September 20, 2006

This Can't Be True

Flopping Aces points out some SERIOUS problems with the Arizona 9/11 memorial. I haven't gone down there, yet, to check it out.

Could this really be true? Did we spend those memorial dollars for a large crescent shaped attack on George W Bush, and the US foreign policy? Rather than remembering the victims from that day, are we focusing as much negativity as the path of the sun will allow?

UPDATE: I just talked to my girlfriend who is a public art coordinator for the state of Arizona (no, I don't believe in public funding of art but she does) because she was on the committee that approved this design. I now have a bigger picture:

It is actually multi-layered; one layer with statements of "fact", one layer that is statements of "opinion" culled from interviews done by a historian. I am not clear on whether the statements represented at Flopping Aces were representations of the "facts" or the "opinions" layer.

It was intended to be more than a listing of victims names which has been done so often before. The intent was to be 'educational' - I am not sure they have accomplished that. Controversial, sure, but educational - maybe not.

It isn't so much crescent shaped as circular - but it is on an angle. It was supposed to be the whole alpha/omega, eternity thing. The angle is to take advantage of the sunlight.

The memorial wasn't so much paid for with tax dollars - the very large majority of the funds were donated & gathered through fundraising, a large portion of the work was donated by the construction company. The design was required to be self supporting; not requiring additional funding for electricity (lights, etc) or maintenance (gardens, etc).

I still find it offensive and don't feel it is a fitting memorial - but now I have more facts. She has told me to be sure and visit because it is really nicely done, I will let you know after I've seen it in person.

UPDATE 2: Anonymous Mike is much more articulate in his review of the memorial.

And I received this reply from a friend after sending her to read his post. She is not a commenter, but I did get her permission to publish these remarks. I think she presents a decent case.

What can I say? I think some people might be a touch paranoid. If you look at the memorial as a whole, the text presented as a whole, if you look at the complexity of the issues, the teaching component that the designers were asked to bring to the memorial, the breadth and scope of people involved in selecting, designing and approving, and the sincere desire to commemorate those whose lives were affected as well as try to bring some understanding to a national tragedy, I think they did a good job. (sorry long run on sentence with too many commas!)

Regarding the desire for monuments to include personifications of sorrow and resolve with lots of eagles, well, there’s nothing inherently wrong with that type of memorial, but if we can only express our selves with 19th century Romantic images of pretty women with long hair and bare breasts then I think we are missing out on a wealth of expression. Despite the dearth of pretty, long haired women on the Vietnam memorial, it remains one of the most successful memorials ever created


I still find the phrases chosen for the memorial as presented by Espresso Pundit to be completely off base, but I do see what they were (ostensibly) trying to do. (Espresso Pundit doesn't have permalinks, but you can find the pics by scrolling to the post "Shock & Awe" or going to Flopping Aces)

Posted by Vox at September 20, 2006 03:38 PM | TrackBack | politics
Comments

I was just there last Sunday! I will go BACK this weekend to reshoot, just to put on record what shit they put on the damn thing!

Posted by: Macker at September 21, 2006 08:41 PM