How are you feeling about the state of American democracy?

[kaysixteen]

I just read the blurb on the homepage, after the headline.   It said something to the effect that some people were arguing that Trump should indeed be added to Rushmore, which it said had also been floated about by various folks during his first admin.  That was more or less as far as I could stomach myself, but it did get me to thinking-- could this Congress, egged on by Drumpf, actually pass a law ordering this to be done?  Are there any documents or contracts or covenants that a court could use to forbid it?

[ciao_yall]

The article says no for a variety of reasons.

1) It is considered a completed work of art, so it can't be changed. For example, you can't add another figure to the Mona Lisa or Last Supper.
2) The stone is too weak to handle another face. There were design compromises already made to get the 4 up there.

Those are the 2 on the top of my mind, but there were others.

[Sea_Ice]

The article says no for a variety of reasons.

1) It is considered a completed work of art, so it can't be changed. For example, you can't add another figure to the Mona Lisa or Last Supper.
2) The stone is too weak to handle another face. There were design compromises already made to get the 4 up there.

Those are the 2 on the top of my mind, but there were others.

Oh, fantastic!!  Yet another thing that he can easily ruin just by insisting on being part of it... [/snark]

[Parasaurolophus]

The case law on artists' moral rights in the US isn't great, so I wouldn't put much stock in (1). (2) Is where the action is.

He might still get some other mountain, though. Maybe a nearby one? Or one of the useless faces could get a makeover.

[kaysixteen]

I agree with para on #1-- American law, apparently almost singularly, really gives artists no rights to the control of any work that they have sold, and certainly assigns no rights to heirs.   If the French authorized me to buy the Mona Lisa, I bought it and took it here, I could paint a mustache on her.

I certainly can alter a painting I bought at the Salvation Army, display it in its altered form in my house, outside on my lawn, etc., or sell it that way to whomever I chose.  And if in turn that Salvaitonist-found artwork were discovered to actually be the work of some famous artist, same deal.  Even if artist is still alive.

I am not generally a libertarian, far from it.  I am not at all sure I disagree with our view of art rights, however, esp since to offer such rights, the state, some court, etc.,, would also get to dictate what exactly qualifies as a 'work of art'.

Sadly, there is something the GOP congress can do, and I suspect we will see it soon.   They can rename lots of stuff for Trump-- who is to stop them?  I especially expect things named after known Democrats, liberals, blacks, etc,, to be targeted.   And whatever happens in this area now, at least till the 2026 election and subsequent seating of a new Dem majority in either house should one be elected, what do you suppose the current GOP shitshow would do should Trump stroke out tomorrow?

[ciao_yall]

The case law on artists' moral rights in the US isn't great, so I wouldn't put much stock in (1). (2) Is where the action is.

He might still get some other mountain, though. Maybe a nearby one? Or one of the useless faces could get a makeover.

It's not technically illegal. It's just not done.

Which President would be swapped out?

Roosevelt could have his glasses and mustache removed, but he is way in the back and DJT wouldn't stand for that.

He would want Washington's spot... maybe grow pampas grasses on the head to give him hair?

[Antiphon1]

There's an unfinished Crazy Horse memorial down the road from Rushmore.  Maybe DJT could use the north side of the Crazy Horse memorial since the infrastructure is already in place.  Bonus - he'd be staring down the other 4 presidents.  It's certainly practically and metaphorically appealing.