Texas military failed Gilbert students on Civil War diorama
July 2nd, 2008, 8:53 am · 25 Comments · posted by Le Templar
RECONSTRUCTED DIORAMA OF BATTLE OF PALMETTO RANCH (submitted to the Tribune by Retired Maj. Ted Aanenson)
Jeff Hunt is going to get away with it.
It looks like the director of the Texas Military Forces Museum isn’t going to be held accountable for his trashing of a piece of art from Arizona – a Civil War diorama put together over three years by students from Gilbert’s Highland High School under the direction of history teacher Glen Frakes.
As Tribune writer Hayley Ringle first reported Tuesday night, a different version of the diorama is back on the display at the museum located at a Texas National Guard facility in Austin. Hunt took apart the diorama last year a couple of months after it was delivered and first put on display. He claimed the piece had historical inaccuracies and was too large for a planned museum remodeling.
In reality, Hunt’s decision to take the diorama apart was an assault on the hard work of the Highland students and the education that Frakes provided them. After enormous political pressure and media scrutiny was applied to this issue, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the National Guard ordered the museum to restore the diorama and to let the public view it again.
I don’t know much about the craft of diorama-making. So I have to rely on Frakes and eyewitness accounts about what Hunt accomplished. Frakes says the new version barely resembles the artwork that his students created.
“My students built a diorama that looked like it was built by adult diorama model makers,” Frakes told the Tribune. “This looks like it was made by elementary school children. This is like something a child of 7 or 8 would do on the living room carpet.”
One compelling fact for me is the new version uses only about 170 of the original 750 hand-assembled soldier figurines. That seems to confirm far more of the figurines were damaged or destroyed when the diorama was taken apart than Hunt has ever been willing to admit.*
The Texas National Guard wants this issue to just go away. In interviews with Ringle, me and other media, National Guard spokesmen keep emphasizing that the agency is focused on supporting troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. The implication has been we critics are wasting the National Guard’s time by fretting over a 10-foot piece of wood, plaster and pewter.
But the tragic mishandling of the diorama, and the refusal afterward to return it to Gilbert for proper restoration, suggests the Texas National Guard isn’t willing to invest the time or money to get even the little things right. I can only hope the Texas National Guard is showing more honor and attention to the people under its command, since it cares little about the visions and dedication of good teenagers in Gilbert.
*Update:
Glen Frakes pointed out to me Wednesday that Jeff Hunt has said in some media reports that he intends to put together a second diorama for another Civil War battle. So, to be fair to Hunt, it’s possible he held back some of the original 750 figurines for future display.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
Excellent comments here, Mr. Templar. The “restored” diorama does not compare to the original creation by Glen Frakes and the students. The beautiful details and the magnificent drama are no longer there. Those aspects are what attract people to have an interest in the display. And Mr. Hunt’s claims of inaccuracy are debunked by many other historians and authors, including “Rip” Ford himself.
You are “right on target” with your opinion of the current leadership of the Texas National Guard - arrogance interferes with any sense of doing what is right.
However, do not give up yet. Justice is sometimes very slow in coming.
ladytexian
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The article on the Palmetto Ranch diorama by (Le Templar) is sadly slanted and mischaracterizes the situation in histrionic, grossly exaggerated language and borders on defamation. The author conceding that he doesn’t know much about diorama-making and that he relied on the perspective of Mr. Frakas and his students, suggests that his comments are far from the type of even-handed reporting of newsworthy items that should be in the Tribune. To describe the controversy as “tragic” is an insult to your readership and those civilians and military personnel who have suffered genuine tragedies in their lives. The author and editor of the Tribune appear to be playing to the sentiments of a disgruntled teacher, the hurt feelings of high school students, and the emotions of a misguided local community. They seem to have overlooked the real story — that the cost for such a diorama without receipts and at a level inconsistent with the product appears to be more indicative of fraud, misappropriation, or mismanagement of funds by someone in Arizona rather than anything else. As for historical accuracy of the revised project versus the “artistic vision” of Mr. (Frakes) presumably imposed on his impressionable young students, you might remind your readership that the museum is a history museum responsible for historical accuracy and not an art museum designed to indulge artistic license over historical fact. Mr. (Frakes) appears to have been far from diplomatic in his approach in this matter, seems to have wasted the valuable time of all involved, and would perhaps better serve the public and as a role model by teaching based on fact rather than on his own imagination. In conclusion, you may want to consider covering a story of more significance such as the service of the Texas National Guard or that of the Arizona National Guard rather than utilizing your publication as a speaking platform to air unfounded personal grievances for the sake of catering to local sentiments. His final parting shot at the Texas National Guard is unprofessional and reflects the insight of a closed mind clouded by his own self-righteous ignorance. The Tribune can and should do better in its editorial decision-making.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm
In the future all “gifts” like this should come with some strings attached, such as an agreement not to alter the original project without permission from the creator(s) of the project, additional restrictions on the display of the project, etc. etc.
If these aren’t agreed to (in writing) prior to the item being finished it should stay in Gilbert until another suitable location for display is found.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Re: Comments by Tim Weitz
Sorry, but your comments sound as if they are coming from someone connected to the guilty party! The bottom line here is that a criminal act was committed! Read the penal codes. That cannot be argued!
ladytexian
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Yes, Jeff Hunt is going to get away with it – away with caring about his position as Director and his duty to portray history in a true, not just “artistic” light. Both MAJ (R) Aanenson, who submitted this poorly taken photo of the newly revised diorama, and the former Director of the Museum were happy to display a historically inaccurate diorama because it was “art”. The former Director said, “No one will ever know anyway ”. Both MAJ (R) Aanenson and the former Director wanted the Directorship, but lost it to Jeff Hunt. They, and the other Board of Director Members and past volunteers who have either quit or who are disgruntled at the lack of power that the Board now has, have been using the Diorama as a tool for their own purposes. Had the diorama been redone and redisplayed without any of the attendant hoopla that these people have created, it would be possible to give a more objective comparison of this diorama to the one that the teacher and his students completed. I have seen them both – the new version is better. More does not mean better, as far as the number of soldiers. Mr. Frakes himself said that since the soldiers were attached with epoxy, it would be impossible to remove them without some damage (Star-Telegram.com May 04, 2008 by R.A. Dryer). The comment in this thread “sorry, your comments sound as if they are coming from someone connected to the guilty party”, in reference to someone stating positive facts about this situation, is telling. That is because those close to this story and thereby connected to it, (the disgruntled who are clouded by their emotions aside), know the situation for what it truly is. And that is the reason why Jeff Hunt is “getting away with it”. Too bad (Le) Templar is getting fed second hand information from a bad source, and is passing it off as “news”. Maybe it is “art”.
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Dear Jeff - oops sorry “Connected”
Nice try at trying to justify your actions!
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You know, I’ve actually seen the diorama and they thing looks pretty good. The docents say that the staff hand-made some of the plants. The figures are standing in ankle deep grass! If you never knew there was another diorama, I don’t see any way that people wouldn’t be happy with it.
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Suzy, good for you. Vinny, you should have seen the original - they can’t compare!
Well, Connected (or ????), looks like I accurately pegged you. Everything you say here is just more of the arrogant excuses given to cover up a criminal act. Your “quotes” are not accurate! It makes no difference if the soldiers were attached with epoxy or not - Hunt should not have gone into the diorama in the first place! The value of the diorama far exceeded what the museum paid for materials and shipping only! That just demonstrated his immature and egotistical nature. His claims of inaccuracies are a cover-up for something - jealousy, resentment, perhaps! He certainly is no gentleman, and his reputation throughout the re-enactment circles is not too great. Groups are still boycotting the museum. You say that Hunt considers it his duty to portray history in a true light - Hunt can’t accurately claim that there was only one casualty at the Battle of Palmetto Ranch. In “The Yankee Invasion of Texas” (2006), author, Stephen A. Townsend, PhD, writes on page 130, “Accounts of the conflict at Palmito Hill have disagreed on the number of casualties for both sides.” Ford reported only 5 wounded among the Confederate forces - another Confederate officer stated that the Confederates took time to bury their dead. “The Federals suffered 101 captured, 9 wounded, and 2 killed.” And in Thomas Knowles’ “They Rode for the Lone Star”, p. 208 and p. 223, 12 of Ford’s men were killed; p. 208, Barrett lost 30 of his men to the Texans, more wounded and some drowned while swimming the river to escape. Even “Rip” Ford’s written accounts prove that Hunt is wrong!
Your reference to “disgruntled” & “clouded emotions” is LAME. The Texas Civil War Museum offered to pay shipping and expenses for repair to display the diorama in their museum (Star-Telegram.com May 09, 2008) - THEY ARE NOT DISGRUNTLED. They wanted to add the Frakes’ diorama to their Palmito Hill exhibit. Decent people recognize wrongdoing. Those people who don’t care whom they run over will end up paying the consequences!
By the way, the flag now on the boat- is that the correct 1864-1867 flag?
July 4th, 2008 at 7:43 am
The flag is the Imperial Mexican Flag used by the forces of Maximillan in Mexico who controlled Matamores at the time, absolutly correct for the time.
And from someone with experience with figures and dioramas paying $19,000 to $23,000 (depending on whose article you read) cannot be in any way considered a “gift” considering what the figures and the materials must have cost.
July 4th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I was with Gen Scribner from the start of the museum restoring vehicles for display I spent many long hours and busted nuckles to display a true and accruate vehicle, and reading about the diorama and Jeff Hunts actions are just amazing to me but there ae some things everyone should remeber.
Jeff Hunt was fired from his last job with the Nimitz museum.
the Board of directors paid for the diorama so it belongs for bettor or worse to the museum.
Everyone that has been with the museum for yeas that put long hours at the museum were run of or left because of Jeff Hunt, and I know why having have delt with his arogance before.
Before his passing Gen Scribner stated flately that Jeff Hunt was not someone that needed to be assoaited with the museum.
Having seen the other dioramas the students made there work is top quality but as much a i hate to say it Mr Franks was contracted to build the diorama and once it was delivered there involment ended.
The members of the Texas National Guad that were around when the museum was growing are all gone you have all new people that have no true intrest in the museum so apealling to them will get no responce.
As a life member of the museum will I ever go back to the museum while Jeff Hunt is there? No
Is it wrong what Hunt did? Yes
Will anything change while Hunt is there? No
July 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Good for you “GBM” and thanks for that info. “Diane”, you are correct - especially considering the top quality of the figures and that they came from top-rated miniature suppliers in Australia and France. And considering the expert craftsmanship over and above the cost of materials, the value of the diorama was at least three times the cost of materials. Therefore, the museum can’t claim full ownership, because they did not pay full value. Now, if a person donates an item and the person takes an income tax deduction for the value, perhaps then the museum could claim sole ownership. Mr. Frakes never signed any paper turning over complete ownership to the TMFM.
“Dan”, you are absolutely right-on, except for one thing. There was no signed contract. There are only records of payments for costs of materials. Nothing shows that Mr. Frakes gifted the diorama to the non-profit foundation that authorized payment for the materials. General Scribner and Mr. Frakes kept in close contact during the construction of the diorama - all aspects were decided by General Scribner, even down to the direction the boat was traveling. General Scribner was thinking about educating children during this decision making. He wanted the boat turned so that children could see inside the steamer. He wanted uniforms on the French troops so that children would become aware that French soldiers were in the location of the battle. General Scribner was keenly aware that a museum should indeed be an educational venue. Could Jeff Hunt have committed this act because he resented General Scribner? That is a thought. General Scribner was considered among the best of historians, and for that he is buried in the Texas State Cemetery.
July 4th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Ladytexian you misunderstood my comments. I regnozied the Union figures in one close up picture of the diaorama. They are metal figures from Shenadoah minatures in Australia and run about $18 in the current market with the dollar so low. I bought the same figures from them 2 years ago, about the time this piece was supposed to be built and they ran me $8 apiece. So even if you figure 500 of his 750 were Union troops that is still $4000 total for ALL his metal figures. So that leaves $15,000 he supposedly spent on the Confederate cavalry,paint, the steamboat, flags, other building materials?
Just wondering it seems like a lot of money for even a well made diorama.
July 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Diane, if you were familiar with the 21 dioramas (displayed in museums from NY, DC, across to Hawaii) created over a period of 35 years by Mr. Frakes and his history students, you would understand the dollar amount discussed - i.e., extra heads to make the features fit the particular features of the 62nd U.S. Colored Infantry Regiment troops, the Confederate and Union troops, all of the horses, the artillery, the beautiful steamer built from scratch of 5,000 pieces of architectural materials, the artist painted backdrop, the 5′ x 10′ glass case, the materials for the terrain, the amazingly real-looking flowing river, you would then understand the costs. (The teacher who built the steamboat from scratch passed away last Thanksgiving Day. At least he did not know what Hunt did to the diorama.)
General Scribner, who passed away in 2006, was a modeler himself. With his knowledge of history and his experience with modeling, he could not be fooled about the costs of materials. And the $23,000 cost included crating and shipping from Arizona to Texas. This diorama was constructed over a 3 1/2 year period, with General Scribner (until his death) giving significant input into how he wanted the diorama to be done.
Mr. Frakes had decided that he would not build any more dioramas, but General Scribner convinced him to build this last one. General Scribner and Mr. Frakes became friends during the 20 year period that Mr. Frakes created four other dioramas for the museum. The day before General Scribner died, he talked with his sister about his concerns for the diorama - he knew he would not be able to see the diorama as it would not be complete for another year. Mr. Frakes students dedicated this last diorama to General Scribner - making it really more disgusting that Hunt destroyed it. Hunt knew that, too!
The cost figure mentioned does vary $19,000 - $23,000. Some people off the top of their head seem to just mention a figure, being confused about the shipping and crating cost that had to be paid by the museum. The museum Board of Directors approved every payment to Mr. Frakes to purchase materials.
I hope this gives you more information. Also, I seem to remember that for a while, Shenandoah Miniatures was closed. I can’t remember exactly when that was.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I think that the board approving the payments to the builder without recipts seems to be a very questionable practice. That is certainly no way to run a proper business. Is the Board of Directors acting without oversite? I am very interested in the paper trail of the money now that these figures have come to light.
July 7th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Vinny,
I suggest that if you are that interested, ask someone who was with the museum for many years. You won’t get a straight answer from either Hunt or the command group. Could it now be that records of payments could be hidden, and I am talking about within the past few months (SINCE LAST OCTOBER)? Records can always be traced.
Ask members of the board during the 3 1/2 years of construction of the diorama. At the time the Board of Directors acted properly. Now, they will have no role whatsoever, just micromanaged.
If you think the figures are out of line, why did the Texas Civil War Museum want to pay for shipping back to Arizona for repairs and then to be displayed at their museum in Fort Worth? Certainly they were very aware of cost figures when that offer was made. To help fund the costs of some of the dioramas, Mr. Frakes sought contributions from various organizations, VFW, etc. A number of different citizens and organizations contributed funds to help pay for the Alamo diorama on display at Camp Mabry. If Hunt goes into that as he has mentioned, he will really have a war on his hands.
Mr. Frakes’ dioramas are of the upper classification of quality. Contact the museums where they are displayed (at least 20) - Fort Hood, Intrepid Museum, NY, U.S.M.C. Museum, Navy Memorial Museum and others!
Mr. Know it All, Hunt, is the only person to ever complain about any of Mr. Frakes’ dioramas. As I have mentioned before, I have researched other writings about the Battle of Palmetto Ranch, and all that I have found state there were more killed than the single fatality that Hunt claims! He has fooled the command group at Camp Mabry – it will be interesting to see how it all ends.
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Lady Texian,
Couldn’t all of this be cleared up if Mr Frakes could show everyone the receipts for his purchases? That would end all the noise about the money, wouldn’t it? That removes any idea of impropriety from the issue.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Diane,
To comment on your statements. I think that Glen has shown in the past to be more honest than most people. I have know him for at least ten years, and his work, and the work that his student have produced has never been in question. For what ever reason Diane, or should I say “Christina Diane Bocek Hunt” you defending what your husband did maybe right in mind , but you must understand where everyone else is coming from.
This isn’t about people being disgruntled because they didn’t get the job. This is about all the hard work that went into the making of this piece of art. Would you correct a painting that protrays a battle because it was wrong? I think not. Everyone that is concerned about this issue and that are keeping it alive are doing so because we want Jeff to be accountable for actions, whatever they might be. It is more about the kids, and what he did to there faith in our generation.Glen all along while working on this diorama had told them that the museum staff was like their extended family.
If he would have approached Glen back in Oct when he first came on board at the museum about his concerns and what he considerd to be wrong with the diorama they might have been able to work things out, but gong in like Jeff did, and breaking the figures off was wrong. It was evident from the start that Jeff was not happy because of his first reactions uopn the uncrating of the diorama.
I have done more research on the subject of how things were going in the Rio Grande Valley during the Civil War. I even pulled up points of veiw from the Mexican Side. I believe that Glen had it more right in his version. Have you ever travelled down the eastern coast of Mexico. Well I have and the terrain is just like Glenn Frakes had it.
Maria Joseph Rose
July 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Good for you, Maria!
Vinny, you are the only one raising questions about the money. Are you a member of the museum? And were you on the Board during the 3 1/2 years?Board members knew what they were paying for - photo updates of the progress were routinely sent by Mr. Frakes.
The foremost issue here is the criminal act of going into the diorama and destructively undoing someone else’s creation - particularly without consulting with Mr. Frakes and without determining ownership of the diorama.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
ladytexian,
Knowing what you are paying for and knowing the actual costs are two different things. I’m just asking if the Board collected reciepts, that’s just common sense. Are you a member of the Board? Because overpaying with non-profit funds is negligent, and that should anger everyone involved.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
As an outsider - whom is not a member of the musuem, or the board, or the foundation, or any other affiliate, accusing party, or otherwise; just someone who has been following the story as well as someone who has visited, & will continue to visit, the TMFM (and yes, I’ve been to see the diorama since it was recently put back on display) - I find it highly distasteful to see so many who are so quick and so ready to defame the museum so far as to say you won’t support any of their events, efforts, etc. Shame on you for letting personal feelings get in the way of you supporting an institution that clearly needs & deserves all the support it can get. Shame on you for allowing the “changing of the guard” blacken your hearts & minds so much that you would allow this museum to suffer for your efforts of attack. The diorama is done well, just as well as all the others. In fact, I found that in some ways it’s more detailed & intricate & the artistry is beautiful… as I’d never seen the original one in person, and for anyone else who hadn’t, you’d never know it was ever altered. All future visitors (and hopefully more positive) will be as happy with it as they are with the rest of them. It tells the story it meant to… and in the end, isn’t it History and the Museum we should be trying to preserve? Not someone’s pride or ego? For the good of the Museum, for the good of all involved (I mean, I can just see your heart monitor rising Ms. Texian) let go of your anger, I beseech you! I can tell you that the only suffering that is going to happen is at the expense of the TMFM itself, and that is truly sad that all of you would allow & encourage this to happen. Move on I say, move on with your lives, support the TMFM, and find positive & worthy causes to spend all of your energy on!
July 9th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Mickey, I am sad that you do not see the entire situation. Persons who have been associated with the TMFM for so many years, and those who know how General Scribner would be turning over in his grave at how this museum is being misused and abused cannot sit back and let this crooked scheme follow through. We will not defame the museum. We intend to prevent that from happening. Mr. Micky, do not preach to me! This has nothing to do with “pride or ego”, except for Jeff Hunt’s ego. Even a former Adjutant General is one who is deeply concerned. Perhaps you, “being an outsider”, are not fully aware of what real insiders know. That is “all I will say about that.”
As I said before, the bottom line in this issue is that a CRIME has been committed. The museum community, not only in Texas, is aware and is observing. There will have to be a final resolution.
In response to VINNY,
Richard G. was on the Board. Ask him about his approval of payments.
Mr. Frakes’ integrity is beyond reproach - Hunt’s integrity is very obviously in question for numerous reasons, and perhaps the integrity of others is in question, also.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
P.S. to All,
Go to Mr. Templar’s other commentary on this subject (on this same web site) along with comments posted: DIORAMAS REFLECT HISTORY, NOT A TRUE REPRESENTATION, July 3rd, 2008, 1:45 pm · 4 Comments · posted by Le Templar.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
My goodness, I wish I had as much time on my hands as you do!
July 10th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Vinny,
You certainly have taken the time to keep up with this dialogue, and obviously time to communicate with others in the group. For now, I do have other work to do.
The particular comments here from persons so close to the situation have been quite interesting.