IN THE middle of Manhattan on the lower level of Rockefeller Center, a sculpture of a dying woman was removed last week due to the fact that many passers-by deemed it to be "too disturbing." The sculpture was emotionally striking and was an accurate display of human suffering during tragedy, but Rockefeller Center was nonetheless justified in its decision. It sets some important precedents about the way to design public memorials in the future -- they ought to respect the wishes of the living as much as the memories of those who are dead.
Starting approximately two weeks ago, a statue sculpted by Eric Fischl was placed on the concourse level of Rockefeller Center. Rockefeller Center is a place of heavy traffic for both New Yorkers and the many tourists that visit the area every day. The statue was situated right in the middle of this. Sculpted as a dedication to those who jumped out of the World Trade Center before it collapsed, the sculpture is named "Tumbling Woman," and lives up to its name. It is a statue of a nude woman who appears to be in free fall, with her head pointed downward and her legs curled above her and lined up parallel to the ground. The sculpture was described by Fischl as an "expression of deepest sympathy," and the woman in the sculpture seems to express vulnerability and sympathy through her nudity and anonymity.
However, many passers-by simply found the sculpture offensive, disturbing and inappropriate. Last Wednesday, it was blanketed from public view, and even though Rockefeller Center planned to display it through this Monday, its exhibition was cut drastically short. The public spokesman for Rockefeller Center, Suzanne Halpin, made a public apology for the statue, and promised that it would be removed "that evening" (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/09/18/sept11.statue.ap/index.html).
Naturally, people are split over whether Rockefeller Center should have left the statue as an expressive statement or taken it away. Removing it from the premises is, by far, the better option. When there is a memorial for something as momentous as what happened to the World Trade Center, there needs to be more at work than one man's vision. For example, there have been many ideas submitted for the memorial at Ground Zero, and there will be a great deal of debate before the final design is created. More than one artist's perspective should be considered when designing a public memorial, and in this way, the greatest number of people will hopefully be positively affected by its display. A sculpture that is in the public domain ought to have the public as its target audience. Thus, although places such as private galleries, art museums and secular areas such as churches should not have to cater to a mainstream appeal, a public memorial ought to strive to attain this. By showing a nude, dying woman in free-fall, Fischl chose one of the most graphic ways to commemorate the people who dove out of the World Trade Center and most likely turned off many of his viewers. Having a group of artists rather than a single artist designing a memorial will help prevent this from occurring.
The statue's placement was poor in the first place. Rockefeller Center is a place where young children play, and it is an area where many people can go to relax or do their shopping. A sculpture of a dying woman would be slightly more appropriate at Ground Zero, where people would consciously choose to go and see it. Most people do not go to Rockefeller Center to mourn, and since Rockefeller Center has no such misery attached to its name, there is no reason to start now.
The healing process after something so traumatic involves moving on, and public memorials to the attacks should remain either in the areas where the attacks occurred, or in areas where the mourners can be separate from the people who are simply going about their lives. For example, the Vietnam Memorial is currently placed in an area where no one could pass by it by going about their daily routine -- one has to make a conscious decision to visit the memorial in order to see it. What Fischl did is comparable to rebuilding the Vietnam Memorial alongside a high traffic shopping center. Although a larger number of people would see the Vietnam Memorial on a daily basis, it is a tasteless setting for both the living and the dead. Its current, more isolated location is needed for contemplation, and the rest of the public should not be forced to confront tragedy when they do not want to.
Thus, Rockefeller Center was entirely justified in removing the statue from its premises, and it has taken a step toward removing the dreary, tense atmosphere that has loomed over this country since the attacks. Their decision is a good lesson in creating public memorials, because although honoring those that died is extremely important, an equal amount of consideration needs to be paid toward the living.
(Kevin James Wong's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at kwong@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
