“Tenerife will serve to remind future generations with this memorial that this city was where the homeland’s reconquest for peace, freedom, and order commenced.”
These remarks were made in Tenerife’s capital by the then Minister of Commerce of the Spanish Government, Faustino García-Moncó Fernández, during the inauguration on March 16, 1966, of the monument dedicated to Franco – or, if preferred, the monument to His Excellency the Head of the State – created by Juan de Ávalos, as reported by both regional and national press, including the local newspaper the following day.
Now, 59 years have elapsed since Faustino García-Moncó’s speech. In the midst of the ongoing contentious discussion regarding whether the sculptural ensemble located at the junction of Anaga Avenue and the Rambla de Santa Cruz should be declared a site of cultural interest or not – a designation that many are questioning based on its artistic merit – it is particularly pertinent to recall a section of the minister’s oration from that morning.
“Fearless Captain”
This is especially relevant concerning the profound symbolic relationship of the monument with the failed coup against the Second Spanish Republic, the Civil War, and the ensuing dictatorship. Furthermore, it is directly tied to the identification of one figure with the dictator himself.
“All the historical context is remarkably reflected,” stated the minister before over 90,000 attendees – a skilled artistic display symbolised by an archangel, its mechanical wings showcased that day. Ultimately, the Azur serves as a reminder of the heroes who selflessly aligned with the valiant captain.”
During the ceremony, the commerce minister “activated the lighting and water systems” of the monument, which was raised through public contributions among the citizens of Tenerife to commemorate the departure of the Generalissimo, then Captain General of the Canary Islands, to lead the National Movement.
The day, which was declared a public holiday, featured performances from choirs and dances of the Women’s Section, a floral tribute, and Garcia-Moncó laying a bouquet of olives before the monument, blessed by the bishop of the diocese of Tenerife, Luis Franco Cascón, as a symbol of peace. The Captain General of the Canary Islands, José Héctor Vázquez, presented an oak bouquet symbolising strength, and the civil governor, Juan Pablos Abril, offered one made of laurel, representing victory. Meanwhile, in his patriotic exaltation and invocation of the national spirit for future generations, García-Moncó reminisced about 1939, the year of the rebels’ victory and the dawn of the dictatorship, invoking as his basis two events of significant economic and spiritual impact that occurred during those days in 196 from Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and the I Hispano-African Congress of Cooperation and Commerce in Tenerife.
“These events take place in these islands,” he remarked, “because 27 years ago we managed to put an end to a dire situation that began in disappointment and pessimism resulting from past defeats, which culminated in our near annihilation.” “In all this,” he continued, having fought on the national side during the civil war as a provisional Ensign of the Thirds of Requetés among other roles, “the expertise of the captain steering the ship is paramount, and this monument serves as a fitting tribute to that captain, which I sincerely commend you for.”
Artistic Considerations
The City Council of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, which is governed by CC and PP, advocates for the artistic values of the monument created by Juan de Ávalos, also the architect behind the sculptures of the Valley of the Fallen, to justify its recognition as a site of cultural interest. This matter is currently under consideration by the Cabildo de Tenerife (CC-PP), and ultimately, the Canary Islands Government (CC-PP-AHI) will need to make a ruling. This debate unfolds amid reports from both public and private cultural organisations supporting or rejecting the alleged artistic significance of the monument, alongside a new law on democratic memory that came into force in October 2022, supplanting the Historical Memory Law of Spain from December 2007, all amidst substantial controversy. Furthermore, the Government of Spain (PSOE-Sumar) and parties such as PSOE Tenerife, Podemos, the United Left Canary, and prominent groups like the Association for the Recovery of Historical Memory, led by Emilio Silva, and the Tenerife association, presided over by Mercedes Pérez Schwartz, have raised allegations and criticisms against the recognition of the monument as a point of cultural interest.
“A monument of this nature celebrates the suffering endured by hundreds of thousands of individuals and glorifies the perpetrator of significant human rights abuses amidst the violence of the Falangist gunmen, making it the largest terrorist act in our history,” argued Emilio Silva last week. “No one would accept a monument celebrating a terrorist act, and a sculpture that glorifies violence and fascism is thus unacceptable.”
Perspectives
As the discussion progressed, newspaper inquiries sought the views of organisations and individuals associated with the cultural domain – particularly the artistic sector – regarding the status of the monument as a site of cultural interest, its recontextualisation, or its outright removal. The Presidency of the Royal Canarian Academy of Fine Arts (RACBA), which submitted a supportive report for its preservation, opted not to provide any statements.
“I advocate for its removal,” declares Celestino Celso Hernández, director of the Eduardo Westerdahl Contemporary Museum of Art in Puerto de la Cruz, art historian, and exhibition curator. “What is the point of the controversy when it already complicates an already difficult matter? In regard to the purely sculptural aspect,” he explains, “it’s this human figure perched on another winged sculpture that conveys an impression of impending flight. When we mention the monument, we refer to the entirety, including the pool, the walled backdrop, and the emblems… In my view,” he adds, “the sculpture ought to be separated from the whole and relocated to a military or historical museum where it can be correctly contextualised, while the remaining elements should be removed. Anything less would contravene the democratic narrative, which we have collectively established as a society: no exaltation of the Franco dictatorship.”
The Symbolism
“The symbolic significance of this work hinders my ability to appreciate its artistic merits,” states photographer and architect Carlos A. Schwartz. “Moreover, that symbolic weight is so substantial that it renders any description as a site of cultural interest nonsensical. No democratic nation celebrates a dictator’s legacy. One cannot commemorate an individual who dismantled a democratic system; such an act is an affront to the dignity of a free society,” asserts Schwartz.
“Domingo Pérez Minik, who experienced the dictatorship, once noted regarding Santa Cruz: ‘This city has its soul so depoliticised.’ He carried out a coup d’etat and many other actions that often seem to be forgotten.”
Clear Distinction
“I want to ensure that the position of the Athenaeum as an institution is distinctly stated from my personal view,” remarks Claudio Marrero, president of the Ateneo de la Laguna. “The Athenaeum’s stance is unequivocal – an immediate removal of the monument from public space and adherence to the Democratic Memory Law. That protection, that shield to declare it a site of cultural interest based on its artistic values, appears utterly absurd. The law must be enforced, and that’s the end of the discussion.”
“And then there is my opinion, which may…”
may appear quite radical, yet, in this regard, I consider myself the most traditional of the traditionalists. We adhere to practices that have been followed in virtually all civilisations, mirroring what previous authorities accomplished with structures that glorified those who departed: we obliterate the sculptural ensemble that has existed; and since it’s no longer relevant to produce cannonballs, we utilise the bronze to create sewer covers.
This is solely my perspective, I repeat, not that of the Ateneo de la Laguna,” remarks Marrero. “What is astonishing is that we approach it with such frivolity regarding a profoundly significant issue: retaining in the public domain, unlawfully, an entity that exalts Francoism and genocide.” “And concerning recontextualisation – What are you implying? Will I simply place a sign so that the monument transforms into something else? And suddenly everyone will read the plaque? Is it feasible that one day the sign could be removed and nothing occurs? No, that option does not seem viable to me.”
PRESERVATION
“In May 2018, we compiled a report, which we have now reaffirmed. In this document, we assert that the sculptural ensemble of Juan de Ávalos comprises a range of artistic values that must be safeguarded,” states Francisco José Cedrés Peña, secretary of the Cicop Foundation (International Centre for Heritage Conservation).
“We propose several recommendations, such as conducting a space rehabilitation assessment, potentially transforming it into a site museum, and addressing its recontextualisation to reveal the background and conditions surrounding its creation, points that the Democratic Memory Law considers,” he continues. “Just as we discuss the monument itself, we must remember that its funding was through a public fundraiser, and its location holds significance for the community that transcends the ideological weight of its inception. All these, aside from the political elements the authorities aim to impose. From the perspective of purely artistic values, the conclusions of our report indicate that it possesses adequate artistic merits to warrant preservation.”
INTERPRETATION
José Valladares, president of the Circle of Fine Arts of Tenerife, highlights that for the organisation “there is no justification for the BIC declaration, as the monument glorifies Franco, leaving no room for alternative interpretation, and we demand that the law be executed.”
“It lacks artistic merit,” he asserts. “At its inauguration, it was already an outdated intervention; art in the 1960s was moving in directions unrelated to that piece.” “Moreover, it is a political commission intended for propaganda purposes, lacking an essential aspect of artistic works: the freedom of the artist. It resembles a commission like those companies might give to designers: we execute them, but they are not representative of us,” he explains.
Likewise, Valladares dismisses any potential for recontextualisation. “I can comprehend, for instance, in the Valley of the Fallen, as it may evolve into a significant hub addressing Franco’s repression, but not in this case.”
“On this matter, we are in complete alignment with the University of La Laguna. We insist that the law be complied with, for we are certain that this monument was designed to commemorate the onset of the civil war,” he concludes.
