So after massive critique (or in the words of the designers “unfortunate diversion”) the designers of the Fligt 93 memorial, originals termed The Crescent of Embrace, have agreed to some changes of the design. Is it really so hard to understand that many people would find it inappropriate to use, what might not have been intended, but very well could be construed as, an Islamic symbol, with this particular memorial? But still it includes the red crescent. And apparently it also still includes the 44 translucent blocks supposedly symbolising the 40 murdered passengers and crew members as well as the four terrorists which also died. So does anyone really think the terrorists should be honoured or mourned together with their victims? I would think Pillar of Shame (skamstøtte) would be more suitable for the terrorists.
Now instead of Crescent of Embrace, they call it a Bowl. A Bowl of what? Well going by the overall wishy-washy feeling of it all - pretty flowers, wind chimes and translucent stones - probably a Bowl of Bland Fruit. Or perhaps The Bowl of Fluffy Feelings. The Bowl of Vague Something Or Other But Most Certainly Not Something That Could Insult The Terrorists Which Are People Too.
Whatever. It’s a rose garden – without thorns even. It’s bland, vague, uninteresting and without bite or nerve – as most such official monuments are these days. Where is the unabashed hailing of your heroes? The derision of your enemies and celebration of their destruction? The faith and pride in own might and accomplishments? It doesn’t need to be a gazillion acres, but at least give it pride and boldness. Even your liberty statue created by the French shows more daring that this, or the monument at Mount Rushmore, the statue of President Lincoln, etc. Instead you get wind chimes and pretty trees.
What 44 translucent stones are you talking about? I see that there are 40 wind chimes, 40 names in granite in the sacred ground and 40 red maple trees.
The original design was offensive in the extreme, and a good example of political correctness gone nuts. This new design is no longer offensive in that it isn’t a huge islamic symbol, but it’s still a pretty shitty memorial.
I was in Europe recently and spent time in London, Flourence and Rome. Them Eurpopeans know how to build a memorial! (hint: the materials required include lots of labor and lots of stone, not a bunch of maple saplings and wind chimes.)
The pamphlet refers to Sacred Ground as the final resting place for the passengers and crew of flight 93. But they weren’t buried there, were they? So how is that their final resting place?
Personally, I think it looks nice. Memorials can’t all be marble monstrosities, this seems to be a decent job of making something respectful and appealing as well as environmentally friendly. I don’t see where the 4 terrorists are honored in any way.
They probably got gravestones in local cemetaries for family ceremonies, but there couldn’t have been much to actually bury.
It’s my understanding that the plane hit the ground straight on in a dive. There wasn’t much left of anything, bodies or wreckage. I think it’s fair to characterize the actual impact point as a final resting place for those aboard.
It’s still a wussy memorial – all about healing and peace and sacredness, nothing about courage or honor or teamwork or heroism – but, well, that’s America in 2005. At least it’s not actively offensive anymore.
It’s a memorial, not a monument - they’re two different things, IMO. Compare the Vietnam Memorial (quiet, understated) to the Washington Monument (the national phallus).
Actually, it sort of IS their final resting place as I think about 10% of their remains were able to be recovered.
I’ve been there, last summer. One thing you have to understand is how REMOTE it is. It is real rust-belt PA; two huge abandoned mining machines on the hill behind the site, that the plane just avoided; a grove of pines that the plane plowed into with a small high school that was miraculously missed; and a town six miles away that still has flags in every window. Other than that, it’s just open fields (that I think officially belong to the old mining company), dirt roads, and a chain link fence with an FBI trailer around the actual crash site. It’s a huge site, no buildings around except a tiny hut built by the National Park Service for the memorial (which is just a flagpole and some fences and benches, covered with folk art that reminds me of Manhattan post 9/11).
The main theme is courage and sacrifice in the folk memorial, and it bugs me if that won’t be the point of the official memorial.
Since most visitors to this remote site are going to be mourning family members, I don’t think a big stone thing is appropriate. They have come here not to contemplate courage and bravery and freedom for all, but to contemplate the lives they’ve lost- lives that stretch far beyond the circumstances of their deaths. Any memorial should be a respectful, quiet place that doesn’t presume to editorialize on their deaths.
The most compelling aspect of the Vietnam War Memorial- by far the most successful monument to date- is not the “Vietnam War” aspect, but the participatory parts. People got the most healing from finding their loved one’s name, leaving meaningful items, and contemplating the other individual lives involved. To some that monument represents honor and valor. To others it represents a government gone mad. But to all it represents a place to remember and heal.
We all know what those names (or windchimes or whatever) mean. We don’t need statues and whatever to mythologize them. The families don’t need a sculptor telling them what to think. Not on a grave site. Stick a statue of good triumphing over evil in Washington or something, but leave this site for the families.
I believe the English word is a “pillory” - it’s a monument erected to commemorate eternally the shame and disgrace of a particularly heinous criminal.
The (in)famous Danish traitor and usurper Corfitz Ulfeldt was sentenced to “lose life and honour”, and so his possessions were confiscated or destroyed, and a pillory was erected where his house used to be. (Ulfeldt himself had escaped, so the king had an effigy of him drawn and quartered. One assumes he was pretty steamed up.)
Real estate in central Copenhagen being as expensive as it is, the pillory is now in the Danish National Museum: Skamstøtte The inscription ("Corfitz WF (Ulfeldt)/ Forræderen / Til æwig Spott / Skam og Skiendsel” ") roughly translates to: “Corfitz WF Ulfeldt/The traitor/To (his) eternal insult/shame and disgrace”
Of course, for this sort of punishment to have any effect, the perpetrator (or those likely to emulate him - Ulfeldt’s pillory was very much a warning to other noblemen about getting to big for their britches) must have some concept of honour, so hardly think it’d be effective when dealing with 21st century terrorists.
I thought a pillory just meant a device, similar to the stocks, for the (temporary) confinement and public display of a petty malefactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillory
“The derision of your enemies and celebration of their destruction?” You’ve got to be kidding. 2,900 people died that day because of an enemy’s act of self-destruction. That’s pretty fucking hard to celebrate, and I’m not sure what a memorial to it would look like. I don’t need to see it. Perhaps you don’t like or appreciate this, but there are other things people feel about September 11 and Flight 93 aside from defiance. I think defiance has been pushed further and further back as time has gone on, and it doesn’t bother me at all.
Well, I’m not an artist, but some possbilities would be statues depicting the passengers charging the cabin, white marble monument type things, an eternal flame, those sorts of things. I was going to say a military honor guard, but I don’t know if that’s right; the whole point was that they were ordinary citizens. It could, however, be named a national battlefield like Gettysburg or Manassas.
I’m sure a real artist could be more creative (or I, if I tried harder), but you get the point: a celebration of heroism and victory. This is supposed to be something that remembers brave people who gave their lives to save others. The design, in look and language, is more fitting a memorial to cancer victims.
[QUOTE=furt]
Well, I’m not an artist, but some possbilities would be statues depicting the passengers charging the cabin, white marble monument type things, an eternal flame, those sorts of things…
QUOTE]
A monument such as you are describing uses symbolism and artisty to infleunce what the viewer should think and feel about what happened. A memorial, such as this one, invites you to remember, mourn, and come to grips with your own feelings.
Which is more appropriate for this event in a republic?
Well, this is what happens when you design your monuments via public referendum: you scrap anything that’s offensive to anyone, and end up with the blandest monument imaginable. Any design that actually says something is going to be deemed offensive to somebody, so you end up with something that doesn’t say anything at all. They should have just gone with the original design, and thumbed their nose at the whiners.
Is this a Danish thing?