WTC Memorial Designs: S & D

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
The eight finalist designs are here:

http://www.wtcsitememorial.org/finalists.html

What do you like? What don't you like? Should any of them be built? Take this in any direction you see fit.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I was going to start this one myself. On immediate impression none of them seemed objectionable but I'd have to look again...

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:57 (twenty-one years ago)

lower waters, and reflecting absence get my vote from an aesthetic point of view. In the end I think it's got to come down to the victim's families.

Ed (dali), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Their input will be noted but they are not going to make the final decision.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 18:59 (twenty-one years ago)

My first impression of these is that they're all too glitzy. You get the feeling that you are witnessing the birth of "9-11: The Theme Park". Now maybe it will give a nice boost to the NYC economy to have a Disney-fied tourist destination, but is a theme park really an appropriate memorial?

The worst of the lot: "Gardens of Light" (quasi-religious "altars" for each victim are creepy and heavy-handed), "Memorial Cloud" (WTF is a "memorial cloud"? Someone's been hitting the crack pipe too often), "Votives in Suspension" (more quasi-religious hocum).

Possibly salvageable: "Lower Waters", "Suspending Memory" (though do we really need a timeline of the life of each victim?), "Reflecting Absence".

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

"reflecting absence" kinda reminds me of the horst hoheisel inverted ghost-fountain holocaust memorial in hamburg (haven't seen it btw, just read about it doing art history research on 'anti-monuments')

mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

o. nate as Herbert Muschamp and otm, upon initial impression

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:17 (twenty-one years ago)

i thought libeskind had already been declared the winner?

jed (jed_e_3), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

He is charge of the overall building designs around the monument (the tower itself is in the hands of someone else because Silverstein kept whining -- fucking prick, he's a cold miserable bastard obv.) but not the actual memorial itself. Liebeskind's contribution is ensuring that there won't be any shadows falling on the memorial site itself on September 11 during the time frame of the original attack.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I prefer the one that is most spare - "reflecting absence" - there's something important about seeing the footprint. Some of the others look too claustrophobic and busy.

Kerry (dymaxia), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)

"Reflecting Absence" is definitely my choice now, looking at them all grouped together like that. "Suspending Memory" would be my runner-up.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha Danned mind meld!

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:26 (twenty-one years ago)

There's one shot of "Suspending Memory" that shows a couple kneeling in front of one of the plinths clutching each other and sobbing that I find offensive on a subatomic level.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha Danned mind meld!

I'm so surprised! ;-)


There's one shot of "Suspending Memory" that shows a couple kneeling in front of one of the plinths clutching each other and sobbing that I find
offensive on a subatomic level.

Missed that but I'd have to agree -- at the same time, it's actually an honest reflection of what will almost certainly happen there for a while to come.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I think a plaque would be OK.

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:31 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.wtcsitememorial.org/images/fin6/full0.jpg

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

i cant believe people continue to fall for libeskinds pseudo intellectual crap but then its like a choice between that or post adolescent first year at architecture school "profundity".

fuck sake that image is insane!

jed (jed_e_3), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

but yr right ned.

jed (jed_e_3), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:37 (twenty-one years ago)

My electrons are gritting their teeth as I sit here.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I think a plaque would be OK.

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 20 November 2003 19:40 (twenty-one years ago)

hey, Herbert Muschamp really does agree

gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 23 November 2003 00:32 (twenty-one years ago)

i can't remember -- there's at least one or two of them that remind me of Superman's Fortress of Solitude

and the Floating Votive thing looks kinda Japanese, which is neat.

still, Absense gets my vote.

Jeremy the Kingfish (Kingfish), Sunday, 23 November 2003 01:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Lower Waters seems ok, but I don't like any of them. Is this going to be built alongside new skyscaper(s) or will the memorial be the only thing on the space? If the latter is the case, I think it's waste. While all the lives lost do deserve a memorial, I miss seeing the twin towers, which I always thought were cool, and totally emblematic of lower Manhattan.

Sean (Sean), Sunday, 23 November 2003 03:59 (twenty-one years ago)

"Memorial Cloud" - was that submitted by Dan Higgs?

hstencil, Sunday, 23 November 2003 04:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Sean, you might have missed it, but it's been well-publicized for months that there is a replacement tower being planned. It will obviously not stand on the same exact grounds.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 23 November 2003 05:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't like any of them, and I can't imagine what a memorial for this would have to be like in order for me to like it. Maybe if our country weren't so paralyzed with fear and loathing right now it would be easier to get behind some vast morbid project like this.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 23 November 2003 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Mmmmmmm morbid.

ModJ (ModJ), Sunday, 23 November 2003 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm coming around to the plaque idea. Or maybe a plaque and a nice statue of a fireman.

o. nate (onate), Sunday, 23 November 2003 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Until our government comes up with a logically and morally coherent response to this tragedy it will be impossible to memorialize the victims in a logically or morally coherent manner.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 24 November 2003 01:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I think you'd be waiting forever on a memorial then.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 November 2003 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

: tragedy part II

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 24 November 2003 01:44 (twenty-one years ago)

that said then - is building the monument not actually a way of forgetting or refusing?

jed (jed_e_3), Monday, 24 November 2003 02:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Tragedy (For Tracer)

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 24 November 2003 13:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I still like the idea of turning the site into a buffalo pasture. Seriously.

BrianB, Monday, 24 November 2003 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a nice idea, except that I'm not sure if the aroma of buffalo manure wafting over the downtown area will be so pleasant.

o. nate (onate), Monday, 24 November 2003 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

BLOOMBERG TALKS TO HAND
Bush Vows Progress, Begs for Time

NEW YORK—Mayor Bloomberg has promised an extraordinary impromptu "grief summit" with Tracer Hand. President Bush applauds the meeting and is asking Hand for "time to resolverate our nation's differentiations."

Hand, the great Internet typist, has repeatedly called for a "logically and morally coherent" response to the events of September 11, 2001 on an Internet message-board. The nation's political leaders, ever-attuned to the near-daily rants of the mysterious and wildly influential figure, have insisted they are listening.

"Mr. Hand knows we are doing all we can to make this memorial work for him. Despite having lost no one in the tragic calamity of that day, nor even knowing anyone who knew anyone, etc, we do swear great fealty to his peerless taste and opinion," Bush and Bloomberg said today in a joint statement.

Asked for comment, Hand said "it's too bad that Saian Super Crew's second album didn't make good on the promise of their first. I'm sorry, who is this again?"

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 24 November 2003 14:53 (twenty-one years ago)

when tracer hand talks, the world listens.

jed (jed_e_3), Monday, 24 November 2003 14:59 (twenty-one years ago)

BLOOMBERG TALKS TO HAND

TO Hand or to THE hand?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 24 November 2003 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

one month passes...
It's 'Reflecting Absence'. Good, that was one of the better (and quieter) ones.

Kerry (dymaxia), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm very relieved to hear this. It could have been much worse.

o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

yes - a very moving way to commemorate the building of a shopping mall.

jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I still think they should do a statue of a fireman.

o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

What, like this one?

http://www.nyc-photo-gallery.com/LargePhotos/fireman_statue01.jpg

(I think the idea is he's taken his hat off)

udu wudu (udu wudu), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Thank fuck for that, they chose the right one. Good.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I was thinking more of a fireman standing erect, bravely looking into the sky. Or perhaps a group of firemen carrying a hose or something like that. It could look sort of like the famous one of the marines lifting the flag on Iwo Jima.

o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:44 (twenty-one years ago)

--
Anthony Gardner, who lost his brother in the Sept. 11 attack and is a member of a coalition for family groups, said the design is "unacceptable."

"This is minimalism, and you can't minimalize the impact and the enormity of Sept. 11," Gardner said. "You can't minimalize the deaths. You can't minimalize the response of New Yorkers."
--

I guess you kind of have to expect/sympathize with this response. But the problem is there is no memorial which could encase the entire event. The most the memorial can hope for is to be a sort of common starting point for the viewer's thoughts/emotions/memories. My two cents, at least. I think they chose the right design.

bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 6 January 2004 23:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess you kind of have to expect/sympathize with this response.

I have to admit I can't, which is a bit cruel considering I have no personal stake in this. What's the guy going to do, dump paint over it all? How does that help bring his brother back?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 03:48 (twenty-one years ago)

What a strange, illogical response from this fellow. He's reacting more to the word 'minimalism' than he is to the site itself. Like I said before, anything more specific than minimalism is going to exclude more people. This design is the least intrusive with people's thoughts and memories. In this case, minimalism isn't really minimalism - it's maximalism, because a greater number of people can bring their own private reflections to the site, free from the imposition of someone else's imagery. The most simple representation can resonate with the broadest audience.

It reminds me of the Vietnam memorial, when some veterans were outraged because there wasn't a traditional 'heroic' statue on the memorial site. Not so coincidentally, the most conservative people were the most offended by the memorial. However, as a memorial, it's proven to be very powerful and 'successful'. The Oklahoma City memorial is the same way.

I know the guy's bereaved and all, but that's a very conservative notion he's putting forth.

It's funny how people think statues are more appropriate, when they seem to imply that people can be 'replaced'.

Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

That's the silliest thing I've ever read. Who tries to "replace" someone with a statue? A statue is a memorial - you know, to remember? I just think a statue is a better tribute to the heroism of the firefighters who died than a couple of ponds.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree with o that there should (and almost certainly will) be a fireman statue related to the day (udu's one looks great), but not as THE Twin Towers Memorial, surely? Their death-toll is only part of the story.

Unless it was an enormous one like that Michael Jackson video...

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I know the guy's bereaved and all, but that's a very conservative notion he's putting forth.

Ever since the memorial project started, there has been clashes with deciding for one design or other. I can understand his point of view, but as you've all said, he's being ridiculous. Considering the other options that were out there, this one is rather tasteful. He does have an option not to go down and see it, if he doesn't want to. No one's forcing him forward with a whip. Next time I'm in NYC, I'd go (which would be my first time on the site since it happened.)

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

It's true that the heroism of the firefighters is only part of the story, but I think it may be the most memorable and uplifting part of the story. Firefighters perform an important public service, and anything we as a society can do to celebrate their efforts is a public good. I think the reflecting pools idea focusses too much attention on the destruction of the buildings themselves. This whole idea of the sacredness and memorialization of the "footprints" is overwrought. Whose "footprints" are we talking about here? The buildings! What about the "footprints" of people, who have actual feet? And if we're going to focus on people, why not focus on the firemen? After all they're the ones who willingly went into the buildings, after they knew how dangerous it would be. Everyone else was just sitting at their desks, eating their morning donut, reading ILM, etc. A tragedy, yes, but it doesn't contain any particularly uplifting moral that's worth preserving for future generations. What story are we trying to tell here? "People die and it's sad"? I think we can do better than that. I prefer to emphasize strength and bravery in the face of adversity.

(xpost)

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I prefer to emphasize strength and bravery in the face of adversity.

But in turn I would be wary and weary of the hijacking of that for political ends, as we have seen over the past two and a half years. I am not for something that could inadvertantly be turned into a symbol that way.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

What political end would there be in statues of firemen - other than perhaps encouraging people to become firemen? And what would be wrong with that?

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely the best thing about the pools of water is that they're non-specific?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't want to remember my grandmother with a bronze statue - to me, it's like caricature. That's what I mean by 'replace'. Her grave is on a hill under a tree - that's more appropriate to me.

x-post : you see, nate - you're projecting your own values onto the project, and with a project this size, we have to compromise with each other and be as pluralistic as possible (this is something a lot of Americans have a problem with, too). Minimalism is the aesthetic language that can be 'translated' to the most people - that's why it's used. In some cultures, it is the dominant aesthetic mode - it's not in American culture, that's all.

The 'footprints' stuff reminds me of that bad inspirational poster.

Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Unless it was an enormous one like that Michael Jackson video...

really we should just cut out the middleman and make a big michael jackson statue, or better yet, a michael jackson-shaped skyscraper

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

looking suggestively down lady liberty's blouse of course

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Having a gloved 'finger' sticking straight up might piss off the Mormons, though.

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course I'm projecting my own values into my suggestion. Why wouldn't I? But I'm trying to limit to myself to values that I think would serve the public good. Every proposal is going to project certain values, no matter how minimalist it is. Even "Reflecting Absence" projects certain values. It valorizes themes of calmness, placidity, "reflection" (ha, get it?), stillness, inaction - perhaps even complacency, if you're so inclined. The notion that we have to have a slick, empty, minimalist memorial is the typical response of "art by committee". Unfortunately, committees rarely produce memorable art.

As for the "footprints" thing - that's not my idea - that's what the reflecting pools are all about. If you don't like the idea, then you must not like the reflecting pools.

(xpost)

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Unfortunately, committees rarely produce memorable art.

You are confusing two things, though -- an artwork *designed* by committee and an artwork *approved* by committee.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, be careful you don't speak too soon, Ned. We haven't seen the complete revised design yet. That will be unveiled next week. The news reports say that the design has been significantly modified from its original proposal.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

And in any case, it's a minor distinction between being "designed" by committee, and being "approved" by commmittee - since naturally, the committee is going to approve the kind of design that they would have designed themselves if they were given the opportunity.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

naturally, the committee is going to approve the kind of design that they would have designed themselves if they were given the opportunity.

Whoa, I find that an incredibly strange thing to say about artistic reaction in general. In fact I think this is almost indefensible as an arguing position, if we're talking about general receptions to art by a mass audience.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't understand your last point, Ned. I'm not talking about "artistic reaction in general", whatever that means. I'm talking about a committee which is charged with selecting (and revising, to a large extent, to fit their ideals) a public memorial. The kinds of designs which will survive a committee selection process tend to be slick, empty, and minimalist - that's all I'm saying.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

The kinds of designs which will survive a committee selection process tend to be slick, empty, and minimalist - that's all I'm saying.

Maya Lin's memorial has been noted above -- need I invoke any other counterexample? It sounds like you are denying the possibility of the emotional reaction in such a construction.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not saying that it can't work out well in specific instances. I'm just saying that we don't have to resign ourselves to these kinds of memorials in all cases, just because they are the easiest to get through a committee.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

but what is your proposed alternative?

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm just saying that we don't have to resign ourselves to these kinds of memorials in all cases

This is all coming down to personal taste, of course, but reread some of the responses upthread -- many people, including myself, were not 'resigned' to this choice, in fact we openly approved of it and wanted it to be selected. I'm sorry, o.nate, but our preference was not based on some sort of aesthetic surrender.

I'll grant you your point about modification and will await those final results. For all any of us know they may be changes which in fact will make you happier.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

o nate you're also saying a memorial to 3000 people should "tell a story" and my point upthread is that we don't know what the story is yet so to tell something beyond that seems presumptuous at best.

you're right that the firefighters were heroic but as andrew says they are only part of the story. a heroic part, yes, but it could be argued that they were supplemental to the most tragic thing that day - ppl eating donuts etc with no idea or intention of being caught in a flaming building. at least the firefighters had some idea of risk before putting themselves into harm's way.

no doubt the coalition of families has been at times unreasonable and petty but it kind of has to be expected in context.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Major waste of real estate. I like the roaming buffalo idea better.

ModJ (ModJ), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

but what is your proposed alternative?

Do you mean my alternative to the design, or my alternative to the selection process? My alternative to the design is described earlier in this thread. As for the selection process, that's a more difficult question. This is a democracy, so perhaps we should throw it open to a real public vote. Put an item on the ballot in the next election. Or set up a website where people can submit and vote on designs. Alternatively, perhaps we should just elect someone to the post of Memorial Designer and let them decide. As it is, there was very iittle democracy involved in the creation or workings of the committee.

we don't know what the story is yet so to tell something beyond that seems presumptuous at best

Well, if we don't know yet what we're trying to do with the design, then perhaps we should wait to design it until we do know, rather than just putting out there which is so minimal that it runs the risk of not meaning much of anything.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Nate, in the end, it IS the committee that has to choose from a limited selection. The tone of your posts assume that the members just toss a dart at the various plans, and choose the one that sticks. Human nature as tis, it's impossible to make everyone happy. The memorial shouldn't be seen as an end to mark a horrible event, but as somewhere to continue to reflect on the lives lost.

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:57 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't understand the point about "democracy". this is a memorial to the victims of a particular event, not to all americans of voting age.

amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

The victims are dead! They can't select their own memorial. And from what I've read, even some of the families of the deceased are not too thrilled with this design. In any case, I think it's fair to say that we as a society have the right and responsibility to select a suitable memorial when the memorial is to be constructed with public funds on public land.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I do think there should be an enormous fuck-off Michael Jackson-style statue to firefighters, but there should anyway, irrespective of the WTC.

"society"

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Where does it stop, O.Nate? Where does it end? You just CAN'T get a final decision on something that will automatically be seen as the perfectly right one, that's not the way human nature works as an aesthetic response.

Look, I see the difference here a little starkly -- if a memorial was chosen that you happened to like but which I didn't, I might express my dismay but I wouldn't start going on about how the committee was clearly not reflecting 'the will of the people' or whatever because it's JUST my opinion, nothing more. That others happen to agree with you, even the families, does not automatically validate your own choice.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"society"

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the scare quotes around "society". In my post, I'm simply referring to people who vote and pay taxes.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

o nate needs to see this as a triumph somehow, ned, and i have no doubt that others feel the same way.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:11 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/about/campus/ecology/images/bison.jpg

ModJ (ModJ), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

i have no doubt that others feel the same way.

Tracer, if that's the case, then O. Nate will be arguing til he stops breathing. I'd think that the "triumph" should be that a respectful memorial will be erected soon despite the red tape. The big deal shouldn't be about whether tis a perfect symbol for the lives lost, since there is no such thing as "perfection".

Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Peggy Noonan:

"[T]here is the declaration of the organizations of World Trade Center families-of-victims that there should not be a statue of the firemen at the WTC memorial site. Three hundred forty-three of them died that day, but to commemorate their sacrifice would be "hierarchical." They want it clear that no one was better than anyone else, that all alike were helpless, victims.

But that is not true; it is the opposite of the truth. The men and women working in the towers were there that morning, and died. The firemen and rescue workers--they weren't there, they went there. They didn't run from the fire, they ran into the fire. They didn't run down the staircase, they ran up the staircase. They didn't lose their lives, they gave them.

This is an important disagreement, because memorials teach. They teach the young what we, as a society, celebrate, hold high, honor. A statue of a man is an assertion: It asserts that his behavior is worthy of emulation. To leave a heroic statue of the firemen out of a WTC memorial would be as dishonest as it would be ungenerous, and would yield a memorial that is primarily about victimization. Which is not what that day was about, as so much subsequent history attests."

Interestingly, in the NY Post today it says: "Arad's plans (for 'reflecting absence') may also satisfy the demands of firefighters who want the names of 9/11 rescue workers to be grouped together in the list of victims." You would think it's one or the other: if they don't get a seperate memorial, they should obviously be on the list. I agree with Noonan though, minus her high horse, you can have two memorials without them competing for which victims are more worthy/tragic.

bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:28 (twenty-one years ago)

haha bnw Noonan is faaaaar too easy to take apart on a good day, and this column was not written on one of them. It's amazing though for the number of angles of nationalism she can fold with just one suspiciously fascist* piece of paper - it's like some wicked and tantalizing origami.

*i am using this word in its traditional sense THANKYOU

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not trying to portray Sept. 11 as a triumph. What is triumphant about the fact that firemen risked their lives and died in large numbers? There's a difference between heroic and triumphant.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

In any case, at least "Reflecting Absence" doesn't descend to the level of banality of the Oklahoma bombing memorial, which in case you haven't seen it, is a field full of chairs, one for each person who died. I mean, if I died in a terrorist attack, I would not want to be remembered by a chair. Who wants to be defined by the fact that they sit on their ass all day?

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, on the last part she kind of leaves earth for conservative la la land. But having a memorial which does assert the nobility of the rescue workers seems workable and fair and right to me.

bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

That Noonan column is interesting, and I agree with most of it, though I hadn't read it until now. I guess she's some kind of conservative nut, but she makes some good points.

o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

I believe that part of the memorial traces the paths of rescue workers to the buildings.

Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Noonan appears to be making my point, though I'm not sure she'd agree: The firemen are heroic because they risked their lives, and tragic because they lost them. But they were as heroic every other day as well, and singling out that day for recognition actually does them an injustice. They obviously shouldn't be excluded from a memorial of the dead, though.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Who is opposing you in recognizing the firemen for God's sake? You started all this by saying you'd replace the whole shebang with a single statue of a fireman.

From a look at the website of the Coalition for Families of 9/11, whose official criteria for a memorial are available here - http://www.memorialfor911.com/memorial%20position%20Dec03.htm, they simply don't mention firemen at all. Is this what Noonan means when she says the declare there "should not be a statue of a fireman?" It's hard to tell. Maybe she was reading a previous draft or something. What they do ask for is that all memorial designs adhere to all applicable fire codes, which they note the original WTC was legally immune from.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

These people are really demanding. They should be happy there's going to be a memorial at all. I mean there's not even a WWII memorial. A public marker should be seen as more of a civic gift, and, in the high modernist spirit of the towers themselves, that gift's design should be left to the experts.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm talking to o nate at the beginning of my last post in case that's not clear.

In any case I think it's telling that the firemen themselves, according to the Post, would like to be grouped in with the names of the civilians who died that day. It befits a certain solidarity and humility that Noonan appears to need a horse-sized dose of.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:18 (twenty-one years ago)

To be fair there are plenty of WWII memorials in places where thousands of people died, Spencer.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I too am glad they settled on this memorial plan, but this...

"The memorial will be one of two focal points at the trade center site, along with the 1,776-foot glass skyscraper known as the Freedom Tower. Four other buildings are planned where the trade center once stood."

...gives me the heebie jeebies.

nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:21 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost: That's very true. The cemetaries especially.

However, I'm still opposed to this design the memorial by the relatives themselves.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Well they hate this one, if the papers are anything to go by. Of course the relatives who don't mind much don't make good copy. There is a WWII memorial planned right on the D.C. mall, actually Spencer, and it's going to be enormous.

A thought about heroism and remembering it: have you fireman boosters forgotten how awash New York was with fireman fever? Fundraising balls, nationally-televised concerts, a brisk sale in quasi-official merchandise... The Mets even played a few games where the home team sported a mix of NYFD, NYPD, and PAPD caps. I wondered aloud at the time where the caps for the victims were. Or the random joes who just breezed in off the street and assisted people down the stairs. Or the Red Cross. They are certainly heroes, too; as are the scores of "victims" who carried elderly co-workers across burning vending vestibules and down collapsed stairways one at a time. Do they not deserve special recognition? What should they get, a statue each? A fireman to represent them all? A star by their name, or maybe two if they were high-ranking in their respective department? What kind of star should the "heroic" (as opposed to "passive") victims get? Is Noonan really calling them mere victims of circumstance? More importantly (because I don't give a rat's ass about Noonan) - are you?

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 19:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Certainly there were acts of bravery/sacrifice being committed by people trapped in the towers. But asking the population to recoginize every single individual act is unrealistic. The singular act of hundreds of firemen racing into the buildings (which the public witnessed), and them staying in the second tower after the first collapsed, has a good amount of magnitude and force working for it. And in comparison to the firefighters (even saying that seems wrong) the people trapped in the towers were victims of circumstance. (You can be a victim of circumstance and heroic, however.) (Also, yes, firemen are much more easy to recoginize then and rally behind then a secretary at an investment firm.)

bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Who wants to be defined by the fact that they sit on their ass all day?

"I'll take 'Missing The Point By A Country Mile' for $600, Alex."

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:07 (twenty-one years ago)

"Rally behind" for what though, bnw? It's this unarticulated part that scares me.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"Rally behind" means we appreciate the sacrifice you made trying to save people, and your heroism is something we can cheer for and look up to during a massively tragic event. I don't think it means: Yay! Now send the firemen to destroy the muslims! If that's what you're worried about.

bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Clearly the firemen should be off destroying the Dutch.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

It is what I'm worried about. Otherwise why just the firemen? Why uniformed officers instead of ordinary men and women? I certainly don't think each person needs a little recognition of heroic deeds of bravery out there; it was an absurd suggestion to try and show how difficult it can be to separate heroes from victims. To pursue this task seems not only illogical but impossible. Impossibilities and illogicalities (is that a word?) is what nationalism specializes in, unfortunately, hence my sinking feeling that this grasping onto uniforms - or rallying behind them as you put it - represents a collective will to... what? Maybe you're not saying it, but Noonan heavily suggests that it's to "kick ass" - although she discreetly uses the words "subsequent history." The WTC site is the wrong place for that kind of sentiment IMO.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost, I'd be fine if they just passed it, those bogarting glory-hounds!

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 20:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Here is that Noonan article, btw. I think you're right she's very insinuating that firemen are heros b/c they were active instead of passive and that translates into justifying action i.e. war in Iraq. I actually agree with the first part and (less so) the last part but linking the two is very, very slimey.

bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 21:42 (twenty-one years ago)

hey everybody, sorry I was cranky earlier!

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 7 January 2004 21:45 (twenty-one years ago)

there are wwii memorials in almost every single town in america

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I was of course talking about having a main one in Washington, like the Vietnam memorial, k?

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

k

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:22 (twenty-one years ago)

kool.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Thursday, 8 January 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

It's bad enough that my tax dollars pay these ungrateful firemen with their fat union salaries - now they want a memorial? Don't we pay them to die for us? We wouldn't have to go through all of this debate and trouble if we'd just sell the whole thing to Dunkin Donuts and Pizza Hut.

Ronald von Mises, Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

As Tracer noted, there is a WWII memorial in DC, under construction. It is a work of quasi-fascist art and is ruining what is arguably the most beautiful spot in the city.

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 8 January 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sorry for my tone earlier, too. There's something about this topic things brings out the asshattery.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 9 January 2004 00:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Someone has come up with an improved version of Reflecting Absence:

http://www.upsaid.com/blogaloo/index.php?action=viewcom&id=14

o. nate (onate), Friday, 9 January 2004 17:03 (twenty-one years ago)

EVERYONE WINS

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Saturday, 10 January 2004 01:52 (twenty-one years ago)

It's Manilow that makes it, o' course.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 10 January 2004 02:11 (twenty-one years ago)

The comments at the end are great too.

"...but then again, they can't say its too minimalist can they?"

o. nate (onate), Saturday, 10 January 2004 03:51 (twenty-one years ago)

2) the figure of Death symbolizes death.

LOL

amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 10 January 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not completely sure about this, with my entire a-level art level of knowledge, but minimalism seems perfect for this. It cuts out everything that isn't important, in this case the art itself seeing as it's a memorial, so you won't get any idiots talking about how pretty it is, or discussing the sculpture techniques, when they should be looking at it and remembering people instead. Also, lower chances of firemen with mohicans come May Day.

oscillatingocelot, Saturday, 10 January 2004 19:54 (twenty-one years ago)

peter walker remix. I'm impressed and relieved:

http://www.wtcsitememorial.org/images/fin7/sig.jpg

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 16 January 2004 00:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Weirdly, I almost wish there were less trees (not *no* trees, but still).

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 00:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I would comment, but I can't decide if Ned meant "less" or "fewer". I HATE GRAMMAR.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 16 January 2004 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

A reduction in the quantity of organisms herein known as 'trees' in the English vernacular.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 16 January 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean really, wtf is wrong with me where I feel like I have to correct other people's grammar CONSTANTLY? MOM I BLAME YOU.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 16 January 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

actually, I like that picture so much that I'm all for just putting up a giant poster of it on the site.

Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 16 January 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

In the winter that is going to be one hell of a skate park.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 16 January 2004 19:19 (twenty-one years ago)

This is great, because now with all the trees I don't have to LOOK AT THE FUCKING MEMORIAL WHEN I WALK BY IT. I'm glad everything will be LOW to that it will be EASILY OBSCURED.

Never forget, etc.

ModJ (ModJ), Friday, 16 January 2004 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)

They should have made it a skate park. That would be sick.

x-post

ModJ (ModJ), Friday, 16 January 2004 19:20 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.