Kingdom Come

THE NEW CRITERION, November 2025

Kingdom Come

On “To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures from the Terra Sancta Museum,” at the Frick Collection.

Among the many miracles to come from Jerusalem, “To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures from the Terra Sancta Museum,” now on view at the Frick Collection, is the latest revelation.1 The wonders of the works on display, with some sixty-eight individual pieces, are only outshone by the tales of their survival and the connections these treasures maintain to that singular place.

Since its rediscovery in the fourth century A.D., the location of Jesus’s tomb—the Holy Sepulcher—has been the most important pilgrimage site in Christendom. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, at a time when European monarchs could not visit the Holy Land, then under Ottoman rule, the courts of Europe sent treasures to the church built over the tomb for use in rituals and veneration. “To the Holy Sepulcher” represents the first pilgrimage of these objects stateside. The exhibition is the result of an unprecedented loan from the Custody of the Holy Land, the Franciscan division charged since A.D. 1309 with protecting the Roman Catholic treasures in Jerusalem and beyond. The American tour anticipates the opening of the Terra Sancta Museum, a Franciscan facility now under construction at the Monastery of Saint Saviour, by Jerusalem’s New Gate, designed to safeguard and display these objects back home.

The astonishing history of these treasures is made all the more remarkable by their appearance in New York. As the Holy Land comes to Fifth Avenue, we must thank Xavier F. Salomon, the Frick’s deputy director and chief curator. He organized this exhibition after first learning about the Terra Sancta Museum a few years ago, with the help of Jacques Charles-Gaffiot and Benoît Constensoux of the Terra Sancta Museum’s scientific committee. The exhibition marks this young curator’s final effort at the Frick before his departure for the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon, Portugal, where he is the incoming director. For a scholar so invested in both the fine and decorative arts of Europe, “To the Holy Sepulcher,” we might say, is a fitting swan song of Salomon.

The exhibition leads off with the one item here actually created in the Holy Land: a model of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher itself, crafted in the eighteenth century. Be sure not to miss it just outside the gallery entrance; on the day I visited, it was not easy to double back. Carved in Bethlehem of local olive and pistachio wood, mother-of-pearl from the shells of the Red Sea, and camel bone, the dollhouse-like assembly was created to be a gift for Europeans from the Franciscans—a memento from rather than for the Holy Sepulcher. The jeweled model reminds us of all this footprint contains and how this church has come down to us through time.

Look up this church in the index of Jerusalem, Simon Sebag Montefiore’s recent history of the city, and the subcategories give some indication of the site’s vicissitudes:

Church of the Holy Sepulchre: and Arab conquests . . . construction by Empress Helena . . . and Crusades . . . daily rituals . . . and Descent of the Holy Fire . . . destruction by fire . . . Fatimid destruction . . . latrines . . . and Mongol raids . . . and Napoleonic invasion . . . Persian destruction . . . and religious conflict . . . and Tartar conquest . . . and Turkish conquests . . .

The layout of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is far different from the grand vision of the Vatican or what one might expect from this axis mundi of Christianity (there is, in fact, a spot in the church marking the very axis point). A concatenation of surprisingly small Romanesque buildings, all of which were built, burned, and reconstructed over various periods, the church has been a site of veneration, speculation, and contention for two millennia—and is made all the more wondrous in its strangeness. No two of the extant floor plans of this church look exactly alike. It is easy to get turned around among its domes and passages, its priests and pilgrims. Make a left turn at the Chapel of Adam, where the blood of Christ ran through Adam’s skull; go past the Stone of Unction, where the body of Christ was cleaned before burial and which pilgrims now rub down with oil; and you might come across a wall of medieval graffiti carved to collect its holy dust.

Robert Landry, Reliquary of the True Cross, 1628–29, Gilt silver and glass, Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem.

Today the church is located within the Old City, a short walk from the Temple Mount through narrow, winding streets of Jerusalem stone, and is little changed from that eighteenth-century model. In the time of Jesus, the tomb was part of a sloped cemetery that existed just outside the city walls. Following Titus’s destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Hadrian recast the city as Aelia Capitolina in A.D. 130. Even by then, the tomb had become a site of veneration for the earliest Christians. Hoping to redirect their attention to the Roman gods, Hadrian walled off the tomb, flattened the site, and constructed a temple to Venus in its stead. Nevertheless, the memory of the location endured. Two centuries on, as Rome accepted Christianity with the Edict of Milan, Helena of Constantinople—mother to Emperor Constantine, and Saint Helena to Christians—traveled to Jerusalem and reopened the tomb in 326; her son dedicated the new church on its site in 335. In a nearby well, Helena also discovered pieces of what she believed to be the True Cross. The site of the Crucifixion, known as Calvary Hill or Golgotha, is just 150 feet from the tomb and was soon incorporated in the church grounds.

Regarding the tomb’s history, Evelyn Waugh wrote in his introduction to Helena, his historical novel of 1950, that

if we do accept its authenticity we must, I think, allow an element of the miraculous in its discovery and identification. We do know that most of the relics of the True Cross now venerated in various places have a clear descent from the relic venerated in the first half of the fourth century. It used to be believed by the vulgar that there were enough pieces of this “true cross” to build a battleship.

Much as Waugh encountered them, today the tomb, Calvary Hill, and Helena’s well—in addition to archaeological evidence of Hadrian’s Temple of Venus—are all connected under one roof within the warren of buildings that comprise the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Making this real estate even more complex—and explaining its general appearance of deferred maintenance—the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, Syrian, and Ethiopian churches all share in the church’s administration under an arrangement reached in 1757, in the days of the sultan, known as the Status Quo.

“To the Holy Sepulcher” is made up of a selection of precious objects used by the Latin church in its annual rituals around the site and in other places under its protection in the Holy Land. Only recently have these objects been, like the tomb itself in Helena’s day, brought to the light—in this case, after the Cuban Italian scholar Alvar González-Palacios began researching them in the 1980s and exposing them to the greater museum world (his fascinating story gets its due in the exhibition’s lavish catalogue, which also features updated photographs of these freshly cleaned treasures).

Before then, as the Franciscan custodians tell it, these treasures were hidden in plain sight—brought out for special ceremonies but otherwise squirreled away in closets and storerooms, miraculously safe from looting, vandalism, and whatever authority was ruling Jerusalem at any given time. In fact, the greatest threat to such treasures has come from intrachurch rivalry. A sanctuary lamp (ca. 1758–59) of gold and gilt silver attributed to Johann Caspar Kriedemann, showing reliefs of episodes from the life of Christ, was most likely created from the gold of earlier Latin treasure that had been destroyed by the Greek clergy in an attack on the eve of Palm Sunday in 1757. The same goes for the pair of torchères from 1762, remade in Venice by the workshop known as al San Lorenzo Giustinian from the 1,304 ounces of silver recovered by the Franciscans from those destroyed and stolen treasures.

Al San Lorenzo Giustinian Workshop, Torchère, 1762, Silver and gilt silver, Terra Sancta Museum, Jerusalem.

Nevertheless, despite the challenges faced by the church and city, the many treasures in Franciscan custody at the Holy Sepulcher have fared far better than their counterparts in Europe. “To the Holy Sepulcher” contains examples of European metalwork that are otherwise no longer extant—melted down long ago for their raw materials. The sections of the exhibition are therefore divided by region of origin, denoting the French, Iberian, and Germanic sources of these gifts given by European monarchs to Franciscan emissaries for delivery to and use in the Holy Land.

It is, after all, the continuous liturgical function of these ritual objects that has defined their design and sustained them. “Their survival over the centuries is a direct result of their continued use,” says Salomon. As the outgoing director of the cultural heritage office at the Custody of the Holy Land, Friar Stéphane Milovitch explained at the Frick opening, “If the Ottomans knew we had all these kinds of things, they would have liked to take it. So during many centuries we use and we hide—but we used.”

To understand such metalwork and textile, it helps to envision it carried, elevated, illuminated, and worn. At the opening, I met one friar looking at the subtle wear on a section of fleurs-de-lys on a crozier (1654–55) created by Nicolas Dolin. He wanted to see just where the bishops grasped this imposing pastoral staff of gilt silver, glass, and semi-precious stones, made in Paris and given to the Franciscans by Louis XIV.

Nicolas Dolin, Chalice, 1661–63, Gilt silver, glass, and semi-precious stone, Terra Santa Museum, Jerusalem.

A special alchemy takes place when such treasures of sculptural relief, created from metal and stone, are held in the lamplit liturgies of the church. Objects such as Dolin’s chalice and paten (1661–63) and Jean Hubé’s ciborium (1668–69) are so finely detailed, with minuscule images from the life of Christ alongside symbols of the holy ancestors of the French kings, that these messages are more intended to be felt than seen. While European monarchs could not travel to Jerusalem in person, their presence was conveyed to the holy altars through the symbolism preserved in these finely wrought materials.

To encounter such objects in a museum setting is therefore a trade-off. Salomon has done what he can to reproduce an altarlike feel in some of these displays, with vested mannequins arranged among the treasures. Nevertheless, we experience them as never intended, not in candlelit glimpses but in close-up stares. Ornate objects such as a solid-gold Neapolitan monstrance of 1746, Antonio de Laurentiis’s throne of Eucharistic exposition of 1754, and a Neapolitan crucifix of gold and lapis lazuli of 1756 are just about too much to take in under the light of the Frick’s spare new special-exhibition space. The same goes for Robert Landry’s reliquary of the true cross (1628–29), containing at its center a fragment of Helena’s fourth-century find.

As an exhibition of holy objects, “To the Holy Sepulcher” ultimately tells us little about the liturgical role of these materials back in Jerusalem. As a display of European metalwork and textile design, however, the show connects us to relics of the European past as never before. This connection is not lost on the Franciscan custodians of these works, who rightly see American institutions such as the Frick as upholding the legacy of Christian Europe even in a post-Christian, post-European age. Today, these treasures speak to the resurrection of Western culture as much as the Resurrection from that Jerusalem tomb. In either context, they represent singular objects of faith.

1. “To the Holy Sepulcher: Treasures from the Terra Sancta Museum” opened at the Frick Collection, New York, on October 2, 2025, and remains on view through January 5, 2026. The exhibition will also be seen at the Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth (March 15–June 28, 2026. 

Good on Paper

THE NEW CRITERION, March 2025

Good on paper

On “Paper, Color, Line,” at the Wadsworth Atheneum.

“Paper, Color, Line: European Master Drawings from the Wadsworth Atheneum,” the exhibition now on view in Hartford, Connecticut, goes against every diminished expectation of what a major museum show today ought to be.1 Just consider the words in its subtitle. European? Master? Drawings? All from the museum’s permanent collection? Swish that vocabulary around your palate like you’ve just supped some pre-phylloxera wine—you probably assumed such old-vine vintages had been long since emptied from the cellars of contemporary politicized discourse. Then book yourself a train to Hartford, as I did, or drive, fly, or walk, and rejoice in the opportunity to see an exhibition whose sole purpose is to rekindle the art of close looking. Such connoisseurship informed the creation of this drawings collection a century ago. It still does today. While you are at it, stay on for the other highlights from the Wadsworth’s permanent collection, on view here in one of the country’s oldest museums, with both Old Master and modern treasures and a grand salon-style paintings hall. The leaders of this museum once envisioned the Wadsworth as a pilgrimage site for important art. It might just be that way again.

“Paper, Color, Line” is the initiative of Oliver Tostmann, the Wadsworth’s Susan Morse Hilles Curator of European Art. His exhibition of over sixty works on paper from the sixteenth through twentieth centuries, selected from the museum’s holdings of 1,250 drawings, watercolors, pastels, and collages, serves not only to put these rare sheets back on display. It also presents the opportunity for a wholesale reassessment of this overlooked aspect of the Wadsworth’s permanent collection, along with advancing the essential restoration, reconditioning, and remounting of these fragile objects. Just as important for the endurance of this project, even after this exhibition comes down, has been the production of a sizable catalogue, the Wadsworth’s first publication dedicated to its European drawings collection. The scholarly entries here are all written by Tostmann himself, unencumbered by the synthetic stuffing we might find from guest contributors. Supplementing the exhibition’s informative wall labels, his catalogue delves deep into each drawing on view as well as the history of how they all happened to end up in Hartford.

In terms of the narrative arc it traces of American museum-making, the Hartford chapter of this story can be surprisingly compelling. Founded in 1842 by Daniel Wadsworth (1771–1848) on the grounds of his family home at the center of Hartford, open to the public since 1844, the Wadsworth predates the establishment of other major East Coast art institutions by more than a generation. The Atheneum bills itself as the oldest continuously operating museum in the United States. Enlarged through the philanthropy of local Gilded Age grandees, including the Colt family and none other than John Pierpont Morgan, himself Hartford-born, this institution grew expeditiously during the early decades of the twentieth century but has struggled since. The museum’s current concatenation of architectural styles, from neo-Gothic to Beaux-Arts to International Style to bunker Brutalism, speaks to the highs and lows of its civic fortunes.

Giuseppe Cesari, called Cavaliere d’Arpino, The Discovery of Romulus and Remus, 1596, Red chalk, Charles H. Schwartz Fund, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford.

Drawings began entering this collection with one of Daniel Wadsworth’s earliest bequests. Tostmann introduces his survey with a pair of pastels by the British artist James Sharples of George and Martha Washington, each created circa 1798 and accessioned by the institution in 1848. (A tool of the trade, especially relevant here but useful whenever reading a wall label, is to note a work’s accession number. More often than not, the number begins with the year the work entered a collection, followed by a period and a second number indicating the order of its accession in that given year. Sharples’s George Washington and Martha Washington carry accession numbers 1848.18 and 1848.19, respectively.)

The Sharples pastels were first owned by Daniel Wadsworth’s father, Jeremiah, a sea captain and statesman who represented Connecticut in the Continental Congress and the House of Representatives. He was also a friend and confidant to George Washington. A plaque erected at the corner of the museum notes that Colonel Wadsworth entertained Washington on that spot in 1775. In 1780, Washington returned to the Wadsworth home with Lafayette, General Knox, and Governor Trumbull for their first meeting with Count Rochambeau and Admiral Verney in order to “concert joint military and naval plans.” The rest, as they say, is history. Tostmann surmises that young Daniel must have met the Father of our Country during one of Washington’s many return visits to Hartford, a fact that gives these portraits and their bequest to the new museum, founded on the very spot where Washington turned the spindle of the world, extra significance. It is interesting to note that Governor Trumbull’s son, the painter John Trumbull, became Daniel Wadsworth’s closest mentor and joined Thomas Cole and Frederic Edwin Church as his artistic advisor.

For the next eighty years, drawings entered the Wadsworth in fits and starts, including via a gift of sixty European prints and drawings in 1914 by the descendants of Cassius Welles. That all changed in 1927 with two auspicious arrivals. One was a $1.1 million bequest from the estate of Frank Sumner, a donor whose family had deep roots in Hartford, which established a significant acquisitions fund for paintings. The second was the appointment of A. Everett Austin Jr. (1900–57), the brilliant young director known as “Chick” Austin, just twenty-six years old at the time, who knew how to leverage this gift for the museum’s great benefit—and interpreted the Sumner bequest to include the acquisition of drawings as well as paintings.

Léon Bakst, Costume Design for Vaslav Nijinsky as the Faun, from “L’Apres-Midi d’un Faune,” 1912, Graphite, tempera, watercolor & gold paint on illustration board, The Ella Gallup Sumner and Mary Catlin Sumner Collection Fund, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford.

Austin arrived as the Atheneum’s first academically trained director, having graduated from the fabled museum course offered by Edward Waldo Forbes and Paul J. Sachs at Harvard University’s Fogg Art Museum. (For more on Sachs and the story of another one of his graduates, Perry Rathbone of the Saint Louis Art Museum and the Boston mfa, see “The Boston Perry,” my review in the October 2024 issue of The New Criterion.) Tostmann credits Sachs with instilling in Austin a special appreciation for drawings, which he pursued energetically during his tenure at the Wadsworth. Such acquisitions continued after his retirement in 1944 under his immediate successor, Charles C. Cunningham, who served as director until 1966. In part, these purchases were strategic. Even with the Sumner fund, Austin could be easily outspent for top-flight oils by larger institutions. When it came to works on paper, not always by name-brand artists, he stood a fighting chance. His acquisition budget simply went further with drawings than paintings.

Beyond mere finances, however, Austin put in practice the lessons he had learned from Sachs in valuing drawings qua drawings. Sachs lectured often about the importance of drawings. He collected his thoughts in a 1951 publication called The Pocket Book of Great Drawings—tracing a line from the disegno of Giorgio Vasari to an appreciation of drawings as the locus of artistic understanding:

Drawing is, indeed, the fundamental element in all great picture making, just as grammar is at the root of all good writing. . . . A great drawing . . . instantly brings to us the thought, the emotion of the artist at the time of creation. . . . It is in his drawings that the artist makes his most spontaneous statements, and enables us to follow his thought in the very act of creation.

We can just about hear Sachs’s words in Austin’s and Cunningham’s ears as we survey the Wadsworth’s highlights, mostly presented by Tostmann chronologically by their year of creation. As quoted by Sachs, Vasari himself called drawing “the necessary beginning of everything [in art], and not having it, one has nothing.” One of the first sheets up is Vasari’s own Jupiter Sacrificing on the Island of Naxos (1557, acquired by the Wadsworth in 1948). This ethereal drawing of pen, ink, and brown-ink wash, with lead white over graphite underdrawing, “demonstrates not only Vasari’s economical and pragmatic work habits,” writes Tostmann, “but also his erudition, succinct storytelling, and technical skill.”

Giorgio Vasari, Descent from the Cross, ca. 1550, Pen, ink wash & chalk on paper, Purchase through the gift of James Junius Goodwin, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford.

In acquiring both drawings and paintings, Austin largely looked beyond the household names of the High Renaissance to the art of the Baroque, which he championed much as Sachs had done. The Holy Family (ca. 1760, acquired 1930) by Giovanni Battista (Giambattista) Tiepolo, depicts a tender embrace in a liquid sheet of rippling line. “In all of his prolific work,” Sachs said of Tiepolo, “we delight in the illusion of Italian sunlight which suffused his rapid sketches as it does his vast compositions. . . . The light beloved of all Venetians shines on his pages with a brilliant whiteness.” In this deft work of pen and brown ink with gray wash, the untouched areas of cream paper are allowed to shine with their own light of the world.

Another highlight of highlights here is Honoré Daumier’s The Departure of the Clowns (Le déplacement des saltimbanques) (ca. 1866–67, acquired 1928). Austin spent far more on this drawing, $16,000, than he would even on drawings by Cézanne or Renoir—no doubt again encouraged by Sachs. “No man who ever lived was more of a translator of life into contemporary, everyday terms by means of masterly drawing,” Sachs wrote of the illustrative Daumier:

His ability to depict through facial expression—punctuated by the emphasis of gesture—fleeting and conflicting human emotions is unequalled. In the whole field of art there are no finer examples than those by Daumier of drawing from memory.

Austin and Cunningham are not the only ones to thank for establishing this farsighted drawings collection—which includes outstanding works by Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Gustave Courbet, Gustave Doré, Edgar Degas, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Egon Schiele, Paul Klee, Joan Miró, Henry Moore, and the Leipzig School’s Werner Tübke, as well as an essential suite of designs for the Ballets Russes by Léon Bakst, Natalia Goncharova, and Mikhail Larionov. A stunning Ingres, the Portrait of the Architect Louis-Pierre Haudebourt (ca. 1814–18), is not an Austin acquisition at all but a 2023 bequest by Susannah Shickman that would have no doubt pleased both Austin and Sachs. In this dashing portrait—“animated by the contrast between Haudebourt’s highly finished face and the loosely sketched body,” says Tostmann—we readily appreciate what Sachs called Ingres’ “accounts of the outer rather than the inner man.” Ingres, Sachs continued, displays a

rare combination of subtle intuition, skillfully minute delineation, and fidelity to appearance which gives his drawings their special character and charm—a charm not unlike that of the characters in the novels of Jane Austen.

The Ingres acquisition reminds us that drawings continue to be an active interest at the Wadsworth. A Helmeted Warrior with Two Separate Studies of His Head, and Two Other Studies (ca. 1645, acquired 2024), a sketch by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri, called Il Guercino, appeared just a year ago on the Upper East Side wall of Nicholas Hall and W. M. Brady & Co during Master Drawings New York, a part of the city’s essential week for Old Master dealers (see my “Brown in town” in the March 2024 issue of The New Criterion). Such ongoing Old Master acquisitions speak to the continued foresight of the Wadsworth in not simply going in for the latest contemporary bauble, as well as the cultural value of a healthy marketplace for art.

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, Portrait of Louis-Pierre Haudebourt, Pencil on paper, Bequest of Susannah Shickman, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford.

Just a final note for when you arrive in Hartford: the display of these drawings could look better. Spanning the walls of a bright-yellow room, with landlord paint covering the electrical outlets, the linear arrangement does not reward visitors as much as it should or help them slow down for the careful viewing these works deserve. Drawings are best presented in domestic scale, with alcoves and seats to aid in their unfolding discovery. When Austin inaugurated his Avery Memorial wing at the Wadsworth in 1934, he installed a drawings center right on the ground floor, with desk and chairs available for close study. These rooms were torn out in the 1970s at a time when the Wadsworth had tossed aside its entire interest in collecting European works on paper. With that interest rekindled today, why not bring these rooms back? This is the ultimate hope for “Paper, Color, Line”—that an essential line of inquiry has now been drawn from the connoisseurship of Sachs and Austin to the museum world of today and beyond.

1. “Paper, Color, Line: European Master Drawings from the Wadsworth Atheneum” opened at the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art, Hartford, on January 16 and remains on view through April 27, 2025. 

When Art Goes to War

THE NEW CRITERION, February 2025

When Art Goes to War

Sabin Howard has been at the center of a battle over sculpture for over three decades. I first wrote about him in this space nearly twenty years ago, when I paid a visit to his studio in the South Bronx and found him surrounded by a pantheon in plaster and bronze (see “Gallery chronicle,” May 2007). At the time, Howard was completing a statue of Apollo. As with all of his work, this multiyear labor, built up through tens of thousands of hand-applied dots of plasteline, was destined to be cast in an alloy, one might say, of his own autobiography. Howard sculpts in epic and myth, including his war against our cultural status quo. He has long approached the plastic arts as if he were a Prometheus, a fallen god out to redeliver that creative fire from Mount Olympus.

I doubt I was the only observer who felt a mixture of elation and apprehension when, in 2016, the U.S. World War One Centennial Commission selected Howard out of some 350 submissions to design the centerpiece for its new war memorial on the Washington Mall. Here was a creative battle to end all art wars. I feared one unelected agency after another would wear down this aesthetic belligerent to a stalemate, if not gassing him into unconditional surrender.

It did not help matters that the designated site of Pershing Park, just around the corner from the White House, already contained a design from 1981 that had been the result of an earlier competition involving no less than Robert Venturi, Richard Serra, and M. Paul Friedberg—establishment grandees all. True, their site had been in decline for decades. First it was shoehorned into a sunken ice rink, then a swamp designed by the firm of Oehme, van Sweden, and finally a brownfield site of broken water features, abandoned postmodern pavilions, and a derelict garage for the Zamboni. Despite the sorry state, preservationists were quick to panic in this needle park as they dug up Kodachromes from opening day, 1981. Any commission would need to accommodate Pershing Park’s bones—including its existing monumental plaza dedicated to General John J. Pershing, which had been designed by Wallace K. Harrison with a statue by Robert White from 1983—even as it looked to create something revivified and new.

The location of the memorial site was just one of Howard’s many troubles. Our nation’s art-and-architecture insiders were sure to see the selection of Howard and his competition partner, Joseph Weishaar—a twenty-five-year-old graduate of the University of Arkansas, an architect who did not yet have his license at the time of the announcement—as interlopers in what was supposed to be an exclusive lawn party for pedigreed insiders. After all, the last starchitect to dip his beak in the National Mall was none other than Frank Gehry. In 2020, he left it with an anti-monument made of chicken wire, purportedly dedicated to Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Of course, the war over the National Mall goes back much further. In 1982, Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans Memorial, submitted when she was an undergraduate at Yale (whew!), was a minimalist broadside against the capital’s classical aspirations. The assault was only somewhat countered two years later by the addition to the site of Three Soldiers, Frederick Hart’s realistic bronze sculpture of multiracial brothers-in-arms.

Sure enough, as I tuned in to view the endless agency meetings in the years following the commission announcement, it seemed as though Howard and Weishaar’s concept, called “The Weight of Sacrifice,” would be bled through a thousand bureaucrats. What initially called for three walls of engravings, all designed to surround a freestanding battle sculpture and an elevated lawn, was eventually reduced through eighteen different iterations to a single wall of sculptural relief less than sixty feet in length. Weishaar’s elevated lawn, meanwhile, returned back to Friedberg’s sunken plaza, now merely modified and tidied up, with Howard’s sculptural frieze essentially replacing the old Zamboni dock. (gwwo Architects, meanwhile, stepped in as managing architects, with David Rubin Land Collective serving as the landscape designer.)

The pressures might have been enough to shell-shock any creative soul. For Howard, it appears to have fired up some essential distillation, encouraged by his commissioners, including Edwin Fountain, as well as by Justin Shubow of the National Civic Art Society. Relief sculpture going back to antiquity has a special ability to convey the cycles of war. Unlike freestanding statuary, its program can be episodic. Rather than a single moment, relief can contain many moments across a single frame progressing from left to right, as for example up the spiral of Trajan’s Column in Rome.

Howard appears to have drawn from numerous sources as he recast his sculpture into what he titled A Soldier’s Journey—a long frame of a single figure in multiple scenes as he turns from his daughter and wife, marches off to war, faces the ferocity and terrors of the trenches, and returns home to his family. Howard’s wife, the novelist Traci L. Slatton, as project manager recorded the evolution online in preparation for a documentary about the commission called Heroic, to be released this summer. She also served as a model for a nurse in the composition; their teenage daughter provided the model for the girl at the start and end of the frieze.

For inspiration Howard looked to Ghiberti’s baptistry doors in Florence and John Singer Sargent’s Gassed, that epic processional painting of blinded soldiers from 1919 based on Sargent’s own frontline observations, now in London’s Imperial War Museum. The minimalism of Lin and the realism of Hart both seemed to become reflected in the synthesis of the evolving relief. So too the turmoil of Henry Merwin Shrady’s sculptural battle groups for his tripartite Ulysses S. Grant Memorial, which leads up to the United States Capitol from the west. That work took Shrady twenty years to complete and accelerated his untimely death in 1922 at just age fifty, a fact that did not bode well for Howard. The Grant Memorial was only completed by Shrady’s studio assistants Edmond Amateis and Sherry Fry. (Shrady’s pendant equestrian statue in Charlottesville of Robert E. Lee, completed by Leo Lentelli in 1924 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1997, was removed and melted down in 2023 as a consequence of the moral panics of 2017. This is just one of the many recent crimes against our sculptural patrimony that has yet to be redressed.)

Howard’s most significant invention in A Soldier’s Journey was surely mothered by the necessities of his impending deadline and what he could fully do with the sculptural space that remained for him. For an artist who could spend years building up a single statue, a multipart relief of more than three dozen figures, all over life size, could quickly add up to a terminal Shrady sum. A manual artist, Howard turned to digital solutions. At first he took some twelve thousand pictures of his models, posed in authentic period uniforms, with his cell phone. The many models—a mix of actors and military veterans along with his family members—recited period poetry during the long posing sessions. “Dulce et Decorum Est,” written by Wilfred Owen in 1917 and published posthumously in 1920, proved to be particularly relevant to the emerging sculptural story:

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

To advance his production schedule further, Howard relocated for nine months to New Zealand, where he worked with Wētā Workshop, the concept-design company behind the Lord of the Rings franchise. Through Wētā’s digital modeling software, he developed and tweaked his sculptural maquettes to secure commission approval. With his models and their wardrobes in tow, Howard then traveled to the Cotswolds in England to work with Steve Russell Studios and the Pangolin Editions foundry. Here he positioned his models one by one in a 360-degree photogrammetry rig—a cage of 156 inward facing cameras feeding three-dimensional scanners—for a final round of imaging. After digital editing, Pangolin milled foam mannequins of these figural forms, which were left coated with a thin layer of clay.

Beyond merely accelerating his development time, this digital process significantly altered Howard’s final results. His use of digital modeling not only helped him to arrange his figures but also allowed him to build his relief more fully in the round, with increasingly true-to-life complexity. With the foam figures back in his studio, now a garage in Englewood, New Jersey, he sliced and diced slivers off of them while slapping on additional layers of plasteline. The action added an expressionistic finish and an urgent manual dash to the underlying digital printouts. The entire assembly was then cast by Pangolin in large bronze sections. In a final step, Howard patinated his bronze in dark gray with a brush and blowtorch.

Technological advancements have always upended creative practice in both destructive and generative ways that can be long debated. A century ago, the sculptor Paul Manship lamented the imposition of the Janvier Reducing Machine even as the mechanical lathe allowed sculptors to rescale their reliefs as never before (see my “Tokens of culture” in The New Criterion of December 2024).

A Soldier’s Journey, by Sabin Howard, The National WWI Memorial, Washington, D.C. Photo: James Panero

For an artist long dedicated to the importance of manual craft, Howard’s digital intervention has created a hybrid sculpture. A Soldier’s Journey is not classical in its own right. It is rather a modern work that speaks to the classical tradition, quite literally, through a contemporary lens. Viewing the completed assembly soon after its unveiling last September—most revealingly in the stark spotlights that illuminate the monumental site at night and shimmer in its reflecting pools—I sensed I was experiencing not traditional sculpture at all but rather actors frozen on a stage. The uncanny-valley hyperrealism of Howard’s digital scans has left us with a cinematic diorama caked in plasteline mud. In memorializing a war that defied all convention and accelerated our modern era, this end result may ultimately be more successful than any purely classical relief. Staring at his figures, which seem to stare right back as they march and spin and cry through the muck, I regarded the work as an unalloyed triumph.

It should come as little surprise that movie-making, an art form coming into its own at the time of the First World War, should have proven so successful at depicting the flashing terrors of that modern slaughter—and in turn influencing more traditional creative forms. King Vidor’s 1925 film The Big Parade remains one of the finest reflections of that conflict and deeply informed the cinematic painting style of Andrew Wyeth. The films All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), Paths of Glory (1957), and, more recently, 1917 (2019) have all arguably done more to keep World War I in the popular consciousness than any other form of art.

Howard has taken up this cinematic idiom to give us a sculptural statement on the First World War that manages to make its century-old realities newly real. At the same time, his composition speaks to the history of relief in bold new ways. I was particularly struck by his use of traditional relief framing at the start of the composition that then appears to crumble away in the mire of battle. Further along, an American flag rises above the relief’s upper frame to signal the new standard on the horizon and the turning point in the war. Throughout the deep relief, the helmets and weapons and gas masks that are scattered about appear as though they could almost be kicked off the stone plinth and into the cascading fountain and reflecting pool beneath them.

At the unveiling ceremony, Howard aptly reflected on the message of his figures and what he hoped to achieve with a monument that gives new life to an old conflict:

There are no victims here. They are all heroes. They are all moving forward, calling upon their better selves, and giving unstintingly to their country, to protect what we so often take for granted, our freedom to choose what we will do with the gift of life.