ShareThis Page

Trib editorial: Foster statue's fate challenging choice for Peduto

| Thursday, Oct. 26, 2017, 9:51 a.m.
The statue of Stephen Foster in Pittsburgh's Oakland section. (Trib photo)
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
The statue of Stephen Foster in Pittsburgh's Oakland section. (Trib photo)

Pittsburgh's Art Commission now unanimously recommends that the Stephen Foster statue be removed from the Oakland entrance to Schenley Park. But its fate is up to Mayor Bill Peduto.

He has said the 117-year-old bronze sculpture of the Lawrenceville-born composer should be displayed elsewhere but shouldn't be destroyed. And indeed, this monument presents a more nuanced question than do statues of Confederate figures. The statue offends some, particularly with its inclusion of a seated black-slave banjo player, which others see as depicting a source of musical inspiration for Mr. Foster.

Simply putting the statue in storage might quiet the controversy, but that would send a message of its own: Pittsburgh sequesters such issues rather than resolving them. Moving the statue somewhere as part of a larger display that provides historical context could make it a valuable teaching tool. But some institution, public or private, would have to be willing to take it and commit to such a plan.

If the statue is removed, what takes its current place? Will anything tell passersby what used to be there, why it's no longer there, even direct them to its new home if it gets one?

Mr. Peduto faces a challenging choice. It needs to be one that makes sense in both the moment and in the long run, too.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.