Remarks from the Fray:
The big difference between the two structures is that the Dublin Spire is not a commemorative memorial. Thus, its design and selection were not determined by political and emotional forces, as was the WTC Memorial.
Witold praises the Dublin Spire because it has no overt meaning -- it means whatever you want it to mean. And I suppose one could say something similar about the Vietnam War Memorial -- some see it as an ugly gash commemorating an ugly war, and some see it as a magnificently simple statement of the overwhelming deaths in that war.
But I don't think the WTC Memorial is as banal and literal as Witold suggests. True, not re-building the WTC on the two original footprints is pretty literal, but I think it was a bold and sympathetic decision. Instead, the two footprints will consist of pools of water with waterfalls cascading down the sides.
I think such a memorial does, in fact, lend itself to several interpretations -- for some, the pools will reflect Heaven, for others the pools and waterfalls will suggest nature's vitality and renewal -- or purity, still others might see the waterfalls as a force that transcends man's buildings.
I like the idea of the pools being surrounded by 300 oak trees. I think they will offer solace to both victims' families and to office workers on a lunch break. Is that such a bad thing?
As for listing on the pools the names of all those who died in the various 9/11 attacks as well as in the 1993 WTC attack, well, that's become de rigueur since the Vietnam War Memorial. After reading about the disputes over how to list the names on the WTC Memorial, I can see the problem with trying to accommodate the wishes of the victims' relatives. But the names will serve as a way for survivors and victims' relatives to connect with loved ones, just as the names do at the Vietnam War Memorial.
--MaryAnn
(To reply, click here.)
Perhaps we should begin by stressing that "memorial" and "monument" are not synonymous, interchangable words. Witold's treatment of them as such leads to the confusion that dominates his article.
We can erect monuments to any old thing, heroes, abstract concepts like deomcracy and justice, the surrounding city, the gods, whatever. As Sert, Leger, and Gideon defined themt, in a rather uncontroversial first point in their "Nine Points of Monumentality", "Monuments are human landmarks which men have created as symbols for their idelas, for their aims, and for their actions." Straight away, we have a problem in Witold's article, because Witold now wants monumnents that "gain [their] power from... engineering, rather than from symbolism." But isn't symbolism inherent to the very idea of the monument? Take the "mute symbol" of the Washington Monument. It is an obelisk, a historical form, whose historical associations were understood to correspond to a certain set of values in the 19th century. Or even take the Dublin Spire. What was the reason for putting a spiral around its base again? Oh right, its a symbol of Irish/Celtic cultural heritage.
Memorials, meanwhile, are a particular kind of monument They are architectural objects specifically designed for remembering the dead, a tragic event, etc. Often, they are at their best when they eschew the very qualities that we associate with the monumental,, as best exmplefied by Maya Lin's Vietnam Vet's memorial, which as it burrowed into the ground was more of an anti-monument. Indeed, what may be appropriate architecture/sculpture for a run-of-the-mill monument, say something heroic, light, "uplifting", "inspiring", is inappropriate for commemorating a tragic event. Can you imagine this spire (which as Witold notes works in part because it contrasts with the horizontality of the city of Dublin), erected in lower Manhattan to commemorate the tragedy of Sept. 11th?
Witold is quick to jump on a starchitect for designing buildings that loudly proclaim the genius of their maker and little else, but now he wants the monument to Sept. 11th to proclaim nothing but what a great engineering feat it is? He wants the memorial of a senseless terrorist attack to inspire and uplift? I thought that was what the Freedom Tower was for. The memorial was for remembering the dead.
I agree with his largest point: the Sept 11th memorial, like the entire site, is a complete bust at this point, but the Dublin spire is not a viable alternative. Its a cute rallying point for civic and nationalist pride, nothing more.
--slippedvoussoir
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)
Click here to read a slide-show essay about the Spire of Dublin.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What Obama Meant—and Didn't Mean—About "Beginning" To Withdraw in July 2011
49 Million Americans Are Hungry. What Can You Do To Help? 
Admit It, Dems: These Reform Bills Won't Control Health Care Costs
Parks and Recreation Is Now Better Than 30 Rock and The Office
Lithwick: The Supreme Court's Best Beach-House Case Ever
The Economic Reports About Christmas Shopping Are Confusing, Contradictory, and Useless
Remarks from the Fray:
The big difference between the two structures is that the Dublin Spire is not a commemorative memorial. Thus, its design and selection were not determined by political and emotional forces, as was the WTC Memorial.
Witold praises the Dublin Spire because it has no overt meaning -- it means whatever you want it to mean. And I suppose one could say something similar about the Vietnam War Memorial -- some see it as an ugly gash commemorating an ugly war, and some see it as a magnificently simple statement of the overwhelming deaths in that war.
But I don't think the WTC Memorial is as banal and literal as Witold suggests. True, not re-building the WTC on the two original footprints is pretty literal, but I think it was a bold and sympathetic decision. Instead, the two footprints will consist of pools of water with waterfalls cascading down the sides.
I think such a memorial does, in fact, lend itself to several interpretations -- for some, the pools will reflect Heaven, for others the pools and waterfalls will suggest nature's vitality and renewal -- or purity, still others might see the waterfalls as a force that transcends man's buildings.
I like the idea of the pools being surrounded by 300 oak trees. I think they will offer solace to both victims' families and to office workers on a lunch break. Is that such a bad thing?
As for listing on the pools the names of all those who died in the various 9/11 attacks as well as in the 1993 WTC attack, well, that's become de rigueur since the Vietnam War Memorial. After reading about the disputes over how to list the names on the WTC Memorial, I can see the problem with trying to accommodate the wishes of the victims' relatives. But the names will serve as a way for survivors and victims' relatives to connect with loved ones, just as the names do at the Vietnam War Memorial.
--MaryAnn
(To reply, click here.)
Perhaps we should begin by stressing that "memorial" and "monument" are not synonymous, interchangable words. Witold's treatment of them as such leads to the confusion that dominates his article.
We can erect monuments to any old thing, heroes, abstract concepts like deomcracy and justice, the surrounding city, the gods, whatever. As Sert, Leger, and Gideon defined themt, in a rather uncontroversial first point in their "Nine Points of Monumentality", "Monuments are human landmarks which men have created as symbols for their idelas, for their aims, and for their actions." Straight away, we have a problem in Witold's article, because Witold now wants monumnents that "gain [their] power from... engineering, rather than from symbolism." But isn't symbolism inherent to the very idea of the monument? Take the "mute symbol" of the Washington Monument. It is an obelisk, a historical form, whose historical associations were understood to correspond to a certain set of values in the 19th century. Or even take the Dublin Spire. What was the reason for putting a spiral around its base again? Oh right, its a symbol of Irish/Celtic cultural heritage.
Memorials, meanwhile, are a particular kind of monument They are architectural objects specifically designed for remembering the dead, a tragic event, etc. Often, they are at their best when they eschew the very qualities that we associate with the monumental,, as best exmplefied by Maya Lin's Vietnam Vet's memorial, which as it burrowed into the ground was more of an anti-monument. Indeed, what may be appropriate architecture/sculpture for a run-of-the-mill monument, say something heroic, light, "uplifting", "inspiring", is inappropriate for commemorating a tragic event. Can you imagine this spire (which as Witold notes works in part because it contrasts with the horizontality of the city of Dublin), erected in lower Manhattan to commemorate the tragedy of Sept. 11th?
Witold is quick to jump on a starchitect for designing buildings that loudly proclaim the genius of their maker and little else, but now he wants the monument to Sept. 11th to proclaim nothing but what a great engineering feat it is? He wants the memorial of a senseless terrorist attack to inspire and uplift? I thought that was what the Freedom Tower was for. The memorial was for remembering the dead.
I agree with his largest point: the Sept 11th memorial, like the entire site, is a complete bust at this point, but the Dublin spire is not a viable alternative. Its a cute rallying point for civic and nationalist pride, nothing more.
--slippedvoussoir
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)