In a message dated 9/21/2002 10:29:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< That some can see beauty in this sculpture does not mean they consider
 the tragedy to have been "good."  Perhaps they recognize death and
 tragedy as a part of life . . . part of a linear or cyclical process.
 If others are disturbed by the sculpture, let them turn away.  Better
 yet, let them turn toward something that inspires feeling in them.  But
 do not deny those for whom the sculpture is a touching memorial.
  >>

I've avoided taking part in this discussion because several people on both
sides have made eloquent statements--more eloquent than I could do.  But I
want to weigh in on the subject of "turning away" from something that upsets
you.  I don't think this is a reasonable or fair expectation for a public,
outdoor display.  People have a right to navigate the streets of New York
without being visually assaulted any more than is absolutely necessary.  The
specific subject matter of the sculpture and the venue are (or were) the
issues.

The sculpture very graphically, without much ambiguity, calls to mind one of
the most horrific aspects of the tragedy--that some people either were forced
to fall or jump, or chose suicide rather than be consumed by the flames.  The
specificity of this act and its depiction in the sculpture makes it pretty
difficult for many people who were already traumatized by the event to
take--whether or not they personally knew anyone who died that way.  While
the sculpture is an appropriate response to 9/11 in many respects and is an
economical symbol of the horror, suitable for an art gallery, I think it's
too strong for outdoor display in a place where people can encounter it
accidentally while just trying to get from one place to another.  "Turn away"
after you've just been punched in the gut?  Swell.

I'm opposed to censorship and will defend the right to show the sculpture in
an appropriate setting, but I think the sculptor and those who commissioned
the piece made a tasteless blunder in trying to place it as a "memorial" in
the wrong  venue.  I think they made a serious miscalculation, and I don't
think it's just a question of timing either.  I'm not sure that waiting, say,
ten years to position it in the intended space would appreciably mitigate its
effect.

I'm not arguing that difficult art needs to be hidden or that it's feasible
to protect everyone from seeing things that might upset or offend them, but
neither does society, given a choice, need to clobber unsuspecting viewers
with reminders of horrors.  Expecting people to just "turn away" from visual
assault is a pretty hard-hearted assumption.  If this is a "touching
memorial," it does so with a very heavy hand.  One important function of art
museums is to display works which are too strong for more "public" locations.
 Sometimes it's very useful to have walls which separate and define spaces.

I'm not trying to revive or perpetuate the debate--just offering another
opinion.

David Haberstich

=========================================================
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).