As you can see from headlines, the proposed winner for the memorial site has met with criticism.
The question becomes, what is appropriate for the memorial?
Having looked at most of the memorials, they all seemed a little... questionable.
Looking at a couple of more successful memorials, we have the Wall. There is the Tomb of the Unknowns.
How do you respect the dead, commemorate their sacrifices and pay tribute to their heroism while at the same time not diminishing the tragedy?
And something that will be seen by everyone to evince those qualities.
I can't say I know the answer to that, but seemingly neither do a number of others. So perhaps it is worth trying.
Could try and do something along the lines of the Wall. Names of the victims, inscribed on scale replicas of the towers. Made out of stone it would be somber, perhaps made out of glass, would allow it light and could also permit a spotlight to shine up. Problem with this is that unlike the wall, you cannot see each and every name readily, as the replicas would create height as opposed to length.
Or it could be inverted. Have a sunken area of one or several levels. So a walkway around which the names would be placed and perhaps images. Allowing for people to place tokens for specific names. And in the middle could be... Something rising from the ground, a statue (although not sure what would be appropriate) or effigy of the towers, a frame of the towers...
No running water though. Should be peaceful, not cluttered with the sounds of water.
Maybe a transparent section over the ground, showing the crater or a part of the original towers.
Whatever the case, it should be tasteful. Not some visual monstrosity or work of artistic genius. It has to be a memorial for people, not the architect. It should remind and renew, not repulse.
After all, this is a place worthy of sorrow not an eyesore.
Posted by hugin at Enero 7, 2004 11:04 AMI remember {when I was *very* young, of course} reading an article in National Geographic about the {then brand~new} Vietnam Memorial. People criticised it at that time for being ugly. It was too plain, too much like an abstract painting; people wanted something more like the WWII memorial with the three men planting the American flag.
{Funny how the pendulum swings; I remember a small & informal 9/11 tribute which was a statue of a falling person. Initially, it was lauded; and then it was lambasted as being too realistic and therefore in bad taste, so it was removed. I suppose the finer point that ought to be made is not the difference in style but in statement, i.e., flag vs. fall... still, funny how people blame the substance for the symbol.}
Posted by: edgar mousehat on Enero 7, 2004 05:57 PMWhy not draw one up and submit? You have the drawing ability and the imagination. Just needs doing. Take the time. Invest the time. Lord knows others can use your talent.
Posted by: dad on Enero 9, 2004 07:20 PM