiss was commissioned by Sound Transit as part of their public art program in 2008, during planning and final design of the station. The initial concept was met with a mixed reception from the public over its use of warplanes, resulting in design modifications. It was installed in early 2015, and the station was opened to the public on March 19, 2016. | [
"Capitol Hill",
"Sound Transit",
"light rail",
"Seattle",
"fighter jet",
"public art",
"Mike Ross",
"A-4 Skyhawk"
] |
|
17156_NT | Jet Kiss | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | Jet Kiss is a 2015 sculpture by American artist Mike Ross, installed at the Capitol Hill light rail station in Seattle, Washington. The 90-foot-long (27 m) sculpture consists of two decommissioned A-4 Skyhawk fighter jets that were sliced and arranged nose-to-nose; the piece is suspended above the station's platform level.
Jet Kiss was commissioned by Sound Transit as part of their public art program in 2008, during planning and final design of the station. The initial concept was met with a mixed reception from the public over its use of warplanes, resulting in design modifications. It was installed in early 2015, and the station was opened to the public on March 19, 2016. | [
"Capitol Hill",
"Sound Transit",
"light rail",
"Seattle",
"fighter jet",
"public art",
"Mike Ross",
"A-4 Skyhawk"
] |
|
17157_T | Jet Kiss | How does Jet Kiss elucidate its Description? | Mike Ross's Jet Kiss is suspended approximately 50 feet (15 m) above the platform of Capitol Hill station, a light rail station in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. The piece consists of two decommissioned United States Navy A-4 Skyhawk fighter jets, which were disassembled and painted magenta and yellow. The military markings are preserved with a layer of translucent paint. Both jets are arranged nose-to-nose and span 90 feet (27 m) along the platform, fitting between struts that form the station's walls.Ross said he wanted the piece to exude organic forms, drawn from the city and its surroundings. The choice of magenta and yellow paint for the jets was a move to offset the city's stereotypical overcast skies. The choice of jets was a reference to the city's aviation history; its use of a non-aggressive and bird-like arrangement (itself a reference to the city bird, the Blue heron) was a counter to the inherent aggressiveness of jets as a symbol.The piece was given a budget of $440,000 by Sound Transit's public art program. Jet Kiss is joined by two murals from local cartoonist Ellen Forney at two of the three entrances to the station; Forney stated that she designed one of her pieces, "Crossed Pinkies", as a response to Jet Kiss.As part of regular maintenance, Jet Kiss is cleaned of dust during overnight shifts by transit workers. | [
"Capitol Hill",
"Sound Transit",
"Blue heron",
"light rail",
"Seattle",
"fighter jet",
"Capitol Hill station",
"dust",
"United States Navy",
"Ellen Forney",
"public art",
"transit",
"mural",
"Mike Ross",
"A-4 Skyhawk"
] |
|
17157_NT | Jet Kiss | How does this artwork elucidate its Description? | Mike Ross's Jet Kiss is suspended approximately 50 feet (15 m) above the platform of Capitol Hill station, a light rail station in Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood. The piece consists of two decommissioned United States Navy A-4 Skyhawk fighter jets, which were disassembled and painted magenta and yellow. The military markings are preserved with a layer of translucent paint. Both jets are arranged nose-to-nose and span 90 feet (27 m) along the platform, fitting between struts that form the station's walls.Ross said he wanted the piece to exude organic forms, drawn from the city and its surroundings. The choice of magenta and yellow paint for the jets was a move to offset the city's stereotypical overcast skies. The choice of jets was a reference to the city's aviation history; its use of a non-aggressive and bird-like arrangement (itself a reference to the city bird, the Blue heron) was a counter to the inherent aggressiveness of jets as a symbol.The piece was given a budget of $440,000 by Sound Transit's public art program. Jet Kiss is joined by two murals from local cartoonist Ellen Forney at two of the three entrances to the station; Forney stated that she designed one of her pieces, "Crossed Pinkies", as a response to Jet Kiss.As part of regular maintenance, Jet Kiss is cleaned of dust during overnight shifts by transit workers. | [
"Capitol Hill",
"Sound Transit",
"Blue heron",
"light rail",
"Seattle",
"fighter jet",
"Capitol Hill station",
"dust",
"United States Navy",
"Ellen Forney",
"public art",
"transit",
"mural",
"Mike Ross",
"A-4 Skyhawk"
] |
|
17158_T | Jet Kiss | Focus on Jet Kiss and analyze the History and public reaction. | Sound Transit, Seattle's regional transit operator, adopted a public art funding program in 1998. The program, known as "STart", allocates one percent of construction costs to art for all Sound Transit projects, including light rail. Construction of the $1.9 billion University Link Extension included $1.25 million for public art through the STart program; $550,000 was specifically allocated for Capitol Hill station, located in one of the city's arts-heavy neighborhoods.A national call for artists was conducted in 2007, with 120 entrants submitting proposals to Sound Transit. Out of them, Brooklyn-based Mike Ross was selected unanimously by the station art panel in February 2008; Ross was sought out by Sound Transit art director Barbara Luecke after seeing his sculpture "Big Rig Jig" at Burning Man.Ross presented his initial concept of deconstructed fighter jets at an open house in April, and was met with negative reactions from members of the public. The piece was criticized for its use of "instruments of war", and Ross himself criticized for being a non-resident. The 43rd District Democrats passed a unanimous resolution calling for "more culturally sensitive themes for public art [...] instead of warplanes" and the hiring of local talent. Ross was taken aback by the criticism, telling New York's Village Voice that he "definitely didn't expect to get resistance from left-wing political activists". Cartoonist Ellen Forney, whose work would also be used at the station, defended Ross's work and called his proposal "thought-provoking" and "something that's not 'safe' and totally public art-y".A second public open house was held in June, to more favorable reactions. A revised design was presented in October, re-arranging the jets into more abstract shapes and arranging them to "kiss" rather than "dogfight". The piece, called "Together", was approved by Sound Transit and granted a budget of $484,000 in August 2009.The two fighter jets were acquired from a scrapyard in Arizona, and were sent to Ross's studio in Oakland, California for disassembly and reconfiguration. Jet Kiss, as it was later renamed, was installed at Capitol Hill station in February 2015. The station opened to the public on March 19, 2016. | [
"Capitol Hill",
"Arizona",
"Sound Transit",
"one percent",
"University Link Extension",
"light rail",
"Burning Man",
"Seattle",
"fighter jet",
"43rd District",
"Village Voice",
"Capitol Hill station",
"scrapyard",
"Oakland, California",
"dogfight",
"culturally sensitive",
"Ellen Forney",
"public art",
"transit",
"Mike Ross"
] |
|
17158_NT | Jet Kiss | Focus on this artwork and analyze the History and public reaction. | Sound Transit, Seattle's regional transit operator, adopted a public art funding program in 1998. The program, known as "STart", allocates one percent of construction costs to art for all Sound Transit projects, including light rail. Construction of the $1.9 billion University Link Extension included $1.25 million for public art through the STart program; $550,000 was specifically allocated for Capitol Hill station, located in one of the city's arts-heavy neighborhoods.A national call for artists was conducted in 2007, with 120 entrants submitting proposals to Sound Transit. Out of them, Brooklyn-based Mike Ross was selected unanimously by the station art panel in February 2008; Ross was sought out by Sound Transit art director Barbara Luecke after seeing his sculpture "Big Rig Jig" at Burning Man.Ross presented his initial concept of deconstructed fighter jets at an open house in April, and was met with negative reactions from members of the public. The piece was criticized for its use of "instruments of war", and Ross himself criticized for being a non-resident. The 43rd District Democrats passed a unanimous resolution calling for "more culturally sensitive themes for public art [...] instead of warplanes" and the hiring of local talent. Ross was taken aback by the criticism, telling New York's Village Voice that he "definitely didn't expect to get resistance from left-wing political activists". Cartoonist Ellen Forney, whose work would also be used at the station, defended Ross's work and called his proposal "thought-provoking" and "something that's not 'safe' and totally public art-y".A second public open house was held in June, to more favorable reactions. A revised design was presented in October, re-arranging the jets into more abstract shapes and arranging them to "kiss" rather than "dogfight". The piece, called "Together", was approved by Sound Transit and granted a budget of $484,000 in August 2009.The two fighter jets were acquired from a scrapyard in Arizona, and were sent to Ross's studio in Oakland, California for disassembly and reconfiguration. Jet Kiss, as it was later renamed, was installed at Capitol Hill station in February 2015. The station opened to the public on March 19, 2016. | [
"Capitol Hill",
"Arizona",
"Sound Transit",
"one percent",
"University Link Extension",
"light rail",
"Burning Man",
"Seattle",
"fighter jet",
"43rd District",
"Village Voice",
"Capitol Hill station",
"scrapyard",
"Oakland, California",
"dogfight",
"culturally sensitive",
"Ellen Forney",
"public art",
"transit",
"Mike Ross"
] |
|
17159_T | Jet Kiss | In Jet Kiss, how is the Critical response discussed? | In a 2016 review, Gary Faigin, director of the Gage Academy of Art and art critic for The Seattle Times, called the piece "ambitious" but lacking in execution, with obstructed views from the station's architecture at track level hindering its completeness. Faigin, however, complimented that it comes together from views at the mezzanine and escalators. | [
"Seattle",
"The Seattle Times",
"Gary Faigin",
"Gage Academy of Art"
] |
|
17159_NT | Jet Kiss | In this artwork, how is the Critical response discussed? | In a 2016 review, Gary Faigin, director of the Gage Academy of Art and art critic for The Seattle Times, called the piece "ambitious" but lacking in execution, with obstructed views from the station's architecture at track level hindering its completeness. Faigin, however, complimented that it comes together from views at the mezzanine and escalators. | [
"Seattle",
"The Seattle Times",
"Gary Faigin",
"Gage Academy of Art"
] |
|
17160_T | Statue of the Viscount Slim, London | Focus on Statue of the Viscount Slim, London and explore the abstract. | The statue of William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim in Whitehall, London, is a work of 1988–1993 by the sculptor Ivor Roberts-Jones. It is one of three memorials to British military leaders of World War II on Raleigh Green, outside the Ministry of Defence's Main Building, the others being Oscar Nemon's 1980 statue of Lord Montgomery and Roberts-Jones's statue of Lord Alanbrooke, erected later in 1993. Slim's bronze statue stands approximately 3 metres (9.8 ft) high on a pedestal of Portland stone. | [
"Ivor Roberts-Jones",
"William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim",
"Main Building",
"Ministry of Defence",
"Portland stone",
"Whitehall",
"statue of Lord Montgomery",
"statue of Lord Alanbrooke",
"Slim",
"World War II",
"Oscar Nemon"
] |
|
17160_NT | Statue of the Viscount Slim, London | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | The statue of William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim in Whitehall, London, is a work of 1988–1993 by the sculptor Ivor Roberts-Jones. It is one of three memorials to British military leaders of World War II on Raleigh Green, outside the Ministry of Defence's Main Building, the others being Oscar Nemon's 1980 statue of Lord Montgomery and Roberts-Jones's statue of Lord Alanbrooke, erected later in 1993. Slim's bronze statue stands approximately 3 metres (9.8 ft) high on a pedestal of Portland stone. | [
"Ivor Roberts-Jones",
"William Slim, 1st Viscount Slim",
"Main Building",
"Ministry of Defence",
"Portland stone",
"Whitehall",
"statue of Lord Montgomery",
"statue of Lord Alanbrooke",
"Slim",
"World War II",
"Oscar Nemon"
] |
|
17161_T | Statue of the Viscount Slim, London | Focus on Statue of the Viscount Slim, London and explain the History. | The campaign to erect a memorial to Slim was launched by the Burma Star Association in early 1988, when eight sculptors were invited to submit designs for a statue. Of these, five agreed to compete: Roberts-Jones, James Butler, David Norris, Christopher Marvell and Michael Rizzello. An appeal for subscriptions was launched in The Independent newspaper on 28 June, by which time planning permission had been obtained for a site near the statue of Montgomery on Whitehall. The competition's assessors requested that the artists respect the wishes of the second Viscount Slim to depict his father "as all the troops who served under his command in Burma will remember him ... in Bush hat and jungle dress".Roberts-Jones's winning competition entry was singled out for praise by Slim's widow, who thought that the sculptor had got "Bill's stance and jawline just right", and by his son. The artist had himself fought under Slim in the Burma Campaign of World War II and was a member (albeit an inactive one) of the Suffolk branch of the BSA. Roberts-Jones regarded the field marshal as "the one genuine hero I have ever personally laid eyes on"; his encounter with Slim had occurred "in a paddy field on the road to Mandalay (in March 1945)". He would periodically re-read Slim's memoirs Defeat into Victory and Unofficial History, and apparently based the statue's pose on a photograph of Slim reproduced in his own copy of the former book.The statue was unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II on 28 April 1993; the Queen was reported as having remarked on the day that it was "not before time" for such a tribute. The sculpture was of particular personal significance to Roberts-Jones; his assistant Brian Jarvis observed that the work was a "labour of love" for the elder artist, and Roberts-Jones was satisfied at the prospect of having Slim's statue "to be remembered by". The maquette for the statue is in the collection of the Henry Moore Institute in Leeds. | [
"Elizabeth II",
"Burma Campaign",
"Whitehall",
"second Viscount Slim",
"Michael Rizzello",
"paddy field",
"Leeds",
"Henry Moore Institute",
"Defeat into Victory",
"The Independent",
"Mandalay",
"James Butler",
"Suffolk",
"Bush hat",
"maquette",
"Slim",
"Burma Star Association",
"World War II"
] |
|
17161_NT | Statue of the Viscount Slim, London | Focus on this artwork and explain the History. | The campaign to erect a memorial to Slim was launched by the Burma Star Association in early 1988, when eight sculptors were invited to submit designs for a statue. Of these, five agreed to compete: Roberts-Jones, James Butler, David Norris, Christopher Marvell and Michael Rizzello. An appeal for subscriptions was launched in The Independent newspaper on 28 June, by which time planning permission had been obtained for a site near the statue of Montgomery on Whitehall. The competition's assessors requested that the artists respect the wishes of the second Viscount Slim to depict his father "as all the troops who served under his command in Burma will remember him ... in Bush hat and jungle dress".Roberts-Jones's winning competition entry was singled out for praise by Slim's widow, who thought that the sculptor had got "Bill's stance and jawline just right", and by his son. The artist had himself fought under Slim in the Burma Campaign of World War II and was a member (albeit an inactive one) of the Suffolk branch of the BSA. Roberts-Jones regarded the field marshal as "the one genuine hero I have ever personally laid eyes on"; his encounter with Slim had occurred "in a paddy field on the road to Mandalay (in March 1945)". He would periodically re-read Slim's memoirs Defeat into Victory and Unofficial History, and apparently based the statue's pose on a photograph of Slim reproduced in his own copy of the former book.The statue was unveiled by Queen Elizabeth II on 28 April 1993; the Queen was reported as having remarked on the day that it was "not before time" for such a tribute. The sculpture was of particular personal significance to Roberts-Jones; his assistant Brian Jarvis observed that the work was a "labour of love" for the elder artist, and Roberts-Jones was satisfied at the prospect of having Slim's statue "to be remembered by". The maquette for the statue is in the collection of the Henry Moore Institute in Leeds. | [
"Elizabeth II",
"Burma Campaign",
"Whitehall",
"second Viscount Slim",
"Michael Rizzello",
"paddy field",
"Leeds",
"Henry Moore Institute",
"Defeat into Victory",
"The Independent",
"Mandalay",
"James Butler",
"Suffolk",
"Bush hat",
"maquette",
"Slim",
"Burma Star Association",
"World War II"
] |
|
17162_T | Statue of the Viscount Slim, London | Explore the Inscriptions of this artwork, Statue of the Viscount Slim, London. | The inscriptions on the Portland stone pedestal were carved by David Kindersley. | [
"David Kindersley",
"Portland stone"
] |
|
17162_NT | Statue of the Viscount Slim, London | Explore the Inscriptions of this artwork. | The inscriptions on the Portland stone pedestal were carved by David Kindersley. | [
"David Kindersley",
"Portland stone"
] |
|
17163_T | In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) | Focus on In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) and discuss the abstract. | In Thee Rejoiceth also known as Epi Si Harri is a tempera and gold leaf painting by Georgios Klontzas. The painting is a tribute to the Virgin Mary. Klontzas was active on the island of Crete during the second half of the 16th century. He was a member of the Cretan School. He was one of the most prolific Greek painters of the 16th century. Most of his works were copied by other artists. The In Thee Rejoiceth painting was copied by countless Greek and Italian painters. Theodore Poulakis created a version in the 17 century that is very similar to Klontzas's In Thee Rejoiceth. Franghias Kavertzas also painted a similar theme. He called his painting In You Rejoices. Leos Moskos also created his version of the popular painting. The Klontzas painting is currently at the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies Museum in Venice. | [
"Georgios Klontzas",
"tempera",
"Cretan School",
"Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies",
"Leos Moskos",
"Theodore Poulakis",
"Franghias Kavertzas",
"Moskos"
] |
|
17163_NT | In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | In Thee Rejoiceth also known as Epi Si Harri is a tempera and gold leaf painting by Georgios Klontzas. The painting is a tribute to the Virgin Mary. Klontzas was active on the island of Crete during the second half of the 16th century. He was a member of the Cretan School. He was one of the most prolific Greek painters of the 16th century. Most of his works were copied by other artists. The In Thee Rejoiceth painting was copied by countless Greek and Italian painters. Theodore Poulakis created a version in the 17 century that is very similar to Klontzas's In Thee Rejoiceth. Franghias Kavertzas also painted a similar theme. He called his painting In You Rejoices. Leos Moskos also created his version of the popular painting. The Klontzas painting is currently at the Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies Museum in Venice. | [
"Georgios Klontzas",
"tempera",
"Cretan School",
"Hellenic Institute of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies",
"Leos Moskos",
"Theodore Poulakis",
"Franghias Kavertzas",
"Moskos"
] |
|
17164_T | In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) | How does In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) elucidate its Hymn? | Klontzas was inspired by the hymn that was composed by the Syrian monk John of Damascus. It was used in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great during the Liturgy of the Faithful. The hymn is as follows: | [
"John of Damascus"
] |
|
17164_NT | In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) | How does this artwork elucidate its Hymn? | Klontzas was inspired by the hymn that was composed by the Syrian monk John of Damascus. It was used in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great during the Liturgy of the Faithful. The hymn is as follows: | [
"John of Damascus"
] |
|
17165_T | In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) | Focus on In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) and analyze the Description. | The painting is egg tempera and gold leaf on wood. The dimensions are 71.5 cm x 47 cm or 28.2 in x 18.5 in, it was completed in the latter part of the 16th century in Heraklion Crete. The painting follows the traditional maniera greca. The work was influenced by the Venetian style. The Virgin is the central figure in the icon. She is holding Christ while sitting on a throne, she is surrounded by several Seraphim. They are located on an outer circular layer. The Virgin and child are inside of a church archway. A holy dove is above the Virgin. She is surrounded by hierarchal concentric circles. The highest-ranking angels are closest to the Virgin. As the circles travel further from the Virgin the Cherubs and other angels follow. Even further from the center are new and old testament narratives.At the top of the painting is the crucifixion, there is a second crucifixion to our lower left. A figure of God is to our left in the upper portion of the upper archway. The figure is next to Adam and Eve. The two biblical figures occupy a wilderness on the upper archway transversing the archway from left to right. Immediately below the figure of God the Virgin partakes in the Annunciation. She interacts with the angel for four scenes. There is a detailed visual story of her life. She explains the blessing to her family, then to Joseph. The left narrative ends with Joseph and her traveling on a donkey. On the right side, the Virgin is seated with Jesus for a second time. In a Virgin and child sequence.
The painting is also full of hidden meanings and symbols. There are zodiac symbols. The painting features the Dodekaorton and the houses of Akathistos. The painting exhibits elaborate buildings giving viewers a perspective of 16th-century architecture. At the bottom, is a lagoon reminiscent of Venice, Upper Jerusalem is depicted, as well as saints, who are lined up in dense hierarchical groups.
The entire universe praises Mary for her role in Jesus's work. The Greek Inscription reads ΕΠΙ CΟΙ ΧΑΙΡΕΙ ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΩΜΕΝΗ ΠΑCΑ Η KTICIC, ΑΓΓΕΛΩΝ ΤΟ CΥCTHMA KAI ANΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΤΟ ΓΕΝΟC (Happy and Blessed is Creation, Angles, the Universe and the Genesis of Man.. His signature was ΣΠΟΥΔΙ Κ[ΑΙ] ΚΟΠΟΣ, ΤΟΥ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ ΚΛΟΤΖΑ (Tireless Labor and Study of Georgios Klontzas) | [
"Georgios Klontzas",
"tempera",
"Dodekaorton",
"Heraklion",
"Venetian style",
"Akathist",
"maniera greca"
] |
|
17165_NT | In Thee Rejoiceth (Klontzas) | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Description. | The painting is egg tempera and gold leaf on wood. The dimensions are 71.5 cm x 47 cm or 28.2 in x 18.5 in, it was completed in the latter part of the 16th century in Heraklion Crete. The painting follows the traditional maniera greca. The work was influenced by the Venetian style. The Virgin is the central figure in the icon. She is holding Christ while sitting on a throne, she is surrounded by several Seraphim. They are located on an outer circular layer. The Virgin and child are inside of a church archway. A holy dove is above the Virgin. She is surrounded by hierarchal concentric circles. The highest-ranking angels are closest to the Virgin. As the circles travel further from the Virgin the Cherubs and other angels follow. Even further from the center are new and old testament narratives.At the top of the painting is the crucifixion, there is a second crucifixion to our lower left. A figure of God is to our left in the upper portion of the upper archway. The figure is next to Adam and Eve. The two biblical figures occupy a wilderness on the upper archway transversing the archway from left to right. Immediately below the figure of God the Virgin partakes in the Annunciation. She interacts with the angel for four scenes. There is a detailed visual story of her life. She explains the blessing to her family, then to Joseph. The left narrative ends with Joseph and her traveling on a donkey. On the right side, the Virgin is seated with Jesus for a second time. In a Virgin and child sequence.
The painting is also full of hidden meanings and symbols. There are zodiac symbols. The painting features the Dodekaorton and the houses of Akathistos. The painting exhibits elaborate buildings giving viewers a perspective of 16th-century architecture. At the bottom, is a lagoon reminiscent of Venice, Upper Jerusalem is depicted, as well as saints, who are lined up in dense hierarchical groups.
The entire universe praises Mary for her role in Jesus's work. The Greek Inscription reads ΕΠΙ CΟΙ ΧΑΙΡΕΙ ΚΕΧΑΡΙΤΩΜΕΝΗ ΠΑCΑ Η KTICIC, ΑΓΓΕΛΩΝ ΤΟ CΥCTHMA KAI ANΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΤΟ ΓΕΝΟC (Happy and Blessed is Creation, Angles, the Universe and the Genesis of Man.. His signature was ΣΠΟΥΔΙ Κ[ΑΙ] ΚΟΠΟΣ, ΤΟΥ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΥ ΚΛΟΤΖΑ (Tireless Labor and Study of Georgios Klontzas) | [
"Georgios Klontzas",
"tempera",
"Dodekaorton",
"Heraklion",
"Venetian style",
"Akathist",
"maniera greca"
] |
|
17166_T | Flor de Fango | In Flor de Fango, how is the abstract discussed? | Flor de Fango is an outdoor 1908 sculpture by Enrique Guerra, installed in Mexico City, Mexico. | [
"Enrique Guerra",
"Mexico City"
] |
|
17166_NT | Flor de Fango | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | Flor de Fango is an outdoor 1908 sculpture by Enrique Guerra, installed in Mexico City, Mexico. | [
"Enrique Guerra",
"Mexico City"
] |
|
17167_T | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) | Focus on Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) and explore the abstract. | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) is a painting, of a convicted witch, soon to be executed, by hanging, during the Salem witch trials. In her eyes, the look of pain is obvious, of an innocent who is powerless to change her fate. | [
"fate",
"Salem witch trials",
"hanging",
"witch",
"painting"
] |
|
17167_NT | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) | Focus on this artwork and explore the abstract. | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) is a painting, of a convicted witch, soon to be executed, by hanging, during the Salem witch trials. In her eyes, the look of pain is obvious, of an innocent who is powerless to change her fate. | [
"fate",
"Salem witch trials",
"hanging",
"witch",
"painting"
] |
|
17168_T | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) | Focus on Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) and explain the On the painting. | Thomas Noble posed a young woman as the condemned witch, who worked as a librarian in the Cincinnati library. She was a lineal descendant of a woman who was hanged as a witch in 1692, in Salem, Massachusetts; see Salem witch trials.The painting's frame is made of heavy walnut. It was made for the canvas by an English woodcarver, one William H. Fry.At the 1869 Cincinnati Industrial Exposition, the painting won a silver medal. Thomas Satterwhite Noble used the Salem witch trials for powerful moral theme.As of 2022, the painting is on display at the New York Historical Society. | [
"Thomas Satterwhite Noble",
"Salem witch trials",
"witch",
"librarian",
"Cincinnati library",
"Cincinnati Industrial Exposition",
"silver medal",
"walnut",
"Salem, Massachusetts",
"New York Historical Society",
"painting",
"William H. Fry",
"lineal descendant"
] |
|
17168_NT | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) | Focus on this artwork and explain the On the painting. | Thomas Noble posed a young woman as the condemned witch, who worked as a librarian in the Cincinnati library. She was a lineal descendant of a woman who was hanged as a witch in 1692, in Salem, Massachusetts; see Salem witch trials.The painting's frame is made of heavy walnut. It was made for the canvas by an English woodcarver, one William H. Fry.At the 1869 Cincinnati Industrial Exposition, the painting won a silver medal. Thomas Satterwhite Noble used the Salem witch trials for powerful moral theme.As of 2022, the painting is on display at the New York Historical Society. | [
"Thomas Satterwhite Noble",
"Salem witch trials",
"witch",
"librarian",
"Cincinnati library",
"Cincinnati Industrial Exposition",
"silver medal",
"walnut",
"Salem, Massachusetts",
"New York Historical Society",
"painting",
"William H. Fry",
"lineal descendant"
] |
|
17169_T | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) | Explore the External links and references of this artwork, Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr). | One reference about the painting
An artnet reference
A photo of the painting, with the frame | [
"painting"
] |
|
17169_NT | Witch Hill (The Salem Martyr) | Explore the External links and references of this artwork. | One reference about the painting
An artnet reference
A photo of the painting, with the frame | [
"painting"
] |
|
17170_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Focus on Mount Soledad Cross and discuss the abstract. | The Mount Soledad Cross (formerly known as the Mount Soledad Easter Cross) is a prominent landmark located on top of Mount Soledad in the La Jolla neighborhood of the city of San Diego, California. The present structure was erected in 1954; it is the third Christian cross in that location, the first having been put up in 1913. Architect Donald Campbell designed the present cross in prestressed concrete. It is 29 feet (8.8 m) tall (43 feet [13 m] including the base) with a 12-foot (3.7 m) arm spread. It is the centerpiece of the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial.
Beginning in 1989, almost ten years before the immediate area around the cross was turned into a war memorial, until 2015, the Mount Soledad Cross was involved in continuous litigation regarding its legal status. The cross's opponents won court decisions showing that it is illegal to display a religious symbol, such as a Christian cross, on public land, as it demonstrates preference to a specific religion and thus violates the principle of separation of church and state under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution. Judges sided with plaintiffs on multiple occasions and ruled that the cross is illegal and had to be removed or sold to the highest bidder. Defenders of the cross explored several options for preserving the cross.
In 1998 the City of San Diego sold the cross and the land it stands on to the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, and the cross was transformed into being the centerpiece of a newly erected Korean War Memorial. The land under the cross was eventually transferred to the federal government. In 2011 a federal appeals court found the cross unconstitutional, and in 2012 the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, returning the issue to federal court. In December 2013 a federal judge ordered the cross to be removed, but stayed the order pending appeal. In June 2014 the Supreme Court declined to review a case concerning the cross as the previous appeal had not been heard. In December 2014, Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which included a provision that "authorizes the Secretary of Defense to convey (the cross) to the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association, subject to certain conditions." On July 20, 2015 the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association bought the land under the cross from the Dept. of Defense for $1.4 million, ending its unconstitutionality. | [
"First Amendment",
"Christian cross",
"La Jolla",
"Christian",
"California",
"Obama",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Mount Soledad",
"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015",
"prestressed concrete",
"U.S. Constitution",
"Korean War",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17170_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | The Mount Soledad Cross (formerly known as the Mount Soledad Easter Cross) is a prominent landmark located on top of Mount Soledad in the La Jolla neighborhood of the city of San Diego, California. The present structure was erected in 1954; it is the third Christian cross in that location, the first having been put up in 1913. Architect Donald Campbell designed the present cross in prestressed concrete. It is 29 feet (8.8 m) tall (43 feet [13 m] including the base) with a 12-foot (3.7 m) arm spread. It is the centerpiece of the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial.
Beginning in 1989, almost ten years before the immediate area around the cross was turned into a war memorial, until 2015, the Mount Soledad Cross was involved in continuous litigation regarding its legal status. The cross's opponents won court decisions showing that it is illegal to display a religious symbol, such as a Christian cross, on public land, as it demonstrates preference to a specific religion and thus violates the principle of separation of church and state under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution. Judges sided with plaintiffs on multiple occasions and ruled that the cross is illegal and had to be removed or sold to the highest bidder. Defenders of the cross explored several options for preserving the cross.
In 1998 the City of San Diego sold the cross and the land it stands on to the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, and the cross was transformed into being the centerpiece of a newly erected Korean War Memorial. The land under the cross was eventually transferred to the federal government. In 2011 a federal appeals court found the cross unconstitutional, and in 2012 the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, returning the issue to federal court. In December 2013 a federal judge ordered the cross to be removed, but stayed the order pending appeal. In June 2014 the Supreme Court declined to review a case concerning the cross as the previous appeal had not been heard. In December 2014, Congress passed and President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, which included a provision that "authorizes the Secretary of Defense to convey (the cross) to the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Association, subject to certain conditions." On July 20, 2015 the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association bought the land under the cross from the Dept. of Defense for $1.4 million, ending its unconstitutionality. | [
"First Amendment",
"Christian cross",
"La Jolla",
"Christian",
"California",
"Obama",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Mount Soledad",
"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015",
"prestressed concrete",
"U.S. Constitution",
"Korean War",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17171_T | Mount Soledad Cross | How does Mount Soledad Cross elucidate its History? | Three differently shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on city government property at the apex of Mt. Soledad (Mt. Soledad Natural Park) in the community of La Jolla. The original wooden cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens living in La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923; later that year it was affixed back in the ground in Mt. Soledad Natural Park and later burned. The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952. A windstorm damaged one of the side bars in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.The present cross, 29 feet (9 m) tall on top of a 14-foot (4 m)-tall stepped platform, was installed in 1954. It was initially called the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross" and Easter services were held there every Sunday for 40 years. The word "Easter" was dropped in the 1980s. It is now known as the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial.Besides the cross, the memorial includes six walls with granite plaques depicting veterans, military units, or groups. | [
"Christian cross",
"La Jolla",
"Christian",
"Easter",
"Mount Soledad"
] |
|
17171_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | How does this artwork elucidate its History? | Three differently shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on city government property at the apex of Mt. Soledad (Mt. Soledad Natural Park) in the community of La Jolla. The original wooden cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens living in La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923; later that year it was affixed back in the ground in Mt. Soledad Natural Park and later burned. The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952. A windstorm damaged one of the side bars in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.The present cross, 29 feet (9 m) tall on top of a 14-foot (4 m)-tall stepped platform, was installed in 1954. It was initially called the "Mount Soledad Easter Cross" and Easter services were held there every Sunday for 40 years. The word "Easter" was dropped in the 1980s. It is now known as the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial.Besides the cross, the memorial includes six walls with granite plaques depicting veterans, military units, or groups. | [
"Christian cross",
"La Jolla",
"Christian",
"Easter",
"Mount Soledad"
] |
|
17172_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Focus on Mount Soledad Cross and analyze the Summary of key legal issues. | Whether the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross is a war memorial or an unmistakable symbol of the Christian religion has been a subject of legal debate for the following reasons:After the dedication of the cross in 1954 Easter services were held at the site annually and annual publication of local maps from 1954 to 1989 presented a geographic legal description of the location as the "Mt. Soledad Easter Cross" which after 1989 the name of the location on the map was changed to the "Mt. Soledad Memorial." –
There was no placard or marker to be found anywhere on Mt. Soledad Natural Park nor at the site of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross to indicate that it was a veterans' memorial until litigation started in 1989,p. 212(See picture below of the Plaque at the base of the cross).
Easter holiday sunrise since 1954 was an "intermittent" occasion at the Mt. Soledad Cross for local Christian worship services.p. 35The attendance of the service was estimated at 1,300 in 1983 and 900-1,000 in 1984. By the mid-1980s, to blunt possible legal challenges, Easter sunrise gatherings at the site of the cross were being advertised as "celebrations" rather than "services", were interdenominational and open to the public. On Easter Sunday, April 7, 1996, University of California-San Diego Political Science Professor (Emeritus) Peter Irons applied for and was granted a permit and conducted a well-attended secular sunrise rally for people of all religions and for those with no religion. There is no record of a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or any other major religious sect or denomination having a religious service on Mt. Soledad.
The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was dedicated to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in a dedication bulletin by the grandmother of William J. Kellogg, President of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on Easter Sunday, 1954. – [Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001), Documents on file with the US District Court of Southern California]
The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association made improvements to the property within Mt. Soledad Natural Park. All improvements were added after the original case was filed and while litigation proceedings were taking place "Six concentric walls hold 3,200 black granite plaques purchased by donors and engraved with the names and photos of war veterans – currently more than 1,700 are in place."
The Mount Soledad Memorial Association says the purpose of the Veterans Memorial at Mt. Soledad Park is to commemorate and memorialize all those who died during the Korean War era.
Plaintiff Philip Paulson (Paulson v. City of San Diego) claimed that the Mt. Soledad Cross fosters an excessive entanglement by government with religion. In 1916 by Ordinance No. 6670, the Mt. Soledad Natural Park became dedicated city owned parkland. Paulson and others argue that the City can only honor veterans with an inclusive memorial that is "religiously neutral" to honor veterans of all faiths, and also those with no religious faith. [The "Lemon Test" pursuant to US Supreme Court ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) required government to remain "religiously neutral" with respect to religion. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."]The American Civil Liberties Union proposed ways to resolve the situation:The cross may be dismantled.
The cross may be sold to a third party and physically transferred off the public land. A Presbyterian church, located within a few hundred feet from the present location of the cross, has agreed to place it on its property.
The government may hold an auction and sell the parcel of the land with the cross to the highest bidder. However, the government is not allowed to give any preference to those buyers who are interested in preserving the cross. An auction such as this was the subject of Proposition K in 2004, which failed 40% to 59%.Some defenders of the cross see all these options as unacceptable and are determined to find a way to leave the cross intact in its present location. | [
"American Civil Liberties Union",
"Peter Irons",
"Philip Paulson",
"Christian",
"Christian religion",
"Easter Sunday",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Lemon v. Kurtzman",
"Supreme Court",
"University of California-San Diego",
"Mount Soledad",
"Korean War",
"Plaque at the base of the cross"
] |
|
17172_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Summary of key legal issues. | Whether the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross is a war memorial or an unmistakable symbol of the Christian religion has been a subject of legal debate for the following reasons:After the dedication of the cross in 1954 Easter services were held at the site annually and annual publication of local maps from 1954 to 1989 presented a geographic legal description of the location as the "Mt. Soledad Easter Cross" which after 1989 the name of the location on the map was changed to the "Mt. Soledad Memorial." –
There was no placard or marker to be found anywhere on Mt. Soledad Natural Park nor at the site of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross to indicate that it was a veterans' memorial until litigation started in 1989,p. 212(See picture below of the Plaque at the base of the cross).
Easter holiday sunrise since 1954 was an "intermittent" occasion at the Mt. Soledad Cross for local Christian worship services.p. 35The attendance of the service was estimated at 1,300 in 1983 and 900-1,000 in 1984. By the mid-1980s, to blunt possible legal challenges, Easter sunrise gatherings at the site of the cross were being advertised as "celebrations" rather than "services", were interdenominational and open to the public. On Easter Sunday, April 7, 1996, University of California-San Diego Political Science Professor (Emeritus) Peter Irons applied for and was granted a permit and conducted a well-attended secular sunrise rally for people of all religions and for those with no religion. There is no record of a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or any other major religious sect or denomination having a religious service on Mt. Soledad.
The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was dedicated to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" in a dedication bulletin by the grandmother of William J. Kellogg, President of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association on Easter Sunday, 1954. – [Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001), Documents on file with the US District Court of Southern California]
The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association made improvements to the property within Mt. Soledad Natural Park. All improvements were added after the original case was filed and while litigation proceedings were taking place "Six concentric walls hold 3,200 black granite plaques purchased by donors and engraved with the names and photos of war veterans – currently more than 1,700 are in place."
The Mount Soledad Memorial Association says the purpose of the Veterans Memorial at Mt. Soledad Park is to commemorate and memorialize all those who died during the Korean War era.
Plaintiff Philip Paulson (Paulson v. City of San Diego) claimed that the Mt. Soledad Cross fosters an excessive entanglement by government with religion. In 1916 by Ordinance No. 6670, the Mt. Soledad Natural Park became dedicated city owned parkland. Paulson and others argue that the City can only honor veterans with an inclusive memorial that is "religiously neutral" to honor veterans of all faiths, and also those with no religious faith. [The "Lemon Test" pursuant to US Supreme Court ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) required government to remain "religiously neutral" with respect to religion. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."]The American Civil Liberties Union proposed ways to resolve the situation:The cross may be dismantled.
The cross may be sold to a third party and physically transferred off the public land. A Presbyterian church, located within a few hundred feet from the present location of the cross, has agreed to place it on its property.
The government may hold an auction and sell the parcel of the land with the cross to the highest bidder. However, the government is not allowed to give any preference to those buyers who are interested in preserving the cross. An auction such as this was the subject of Proposition K in 2004, which failed 40% to 59%.Some defenders of the cross see all these options as unacceptable and are determined to find a way to leave the cross intact in its present location. | [
"American Civil Liberties Union",
"Peter Irons",
"Philip Paulson",
"Christian",
"Christian religion",
"Easter Sunday",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Lemon v. Kurtzman",
"Supreme Court",
"University of California-San Diego",
"Mount Soledad",
"Korean War",
"Plaque at the base of the cross"
] |
|
17173_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Focusing on the Litigation of Mount Soledad Cross, explain the No Preference Clause about the Background. | No Preference Clause Article 1, Section 4 of the California State Constitution: subtitled "Liberty of Conscience." California state, municipal and special units of government are instructed by this "No Preference Clause" from discriminating or preferring one religion over another."Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs." | [
"California"
] |
|
17173_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Focusing on the Litigation of this artwork, explain the No Preference Clause about the Background. | No Preference Clause Article 1, Section 4 of the California State Constitution: subtitled "Liberty of Conscience." California state, municipal and special units of government are instructed by this "No Preference Clause" from discriminating or preferring one religion over another."Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs." | [
"California"
] |
|
17174_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Explore the Government prohibition from benefiting religion about the Background of the Litigation in this artwork, Mount Soledad Cross. | Government prohibition from benefiting religion Article XVI, section 5 of the California State Constitution: State, County and local units of government can not use tax money or grant property to aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose."Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the State, or any city, city and county, town, or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever; provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to Section 3 of Article XVI."' | [
"California"
] |
|
17174_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Explore the Government prohibition from benefiting religion about the Background of the Litigation in this artwork. | Government prohibition from benefiting religion Article XVI, section 5 of the California State Constitution: State, County and local units of government can not use tax money or grant property to aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose."Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the State, or any city, city and county, town, or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever; provided, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature granting aid pursuant to Section 3 of Article XVI."' | [
"California"
] |
|
17175_T | Mount Soledad Cross | In the context of Mount Soledad Cross, discuss the First attempted sale to Mount Soledad Memorial Association of the Litigation. | The City of San Diego was the target of a lawsuit on May 31, 1989 charging that the presence of the cross violated the California Constitution and the first amendment of the United States Constitution relating to separation of church and state in the United States. On December 3, 1991, Gordon Thompson, Jr., a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Philip K. Paulson, resident of San Diego and a Vietnam War veteran, noting that the cross was permanently positioned inside a public park and was maintained at taxpayers' expense. He further noted that it violated Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution, which is known as the "No Preference" Clause.During this first phase of the case, the plaintiffs were represented pro bono by lawyer and legal scholar Peter Irons. He discontinued his involvement in the case in 1998 when threats made him fear for the safety of his two daughters.On June 2, 1992, San Diego voters approved Proposition F, which allowed transfer of the 22 feet of Mt. Soledad Natural Park under the cross to a non-profit corporation for maintenance of a historic war memorial. p. 185 In 1993, the city appealed the 1991 District Court decision (permanent injunction forbidding the permanent presence of the cross on publicly owned land) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the District Court injunction, holding that the mere designation of the cross as a war memorial was not enough to satisfy the separationist No Preference Clause of the California Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Appellate Court held that "highly visible, religiously significant Easter crosses, erected in public parks owned and maintained by local government, in the absence of any symbols of other religions, and without any independent historical significance, violated the 'No Preference' Clause of the California Constitution". The City and County of San Diego petitioned and were granted a hearing en banc (a vote by the entire 28 judges of the court). They lost by a unanimous vote by all 28 judges.In response to the injunction, in 1994, the city sold 224 square feet (21 m2) of land at the base of the cross for $24,000 to the Mount Soledad Association. At that time, the city did not solicit or consider any bids or offers from other prospective buyers of this land and the Association clearly stated its intention to keep the cross as part of its proposed war memorial. p. 185 On September 18, 1997, Judge Thompson ruled that both the negotiated sale of the cross site to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association and the size for the plot sold to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association violated two separate provisions of the California Constitution. Judge Thompson wrote, "it is the exclusion of any other purchasers of or bidders for the land that gives the appearance of preferring the Christian religion that the California Constitution forbids." Judge Thompson also wrote that "the City's attempt to comply with this Court's order by selling only a small portion of the land underneath the Mount Soledad cross still shows a preference or aid to the Christian religion." Judge Thompson added, "Both the method of sale and the amount of land sold underneath the Mount Soledad cross do not cure the constitutional infirmities outlined in this Court's previous Order." (referring to the December 3, 1991 order stating "a permanent injunction forbidding the permanent presence" of the Mount Soledad cross on public property. Judge Thompson again gave the City of San Diego another 30 days to remove the cross). | [
"Philip K. Paulson",
"United States District Court for the Southern District of California",
"Peter Irons",
"Christian",
"Christian religion",
"California",
"United States Constitution",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Mount Soledad",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"en banc",
"separation of church and state in the United States",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17175_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | In the context of this artwork, discuss the First attempted sale to Mount Soledad Memorial Association of the Litigation. | The City of San Diego was the target of a lawsuit on May 31, 1989 charging that the presence of the cross violated the California Constitution and the first amendment of the United States Constitution relating to separation of church and state in the United States. On December 3, 1991, Gordon Thompson, Jr., a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Philip K. Paulson, resident of San Diego and a Vietnam War veteran, noting that the cross was permanently positioned inside a public park and was maintained at taxpayers' expense. He further noted that it violated Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution, which is known as the "No Preference" Clause.During this first phase of the case, the plaintiffs were represented pro bono by lawyer and legal scholar Peter Irons. He discontinued his involvement in the case in 1998 when threats made him fear for the safety of his two daughters.On June 2, 1992, San Diego voters approved Proposition F, which allowed transfer of the 22 feet of Mt. Soledad Natural Park under the cross to a non-profit corporation for maintenance of a historic war memorial. p. 185 In 1993, the city appealed the 1991 District Court decision (permanent injunction forbidding the permanent presence of the cross on publicly owned land) to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the District Court injunction, holding that the mere designation of the cross as a war memorial was not enough to satisfy the separationist No Preference Clause of the California Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Appellate Court held that "highly visible, religiously significant Easter crosses, erected in public parks owned and maintained by local government, in the absence of any symbols of other religions, and without any independent historical significance, violated the 'No Preference' Clause of the California Constitution". The City and County of San Diego petitioned and were granted a hearing en banc (a vote by the entire 28 judges of the court). They lost by a unanimous vote by all 28 judges.In response to the injunction, in 1994, the city sold 224 square feet (21 m2) of land at the base of the cross for $24,000 to the Mount Soledad Association. At that time, the city did not solicit or consider any bids or offers from other prospective buyers of this land and the Association clearly stated its intention to keep the cross as part of its proposed war memorial. p. 185 On September 18, 1997, Judge Thompson ruled that both the negotiated sale of the cross site to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association and the size for the plot sold to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association violated two separate provisions of the California Constitution. Judge Thompson wrote, "it is the exclusion of any other purchasers of or bidders for the land that gives the appearance of preferring the Christian religion that the California Constitution forbids." Judge Thompson also wrote that "the City's attempt to comply with this Court's order by selling only a small portion of the land underneath the Mount Soledad cross still shows a preference or aid to the Christian religion." Judge Thompson added, "Both the method of sale and the amount of land sold underneath the Mount Soledad cross do not cure the constitutional infirmities outlined in this Court's previous Order." (referring to the December 3, 1991 order stating "a permanent injunction forbidding the permanent presence" of the Mount Soledad cross on public property. Judge Thompson again gave the City of San Diego another 30 days to remove the cross). | [
"Philip K. Paulson",
"United States District Court for the Southern District of California",
"Peter Irons",
"Christian",
"Christian religion",
"California",
"United States Constitution",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Mount Soledad",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"en banc",
"separation of church and state in the United States",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17176_T | Mount Soledad Cross | In Mount Soledad Cross, how is the Second attempted sale to Mount Soledad Memorial Association of the Litigation elucidated? | The City attempted to sell the land to a private group again in 1998. Five bids were submitted; the bid from the Mount Soledad Memorial Association (the highest) was accepted and a half-acre of land around the cross was sold to the Association for $106,000. In a decision issued on February 3, 2000, Judge Thompson upheld the transfer. However, in a 7–4 decision, the appellate court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the City's sale of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association violated Article XVI, section 5, of the California Constitution, which prohibits government from affording any financial advantage or subsidy to religion.The City and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association petitioned the Court for reconsideration and/or rehearing, which was denied on October 22, 2002. The City thereafter sought review of the en banc decision by the United States Supreme Court. On April 21, 2003, the Supreme Court denied defendants' petitions for review.Plaintiff Paulson and defendant Mount Soledad Memorial Association agreed to a settlement that called for removal of the cross in exchange for which the Association would gain ownership of the property. The other defendant, the City of San Diego, never agreed to the settlement. While the cross and land were apparently owned by the Association (after the 1998 sale), the Association spent over $900,000 to add significant improvements to the memorial site, including six concentric granite wall, pavers, bollards, and a flagpole with American flag. Additionally, the Association sold over 1,600 plaques memorializing individual service men and women. The original, unadorned cross eventually became encircled by several walls of plaques.On July 27, 2004, the City Council took up the motion by Councilmember Scott Peters: "Should voters reject the proposal (Proposition K), City Attorney shall enter into the settlement agreement now with Mt. Soledad Memorial Association and Plaintiffs." The City Council passed the Peters Resolution.In November 2004, voters rejected Proposition K, a ballot measure to authorize a third sale of a portion of Mount Soledad to the highest bidder. Thus, pursuant to the Peters Agreement the City of San Diego was obligated under the Council Resolution to remove the cross from the Mt. Soledad Natural Park. | [
"United States Supreme Court",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Supreme Court",
"Scott Peters",
"Mount Soledad",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"en banc",
"ballot measure",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17176_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | In this artwork, how is the Second attempted sale to Mount Soledad Memorial Association of the Litigation elucidated? | The City attempted to sell the land to a private group again in 1998. Five bids were submitted; the bid from the Mount Soledad Memorial Association (the highest) was accepted and a half-acre of land around the cross was sold to the Association for $106,000. In a decision issued on February 3, 2000, Judge Thompson upheld the transfer. However, in a 7–4 decision, the appellate court Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the City's sale of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association violated Article XVI, section 5, of the California Constitution, which prohibits government from affording any financial advantage or subsidy to religion.The City and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association petitioned the Court for reconsideration and/or rehearing, which was denied on October 22, 2002. The City thereafter sought review of the en banc decision by the United States Supreme Court. On April 21, 2003, the Supreme Court denied defendants' petitions for review.Plaintiff Paulson and defendant Mount Soledad Memorial Association agreed to a settlement that called for removal of the cross in exchange for which the Association would gain ownership of the property. The other defendant, the City of San Diego, never agreed to the settlement. While the cross and land were apparently owned by the Association (after the 1998 sale), the Association spent over $900,000 to add significant improvements to the memorial site, including six concentric granite wall, pavers, bollards, and a flagpole with American flag. Additionally, the Association sold over 1,600 plaques memorializing individual service men and women. The original, unadorned cross eventually became encircled by several walls of plaques.On July 27, 2004, the City Council took up the motion by Councilmember Scott Peters: "Should voters reject the proposal (Proposition K), City Attorney shall enter into the settlement agreement now with Mt. Soledad Memorial Association and Plaintiffs." The City Council passed the Peters Resolution.In November 2004, voters rejected Proposition K, a ballot measure to authorize a third sale of a portion of Mount Soledad to the highest bidder. Thus, pursuant to the Peters Agreement the City of San Diego was obligated under the Council Resolution to remove the cross from the Mt. Soledad Natural Park. | [
"United States Supreme Court",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Supreme Court",
"Scott Peters",
"Mount Soledad",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"en banc",
"ballot measure",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17177_T | Mount Soledad Cross | When looking at the Litigation of Mount Soledad Cross, how do you discuss its Attempted donation to Interior Department's Ballot measure? | Ballot measure On December 8, 2004, Section 116 of Public Law 108-447 designated the Memorial as a national memorial to veterans, authorized the United States Department of the Interior to accept a donation of the memorial from the City, and directed the National Park Service to work with the Mount Soledad Memorial Association in the administration and maintenance of the memorial. This veterans memorial designation was added by Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) and Duncan Hunter (R), both of whom represented portions of San Diego County, as a rider to a voluminous spending bill approved in November 2004 by the United States Congress. Under the bill, the site would become part of the National Park Service but would be maintained by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association.On March 8, 2005 the San Diego City Council voted against a proposal to transfer the land to the National Park Service, a move which proponents believed might avoid the court-ordered removal of the cross. Opponents claimed this would merely shift the church-state issue to federal jurisdiction and would only delay the eventual removal of the cross.
The City Council declined the offer of the Federal Government to accept the transfer of the Mt. Soledad Memorial property. (Council Motion Passes: 5 Yeas, 3 Nays, 1 Absent)
Opposition to the City Council's action resulted in a referendary petition, signed by over 100,000 County of San Diego residents, calling on the Council to reverse its decision against donating the property. On May 16, 2005, the Council reconsidered its decision to transfer the land at the request of those petitioners, and, after rejecting a proposal to directly donate the land to the Federal government in a 5–4 vote, the Council voted 6–3 to include a ballot measure in the upcoming special Mayoral election to be held July 26 which would allow the voters of San Diego to approve the donation (ballot item (PDF)).
On July 26, 2005, the ballot measure to transfer the property to the Interior Department as a veterans memorial received votes exceeding the two-thirds threshold required to pass. Voters passed Prop A: "Shall the City of San Diego donate to the federal government all of the City's rights, title, and interest in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial property for the federal government's use of the property as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces?" with 197,125 or 75.96% Yes votes and 62,373 or 24.04% No votes. | [
"church-state issue",
"Duncan Hunter",
"national memorial",
"right",
"United States Department of the Interior",
"San Diego",
"Mount Soledad",
"Interior Department",
"National Park Service",
"Randy \"Duke\" Cunningham",
"ballot measure",
"United States Congress"
] |
|
17177_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | When looking at the Litigation of this artwork, how do you discuss its Attempted donation to Interior Department's Ballot measure? | Ballot measure On December 8, 2004, Section 116 of Public Law 108-447 designated the Memorial as a national memorial to veterans, authorized the United States Department of the Interior to accept a donation of the memorial from the City, and directed the National Park Service to work with the Mount Soledad Memorial Association in the administration and maintenance of the memorial. This veterans memorial designation was added by Congressmen Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R) and Duncan Hunter (R), both of whom represented portions of San Diego County, as a rider to a voluminous spending bill approved in November 2004 by the United States Congress. Under the bill, the site would become part of the National Park Service but would be maintained by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association.On March 8, 2005 the San Diego City Council voted against a proposal to transfer the land to the National Park Service, a move which proponents believed might avoid the court-ordered removal of the cross. Opponents claimed this would merely shift the church-state issue to federal jurisdiction and would only delay the eventual removal of the cross.
The City Council declined the offer of the Federal Government to accept the transfer of the Mt. Soledad Memorial property. (Council Motion Passes: 5 Yeas, 3 Nays, 1 Absent)
Opposition to the City Council's action resulted in a referendary petition, signed by over 100,000 County of San Diego residents, calling on the Council to reverse its decision against donating the property. On May 16, 2005, the Council reconsidered its decision to transfer the land at the request of those petitioners, and, after rejecting a proposal to directly donate the land to the Federal government in a 5–4 vote, the Council voted 6–3 to include a ballot measure in the upcoming special Mayoral election to be held July 26 which would allow the voters of San Diego to approve the donation (ballot item (PDF)).
On July 26, 2005, the ballot measure to transfer the property to the Interior Department as a veterans memorial received votes exceeding the two-thirds threshold required to pass. Voters passed Prop A: "Shall the City of San Diego donate to the federal government all of the City's rights, title, and interest in the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial property for the federal government's use of the property as a national memorial honoring veterans of the United States Armed Forces?" with 197,125 or 75.96% Yes votes and 62,373 or 24.04% No votes. | [
"church-state issue",
"Duncan Hunter",
"national memorial",
"right",
"United States Department of the Interior",
"San Diego",
"Mount Soledad",
"Interior Department",
"National Park Service",
"Randy \"Duke\" Cunningham",
"ballot measure",
"United States Congress"
] |
|
17178_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Focusing on the Litigation of Mount Soledad Cross, explore the Ballot measure challenged in court about the Attempted donation to Interior Department. | Ballot measure challenged in court However, the plaintiff in the federal court case filed a case in California Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposition. On September 3, Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett issued a temporary restraining order barring the transfer until the issue was settled. Lawyers on each side presented their arguments on October 3, 2005. A key issue was the status of the area as a secular war memorial, given the fact that it was not developed as a memorial until ten years after the first lawsuit. Prior to the lawsuit, no plaque or marker designated or explained the site's status as a war memorial, and during the fifty years prior to the lawsuit, there were no ceremonies or recognitions of the Korean War or to war veterans at the site, only Easter Sunday services. A 1985 map of the San Diego area identifies the cross as the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross. A court document also refers to several references of the Easter Cross including, "...the U.S. Department of Commerce Coast and Geodetic Survey (indicating "Easter Cross" on chart)."The plaintiff argued that the ballot measure was unconstitutional because it resulted in an unconstitutional act—transferring the property to the federal government for the purpose of keeping the cross in its present location on public parkland, a purely religious symbol of one faith. The City argued that the purpose of the ballot measure was to determine the will of the people of San Diego with respect to the federal government's offer to accept a donation of the property. The private citizens' group which had sponsored the petition leading to ballot measure argued that display of the cross was not unconstitutional because the many significant improvements added to it removed any doubt that it is a genuine veterans memorial.
On October 7, 2005, Judge Cowett found the ballot measure unconstitutional. Her ruling stated: "Maintenance of this Latin Cross as it is on the property in question is found to be an unconstitutional preference of religion in violation of Article I, Section 4, of the California Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the cross as its centerpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Article XVI, Section 5, of the California Constitution."
Litigation was now occurring in both the state and federal courts, while legislation was also debated in the San Diego City Council. Congressional action made previous suits and decisions irrelevant by a law to transfer the memorial from city to federal ownership in 2006, moving the issue to federal court beginning with the decision on July 31, 2008 by U.S. Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns ruling that both the transfer and the cross were constitutional. This was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision that endorsed the transfer but ruled the sole Latin Cross unconstitutional. The appeal of this decision was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2012.On May 3, 2006, US District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. issued an order for removal of the cross, pursuant to the permanent injunction levied by the court, within 90 days, or the city of San Diego will be fined $5,000 a day. Judge Thompson declared that "It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property." The mayor Jerry Sanders said he plans on proposing an appeal to the decision by Judge Thompson. Sanders pointed out that over 75% of San Diego voters believe the cross should remain in place, as evidenced by the votes in favor of transferring the memorial property to the federal government. The head of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, the private organization that operates the memorial, hoped that the cross will be taken down and moved to a nearby private property.On May 11, 2006, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported:
"Mayor Jerry Sanders on Thursday sought presidential intervention in the legal battle over the Mount Soledad cross, asking President Bush to use the power of eminent domain to take the city-owned property in La Jolla on which the memorial and cross sit. Sanders warned of the "uncertain future" of the monument and said he fully supported the federal government condemning the property to save the cross, a request first made late Wednesday by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine. ... City Attorney Michael Aguirre weighed in on the issue Thursday afternoon – several hours after the mayor's press conference – and he questioned whether the request for federal condemnation of the property violated an existing judicial order. "Such a move may be viewed by the San Diego Superior and United States District courts as being in violation of existing judicial orders and could result in a contempt finding and or sanctions against the city of San Diego," Aguirre said in a statement."On May 23, 2006, the San Diego City Council voted 5–3 to appeal U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr.'s May 3 order to remove the cross.On June 2, 2006, Mayor Jerry Sanders announced that the city had filed an appeal of Judge Thomson's order to remove the cross. The city also asked that the appeal be ruled on by July 8. Sanders said that if the appeal was not granted then the city would comply with the order.On June 21, 2006, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to step in and suspend the $5,000 daily fine that will be imposed on the city if the cross wasn't removed from city property by August 1 | [
"Gordon Thompson Jr.",
"Duncan Hunter",
"certiorari",
"La Jolla",
"eminent domain",
"San Diego Union-Tribune",
"Latin Cross",
"Easter Sunday",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Supreme Court",
"Mount Soledad",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"Jerry Sanders",
"ballot measure",
"Korean War",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17178_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Focusing on the Litigation of this artwork, explore the Ballot measure challenged in court about the Attempted donation to Interior Department. | Ballot measure challenged in court However, the plaintiff in the federal court case filed a case in California Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of the proposition. On September 3, Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett issued a temporary restraining order barring the transfer until the issue was settled. Lawyers on each side presented their arguments on October 3, 2005. A key issue was the status of the area as a secular war memorial, given the fact that it was not developed as a memorial until ten years after the first lawsuit. Prior to the lawsuit, no plaque or marker designated or explained the site's status as a war memorial, and during the fifty years prior to the lawsuit, there were no ceremonies or recognitions of the Korean War or to war veterans at the site, only Easter Sunday services. A 1985 map of the San Diego area identifies the cross as the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross. A court document also refers to several references of the Easter Cross including, "...the U.S. Department of Commerce Coast and Geodetic Survey (indicating "Easter Cross" on chart)."The plaintiff argued that the ballot measure was unconstitutional because it resulted in an unconstitutional act—transferring the property to the federal government for the purpose of keeping the cross in its present location on public parkland, a purely religious symbol of one faith. The City argued that the purpose of the ballot measure was to determine the will of the people of San Diego with respect to the federal government's offer to accept a donation of the property. The private citizens' group which had sponsored the petition leading to ballot measure argued that display of the cross was not unconstitutional because the many significant improvements added to it removed any doubt that it is a genuine veterans memorial.
On October 7, 2005, Judge Cowett found the ballot measure unconstitutional. Her ruling stated: "Maintenance of this Latin Cross as it is on the property in question is found to be an unconstitutional preference of religion in violation of Article I, Section 4, of the California Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the cross as its centerpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Article XVI, Section 5, of the California Constitution."
Litigation was now occurring in both the state and federal courts, while legislation was also debated in the San Diego City Council. Congressional action made previous suits and decisions irrelevant by a law to transfer the memorial from city to federal ownership in 2006, moving the issue to federal court beginning with the decision on July 31, 2008 by U.S. Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns ruling that both the transfer and the cross were constitutional. This was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision that endorsed the transfer but ruled the sole Latin Cross unconstitutional. The appeal of this decision was denied certiorari by the Supreme Court on June 25, 2012.On May 3, 2006, US District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. issued an order for removal of the cross, pursuant to the permanent injunction levied by the court, within 90 days, or the city of San Diego will be fined $5,000 a day. Judge Thompson declared that "It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property." The mayor Jerry Sanders said he plans on proposing an appeal to the decision by Judge Thompson. Sanders pointed out that over 75% of San Diego voters believe the cross should remain in place, as evidenced by the votes in favor of transferring the memorial property to the federal government. The head of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, the private organization that operates the memorial, hoped that the cross will be taken down and moved to a nearby private property.On May 11, 2006, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported:
"Mayor Jerry Sanders on Thursday sought presidential intervention in the legal battle over the Mount Soledad cross, asking President Bush to use the power of eminent domain to take the city-owned property in La Jolla on which the memorial and cross sit. Sanders warned of the "uncertain future" of the monument and said he fully supported the federal government condemning the property to save the cross, a request first made late Wednesday by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine. ... City Attorney Michael Aguirre weighed in on the issue Thursday afternoon – several hours after the mayor's press conference – and he questioned whether the request for federal condemnation of the property violated an existing judicial order. "Such a move may be viewed by the San Diego Superior and United States District courts as being in violation of existing judicial orders and could result in a contempt finding and or sanctions against the city of San Diego," Aguirre said in a statement."On May 23, 2006, the San Diego City Council voted 5–3 to appeal U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr.'s May 3 order to remove the cross.On June 2, 2006, Mayor Jerry Sanders announced that the city had filed an appeal of Judge Thomson's order to remove the cross. The city also asked that the appeal be ruled on by July 8. Sanders said that if the appeal was not granted then the city would comply with the order.On June 21, 2006, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to step in and suspend the $5,000 daily fine that will be imposed on the city if the cross wasn't removed from city property by August 1 | [
"Gordon Thompson Jr.",
"Duncan Hunter",
"certiorari",
"La Jolla",
"eminent domain",
"San Diego Union-Tribune",
"Latin Cross",
"Easter Sunday",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Supreme Court",
"Mount Soledad",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"Jerry Sanders",
"ballot measure",
"Korean War",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17179_T | Mount Soledad Cross | In the context of Mount Soledad Cross, explain the Federal eminent domain action of the Litigation. | On June 26, 2006, San Diego County Congressmen Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-52nd), Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-50th) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-49th) introduced House Report Bill 5683, a bill to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States.
On July 3, 2006, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a temporary stay in favor of the city and the cross's supporters to allow time for further appeals. On July 7, in a 4-page decision, he granted the city of San Diego's request for a stay pending a ruling on the city's appeal.On July 19, 2006, House Report Bill 5683, a bill to transfer the Mount Soledad Cross to the federal government passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 349–74. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) introduced identical legislation in the Senate that would allow the federal government to take the Mt. Soledad property by eminent domain. President George W. Bush, on the day of the vote, issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" that "strongly" supported H.R. 5683. The Statement read, in part, "In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people, and the Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in introducing this bill."
On August 1, 2006, the US Senate approved by unanimous consent an eminent domain plan to transfer a Latin Cross and the land underneath it to federal control in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the cross that stands on Mt. Soledad Natural Park. The Plaintiff in this cross case sought a court ordered injunction and stay by stopping the transfer until all of the legal issues have been adjudicated in the courts as well as alleging an abuse of power in exercising eminent domain.
On August 11, 2006, Steve Trunk, who is a San Diego resident, veteran, and atheist, was named and added as a Plaintiff to the old and a newly filed lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge Barry Moskowitz heard Plaintiffs Paulson and Trunk argue the case of the federal involvement in the ownership of a Christian cross. The Plaintiffs had a preliminary restraining order before Judge Moskowitz, which would make the transfer null and void (ab initio). Plaintiffs' Attorney James McElroy accused the federal officials of using eminent domain in bad faith and with the sole purpose to keep the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross on a public park. "These people are sworn to uphold the constitution," McElroy said. "The president has no respect for the law. To do this now with two appeals pending shows disrespect for the court system. There's no reason they couldn't have waited for the appellate courts to decide this."On August 14, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law Bill HR 5683 that would transfer City of San Diego property from Mt. Soledad Natural Park along with a Latin Cross to the federal government by applying the powers of eminent domain. | [
"Duncan Hunter",
"temporary stay",
"Jeff Sessions",
"Christian cross",
"eminent domain",
"Latin Cross",
"Christian",
"Anthony M. Kennedy",
"unanimous consent",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Darrell Issa",
"Mount Soledad",
"court order",
"atheist"
] |
|
17179_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | In the context of this artwork, explain the Federal eminent domain action of the Litigation. | On June 26, 2006, San Diego County Congressmen Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-52nd), Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-50th) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-49th) introduced House Report Bill 5683, a bill to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States.
On July 3, 2006, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued a temporary stay in favor of the city and the cross's supporters to allow time for further appeals. On July 7, in a 4-page decision, he granted the city of San Diego's request for a stay pending a ruling on the city's appeal.On July 19, 2006, House Report Bill 5683, a bill to transfer the Mount Soledad Cross to the federal government passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 349–74. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) introduced identical legislation in the Senate that would allow the federal government to take the Mt. Soledad property by eminent domain. President George W. Bush, on the day of the vote, issued a "Statement of Administration Policy" that "strongly" supported H.R. 5683. The Statement read, in part, "In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people, and the Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in introducing this bill."
On August 1, 2006, the US Senate approved by unanimous consent an eminent domain plan to transfer a Latin Cross and the land underneath it to federal control in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the cross that stands on Mt. Soledad Natural Park. The Plaintiff in this cross case sought a court ordered injunction and stay by stopping the transfer until all of the legal issues have been adjudicated in the courts as well as alleging an abuse of power in exercising eminent domain.
On August 11, 2006, Steve Trunk, who is a San Diego resident, veteran, and atheist, was named and added as a Plaintiff to the old and a newly filed lawsuit. U.S. District Court Judge Barry Moskowitz heard Plaintiffs Paulson and Trunk argue the case of the federal involvement in the ownership of a Christian cross. The Plaintiffs had a preliminary restraining order before Judge Moskowitz, which would make the transfer null and void (ab initio). Plaintiffs' Attorney James McElroy accused the federal officials of using eminent domain in bad faith and with the sole purpose to keep the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross on a public park. "These people are sworn to uphold the constitution," McElroy said. "The president has no respect for the law. To do this now with two appeals pending shows disrespect for the court system. There's no reason they couldn't have waited for the appellate courts to decide this."On August 14, 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law Bill HR 5683 that would transfer City of San Diego property from Mt. Soledad Natural Park along with a Latin Cross to the federal government by applying the powers of eminent domain. | [
"Duncan Hunter",
"temporary stay",
"Jeff Sessions",
"Christian cross",
"eminent domain",
"Latin Cross",
"Christian",
"Anthony M. Kennedy",
"unanimous consent",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Easter",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Darrell Issa",
"Mount Soledad",
"court order",
"atheist"
] |
|
17180_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Explore the Eminent domain is challenged about the Federal eminent domain action of the Litigation in this artwork, Mount Soledad Cross. | Eminent domain is challenged On August 21, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion and asks the Court to rule the 29-foot (9 m) tall display be removed from Mt. Soledad Natural Park.
On September 22, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz consolidated two separate cases that challenged the constitutionality of a Latin cross on government land atop Mount Soledad, involving a transfer to the US Department of Defense. The consolidated cases involved Philip Paulson and Steven Trunk and the other case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Jewish War Veterans, a Muslim, and several San Diego citizens. The 17-year original case brought by Philip Paulson versus City of San Diego was still pending with US District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. and was also pending in the California State Courts, too.On October 25, 2006, Philip K. Paulson, the original plaintiff in the 1989 lawsuit challenging the legality of the cross, died of liver cancer at the age of 59.On November 30, 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the October 7, 2005 decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett that invalidated a voter-approved 2005 measure which authorized transferring land underneath the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government, thus declaring that the measure was constitutional.On February 21, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the precedent-setting decision of the California 4th District appellate court, which upheld the right of the people of San Diego to transfer the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial to the federal government. At the same time, the Court denied the plaintiffs' objection to publication of the lower court decision favorable to the cross and veterans memorial. Unpublished decisions are non-precedential.
On October 12, 2007, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed a motion for Summary Judgement with the Southern District Court of California on behalf of four plaintiffs: the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Richard A. Smith, Mina Sagheb, and Judith M. Copeland. The motion requested the immediate removal of the cross for the following reasons: the Federal Government's actions with respect to the cross have the effect of advancing or endorsing a religion; the Federal taking and display of the Mt. Soledad cross lacks a valid secular purpose; and finally, the Federal Government's display of the cross creates an excessive entanglement with a religion.A federal court judge on November 8, 2007 dismissed the lawsuit filed against the City of San Diego involving the Mt. Soledad Veterans War Memorial. The Federal government had acquired the memorial property from the City via eminent domain on August 14, 2006. In dismissing the lawsuit against the City, the federal court agreed that the City should be dismissed from the lawsuit because the federal government owns the memorial property. Now that the City has been dismissed from the lawsuit, the lawsuit will proceed only against the federal government.On February 25, 2008, after both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the court was scheduled to hear arguments.
On July 31, 2008, U.S. Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns ruled that the cross could remain, writing, "The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice. As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is Constitutional."
In December 2008, a local San Diego painting contractor donated time and material to restore the cross. | [
"Philip K. Paulson",
"American Civil Liberties Union",
"Gordon Thompson Jr.",
"Latin cross",
"Donald Rumsfeld",
"right",
"eminent domain",
"Jewish War Veterans",
"Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America",
"Philip Paulson",
"California",
"Defense Secretary",
"San Diego",
"Supreme Court",
"Mount Soledad",
"California Supreme Court",
"Jewish War Veterans of the United States",
"Eminent domain"
] |
|
17180_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Explore the Eminent domain is challenged about the Federal eminent domain action of the Litigation in this artwork. | Eminent domain is challenged On August 21, 2006, the American Civil Liberties Union representing the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America filed a separate lawsuit against the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion and asks the Court to rule the 29-foot (9 m) tall display be removed from Mt. Soledad Natural Park.
On September 22, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz consolidated two separate cases that challenged the constitutionality of a Latin cross on government land atop Mount Soledad, involving a transfer to the US Department of Defense. The consolidated cases involved Philip Paulson and Steven Trunk and the other case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the Jewish War Veterans, a Muslim, and several San Diego citizens. The 17-year original case brought by Philip Paulson versus City of San Diego was still pending with US District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. and was also pending in the California State Courts, too.On October 25, 2006, Philip K. Paulson, the original plaintiff in the 1989 lawsuit challenging the legality of the cross, died of liver cancer at the age of 59.On November 30, 2006, the 4th District Court of Appeal overturned the October 7, 2005 decision by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett that invalidated a voter-approved 2005 measure which authorized transferring land underneath the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government, thus declaring that the measure was constitutional.On February 21, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the precedent-setting decision of the California 4th District appellate court, which upheld the right of the people of San Diego to transfer the Mt. Soledad veterans memorial to the federal government. At the same time, the Court denied the plaintiffs' objection to publication of the lower court decision favorable to the cross and veterans memorial. Unpublished decisions are non-precedential.
On October 12, 2007, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties filed a motion for Summary Judgement with the Southern District Court of California on behalf of four plaintiffs: the Jewish War Veterans of the United States, Richard A. Smith, Mina Sagheb, and Judith M. Copeland. The motion requested the immediate removal of the cross for the following reasons: the Federal Government's actions with respect to the cross have the effect of advancing or endorsing a religion; the Federal taking and display of the Mt. Soledad cross lacks a valid secular purpose; and finally, the Federal Government's display of the cross creates an excessive entanglement with a religion.A federal court judge on November 8, 2007 dismissed the lawsuit filed against the City of San Diego involving the Mt. Soledad Veterans War Memorial. The Federal government had acquired the memorial property from the City via eminent domain on August 14, 2006. In dismissing the lawsuit against the City, the federal court agreed that the City should be dismissed from the lawsuit because the federal government owns the memorial property. Now that the City has been dismissed from the lawsuit, the lawsuit will proceed only against the federal government.On February 25, 2008, after both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, the court was scheduled to hear arguments.
On July 31, 2008, U.S. Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns ruled that the cross could remain, writing, "The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice. As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is Constitutional."
In December 2008, a local San Diego painting contractor donated time and material to restore the cross. | [
"Philip K. Paulson",
"American Civil Liberties Union",
"Gordon Thompson Jr.",
"Latin cross",
"Donald Rumsfeld",
"right",
"eminent domain",
"Jewish War Veterans",
"Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America",
"Philip Paulson",
"California",
"Defense Secretary",
"San Diego",
"Supreme Court",
"Mount Soledad",
"California Supreme Court",
"Jewish War Veterans of the United States",
"Eminent domain"
] |
|
17181_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Focusing on the Litigation of Mount Soledad Cross, discuss the Case moves to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals about the Federal eminent domain action. | Case moves to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals The two matters on appeal, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 08-56415 and 08-56436, were argued on the morning of December 9, 2009.In January 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross unconstitutional. Judge McKeown wrote for the court, "Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla." It was a unanimous decision.
"...we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause. This result does not mean that the Memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans’ memorial. We take no position on those issues.
We reverse the grant of summary judgment to the government and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Jewish War Veterans and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED" —Judge McKeown, opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In February 2012, the Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative Christian legal group, filed an appeal of the 2011 ruling that found the cross to be unconstitutional. On March 14, the U.S. Solicitor General joined the appeal.The Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear the case on June 25, 2012. Justice Alito wrote in a personal statement that explained the rejection because the remedy of return to District court for compromise solution had not been attempted. This left the 9th Circuit Court ruling in place, and the issue was returned to federal court for resolution.In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns ordered that the cross be removed within 90 days, but stayed the order pending a forthcoming appeal by the government.On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari before judgement. Justice Samuel Alito stated in a personal statement that certiorari was not yet warranted because the appeal of Judge Burns' order has not yet been heard by the Court of Appeals. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 contained a provision making space available for the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial. | [
"Establishment Clause",
"Liberty Institute",
"certiorari",
"Samuel Alito",
"La Jolla",
"Jewish War Veterans",
"Christian",
"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015",
"left"
] |
|
17181_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Focusing on the Litigation of this artwork, discuss the Case moves to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals about the Federal eminent domain action. | Case moves to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals The two matters on appeal, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 08-56415 and 08-56436, were argued on the morning of December 9, 2009.In January 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the cross unconstitutional. Judge McKeown wrote for the court, "Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla." It was a unanimous decision.
"...we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause. This result does not mean that the Memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans’ memorial. We take no position on those issues.
We reverse the grant of summary judgment to the government and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Jewish War Veterans and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED" —Judge McKeown, opinion for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In February 2012, the Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative Christian legal group, filed an appeal of the 2011 ruling that found the cross to be unconstitutional. On March 14, the U.S. Solicitor General joined the appeal.The Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear the case on June 25, 2012. Justice Alito wrote in a personal statement that explained the rejection because the remedy of return to District court for compromise solution had not been attempted. This left the 9th Circuit Court ruling in place, and the issue was returned to federal court for resolution.In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns ordered that the cross be removed within 90 days, but stayed the order pending a forthcoming appeal by the government.On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court denied certiorari before judgement. Justice Samuel Alito stated in a personal statement that certiorari was not yet warranted because the appeal of Judge Burns' order has not yet been heard by the Court of Appeals. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 contained a provision making space available for the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial. | [
"Establishment Clause",
"Liberty Institute",
"certiorari",
"Samuel Alito",
"La Jolla",
"Jewish War Veterans",
"Christian",
"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015",
"left"
] |
|
17182_T | Mount Soledad Cross | In Mount Soledad Cross, how is the Sale to Mt. Soledad Memorial Association of the Litigation elucidated? | On July 20, 2015, a group called the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association reported that it had bought the land under the cross from the Dept. of Defense for $1.4 million. On September 7, 2016 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-page ruling, ordering dismissal of the case and an end to all current appeals, stating that the case was now moot because the cross was no longer on government land. Both sides agreed that this decision puts a final end to the case. An ACLU spokesman said, "I think this now resolves the case. The government doesn't own the cross or the land underneath it any more. The government is no longer in the business of endorsing religion." | [] |
|
17182_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | In this artwork, how is the Sale to Mt. Soledad Memorial Association of the Litigation elucidated? | On July 20, 2015, a group called the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association reported that it had bought the land under the cross from the Dept. of Defense for $1.4 million. On September 7, 2016 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a one-page ruling, ordering dismissal of the case and an end to all current appeals, stating that the case was now moot because the cross was no longer on government land. Both sides agreed that this decision puts a final end to the case. An ACLU spokesman said, "I think this now resolves the case. The government doesn't own the cross or the land underneath it any more. The government is no longer in the business of endorsing religion." | [] |
|
17183_T | Mount Soledad Cross | Focus on Mount Soledad Cross and analyze the Legal challenges timeline. | May 31, 1989: Philip Paulson sues the City of San Diego to remove the Soledad Cross
December 3, 1991: United States District Court for the Southern District of California, ruled in favor Paulson
June 2, 1992: San Diego voters approved Proposition F, which allowed sale of the cross to a non-profit corporation
September 18, 1997, Judge Thompson ruled that the sale violated the California Constitution
1998: the City attempted to sell the land to a private group again
2000: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the City's sale of the cross violated the California Constitution
2003: the Supreme Court denied defendants' petitions for review
November 2004: voters rejected a ballot measure to authorize a third sale of the land
July 26, 2005: voters approve Proposition A, a ballot measure to transfer the property to the Interior Department
October 7, 2005: Judge Cowett found the ballot measure unconstitutional
July 2006: the Supreme Court issues a stay which stops a court order forcing imminent removal of the cross
August 14, 2006: President George W. Bush signed a law that would transfer the cross to the Interior Department
January 2011: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the transfer unconstitutional
June 25, 2012: the Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear the case
July 20, 2015: Mt. Soledad Memorial Association reported that it had bought the land under the cross from the Dept. of Defense
September 7, 2016: the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses the case | [
"certiorari",
"United States District Court for the Southern District of California",
"Philip Paulson",
"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"court order",
"Interior Department",
"ballot measure",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17183_NT | Mount Soledad Cross | Focus on this artwork and analyze the Legal challenges timeline. | May 31, 1989: Philip Paulson sues the City of San Diego to remove the Soledad Cross
December 3, 1991: United States District Court for the Southern District of California, ruled in favor Paulson
June 2, 1992: San Diego voters approved Proposition F, which allowed sale of the cross to a non-profit corporation
September 18, 1997, Judge Thompson ruled that the sale violated the California Constitution
1998: the City attempted to sell the land to a private group again
2000: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the City's sale of the cross violated the California Constitution
2003: the Supreme Court denied defendants' petitions for review
November 2004: voters rejected a ballot measure to authorize a third sale of the land
July 26, 2005: voters approve Proposition A, a ballot measure to transfer the property to the Interior Department
October 7, 2005: Judge Cowett found the ballot measure unconstitutional
July 2006: the Supreme Court issues a stay which stops a court order forcing imminent removal of the cross
August 14, 2006: President George W. Bush signed a law that would transfer the cross to the Interior Department
January 2011: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the transfer unconstitutional
June 25, 2012: the Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear the case
July 20, 2015: Mt. Soledad Memorial Association reported that it had bought the land under the cross from the Dept. of Defense
September 7, 2016: the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismisses the case | [
"certiorari",
"United States District Court for the Southern District of California",
"Philip Paulson",
"United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit",
"California",
"San Diego",
"Supreme Court",
"stay",
"Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
"court order",
"Interior Department",
"ballot measure",
"California Constitution"
] |
|
17184_T | The Golden Eagle | In The Golden Eagle, how is the abstract discussed? | The Golden Eagle or The Maltese Eagle is a solid gold statue of an eagle, which is thought to be the largest solid gold and diamond encrusted statue created. An appraisal by GLS GEMLAB Ltd, Abbotsford, BC puts the replacement value at $4,110,450. The current market value is put at $6 million. | [
"statue",
"Abbotsford, BC",
"eagle",
"diamond",
"Gold",
"Eagle",
"gold"
] |
|
17184_NT | The Golden Eagle | In this artwork, how is the abstract discussed? | The Golden Eagle or The Maltese Eagle is a solid gold statue of an eagle, which is thought to be the largest solid gold and diamond encrusted statue created. An appraisal by GLS GEMLAB Ltd, Abbotsford, BC puts the replacement value at $4,110,450. The current market value is put at $6 million. | [
"statue",
"Abbotsford, BC",
"eagle",
"diamond",
"Gold",
"Eagle",
"gold"
] |
|
17185_T | The Golden Eagle | Focus on The Golden Eagle and explore the History. | The Golden Eagle was originally created as the theme for the book The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt: Quest for the Golden Eagle, a work by Ron Shore to help raise $25 million to fund research for the prevention, early detection and cure for breast cancer. Ron Shore commissioned Canadian sculptor Kevin Peters to help create the Golden Eagle. It took more than 4000 hours to complete.The statue was for sale, with a price tag of $5 million. $1 million from the sale will be given to the breast cancer charity of the buyer's choice, $1 million will be given to the winner of The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt, while the remaining sum is to be used to promote The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt to raise additional funds for breast cancer research.Participants in The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt win "The Grand Prize", $1,000,000 in cash by solving clues hidden in the book, The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt: Quest for the Golden Eagle, written by Ron Shore. | [
"statue",
"breast cancer",
"Gold",
"charity",
"Eagle",
"sculptor",
"research"
] |
|
17185_NT | The Golden Eagle | Focus on this artwork and explore the History. | The Golden Eagle was originally created as the theme for the book The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt: Quest for the Golden Eagle, a work by Ron Shore to help raise $25 million to fund research for the prevention, early detection and cure for breast cancer. Ron Shore commissioned Canadian sculptor Kevin Peters to help create the Golden Eagle. It took more than 4000 hours to complete.The statue was for sale, with a price tag of $5 million. $1 million from the sale will be given to the breast cancer charity of the buyer's choice, $1 million will be given to the winner of The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt, while the remaining sum is to be used to promote The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt to raise additional funds for breast cancer research.Participants in The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt win "The Grand Prize", $1,000,000 in cash by solving clues hidden in the book, The World's Greatest Treasure Hunt: Quest for the Golden Eagle, written by Ron Shore. | [
"statue",
"breast cancer",
"Gold",
"charity",
"Eagle",
"sculptor",
"research"
] |
|
17186_T | The Golden Eagle | Focus on The Golden Eagle and explain the Description. | The Golden Eagle contains 18 pounds of solid gold. The head is made of 18 carat white gold and encrusted with 763 diamonds; and the eyes are made of two 1.1 carat matching pear shaped diamonds. The Eagle stands watch over the Atocha Star emerald, a 12.72 carat emerald valued at $3.18 million in 2013. The tail feathers are 14 kt white gold; the body, rock and base are 14 kt yellow gold, and the very bottom pedestal is 10 kt yellow gold.The statue is approximately 26 by 10 cm (10 by 4 in) in dimension.According to Science World British Columbia, the Golden Eagle was designed to be "a treasure that invoked the Old World craftsmanship of the Fabergé egg". The Vancouver is Awesome recognized that the design is "with a hint of Damien Hirst’s skull". | [
"Fabergé egg",
"emerald",
"statue",
"white gold",
"diamond",
"Gold",
"Old World",
"Damien Hirst",
"Eagle",
"yellow gold",
"the Atocha Star emerald",
"gold",
"Science World British Columbia"
] |
|
17186_NT | The Golden Eagle | Focus on this artwork and explain the Description. | The Golden Eagle contains 18 pounds of solid gold. The head is made of 18 carat white gold and encrusted with 763 diamonds; and the eyes are made of two 1.1 carat matching pear shaped diamonds. The Eagle stands watch over the Atocha Star emerald, a 12.72 carat emerald valued at $3.18 million in 2013. The tail feathers are 14 kt white gold; the body, rock and base are 14 kt yellow gold, and the very bottom pedestal is 10 kt yellow gold.The statue is approximately 26 by 10 cm (10 by 4 in) in dimension.According to Science World British Columbia, the Golden Eagle was designed to be "a treasure that invoked the Old World craftsmanship of the Fabergé egg". The Vancouver is Awesome recognized that the design is "with a hint of Damien Hirst’s skull". | [
"Fabergé egg",
"emerald",
"statue",
"white gold",
"diamond",
"Gold",
"Old World",
"Damien Hirst",
"Eagle",
"yellow gold",
"the Atocha Star emerald",
"gold",
"Science World British Columbia"
] |
|
17187_T | The Golden Eagle | Explore the Theft of this artwork, The Golden Eagle. | On May 30, 2016 Ron Shore, who was in possession of the statue, was mugged as he walked to his car after a concert. The perpetrator reportedly fled with Mr. Shore's backpack which contained the statue inside. | [
"statue"
] |
|
17187_NT | The Golden Eagle | Explore the Theft of this artwork. | On May 30, 2016 Ron Shore, who was in possession of the statue, was mugged as he walked to his car after a concert. The perpetrator reportedly fled with Mr. Shore's backpack which contained the statue inside. | [
"statue"
] |
|
17188_T | The Golden Eagle | Focus on The Golden Eagle and discuss the Insurance Denial. | On December 1, 2020 an article in the Vancouver Sun newspaper reports Lloyd’s of London Insurance has denied his claim for the theft of the bird. | [] |
|
17188_NT | The Golden Eagle | Focus on this artwork and discuss the Insurance Denial. | On December 1, 2020 an article in the Vancouver Sun newspaper reports Lloyd’s of London Insurance has denied his claim for the theft of the bird. | [] |
|
17189_T | Ándale Bernardo | How does Ándale Bernardo elucidate its abstract? | Ándale Bernardo is a bronze sculpture by Jim Demetro, installed in Puerto Vallarta's Lázaro Cárdenas Park, in the Mexican state of Jalisco. According to Banderas News, the artwork "honors all the workers, burros, residents, and visitors who make Puerto Vallarta such a wonderful place". | [
"bronze sculpture",
"Jim Demetro",
"Puerto Vallarta",
"Jalisco",
"Lázaro Cárdenas Park"
] |
|
17189_NT | Ándale Bernardo | How does this artwork elucidate its abstract? | Ándale Bernardo is a bronze sculpture by Jim Demetro, installed in Puerto Vallarta's Lázaro Cárdenas Park, in the Mexican state of Jalisco. According to Banderas News, the artwork "honors all the workers, burros, residents, and visitors who make Puerto Vallarta such a wonderful place". | [
"bronze sculpture",
"Jim Demetro",
"Puerto Vallarta",
"Jalisco",
"Lázaro Cárdenas Park"
] |
|
17190_T | Young Woman in Blue | Focus on Young Woman in Blue and analyze the abstract. | Young Woman in Blue is a drawing by French artist Edgar Degas, created in 1884. It is currently in the permanent collection at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. | [
"French",
"Edgar Degas",
"drawing",
"Indianapolis Museum of Art"
] |
|
17190_NT | Young Woman in Blue | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | Young Woman in Blue is a drawing by French artist Edgar Degas, created in 1884. It is currently in the permanent collection at the Indianapolis Museum of Art. | [
"French",
"Edgar Degas",
"drawing",
"Indianapolis Museum of Art"
] |
|
17191_T | Young Woman in Blue | In Young Woman in Blue, how is the Description discussed? | The subject appears to be a young saleswoman, observed in a Parisian hat shop. She is seen from above and behind, and her back is straitlaced and proper. Her hair is tied in a tight bun at the base of her skull, and her straight bangs are over her eyes. Her jacket is a deep blue and is the focal point of the drawing. She looks impatient, her arms crossed and her nose up in the air, and she seems to be absorbed in herself, paying little to no attention to the customers around her. | [
"drawing"
] |
|
17191_NT | Young Woman in Blue | In this artwork, how is the Description discussed? | The subject appears to be a young saleswoman, observed in a Parisian hat shop. She is seen from above and behind, and her back is straitlaced and proper. Her hair is tied in a tight bun at the base of her skull, and her straight bangs are over her eyes. Her jacket is a deep blue and is the focal point of the drawing. She looks impatient, her arms crossed and her nose up in the air, and she seems to be absorbed in herself, paying little to no attention to the customers around her. | [
"drawing"
] |
|
17192_T | Galitzin Triptych | Focus on Galitzin Triptych and explore the Bibliography (in Italian). | Vittoria Garibaldi, Perugino, in Pittori del Rinascimento, Scala, Florence, 2004 ISBN 888117099X
Pierluigi De Vecchi, Elda Cerchiari, I tempi dell'arte, volume 2, Bompiani, Milan, 1999 ISBN 88-451-7212-0
Stefano Zuffi, Il Quattrocento, Electa, Milan, 2004 ISBN 8837023154 | [
"Perugino",
"Bompiani"
] |
|
17192_NT | Galitzin Triptych | Focus on this artwork and explore the Bibliography (in Italian). | Vittoria Garibaldi, Perugino, in Pittori del Rinascimento, Scala, Florence, 2004 ISBN 888117099X
Pierluigi De Vecchi, Elda Cerchiari, I tempi dell'arte, volume 2, Bompiani, Milan, 1999 ISBN 88-451-7212-0
Stefano Zuffi, Il Quattrocento, Electa, Milan, 2004 ISBN 8837023154 | [
"Perugino",
"Bompiani"
] |
|
17193_T | Holy Family (El Greco, Museo de Santa Cruz) | Focus on Holy Family (El Greco, Museo de Santa Cruz) and explain the abstract. | Holy Family is a 1586-1588 oil on canvas painting by El Greco, painted during his time in Toledo and now in that city's Museum of Santa Cruz.
He frequently returned to the subject of the Holy Family. In this variant he shows the Christ Child in Mary's lap. To the left is Mary's mother St Anne, whilst to the right are Saint Joseph and the infant John the Baptist. A later 1590s variant uses a similar composition but omits John and changes the poses of Joseph and Anne. | [
"A later 1590s variant",
"St Anne",
"John the Baptist",
"El Greco",
"Museum of Santa Cruz",
"Saint Joseph",
"Toledo",
"Holy Family"
] |
|
17193_NT | Holy Family (El Greco, Museo de Santa Cruz) | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | Holy Family is a 1586-1588 oil on canvas painting by El Greco, painted during his time in Toledo and now in that city's Museum of Santa Cruz.
He frequently returned to the subject of the Holy Family. In this variant he shows the Christ Child in Mary's lap. To the left is Mary's mother St Anne, whilst to the right are Saint Joseph and the infant John the Baptist. A later 1590s variant uses a similar composition but omits John and changes the poses of Joseph and Anne. | [
"A later 1590s variant",
"St Anne",
"John the Baptist",
"El Greco",
"Museum of Santa Cruz",
"Saint Joseph",
"Toledo",
"Holy Family"
] |
|
17194_T | Vietnam (Kanso) | Explore the abstract of this artwork, Vietnam (Kanso). | Vietnam is a mural-size painting made by Nabil Kanso in 1974 in response to the Vietnam War. It is done in oil on canvas measuring 3.65 by 7.30 meters (12 X 24 feet). | [
"canvas",
"oil",
"mural",
"painting",
"Nabil Kanso",
"Vietnam War"
] |
|
17194_NT | Vietnam (Kanso) | Explore the abstract of this artwork. | Vietnam is a mural-size painting made by Nabil Kanso in 1974 in response to the Vietnam War. It is done in oil on canvas measuring 3.65 by 7.30 meters (12 X 24 feet). | [
"canvas",
"oil",
"mural",
"painting",
"Nabil Kanso",
"Vietnam War"
] |
|
17195_T | Gift of the Wind | Focus on Gift of the Wind and discuss the abstract. | Gift of the Wind is a large-scale public kinetic sculpture, by Susumu Shingu, located in Porter Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts at the Porter, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority subway and commuter rail station. The artwork consists of a tall white pole with three red "wings" attached to the top that are "designed to shift in response to the movement of the wind, not only turning clockwise and counterclockwise, but tumbling over and over in various sequences". It is considered by some to be "Cambridge's most visible landmark". | [
"Porter Square",
"kinetic sculpture",
"Cambridge, Massachusetts",
"Porter",
"Cambridge",
"Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority",
"Susumu Shingu",
"Massachusetts"
] |
|
17195_NT | Gift of the Wind | Focus on this artwork and discuss the abstract. | Gift of the Wind is a large-scale public kinetic sculpture, by Susumu Shingu, located in Porter Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts at the Porter, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority subway and commuter rail station. The artwork consists of a tall white pole with three red "wings" attached to the top that are "designed to shift in response to the movement of the wind, not only turning clockwise and counterclockwise, but tumbling over and over in various sequences". It is considered by some to be "Cambridge's most visible landmark". | [
"Porter Square",
"kinetic sculpture",
"Cambridge, Massachusetts",
"Porter",
"Cambridge",
"Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority",
"Susumu Shingu",
"Massachusetts"
] |
|
17196_T | Gift of the Wind | How does Gift of the Wind elucidate its History? | Gift of the Wind was commissioned in 1983 and unveiled in 1985 as a part of the MBTA and the Cambridge Arts Council's Arts on the Line program. This first of its kind program was devised to bring art into the MBTA's planned Northwest Extension of the Red Line subway stations in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and became a model for similar drives for public art across the country. Gift of the Wind was one of 20 artworks created for this program, out of over 400 proposals submitted by artists for artworks spread out across five different newly created subway stations. The first 20 artworks, including this one, were completed with a total cost of $695,000 USD, or one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Red Line Northwest Extension.Susumu Shingu designed and created his sculpture in tandem with Cambridge Seven Associates, the designers of the Porter subway station, as they designed and constructed the station. Louis Bakanowsky, the founder of Cambridge Seven, stated, "(...) the challenge of modern sculpture is not the making of closed, volumetric objects. Instead, today's sculpture must deal with issues of space, movement and address a much wider set of references... [this work will] create a resonance between the viewer's own inner rhythms and those of the larger world of nature."Gift of the Wind was originally planned to extend down into the subway station proper. When the work rotated due to the wind, a link, through a "large light shaft" would make a selection of hammers strike chimes in the station. This concept was later abandoned.The sculpture required $40,000 of repairs in the 1990s. | [
"USD",
"Red Line",
"Arts on the Line",
"Cambridge Seven Associates",
"subway station",
"Porter",
"Cambridge",
"Susumu Shingu"
] |
|
17196_NT | Gift of the Wind | How does this artwork elucidate its History? | Gift of the Wind was commissioned in 1983 and unveiled in 1985 as a part of the MBTA and the Cambridge Arts Council's Arts on the Line program. This first of its kind program was devised to bring art into the MBTA's planned Northwest Extension of the Red Line subway stations in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and became a model for similar drives for public art across the country. Gift of the Wind was one of 20 artworks created for this program, out of over 400 proposals submitted by artists for artworks spread out across five different newly created subway stations. The first 20 artworks, including this one, were completed with a total cost of $695,000 USD, or one-half of one percent of the total construction cost of the Red Line Northwest Extension.Susumu Shingu designed and created his sculpture in tandem with Cambridge Seven Associates, the designers of the Porter subway station, as they designed and constructed the station. Louis Bakanowsky, the founder of Cambridge Seven, stated, "(...) the challenge of modern sculpture is not the making of closed, volumetric objects. Instead, today's sculpture must deal with issues of space, movement and address a much wider set of references... [this work will] create a resonance between the viewer's own inner rhythms and those of the larger world of nature."Gift of the Wind was originally planned to extend down into the subway station proper. When the work rotated due to the wind, a link, through a "large light shaft" would make a selection of hammers strike chimes in the station. This concept was later abandoned.The sculpture required $40,000 of repairs in the 1990s. | [
"USD",
"Red Line",
"Arts on the Line",
"Cambridge Seven Associates",
"subway station",
"Porter",
"Cambridge",
"Susumu Shingu"
] |
|
17197_T | Guardian (sculpture) | Focus on Guardian (sculpture) and analyze the abstract. | The Guardian is a 20 m (66 ft) tall statue overlooking Parc Arael Griffin, the landscaped former Six Bells Colliery site, in the South Wales mining town of Abertillery, Blaenau Gwent. It was designed and created by artist Sebastien Boyesen. | [
"Blaenau Gwent",
"Sebastien Boyesen",
"Wales",
"Parc Arael Griffin",
"South Wales",
"Six Bells Colliery",
"The Guardian",
"Abertillery"
] |
|
17197_NT | Guardian (sculpture) | Focus on this artwork and analyze the abstract. | The Guardian is a 20 m (66 ft) tall statue overlooking Parc Arael Griffin, the landscaped former Six Bells Colliery site, in the South Wales mining town of Abertillery, Blaenau Gwent. It was designed and created by artist Sebastien Boyesen. | [
"Blaenau Gwent",
"Sebastien Boyesen",
"Wales",
"Parc Arael Griffin",
"South Wales",
"Six Bells Colliery",
"The Guardian",
"Abertillery"
] |
|
17198_T | Guardian (sculpture) | In Guardian (sculpture), how is the Background discussed? | On 28 June 1960, an underground explosion at the then Six Bells Colliery killed 45 miners. Caused by an ignition of firedamp, coal-dust in the air ignited and the explosion spread almost throughout a district of the mine, killing 45 out of the 48 men who worked there.
The sculpture commemorates those events and is dedicated to all mining communities wherever they may be. | [
"firedamp",
"Six Bells Colliery"
] |
|
17198_NT | Guardian (sculpture) | In this artwork, how is the Background discussed? | On 28 June 1960, an underground explosion at the then Six Bells Colliery killed 45 miners. Caused by an ignition of firedamp, coal-dust in the air ignited and the explosion spread almost throughout a district of the mine, killing 45 out of the 48 men who worked there.
The sculpture commemorates those events and is dedicated to all mining communities wherever they may be. | [
"firedamp",
"Six Bells Colliery"
] |
|
17199_T | Guardian (sculpture) | Focus on Guardian (sculpture) and explore the Construction and moiré effect. | Costing in excess of £200,000, Guardian is made from over 20,000 horizontal strips of a special 10 mm (0.4 in) thick COR-TEN weathering steel, which allows a protective rust patina to form on its surface. Each strip is separated from but connected to the next so that, from a distance, The Guardian appears almost transparent. Close up and from the appropriate angle, the gaps between the strips disappear to give the appearance of a solid sculpture with full definition of all of its features. This style of construction creates a moiré effect where the steel sections appear to move or shimmer in the light. The statue itself is 12.6 m (41 ft) tall, weighs around eight tonnes and stands on a sandstone plinth 7.4 m (24 ft) tall. It has been compared to Sir Antony Gormley's Angel of the North. | [
"Angel of the North",
"COR-TEN weathering steel",
"moiré effect",
"weathering steel",
"The Guardian",
"Antony Gormley"
] |
|
17199_NT | Guardian (sculpture) | Focus on this artwork and explore the Construction and moiré effect. | Costing in excess of £200,000, Guardian is made from over 20,000 horizontal strips of a special 10 mm (0.4 in) thick COR-TEN weathering steel, which allows a protective rust patina to form on its surface. Each strip is separated from but connected to the next so that, from a distance, The Guardian appears almost transparent. Close up and from the appropriate angle, the gaps between the strips disappear to give the appearance of a solid sculpture with full definition of all of its features. This style of construction creates a moiré effect where the steel sections appear to move or shimmer in the light. The statue itself is 12.6 m (41 ft) tall, weighs around eight tonnes and stands on a sandstone plinth 7.4 m (24 ft) tall. It has been compared to Sir Antony Gormley's Angel of the North. | [
"Angel of the North",
"COR-TEN weathering steel",
"moiré effect",
"weathering steel",
"The Guardian",
"Antony Gormley"
] |
|
17200_T | Yonker Ramp and His Sweetheart | Focus on Yonker Ramp and His Sweetheart and explain the abstract. | Yonker Ramp and His Sweetheart is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Dutch Golden Age painter Frans Hals, painted in 1623 and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. The painting has also been titled as Young Man and Woman in an Inn or Portrait of Pieter Ramp. | [
"New York City",
"Pieter Ramp",
"Dutch Golden Age painter",
"Frans Hals",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
] |
|
17200_NT | Yonker Ramp and His Sweetheart | Focus on this artwork and explain the abstract. | Yonker Ramp and His Sweetheart is an oil-on-canvas painting by the Dutch Golden Age painter Frans Hals, painted in 1623 and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. The painting has also been titled as Young Man and Woman in an Inn or Portrait of Pieter Ramp. | [
"New York City",
"Pieter Ramp",
"Dutch Golden Age painter",
"Frans Hals",
"Metropolitan Museum of Art"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.