Read Wineke's blog at www.madison.com/wsj/blogs

The United States Commission on Fine Arts has done something to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that generations of white supremacists never accomplished.

It has made him less "confrontational." The supremacists tried to get him to tone down his message, but never succeeded.

What the commission did is to demand changes in a statue of King to be placed in a Washington, D.C. memorial to the civil rights leader.

The 28-foot statue is part of a $100 million memorial to King that will be located between the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials. When sculptor Lei Yixon presented his original design, the commission rebelled, saying the statue would be too Stalinesque, too confrontational.

So, Yixon went back to the drawing boards and recreated King with, in the words of the Washington Post, "a hint of a smile."

My problem with the change is this: the movement King led was a confrontational movement. Lots of people died in that movement. When we make its leader appear friendlier, we undercut the message of sacrifice and turmoil that went into achieving racial equality.

We do like our saints to be friendly and, 40 years after he was assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr. is well on his way to becoming a secular saint. God forbid that a man who led demonstrations and marches all over the country, who sparked riots and hostility in Birmingham, Ala., and Skokie, Ill., and most parts in between, a man who, after achieving many of his goals in the field of civil rights, turned his sights on the war in Vietnam and alienated an entirely new group of Americans, God forbid that he would be depicted as "confrontational."

King was not a meek, non-threatening man, and the non-violent movement he championed depended for its success on violence perpetrated by its enemies.

King's purpose was not sweetness and light. His purposes were liberation of minorities, justice for the poor and peace in the world.

My problem with the Yixon design is not that it is too confrontational, but that it isn't confrontational enough.

Public art ought to be controversial. When you see a statue or a monument in the public square, it ought to move you to ask questions, to debate values, to think about issues.

After three years, I'm beginning to appreciate "Nail's Tails," that 50-foot-tall obelisk at the entrance to Camp Randall stadium at Regent and Monroe streets.

The thing is a true monstrosity, with footballs emerging from the obelisk as it towers over the intersection. I get my hair cut at the Stadium Barbershop down the street, and the things the barbers say about the statue aren't likely to be printed in this newspaper.

But, like it or hate it, it's hard not to interact with that monument. It says something about the pretensions of athletics on an academic campus.

Its phallic design, a design graced by footballs emerging from its height, says something about the pretensions of the male gender. You can probably make your own comparisons but, chances are, you do not have neutral feelings about the work of "art."

Public art that is not controversial is probably not really "art" at all. It is more likely just illustration. Real art stirs the emotions, raises questions, demands response.

Recreating Martin Luther King Jr. with a "hint of a smile" probably won't emasculate him or ruin his monument. But the changes don't add any value to the statue.