O/T [Update]: 9/11 'Tumbling Woman' art removed
LandonEx
(A photo of sculpture is at: http://members.aol.com/landonex/agc-misc.html )
9/11 Statue of Falling Woman Covered; Removed
NEW YORK (AP) -- A sculpture of a falling woman -- designed as a memorial to
those who jumped or fell to their death from the World Trade Center -- was
abruptly draped in cloth and curtained off Wednesday because of complaints that
it was too disturbing.
"We apologize if anyone was upset or offended by the display of this sculpture.
It was certainly not our intent. The piece will be removed this evening,''
said Suzanne Halpin, spokeswoman for Rockefeller Center.
Eric Fischl's bronze, "Tumbling Woman," depicts a naked woman with arms and
legs flailing. It went on view about a week ago in the lower concourse at
Rockfeller Center and was supposed to remain on display through Monday.
Numerous news photos captured images of desperate people leaping to their
deaths as the 110-story towers burned.
Some passers-by in Rockefeller Center complained that the sculpture was too
graphic.
"I don't think it dignifies their deaths,'' said Paul Labb. "It's not art. It
is very disrupting when you see it."
"The sculpture was not meant to hurt anybody," artist Fischl said in a
statement. "It was a sincere expression of deepest sympathy for the
vulnerability of the human condition. Both specifically towards the victims of
September 11 and towards humanity in general."
Some onlookers said there is a need for art that captures the horror of
September 11.
"I don't think that it's done in bad taste," Christine Defonces said before the
statue was covered. "It's an artist's reaction to what happened."
AP-NY 9-18-02 17:17 EDT
=L=
RJRSJ1
SteaHoover
For some of these so-called artists it comes down to "I need attention because
when I was little no one appreciated my artistry." As my friend Howard says
it's a case of love me daddy. They seem to always want to shock the
sensibilities of the regular person. What asshole permitted this to be
displayed is my question and when they find out fire them!
Andrew Carol
> LandonEx (land...@aol.comnospamno) wrote:
> : Some onlookers said there is a need for art that captures the horror of
> : September 11.
>
> : "I don't think that it's done in bad taste," Christine Defonces said before
> : the
> : statue was covered. "It's an artist's reaction to what happened."
>
> The artwork certaily should not disappear - but it should be displayed in
> a more appropriate place.
Where is the "appropriate" place to show people dying in such a tragic
way? This is not an uplifting or healing thing. It shows the tragic
instant before someone smacks into pavement, not the spirit or survival
or recovery.
Perhaps to help "heal" after a serial rapist has done his horrible
crime we could write a poem about surviving rape and make a statue of
him at work?
Would that be just as much "art" as this is?
Anyone is free to sponser, produce, or display such art. But we are
free to express our anger at those sponsers and producers.
Public monies should not go for it's production or to host it. A wise
corporation would decide carefully if they should spend their
shareholders money to produce or host it.
----- Andy
Big J
news:190920021000596576%aaca...@coastside.net:
For centuries, pictures of Christ in agony on the cross have been deemed a)
art b) appropriate and c) uplifting and healing.
Yes, there is an obvious difference - religion. But it is also true that
many do not see any problem with showing Christ "dying in such a tragic
way" and definitely do think it is "an uplifting or healing thing," to use
your phrases.
Artists are still finding ways to express the horror of the Nazi
attrocities. Many are very difficult to look at. You seem to be implying
that the purpose of art is only to uplift, to make one feel better. Part
of the purpose of portraying the horror is to remind us, to help us not
forget.
If you are personally uncomfortable with that depiction, then fine. As you
said, "anyone is free to express" their anger, etc. But your contention
that it isn't "healing" or "art" isn't supported by art history.
Artists strive to both evoke and depict the strongest of emotions, the most
tragic events and our deepest fears. I'd say this artist was very
successful in those goals.
Big J
-----
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Phoenix
mj.aol.com>, steah...@aol.com says...
Maybe you should learn a little bit about Eric
Fischl's work and career before spouting off
like that. You and Howard are wrong.
Still, it's weird they chose a painter rather
than a sculptor for the work.
I know the work Fischl is reacting to, a Dutch
piece of a woman suspended above water who
might be falling or rising or swimming. Both
woman are in the same pose, though the Dutch
piece is quite serene and buoyant.
I don't think a piece that actually represents
people, nude or not, is going to receive a
good public reaction at Ground Zero. They
should probably look for more abstract art.
bel
SweetLittleTroubleMaker
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2002 10:00 AM
Message-id: <190920021000596576%aaca...@coastside.net>
This is one of those instances where we need to "put limits on freedom", like
Bush says.
[Just kidding, but I agree with you]
SweetLittleTroubleMaker
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2002 7:55 AM
Message-id: <20020919105525...@mb-mj.aol.com>
And when the regular person is offended, they cry that they are "misunderstood"
and the public isn't "open-minded" enough, that we just "don't get it". It's
always someone else's fault when their shit-for-art doesn't go over well. You
never hear one of these "artists" saying, "Oh, I realize now I made an error in
judgment". No, they whine and make excuses.
Sara
Well, I understand what you mean, but Christ's friends and relatives
aren't around to view the artwork every day. The WTC is still an open
wound and people who work in NYC and lost friends, etc, shouldn't have
to walk by this statue in an unavoidable place so soon. Besides, Christ
has that whole mythology thing going which surrounds him and is
reflected in the art.
SweetLittleTroubleMaker
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2002 10:33 AM
Message-id: <Xns928E6E6F22444...@128.242.126.69>
This is sooooooo different. There is a whole theology that Christians adhere to
regarding Christ's death on the cross, that's why it's acceptable. Is there a
theology surrounding those sad, tragic people who lost their lives on 9/11?
Big J
I agree. We still feel raw and it's tough to see those things. My point was
that the depth and strenght of our remaining hurt does NOT determine
whether the statue is art or appropriate.
Personally, I don't want to see the statue nor the video of those poor
people jumping to their deaths. But I'm not going to take those feelings,
strong as they are, and use them to say what is or isn't art, what is or
isn't appropriate. And his note was full of that.
Ed R.
"Big J" <bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:Xns928E7A7A4A1EC...@128.242.126.69...
When I saw the sculpture, I thought that it was actually quite good.
However, given the CONTEXT of it, especially if used in connection with
September 11, I can understand how people might not be able to look at it
subjectively.
EdR
SteaHoover
>Maybe you should learn a little bit about Eric
>Fischl's work and career before spouting off
>like that. You and Howard are wrong.
>
I don't need to learn anything about him or his work. It's insensitive and it
hurts and shocks those that lost loved ones. They should be the judges.
Andrew Carol
<bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > Where is the "appropriate" place to show people dying in such a tragic
> > way? This is not an uplifting or healing thing. It shows the tragic
> > instant before someone smacks into pavement, not the spirit or survival
> > or recovery.
> >
> > Perhaps to help "heal" after a serial rapist has done his horrible
> > crime we could write a poem about surviving rape and make a statue of
> > him at work?
> >
> > Would that be just as much "art" as this is?
> >
> > Anyone is free to sponser, produce, or display such art. But we are
> > free to express our anger at those sponsers and producers.
> >
> > Public monies should not go for it's production or to host it. A wise
> > corporation would decide carefully if they should spend their
> > shareholders money to produce or host it.
>
> For centuries, pictures of Christ in agony on the cross have been deemed a)
> art b) appropriate and c) uplifting and healing.
>
> Yes, there is an obvious difference - religion. But it is also true that
> many do not see any problem with showing Christ "dying in such a tragic
> way" and definitely do think it is "an uplifting or healing thing," to use
> your phrases.
The Christians would claim that Christ rose from the dead after the
event. It's also religious art.
>
> Artists are still finding ways to express the horror of the Nazi
> attrocities. Many are very difficult to look at. You seem to be implying
> that the purpose of art is only to uplift, to make one feel better. Part
> of the purpose of portraying the horror is to remind us, to help us not
> forget.
Art has the purpose people give it. I am not presuming to say what
purpose it serves, nor to say it MUST serve a purpose. Art for arts
sake is fine with me.
>
> If you are personally uncomfortable with that depiction, then fine. As you
> said, "anyone is free to express" their anger, etc. But your contention
> that it isn't "healing" or "art" isn't supported by art history.
>
> Artists strive to both evoke and depict the strongest of emotions, the most
> tragic events and our deepest fears. I'd say this artist was very
> successful in those goals.
I would bet the artist did not achive the goals she set out to do. Her
apology explaination makes that quite clear.
I'm sure her motives were not to hurt and she's certainly free to
express herself that way. (She should not be censured by the State).
But I (and millions of others) are also free to complain about it and
to "vote" with our dollars for or against corporate sponsers of such
art.
That's the best part, everybody is free to do what they want to in this
case.
----- Andy
Andrew Carol
SweetLittleTroubleMaker <sweetlil...@aol.comegetsome> wrote:
> This is one of those instances where we need to "put limits on freedom", like
> Bush says.
>
> [Just kidding, but I agree with you]
I want to make it quite clear I don't want the art censured. The State
should stay out of it.
But as they have the right to produce it, I have the right to complain
about it.
I also think that while the State can't censure it, the State has no
business paying for it either. (I'm not claiming it was government
sponsored, I'm just making a point)
---- Andy
Andrew Carol
<bi...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Personally, I don't want to see the statue nor the video of those poor
> people jumping to their deaths. But I'm not going to take those feelings,
> strong as they are, and use them to say what is or isn't art, what is or
> isn't appropriate. And his note was full of that.
Art is what art is and it is entirely subjective. I have no problem
with her making the sculpture.
That said, this particular piece of art struck a raw nerve and was
rather insensitive. It was in poor taste and wholely unncessecary.
The corporate sponser who placed it has just made a _huge_ PR blunder.
Again I would wonder what if in response to a serial rapist an artist
composed a nice poem and made a statute of the rapist at work commiting
a rape?
It would still be "art", but humans beings should strive to treat other
human beings with a bit more dignity and not do things "just because
they can".
---- Andy
maryanne kehoe
freedom" , like Bush says.
Then if you do that, where does it stop?
Andrew Carol
maryanne kehoe <atl...@webtv.net> wrote:
His full comment made it clear he really didn't belive that.
That State should simply stay out of it. The artist has a right to
make it, I have a right to bitch about it.
The artist should have the total freedom to create his art. I should
not have to help pay for it with public dollars.
---- Andy
SweetLittleTroubleMaker
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2002 12:58 PM
Message-id: <7858-3D8...@storefull-2314.public.lawson.webtv.net>
>This is one of those instances where we need >to "put limits on
freedom" , like Bush says.
Then if you do that, where does it stop?
>>
I was joking. And I don't think that's quite what Bush meant. I think he meant
"freedom" doesn't mean you can be allowed to do whatever you want. If you
offend, someone has to put their foot down.
BMCAPERS
became widely accepted in later years?
Hoofsney
news:Xns928E669235343...@216.227.56.89
> Apparently some people think the WTC destruction was all fluffy
> patriotism about heroes.
Even if that's true, it hardly justifies forcing everyone else to relive
the horrific events of that day. The sculpture is a graphic depiction
of violence and death, and the lobby of an office building isn't the
appropriate place for it regardless of whether it constitutes "art."
Is it really so important to enlighten a few ignoramuses who may not
fully appreciate the reality of what happened? Why not just display
actual photographs of the bloodied and broken bodies that fell from 100
stories, or video footage showing the fall and the impact? :-( At
least images of concentration camp victims are maintained in Holocaust
museums and people can decide for themselves whether they want to
view them. It's wrong to shove that sort of thing down someone's
throat. It's a matter basic decency and respect for others, IMO.
So what if a few people think 9/11 was about "fluffy patriotism?"
People deal with tragedy in different ways, and if some of them want to
put those images out of their minds, let 'em! Maybe they aren't capable
of dealing with that kind of horror. Maybe they're assholes. Don't
worry about it... most people remember and comprehend the events of 9/11
quite well and do not require constant reminders of the gruesome
details.
Phoenix
dh.aol.com>, bmca...@aol.com says...
> I'm curious: what artworks in the past were deemed offensive at the time, but
> became widely accepted in later years?
This Manet-
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/oly
mpia/olympia.jpg
Caused a huge scandal at the time! The
gallery that showed it had to take it off the
wall because people were attacking it. Paris
society wasn't ready for a whore to look so
proud and so naked rather than nude.
Now it's considered a masterpiece.
Some call this the greatest painting ever-
http://www.artchive.com/meninas.htm
But it wasn't shown for years because the
Velazquez's self portrait is higher than the
king's and queen's heads in the mirror.
The fact that we have the Vietnam War
Memorial, probably the most moving piece of
architectural sculpture of the last century,
is a damn miracle. Everyone was against it,
except for the Veterans and the art critics.
Government interference nearly doomed it. The
Memorial opened to huge protest that wanted it
shut down. Now there isn't a person who
visits it without touching it and feeling the
immense power of it.
I used to love going down there and see it on
Memorial Day.
bel
>
scooter
a concentration camp oven really accents the Holocaust Memorial and helps
"capture the horror".
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:F5ni9.2768$i%.717309@localhost...
> LandonEx (land...@aol.comnospamno) wrote:
> : Some onlookers said there is a need for art that captures the horror of
> : September 11.
>
> : "I don't think that it's done in bad taste," Christine Defonces said
before the
> : statue was covered. "It's an artist's reaction to what happened."
>
> The artwork certaily should not disappear - but it should be displayed in
> a more appropriate place. In the vicinity of the tragedy, what is needed
> is less disturbing and more positive artwork, because too many people have
> been directly affected by it in New York, and will be too easily
> disturbed.
>
> John Savard
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Hoofsney
> Hoofsney said in
> news:V%vi9.153800$AR1.6...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com:
>
>> Is it really so important to enlighten a few ignoramuses who may
>> not fully appreciate the reality of what happened? Why not just
>> display actual photographs of the bloodied and broken bodies that
>> fell from 100 stories, or video footage showing the fall and the
>> impact? :-( At least images of concentration camp victims are
>> maintained in Holocaust museums and people can decide for
>> themselves whether they want to view them. It's wrong to shove
>> that sort of thing down someone's throat. It's a matter basic
>> decency and respect for others, IMO.
>>
>
I'm not sure how that makes it any better.
> What is your opinion of the statue of the fireman carry
> dead Bailey from the Oklahoma City bombing?
To me, the issue isn't the statue itself, it's how and where it was
displayed.
scooter
"scooter" <boot -n- scoot> wrote in message
news:3d8b46a3$1...@news.uncensored-news.com...