Monumental art can no longer fill the demand for public heroes in the classical sense. We are living in a democratic age where the re-examination of our past is in the context of humanity. Together we are one people of cultural and ethnic backgrounds struggling toward a common future. These struggles are too often dominated by emotional and physical conflict rather than reason. Nevertheless they stimulate the slow progress of the human race. The heroism of the individual act will always deserve recognition but the concept of the hero as an ideal individual is dead.

Art can be used to serve varied and contradictory purposes: war, peace, patriotism, religion, nationalism, the apotheosis of dictators, dedication to a higher purpose, the discovery of a great idea or the recognition of history. Art can be used either as a weapon of progress or an instrument of oppression.

The objective of the XII Travelers Memorial as “history” (and not the glorification of “heroes”) was clearly stated from its inception and further emphasized in the suggested list of candidates – none of which is classically heroic. However, these (men and women), Native Americans, African-Americans, Mexicans and Anglo-Americans, all bear historical and dramatic significance as “chapter headings” for the twelve eras constituting the memorial, i.e. from 1535-1910.

Art is most effective when embodied in the powerful images of individuals, rather than generic images. These draw the spectator more effectively into the drama of history and commend study. The generic figure is less interesting historically precisely because it represents no one in particular but it does represent a false idealization of a class with all its historical baggage, both good and bad. At the same time it excludes from consideration all individuals outside that class who were also active historic participants.

It is the objective quality of art that defines and invites controversy. Let us suppose that the Oñate monument is a beacon for the history of an era. In Oñate’s features one may find ruthless personal ambition (typical in an age exploration and conquests). This is reinforced by the rearing of his steed, symbolizing the energy of aggression. In contrast one can also feel the sincerity of Spanish dedication to ideals of church and crown as well to the hardship willingly endured. Both of these viewpoints entered in my portrayal of Oñate – as did the contemporary significance of his legacy. As a typical leader of that period Oñate engendered complex and contradictory currents, and the conflict of cultures which followed the European discovery of the New World was an inevitable fact of history.

Now let us examine the sweep of the era encompassed by the Oñate monument (1540-1680). It began with the first Spanish entradas into the Southwest in the mid 16th C. and continued with the First Thanksgiving and the founding of the Camino Real (1598). It led to the battle of Acoma, with its deplorable aftermath, and the establishment of the first permanent settlement west of the Mississippi. It culminated with Spanish abuses that ignited the Pueblo Rebellion of 1680 – and expelled the Spaniards from New Mexico for twelve years.

Out of a rich indigenous heritage side by side with Hispanic cultural and religious traditions came the mestisaje. This unique cultural and genetic blending is peculiar to the Southwest, and if we put our ear to the ground we can still hear the distant rumbling of the Camino Real underlying modern commerce between the Unites States and Mexico.