Hello Scott et al.:

I'll agree with s/he who voiced the opinion that we are too
close to the events of September 11th to be thinking about
and planning monuments and memorials.  However, the NYFD
building will be home to a monument so soon.  Why the rush?
As if building a monument or memorial will end the
suffering, will fill the gaping void of loss?  Why not let
emotions settle before undertaking a course of action that
forces those emotions back to the surface, that places on a
national stage what would probably be nothing more than a
mention in the NY Times a year from now?  The real injustice
in this is in not allowing the deceased rest in peace and
letting the 'heroes' step out of the limelight to resume
their everyday lives.

(BTW, if you ask most firefighters, law enforcement
officers, emergency medical technicians, etc., they would
refuse the title 'hero'.  Yet society forces it upon them
rather than offer sincere thanks and a more reasonable
wage.)

Of course, nobody has yet addressed why a sculpture meant to
represent all Americans will have three men -- one white,
one African-American, and one Hispanic.  That offends me,
and it should offend 51% of our population as there will be
no woman.  Right?  What about a person of Asian or Native
American descent?  Has anyone considered religion (crosses,
Stars of David, etc.) or sexuality (heterosexual, bisexual,
gay/lesbian, transsexual/transgender)?

Scott Hilton writes:
> . . . although I find it interesting that the
misconception of
> photographs as being the "literal truth"  still persists.

That photograph exists as is.  There is no deception in the
photograph as there would be in the proposed monument.

> The idea of altering the information in the photograph by
> making the sculpture different seems to offend many
because
> it violates the "truth", which is validated by the
existence of
> the photograph.

You seem to question the "truth" of the photograph.  While I
admit there are multiple "truths" (i.e., opinions, points of
view, etc.) when it comes to the perception of events in
real-time, the photograph is undisputable.  That you
question its veracity horrifies me.  (More on this below.)

> The "truth" is, the original photo existed at some point
as
> nothing more than a stream of electrons eminently capable
> of being manipulated in a myriad of ways.

This sentence should start: "Scott Hilton's truth is . . .
."

Three specific men raised that flag.  Not a stream of
electrons.

> The ethnicity of the firefighters in the original image
could
> have been manipulated to make them all appear white.

Could have, but weren't.

> Many acts of heroism performed by people of all races
> happened on that day, and who is to say that the
> photographer did not have their own agenda in focusing on
> that event to the exclusion of others?

Yes, blame the photographer for photographing an historical
and patriotic event, the raising of the American flag upon
the ruins of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center,
which was an act -- as you would probably agree -- "just
happened" to be performed by three white men.  I'm sure the
photographer would not have turned away and not taken the
photograph had there been a member of a visible minority
there . . . . So, keep blame out of this.

Many acts of heroism and bravery were preformed by many
different people that day -- of all ethnicities, races,
sexes and sexualities, genders and sizes.  And there are
many photographs to prove it.  So, why are the designers of
this monument choosing a specific photograph, then modifying
it?  Why not do as did Auguste Rodin with the Burghers of
Calais <http://www.musee-rodin.fr/smonu-e.htm>: Choose
figures, representing great diversity, from many photographs
and 'create' a monument.  Instead, the design insults these
three specific men who performed this specific act, by
changing them into fictional characters.

> There are many levels upon which to challenge the "truth"
> of the photographic image.  To claim that the revision of
> one fallible image into another fallible image is morally
wrong
> is an untenable position, and I object to the implied
> characterization of those who proposed this revision as
> being incapable of recognizing or valuing the "truth".

There is hardly a means to debate someone who could present
such a 'conspiracy theory'.  To suggest the photographer had
an agenda, potentially made the men appear more white, etc.
is simply insulting to us all.  That these men have names
and faces that have been seen in many other sources -- in
addition to this photograph -- demonstrates that no
wrong-doing was committed by the photographer.

> I belive this debate touches upon many issues which are of
> vital interest to the museum community and I must say I
think
> it is inestimably valuable to have such a forum available
for
> debate, no matter how much I might grit my teeth and
silently
> curse as I read.

I'm glad you recognize the importance of debate, though it
is unfortunate your form of debate is to suggest the
photographer was at fault -- or, worse, purposefully
modified the truth of that moment.

Sharing thoughts and ideas . . .

Jay Heuman, Visitor & Volunteer Services Coordinator
Joslyn Art Museum, 2200 Dodge Street, Omaha, NE, 68102
342-3300 (telephone)     342-2376 (fax)     www.joslyn.org

Copyright retained.  My opinions - no one else's.  If you
have a problem with what I wrote, take it up with me
personally.  If this is illegal where you are, do not read
it!

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).