"FullText" links provide a connection to electronic or print copies provided by the Lehigh Libraries and other services, such as electronic abstracts and interlibrary loan requesting.

1/1983. Coming up to speed on the controversies.

"Vietnam Memorial War," Art News, January 1983: 11-12. In-depth survey of the history of the wall and its controversies thus far. [FullText]

1/5/1983. Against what's proposed and for what's there.

"Protracted War," Washington Post, 01/05/83. Wall critic Milton Copulos: "It ain't over . . . They ain't seen nothing yet. . . . [J. Carter Brown's] putting [the flag and statue] in the trees hidden from view. . . . They're trying to create two separate memorials so they can maintain the very negative tone of the Maya Lin design. The whole point [of the compromise] was to change the tone." [FullText]

"Symbol of the Valley of the Shadow," by Michael Scrogin, Christian Century, January 5-12 1983: 7-8. "I wasn't sure why. But I knew I had to see it. . . . The memorial is a work of art, even great art. It is a wailing wall. . . . It is an altar littered with the evidence of burdens laid down. . . . It is a symbol of the valley of the shadow of death. It is a last, enduring body count. . . . It is a Sphinx that will endlessly pose its riddle to those who seek power and will. . . . It is a scar upon the monumental landscape of our capital." [FullText]

1/7/1983. Letter from Steve Silver to Robert Doubek of the VVMF about possible testimony Silver is willing to offer before the Commission of Fine Arts.

"How about a Constitutional amendment as follows: 'Before any President may commit American forces to combat, and before any member of Congress may vote on a declaration of war, said President or member is required to read aloud the names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.'" [PDF]

1/11/1983. Watt assuming the role of final arbiter.

"The Vietnam Memorial (Cont'd.?)," by Philip Geyelin, Washington Post, 01/11/83. "If Watt does what he now says he intends to do, however, the rift over the monument's design may well widen -- and in a way that can only rub raw the deeper Vietnam wounds. For Watt seems determined to set himself up as the final arbiter of what -- aesthetically, artistically, symbolically -- would constitute a proper memorial statement on the Vietnam War." [FullText]

1/11/1983. Letter from Senators Mathias and Warner to Interior Secretary Watt.

The result of a meeting of the senators with Watt is a suggestion that the CFA be given four options, two from the VVMF, one from Congressman Bailey, and one from the American Institute of Architects. [PDF]

1/14/1983. Letters from Robert Carter of the VVMF to Watt and Paul Thayer, Deputy Secretary of Defense, forwarding the two VVMF design plans.

Watt: [PDF]

Thayer: [PDF]

1/15/1983. Against nesting the flag and statue within the wall arms.

"Reconciliation at the Vietnam Memorial," letter to the editor, Washington Post, 01/15/83. "To Mr. Watt and his prompters, I suggest that, if the bronze and flag are placed in this setting, they will not be seen. There will be no stirring of patriotism because all backs will be turned. Perhaps, on second thought, such a response would be the appropriate final irony." [FullText]

1/17/1983. Put the flag and sculpture close.

"Incomplete Memorial," Washington Times, 01/17/83: 11A. (plus editorial cartoon) "We believe the statue and flag should be displayed proudly and prominently. There are a good many Vietnam veterans who will continue to fight the very queer notion of getting statue and flag as far out of sight as possible -- like a disreputable relative." [FullText]

1/17/1983. The American Institute of Architects protests the move for further legislation: press release plus letter from AIA president Robert Broshar to Speaker of the House of Representatives Thomas O'Neill.

"To date, an orderly and open process has been followed in the design, approval, construction and dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. This process should not at this point be compromised by the introduction of political considerations." [PDF]

1/18/1983. Letter from Jan Scruggs to General Michael Davison.

"The VVMF is again having some real problems with Interior Secretary James Watt. . . . Watt claims to be under pressure from some members of Congress who desire to have the flag and statue placed more prominently than Fine Arts will allow. The situation is a bit ridiculous, but if it continues the memorial will again be the object of angry controversy." [PDF]

1/29/1983. Watt goes into delay mode.

"Watt Stalls Addition To Vietnam Memorial," by Phil McCombs, Washington Post, 01/29/83: C1. Watt: "It's a memorial and a monument to those who lived and died for America, and it's a political expression. . . . It's not an expression of just the arts community, although it includes them, and so I would expect that the matter will be resolved within the next 12 to 15 months." [FullText]

2/1/1983. Letter from Watt to the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission.

"This so-called Bailey option for placement of the statue and flag staff fully meets the commitment we made to reach a compromise on this issue. We believe that this option truly honors all those who served their Nation in the Vietnam War." [PDF]

2/2/1983. Watt's plan.

"Watt's Memorial Turnabout; Submits 3 Proposals to Complete Vietnam Tribute," by Phil McCombs, Washington Post, 02/02/83: D1. J. Carter Brown: "We'll see what happens . . . We are a review body and we react to design submissions. . . . We'll approach it with an open mind and see if any of the three [options submitted] seems satisfactory." [FullText]

2/3/1983. Impact on veterans.

"The Invisible Veterans," by Harry Maurer, New York Times Review of Books, 02/03/83: 38-39. "What made the memorial so moving to many of the veterans I talked to was that they saw it as a friendly gesture from the rest of the country. The importance of this to Vietnam veterans can hardly be overstated, for they have been the objects of a disgraceful form of social double jeopardy." [FullText]

2/7/1983. Press release by Congressman Duncan Hunter.

Hunter: "We didn't vote to put the flag and statue at the entranceway and we didn't vote to put the flag and statue in the trees. . . . What's amazing to me is that the reason that the other options were offered is because it wouldn't be aesthetically consistent with the memorial. . . . In fact, the project architect, Mr. Kent Cooper, called the American flag 'a long, stringy object.'" [PDF]

2/8/1983. Commission of Fine Arts meeting: transcript.

Preliminaries: [PDF]

Wheeler (4): [PDF]

Doubeck (7): [PDF]

Cooper (11): [PDF]

Hart (20): [PDF]

Brown (21): [PDF]

Hunter (26): [PDF]

Bailey (35): [PDF]

Carhart (39): [PDF]

Holt (45):

Ruhf (47): [PDF]

Mansfield (48): [PDF]

Davis (53): [PDF]

Swain (58) [PDF]

Koris (61): [PDF]

Turner (63) [PDF]

Copulos (67) [PDF]

Robinson (74): [PDF]

Grower (77): [PDF]

Butera (79):

Silver (84): [PDF]

Berg (89): [PDF]

Bender (92): [PDF]

Scruggs (93) [PDF]

Chairman Brown (96): [PDF]

Novak (105): [PDF]

Conclusion (102): [PDF]

Price (42): [PDF]

2/8/1983. "A Proposal for Locating a Flag and Sculpture on the Grounds of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial."

From W. Kent Cooper, VVMF architect. [PDF]

2/9/1983. Reactions to the CFA decision.

"Statue and Flag Voted for Vietnam Memorial," New York Times, 02/09/83: A25. "Forced to decide between warring veterans, the Government's Fine Arts Commission voted today to place a statue and a flag by the side of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial rather than between its black granite walls." [FullText]

"Commentary; A Solution With Pride, Harmony and Vision," by Benjamin Forgey, Washington Post, 02/09/83: F1. "Yesterday's decision was admirably clear-headed. . . . The crucial tests of any significant work of art that exists in public space -- and make no mistake, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is art of a very high order -- are the kinds of relationships it establishes with the surrounding environment, and the nature of the bonds between its component parts." [FullText]

"The Memorial's Moment of Truce: Flag, Statue Approved for 'Front Door' of Lin's Vietnam Design," by Phil McCombs, Washington Post, 02/09/83: F1. Scruggs: "This baloney has gone on long enough." Carhart: "If we could hear from those men and women who died, where would they want that flag? . . . Right on top! Not hidden off in the trees somewhere." [FullText]

2/15/1983. "That Vietnam Memorial -- The Sad Facts," by Representative Larry McDonald, Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, E472. "Now it seems, that the nonrepresational voice of the true Vietnam veteran, does not even want Old Glory nor a statue tribute to the Vietnam vet in the immediate vicinity of the memorial. That will be a total insult if allowed to happen."

2/24/1983. Letter from Scruggs replying to McDonald.

"While I disagree with your statements, I certainly don't mind that you took the time to express your feelings about the memorial's design. As a veteran who was wounded and decorated for valor in Vietnam, I will always cherish the principles of our great nation, especially the right to express one's opinion." [PDF]

3/1983. Liking the memorial.

"Memories of Vietnam," Progressive Architecture, March 1983. "I have seen the memorial as built, and find it more effective than I expected. At a time when we are relearning the values of conventional forms and figurative art, its minimalism could be called dated -- but it succeeds as the 'contemplative' memorial called for in the competition." [FullText]

"Vietnam Veterans Memorial: Once More into the Breach," Architectural Record, March 1983: 61. [FullText]

3/4/1983. NCPC approves as well.

"Vietnam Memorial Approved" by Benjamin Forgey, Washington Post, 03/04/83: D1. "The long, bitter fight over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial came to an official end yesterday when the National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved an 'entranceway' location for added elements to the memorial in Constitution Gardens." [FullText]

3/17/1983. VVMF "Progress Report" to the National Sponsoring Committee.

"We are pleased to present this summary of activities since our last report to you July, 1982, as well as an update on our plans for the future." [PDF]

4/1983. Art and business.

"Making Peace," by John March, Harvard Business School Bulletin, April 1983: 57-75. Jack Wheeler, VVMF official: "Without the Business School training and frame of reference we had, it's an open question whether this country would have ended up in 1982 with a memorial at all." [FullText]

"A Tale of Two Memorials," by Elizabeth Hess, Art in America, April 1983: 120-27. "Thanks to the battle over the Vietnam memorial, Constitution Gardens will present two very different interpretations of the war. Though initially Lin's memorial may have had a certain political ambiguity, its juxtaposition with Hart's conservative statue will clearly emphasize its radical edge." [FullText]

"Maya Ying Lin, Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Mall," by Jeff Kelley, Artforum, April 1983: 76-77. "Yet while the statue, by Frederick Hart, earnestly represents the kind of tragic youth peculiar to the Vietnam war, it is not realistic, nor is it even historical. It is social realist statuary and is thus merely political. In time, when the echo of the war has faded, the statue will come to represent more of a tortured response to Modernism -- and its fearful silence -- than the politics of the moment. The timeless symbols of devotion, it seems to me, are already etched in the granite wall." [FullText]

5/1983. Both sides -- and an explanation.

"An Emotive Place Apart," by Robert Campbell, AIA Journal, May 1983: 150-51. "Lin's conception was so complete and so delicate that any attempt at embellishing it hurts it." [FullText]

"Background to Betrayal: Viet Vets Want Their Memorial Back," by Milt Copulos, Soldier of Fortune, May 1983: 18-27, 65. "It would seem a small matter to ensure that the permanent flag and statue are placed properly, since they will always be there. Although VVMF probably is satisfied with the current situation, they might well remember: It won't be over until both sides say it is." [FullText]

"What Happens When a Woman Designs a War Monument?" by Michael Sorkin, Vogue, May 1983: 120, 122. "Where does Maya Lin's compelling work 'fail'? As far as I can tell, the memorial's main error lies in its violations of some implicit monumental dress code. . . . It seems to me that Maya Lin's monument has been assaulted largely because it is out of drag. Many people can scarcely imagine a monument without statues and classical decor; to build one outside this convention seems a provocation." [FullText]

5/2/1983. President Reagan stops by the memorial.

"Reagan Makes His First Visit to Vietnam Memorial on Mall," New York Times, 05/02/83: A15. "He spent seven minutes at the memorial. . . . When the monument was dedicated nearly six months ago, Vietnam veterans were angered that the highest-ranking official at the ceremonies was Edward Alvarez, deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration." [FullText]

5/11/1983. Lin lashes out at Hart's work.

"Let Me Count the Ways," by Phil McCombs, Washington Post, 05/11/83: B7. Let us count the ways that Maya Lin rips the Frederick Hart statue. This article excerpts some of Lin's most provocative comments from an article in the April issue of Art in America. [FullText]

5/28/1983. The memorial is a success.

"A Lure for Tourists," New York Times, 05/28/83: 5. "The six-month-old Vietnam Veterans Memorial is already one of Washington's most-visited monuments. . . . Jan Scruggs . . . noted that there had been no demonstrations near the memorial because the veterans running the fund agreed to regulations that keep demonstrators at a distance. 'We didn't want Jane Fonda one day and Jerry Falwell the next.'" [FullText]

5/30/1983. Frontline documentary Vietnam Memorial airs on television.

5/30/1983. A wrenching film about Vietnam.

"Moving 'Memorial'; Poignant Moments Captured on PBS," by Tom Shales, Washington Post, 05/30/83: D1. Vietnam Memorial . . . is a wrenching film that masquerades as the story of last year's dedication of the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. But it is really the story of all those who participated -- those who died, those who returned, those who waited, those who still wait." [FullText]

5/31/1983. Memorial Day.

"Thousands Pay Tribute at Vietnam Memorial," by Michael Marriott, Washington Post, 05/31/83: B6. A veteran: "They come because Vietnam was a controversial war and they want to see what the country has done to honor those killed and missing in action." [FullText]

6/20/1983. Thoughts on visiting the memorial.

"[The Talk of the Town] Notes and Comments," New Yorker, 06/20/83: 25-26. "Everyone who comes to the Vietnam monument seems to sense the same truth; the only ones who might not are those 'leaders' who got us involved in Vietnam in the first place, because for them war held few horrors and fewer doubts, although the enterprise was as dubious as any in history." [FullText]

6/22/1983. Recognizing the value of grief.

"Shaped by the War in Vietnam," by John Wheeler, New York Times, 06/22/83: A27. "Close participation in building the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has shown that before we can successfully assimilate the impact of the war upon everything that was happening to each of us and to America at the time, we must first understand and recognize the value of grief. . . . In short, what we must do to break down the undifferentiated anger that still characterizes our memory of the war is to isolate what it is that really bothers us. This will make the dialogue more manageable and less hostile, making our country perhaps stronger and more united than if there had been no war at all." [FullText]

6/24/1983. No demonstrations allowed.

"'A Mass Obscenity,'" Washington Post, 06/24/83, B1. "Plans for two opposing groups to hold the first mass demonstrations near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on July 2 sparked bitter opposition yesterday from veterans groups protesting the use of the memorial as a political forum." [FullText]

7/15/1983. Changing views of the memorial.

"A Wall for Remembering," by D. Hoekema, Commonweal, 07/15/83, 397-98. "When I first read about this [plan for the flag and statue] it seemed an unfortunate compromise with aesthetic Philistinism. But visiting the memorial changed my judgment. It would be presumptuous of me, I realized, to object to the added sculpture if it will communicate more clearly to the veterans and the bereaved of Vietnam that their sacrifice is remembered and respected. And the addition, in any case, will not diminish the powerful statement of the simple memorial wall." [FullText]

8/30/1983. Rubbings.

Vietnam Memorial; Touching, Tears, Roses, Rain," by Phil Gailey, New York Times, 08/30/83, B6. "There is something new these days. Some visitors place a piece of paper over a name and rub a pencil over it. Then they take the rubbing back home to some next of kin who has not yet made the journey to Washington." [FullText]

9/1983. Guilt.

"Viet Guilt," by Christopher Buckley, Esquire, September 1983: 68-72. "Watching his [a marine at the memorial dedication] grief made me feel like an intruder. I felt I had no business there, so I left the grounds. . . . It's been ten years now since the troops came home, but until recently I had never once heard anyone admit to guilt or shame over not having gone to Vietnam -- not in hundreds of conversations about the war. I find this strange: meager, I think, is the operative word." [FullText]

11/1983. Hart on the offence, Doubek explains.

"More on Viet Memorial Controversy," Letter to the editor, by Fredrick Hart, Art in America, 71.10 (November 1983): 5. "The snide and derisive treatment accorded my sculpture [by Elizabeth Hess] is rivaled only by her omissions and distortions, which are calculated to support her bias. . . . Hess's attempt to turn the memorial controversy into a feminist issue is an idiocy which can only be explained as an act of opportunism -- an exercise in ideological squatters' rights. The specific artistic issue actually raised by this controversy, but overlooked by Hess, concerns art and the public and the relationship of art to life." [FullText]

"The Story of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial," by Robert W. Doubek, Retired Officer, November 1983: 17-24. The whole story told by one of the main officials of the VVMF. "The Vietnam War was the experience of our generation, and the lack of recognition of Vietnam veterans could well have been a national tragedy." [FullText]

11/7/1983. A new development: auditing the VVMF.

"Ch. 9 Reporter Charged with Illegal Taping," by John Carmody, Washington Post, 11/07/83. Carlton Sherwood, investigative reporter for WDVM, working on a broadcast questioning how VVMF funds were spent, is arrested on a complaint by John Wheeler, of the VVMF. [FullText]

11/8/1983. Investigating VVMF's finances.

"Battle Of the Wall; TV Reports Spark Dispute Over Vietnam Memorial," by Phil McCombs, Washington Post, 11/08/83: D1. In Vietnam Memorial: A Broken Promise? . . .Investigative reporter Carlton Sherwood said that of the $9 million raised for the memorial, only $2.6 million was spent on actual construction. The question, Sherwood said, is where the rest of the money went. . . . 'It's all been accounted for and I make $35,000 a year,' Scruggs said. In the televised report, Scruggs was shown refusing to open his financial books for the reporter." [FullText]

11/9/1983. Playing politics.

"Veterans & the Memorial Flap," Washington Post, 11/09/83: D9. "This kind of political attack has been consistent with everything related to Vietnam and the war over the years. To translate personal ideological differences into a smear campaign is disgusting. If anything should be excluded from this politicization, it should be a memorial for the dead." [FullText]

11/11/1983. Audit the books.

"Memorial Fund Invites Audit By Channel 9," by Lois Romano, Washington Post, 11/11/83: C1. "After three consecutive evenings of critical reports by a local television station on its finances, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund yesterday invited the station to hire an independent auditor to go through the fund's books." [FullText]

11/12/1983. Veterans Day.

"Ceremonies Held at Vietnam Memorial," by Marcia Slacum, Washington Post, 11/12/83: B1. "Jan Scruggs, who had led the effort to build the memorial, said that the memorial would help the nation to recover the unity that it lost during the war. He added that the servicemen and women who died in that war will be remembered as individuals rather than 'casualties in a war America tried to forget.'" [FullText]

11/14/1983. One-year retrospect.

"The Memorial -- a Year Later," by Rick Horowitz, [Baltimore] Sun, 11/14/83: C1. "Four people [Scruggs, Lin, Carhart, Hart] had to contend with the memorial's rapid rise to prominence in an especially personal way. One first conceived of the memorial idea. One gave it shape. One fought so hard against it that changes had to be made. And one was chosen to bring those changes to life." [FullText]

11/16/1983. Two of the main players.

"Life after Annapolis: An American Odyssey," by Tom Carhart, Wall Street Journal, 11/16/83. Carhart reviews a new book by James Webb. "The spirit of Tolstoy may be with us again, for Mr. Webb investigates and supports traditional moral values accepted by Western society, but is neither dogmatic nor offensive in the process." [FullText]

11/21/1983. Another retrospect.

"[First Anniversary] A Memorial That Healed Our Wounds" by John S. Lang, U.S. News & World Report, 11/21/83: 68-70. "In the year since people first saw it, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial has come to be a place where Americans make peace with their past. It is now the most emotional ground in the national capital, surpassed in visitors only by the National Air and Space Museum and the Lincoln Memorial. People kiss it, caress it, salute it, scream at it, pray before it, tape messages to it. It is only a wall, stark and black, but it imposes a spell over those who go grieving there." [FullText]

12/8/1983. The investigator investigated.

"Sherwood Resigns at WDVM," Washington Times, 12/08/83. [FullText]

12/17/1983. Government audit of VVMF.

"GAO To Audit Vets," by Jacqueline Trescott," Washington Post, 12/17/83: B1. Senators Warner and Mathias: "We are concerned about the shadow cast over the memorial by the questions raised [by investigative reporter Carlton Sherwood] and would like to resolve the matter once and for all." [FullText]

12/19/1983.

The TV Column, by John Carmody, Washington Post, 12/19/83: C10. [FullText]