Manuel Mandujano: Final Scars Photos

Manuel Mandujano: Paul Goldbereger Response

It’s no stretch of the imagination to say that memorials are art, but it’s an entirely different story when one tries to say that art is a memorial. No doubt, when an artist or person is given the task of making a memorial, be it for something on the scale of the Twin Towers or in Oklahoma, it is an honor. It is both because it is a memorial and that all memorials are art that they contain a certain element of beauty that no other type of art has. Memorials have the ability to instantly touch our hearts and obtain our respect.

The memorial at Oklahoma was created well after the bombing had occurred, which speaks nothing of how much the citizens wanted to do it, but rather when they were able to do it. There was a lot of work and thought put into who would make the memorial and how it should look and represent those who lost their lives at the bombing. I find it interesting to note that both memorial references made in the reading were made by unknown artists, and therefore, not so famous ones. I think this tells people how memorials are in an entirely different class than any other forms of art. Also, how anyone has the ability to create something that can touch the hearts of many others.

I thing the memorial made in Oklahoma is unique. The artists used open chairs to represent the people who lost their lives, and then a playing of a board meeting that happened just moments before the bombing. The writer says that this is a memorial that attempts to combine compassion and entertainment. Another interesting fact about this memorial was that the artist and their design were chosen by the people of Oklahoma, and not professional art critics. Memorials, although mostly inspired by a tragic event, are the most powerful forms of art.

Goldberger Response

I think the topic of memorials art is an interesting conversation, but one all the more controversial. I suppose if I had a personal attachment and tie to an event that was being memorialized I might be slightly offended that someone was using that event that I was tied to create “art”; I might feel that someone is taking advantage of a situation in order to create something to profit off of, but I would probably feel less this way if the event that was being memorialized was more of a positive event and less of a tragic one.
On the other hand I do think it is important for the memories of events such as the attacks in New York and Oklahoma City, and the memories of the people involved, to never be forgotten, and memorials can prove a good method to make these memories into something materialistic that will keep the memories of such events alive. The trick is to convey the correct feeling when constructing a monument, especially one pertaining to events as tragic as New York or Oklahoma City. Usually one would want to see something that is beautiful, yet meaningful enough so that people understand the emotion of what went on during these events.
One way of memorializing that I have actually always thought a good method is actually to simply leave an event site the way it was after the event happened, or at least to an extent. I am not saying that we should have just left ground zero of the Twin Towers in rubble, but left the site in a state that represented what exactly happened that day in 2001; I think the memorial that was revealed there this year was more or less in right order. For example, in my travels through Viet Nam I visited a site in which was the grave for many NVA soldiers (and innocent Vietnamese civilians) due to heavy American bombing in the area. The only thing that the Vietnamese government did to memorialize the site was to put a plaque commemorating the happening which occurred, and then left the charred debris and bomb craters to send the rest of the message; just an interesting method to take into consideration.

Goldberger - Memorials

It was interesting to learn more about the artistic and architectural process that went behind the OK City bombing memorial. I was actually in the city last summer for a service trip and received an amazing tour of the memorial at night from one of the city's residents. He told my group about the day of the bombing, how his church across the street had turned into a first aid center and he was there helping out and saw a lot of injured, brave people.


The memorial itself was breath-taking, especially at night. Goldberger was right in saying that "the most important decision Johnson's task force made was to articulate the intentions of the memorial before thinking about any kind of physical design", and you can see it in the simple yet profound design of Hans and Torrey Butzer. The project of building a memorial is no easy task that can be done by five architects- it has to open its doors to the community affected by the tragedy, because the community is essentially a victim, too.


I'm not quite sure where I stand with memorials. The obvious necessity for a community to receive closure is evident, as well as the remembrance of lives lost. But I think, overall, memorials are for the people left behind. It's not a bad thing, but when building a memorial people must be very honest with themselves about what their intentions are. They should ask the question, "What do we want people to take away from this experience? Do we want them to feel more despair about the past that we can't change, or do we want them to feel like there is still reason to not lose hope in humanity because of this tragic act of violence?"

I know other people have chosen to show pictures of the Vietnam War Memorial, but I've had a close connection with it since I was young. My family and I went there when I was roughly 11 years old, and it was the first time I had ever seen my Dad visually upset. Later I learned it was because he had missed the 1969 draft of 19 year old men by two years. I realizedthat the memorial wasn't there just to remember those who lost their lives, but to provoke a feeling of gratitude and respect for life for those who still remain.

Text and Image project

I decided to imitate Barbara Kruger, although I am not happy about ruining my image with the text.

I'm going to have the text read "God only knows where I'd be without you" - and the answer is "free". The idea is that we are imprisoned by prescription medication.

Not sure which of these images I'd like best so I'd love to get feedback about your favorite, ideas, or criticisms.

Thanks.

Response to Paul Goldberger's Requiem

The way Paul Goldberger chose to write this piece fascinates me. There is always conflict somewhere in the reading, or at least in my mind. In the beginning, there's this insinuated comparison between the ideas for a World Trade Center memorial and the Oklahoma memorial. In the middle, there's sharp links in his text to the success of Maya Lin in her famous, awe-inspiring Vietnam War Memorial. By the end, Goldberger creates even more conflict by claiming that perhaps the memorial is simply a piece of entertainment. I found it difficult, as a reader, to understand where he was getting at at times.
That said, the Oklahoma bombing memorial makes a very interesting statement that I think is intensely different from that of many other memorials. The design team's choice to let the families decide on the winning design really interests me. It creates a question of what a memorial is about. Is it about the loved ones only? Is it about the art, the idea, and the questions it raises? Is it about everyone?
For Maya Lin, the brains behind one of my all time favorite memorials, the memorial was about sacred space. For her, it was about the experience. Granted, Lin did receive a lot of press and exposure after being announced the winner. Many Vietnam war veterans were angered that a young college student was in charge of designing their monument. Despite this, Lin's finished piece evokes something much more than memoriam from the people who pass through it. As Goldberger mentions, you sink into the ground, and settle down their with the dead, feeling their presence.
Which one is art? Is a memorium art at all? Some would say no. Others would strongly disagree and say that a memorium is the most sacred art form in existence. I personally thing that the Oklahoma bombing memorial, as a piece of art, is a mix of feelings and emotions not well established. It lacks fluidity, and although the intention is pure and visible, their was not enough clear ideas. That said, it's a memorial, and does its purpose well. The families of the victims and the survivors can look at the memorial they chose, and obviously feel some significance to the piece far beyond what any other person could imagine.

Remembering and Memorializing

I should probably start off by saying that I don’t want to offend anyone with this blog.  There is something about memorials that irks me.  The architects and designers who offer their ideas and talents, as Goldberger describes in his article, battle with getting it just right.  A memorial shouldn’t be too bold because it may strike up unnecessary feelings or memories of the event which is being memorialized; the memorial itself brings back memories and uncovers raw emotions.  A memorial shouldn’t be too poignant either, because the sentimentality involved runs the risk of being taken as (although in all cases unintentional) mocking the tragic event.  But is there even a happy medium, then?  Would something not too bold but not too poignant result in something neutral and lacking of emotion, then?

I bring up these ideas because this is exactly what bothers me about memorials.  I know that the intentions behind building memorials are not to top the actual tragedies that have taken place, nor should memorials have that effect.  But I have mixed feelings about their existence.  I don’t exactly understand the rationale behind them.  We don’t really want to dwell on the past, but we definitely don’t want to forget what has happened.  And I suppose the latter is our motivation for building memorials.  But there is no rationale behind them.  What does a memorial really bring us?  Does it bring us peace and closure?  Or does it bring us back to that moment, reviving our pain and constant remembering?

It is interesting that we are reading this article in the advent of the 9/11 memorial unveiling.  I watched about an hour of the 9/11 10-year anniversary program on NBC.  When I saw the memorial itself (not too long after I found out that one of the victim’s names was spelled incorrectly) and the program as a whole—Paul Simon singing “The Sound of Silence”, bells tolling, etc.—I thought it did absolutely zero justice to how the US should remember that horrific day.  I walked into another room in my parents’ house, and I saw my mom’s eyes welled up in tears.  I said to her, “I’m so sorry for saying this, but I can’t take the cheesiness of this program.  I think it’s ridiculous!”  I thought the tone was off, the order was all wrong, the camera angles on victims’ family members sobbing faces over-dramatized.  I would like to see the 9/11 memorial itself – seeing it in pictures and on that program didn’t bother me.  It was the physical commotion surrounding the memorial that took away from the needed reverence within the television program.

Perhaps it will have to take (and of course I hope it never happens) an event that hits home personally for me to understand the importance and the need for a memorial.  I cannot say that Vietnam, 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombings, Pearl Harbor, or any other American tragedy directly affected me.  I feel I would be disrespecting the actually-affected by saying I was affected the same way—I wasn’t, and I never will be.

I chose this photograph to complement the theme of the article and my blog.  Although I was only 11-years-old at the time of 9/11, I still saw the true and genuine beauty in this almost-immediate, temporary memorial.  I still remember it, and my opinion of it hasn’t changed.  I think those bright blue lights are one of the most powerful pieces of art for us all.  Perhaps it was timing that gave it that powerful effect, but I think that this will always be more powerful than a carefully-designed fountain with engraved names around it.

~ Gina Marroquin

Conceptual Art: Memorialization

First, it was really eerie reading about the debate about how to memorialize the Oklahoma City bombing and how Goldberger states that the building of the memorial at that “Ground Zero” was not as pressing as rebuilding the World Trade Center after the attacks. It was eerie because even though this article was written in 2002, and he states that there is already a plan for the site, it is now 11 years after the September 11^th attacks on the Twin Towers, and the memorial is still being built and what goes up around the memorial is still being debated (i.e., the mosque).

I do not know if I would have ever considered memorials to be art. Not that they are not art, just that I would not have ever categorized memorials as art. But after reading so much about conceptual art, I would have to say, now, that memorials are most definitely conceptual art, with the concept of honoring someone, something and/or some event.

I think the memorial that was chosen for the Oklahoma City bombing is especially concept-based because they chose not to have statues of people, but rather chairs to represent the people who were killed as a result of the bombing. I am really glad they chose to represent all who died, as opposed to a few statues of heroes, because I think the chairs are meaningful and haunting and powerful. This memorial reminds me of one of the 10^th anniversary of the September 11^th memorials. On September 11, 2001, 2,753 chairs were set up in Bryant Park in honor of the people who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings. I think those who planned this memorial probably were influenced by the memorial in Oklahoma City, which, for me, makes the memorial even more powerful.

Requiem response

This article reminded me a lot of the dilemma that Germany faced when deciding how to memorialize the victims of the Holocaust. All memorials of victims pose interesting challenges. What is too much, what is not enough? Should it be abstract or more direct? Does one demonize the perpetrator of the crime or focus solely on the victims? When I was in Berlin last February, my class learned about the history of this process in Germany, which is still an ongoing one, more than 65 years after World War II ended. There were a lot of questions with how to go about memorializing the victims of the Holocaust, partially because nothing quite like it had happened before. Because it was so tricky, it took a long time for any memorials to be created, but now there are quite a few, all across the country. These memorials have, in fact, almost become a large part of German life. For example, German school children learn about the Holocaust in detail in their curriculum and some schools take field trips to a concentration camp. It is definitely not something they take lightly.

One of the more abstract and controversial memorials is found near the center of Berlin, and is titled “The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe” (pictured). The memorial consists of 2711 concrete slabs, each about 8 ft long and 3 ft wide but each of varying height, some more than 15 ft tall, laid out in a grid pattern. Since there are virtually no signs indicating what this is, and since it can be approached from any angle, the memorial does not seem all that powerful when simply looked at, but that feeling changes once you walk through it. Because of the way it is designed, the person walking gets quickly surrounded by these slabs, which is meant to create an uneasy or disorientating feeling, supposedly symbolizing how quickly things went from not so bad to Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Some critics disagree, however, and find the whole thing largely meaningless, mostly due to its abstraction, or dislike that it only is a memorial to murdered Jews and not other persecuted groups. And because of the lack of indication that this is a monument, it is also not terribly uncommon to see people climbing on top of some of the smaller slabs.

Requiem

Before reading the "Requiem" article by Paul Goldberger, I have never really been well versed in some of the more precise facts and history of the Oklahoma City bombing, nor have I ever really thought about it that much. I knew that the event occurred, but I never really went out of my way to learn more about it. I found it quite interesting as to how much critical thought and dedication was put into the planing and creation of the Oklahoma City Federal Building memorial as it would have never occurred to me that one must implement such a great amount of analysis into creating something like a memorial. After reading about such processes, I can now see why there is so much planning and extremely critical thought involved. I liked how the article delved into the idea that one must articulate the intentions of a memorial before actually thinking about a physical design. I now see memorials, and specifically the Oklahoma City Federal Building memorial, as a device to help evoke thought and emotion about a specific event or occurrence, and to do so properly the concepts of the memorial must be devised before the physical structure. I now see memorials as the perfect depiction of conceptual art. While there is a physical structure of most memorials, it's the deep down history, memories, and emotion that really create the piece.

The photo I chose was that of a memorial right here in Chicago. It is known as the eternal flame and it sits within Daley Plaza downtown. Its design is very simple and the memorial is quite small, but it is dedicated to all men and women who died in World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. While the physical design is important, I see the concept, in that the flame is always burning in remembrance of all the people who served and died for this county, as much more emotion evoking.

Requiem Response

I thought the Oklahoma City memorial was a very good way to remember the people who were killed.  It was interesting to see how much thought went into planning a memorial. Every time I have been to a memorial I never thought about the planning that went into designing and implementing a memorial.  The chairs are effective in making me think about all the lives lost.  I think about each empty chair as a person who could be sitting there.  It is a well-designed piece of art that really makes the viewer think.  I think the museum room where viewers enter and hear the recording of a meeting right before the bombing is very chilling.  It forces people to think about each chair outside and how their death affected others. I actually remember listening to the radio before Timothy McVeigh’s execution and wondering what kind of man could do that.

This article reminded me of the Cambodian Genocide.  When I went to Cambodia I had the chance to visit a memorial for the lives lost in the genocide.  This was a very different memorial because they placed the actual bones for viewers to see inside a tower.  The picture I chose is one that I took of the whole memorial building.  I also got a chance to go inside the museum and see the faces of the people who caused the genocide and learn more about it.  This was a very different genocide because Cambodians killed their own kind.  Memorials can be very scary reminds of history.

Korean War Memorial

    Before reading Goldberger's article I did not know much about the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, and I think this is a problem. The bombing may have taken place in a less rural area, but it is a very important part to American history. The fact that there was a delay in creating memorial for those lost and those who survived but have their lives changed forever is a major issue. The delay, in comparison the timeliness of the September 11^th World Trade Center memorial, gave off the impression that the lives lost in Oklahoma City were not as important as those lost in the September 11^th attacks or the Vietnam War. I really like the empty chair aspect of the Oklahoma City memorial because it really hits the viewer hard when it is first seen. The chair part is the most touching to me. I think the most intense part is hearing the first two minutes of a meeting and then hearing the bomb go off. I think overall, the Oklahoma City memorial is interesting and serves its purpose. However, I wish it was a little more organized.

        I chose the Korean War veteran memorial because I think seeing the statues of troops brings forth a chilling feeling. It makes the viewer feel as if they are right there with the soldiers. I like how each soldier has a different expression bring forth realistic qualities to the statues. Each statue has a name of a soldier, which is a good choice when people come to pay respect to their loved ones. It is not pictured, but there is also a memorial wall with imprints of soldiers’ faces and names.  I like this memorial because it is well put together and consistent. I think memorial should evoke emotions of hope, peacefulness, and serenity while maintaining a cohesive organization.

Manuel Mandujano Week 5 comments

Chris Ware by Callie comment: I also find it interesting that Chris Ware uses comic book art to illustrate hart times that he had in his life. He allows himself to get completely involved with his work, making the reader and viewer amazed. Although I've never read many comics, I can now see how it can be deeper than it looks.

Ware Response by Eric Regalbuto comment: I think the comparison of Chris Ware and Stan Lee an interesting concept as well. I also find it interesting how Chris Ware originally tried to get his messages across using only pictures and drawings. All of the other artists put a heavy focus on text, so it's nice to see a change of pace.

Chris Ware by Koji comment: Chris Ware focuses that the majority of his work is his pictures and not the text. I think that this is good timing because the class's focus is on textual art. Chris Ware reminds us how powerful picture art can be.

Manuel Mandujano Week 5 comments

Chris Ware by Callie comment: I also find it interesting that Chris Ware uses comic book art to illustrate hart times that he had in his life. He allows himself to get completely involved with his work, making the reader and viewer amazed. Although I've never read many comics, I can now see how it can be deeper than it looks.

Ware Response by Eric Regalbuto comment: I think the comparison of Chris Ware and Stan Lee an interesting concept as well. I also find it interesting how Chris Ware originally tried to get his messages across using only pictures and drawings. All of the other artists put a heavy focus on text, so it's nice to see a change of pace.

Chris Ware by Koji comment: Chris Ware focuses that the majority of his work is his pictures and not the text. I think that this is good timing because the class's focus is on textual art. Chris Ware reminds us how powerful picture art can be.

Chris Ware

I really enjoyed the interview with Chris Ware. I like how interviews are very personal and allow the reader to get to know someone directly from their words. It was interesting to be able to read about Ware’s childhood. It was even more interesting to know one of his characters was created based on his father. Though he seemed pretty indifferent in the interview about not knowing his father, I think he used the character as his scapegoat for his emotions. In the interview he states that he created the story with the character based on his father as an experiment to see what it would be like to have his father. I think this was very interesting because he could see how his life could have been with his father without having to do the impossible of traveling back in time. The downfall to this is that his story would be biased to his beliefs and how he feels life with his father would be. I think making the choice to create a story that is so close to home is admirable because the artist is allowing their audience to come into their life.

     The photo I chose is a Chris Ware piece. I was drawn to this because of how well the character’s emotions are shown. Ware places a dialogue box at the top to show what the character is saying. However, I do not think that is it necessary. The sweat beads placed on the character’s head and the squiggly lines on the side of his body show that the character evidently has stage fright. Many comics that I have viewed before do not pay as much attention to conveying the emotion of the character. Instead, the artist relies heavily on the dialogue. I think being able to see the emotion on the character is a more effective choice than simply relying on dialogue.

Memorials

To be honest, I did not know a whole lot about the Oklahoma City bombing before reading this article. I knew that there was a bombing, but I had never really gone in depth to learn more about it. Therefore, I found this article intriguing. I always find memorials to be beautiful works of art. Even though I have never lived through such a tragedy and have no connection to the tragedies, I think the personal aspect of a memorial makes you feel the same emotions of those who were affected by the event.

I visited Washington D.C. quite a few years ago, but the feeling you get when you are visiting these monuments stays with you. Therefore, I do feel like it was a smart decision for the Oklahoma City memorial planners to include the families of those killed in the bombing. No one fully understands that feeling more than those people, therefore, only they can truly describe the feeling the monument should have. The article said that some people wanted to just leave the debris as a reminder of the incident. I am so glad they decided not to go with this idea. To me, that would only continually remind people of the destruction. A memorial is supposed to help us remember, but also help us to overcome the tragedy of the event. Monuments are not meant to make us sad, they are meant for us to feel empathy toward those fallen, but hope for the future of those they left behind.

The image I chose is the memorial of The Forgotten Soldier in Washington D.C. I think that this monument is so effective for several reasons. It does not just represent one solider, it represents all of the soldiers who risk their lives for us without even knowing who we are. The guard to me represents the fact that while they are guarding us, we are still and forever guarding them as fellow citizens. If you ever have the chance to go see the changing of the guards, I highly recommend you go because it is an experience in itself. It is one of the most powerful displays of respect towards our soldiers.

Life goes on, but we remember

Paul Goldberger’s Requiem was an easy read that I found myself excited about. His description of the Oklahoma City memorial as well as the other memorials mentioned were extremely vivid, but also made me want to see them for myself. After looking up pictures of the Oklahoma City memorial, I understood further what Goldberger said about abstraction. A memorial like this is abstract, yet is specific in areas that it needs to be. He explains that most memorials, especially ones created in our recent history, are like this. The abstract message is oftentimes what is most relatable, applicable, or understandable. However, certain specifics make the memorial a dedication to the specific life lives that it is created in honor of. He describes the Washington Memorial as “suggest[ing] George Washington’s primacy in the history of this country in away that no statue of him on a horseback possibly could.” There is truth to this. The monument is abstract, yet specific to Washington because we know the history. When it comes to memorials honoring a mass of people, Goldberger notes that after the Vietnam memorial was created, with names of the fallen etched on the granite wall, no monument created after that point could not list the names of the lives lost.

The Oklahoma City monument is unique in that it is abstract, yet extremely specific if looked at closely. Goldberger describes the beautiful night view of the monument as being an abstract view in which the base-lit chairs appear to be votives in memory of the lost in between the arches of time. However, during the day, the memorial is extremely specific, with a chair for every killed person (smaller chairs for the children) as well as names of the survivors also listed. One thing that seems extremely beautiful about this particular monument is the “survivor tree”, while Goldberger mentions that leaving the ruins of the buildings can be seen as a monument of terror and tragedy, the “survivor tree” symbolizes the life still left. Life goes on.

I haven’t gotten the chance to visit any particular memorials, however on September 11, 2011, I was watching as the 9/11 memorial in New York was unveiled to the public, the survivors, and the families of the fallen. Not only is the memorial, with its waterfalls and etchings on the walls, beautiful, but also the reactions to the memorial were completely breathtaking. I never understood how survivors and families could get peace from a memorial until I saw these reactions. People were making rubbings from the names, weeping at the sight of the waterfalls. Life goes on, but we are able to remember those who we have lost in tragedy. I think that is key when designing a memorial. The monument should celebrate and commemorate lives.

The picture I have included is of the 9/11 memorial in New York City from http://www.burginconstructioninc.com/a-weekend-of-remembrance/. I wanted to find one with reactions, but couldn’t find one. The monument is beautiful, but I think the beauty mostly comes from the peace it brings to those who see it.

Requiem Response

This article helped to deliver a lot of insight into the creative process of building a memorial, more specifically, the creative process of building a representation of a truly emotional, tragic time for a group of people. One aspect of the article that surprised me a lot was the discussion as to who the judges of the competition should be and who should be given the right to decide the final design. I can understand why an architect with a background in memorials would be asked to contribute to the judging process when it is clear he has a lot of relevant technical skills and experiences that could be helpful in the final decision and logistics. What I did find surprising, however, was how opposed many people were to the victims families having a meaningful, weighted contribution to the memorial as well. In my opinion, I would think it would be near impossible to create a meaningful, composed memorial without contributory factors from both the professional as well as emotional connected sides of the spectrum. It is from the families, survivors, and others involved that can deliver the raw emotion and pain that is meant to be remembered and represented through a memorial of this degree. What the families can contribute is the appreciation of the sheer loss and tragedy presented in a situation like this, one that could easily be misrepresented by an outside perspective. This is not to say in a such a large project as building a memorial there should not be professional oversight and direction, but I do appreciate the families being given a large role in the creative process. It is these families who will continue to mourn for the rest of their lives, and also these families in particular who can find solace in a place for remembrance.

The two images I submitted were of the Tsunami Memorial sculpture at Phuket Kamala.

Remembering

It's amazing to think about how many memorials there are in this country. Most of them, I bet, a lot people haven't even heard of. There are some for events that everyone is aware of and others that are more localized for remembering specific people in the community. If you are trying to escape the sorrow of memorials, do not visit Washington D.C. It is covered in them. However, people should not try to avoid memorials or sorrow for that matter. These memorials serve a purpose: people should not forget about this and the people who suffered.

I've been to D.C. and have seen the various memorials; it is very sobering. Typically you know the event and what happened, but then you look at this memorial and all you see is a bunch of names. They are names of people who had to endure something terrible and you have no idea who they are. Then you begin to think about how they died, and you cannot fathom what actually happened. There are also the people whose names are not present on this memorial, and you begin to think of those people who are never found or identified; how those persons' family members were left merely wondering.

This article brought me back to all of that. It also reminded me of an article I read in Newsweek around the time of 9/11 that described how much controversy and bickering there was over the details of the memorial. I agreed with the article in how ridiculous it is that people should fight about a memorial. They need to admire the work that is done. Any memorial is beautiful.

The image is a painting of Arlington National Cemetery by John Quinlan entitled "I Have a Rendezvous With Death". The title is taken from a 1917 war poem, with the same title, by Alan Seeger.

The Sky Line Requiem

I almost wanted to begin to perceive this article from an anthropological point of view, or maybe even categorize it as a part of anthropological research. Why, because Paul Goldberger talks about how the "homogeneous" society decided on the design of a memorial for their former friends of this "homogeneous" community. He studied, and reported on the way the people of Oklahoma reacted negatively to the first architect, Paul Spreiregen.
Goldberger also gives a little social and cultural analysis the use of memorials; he says that "great memorials" are abstract to give off the essence of peace and awe. He also comments on the change of significance for firemen, who became icons, and for fences, which became memorials that one could attach personal messages and memorabilia. This all happened after 9/11, but not after the bombing in Oklahoma, which happened 6 years earlier. What I noticed as probably the biggest and most powerful part of his article is his critique on how Americans will make anything, no matter how horrible a tragedy, entertaining. But is it really entertaining to sit in a room and re-experience and explosion? Or is it supposed to make people think of how lucky they are to be alive? Does it make those people respect those who have been "killed".
Therefore, I don't see why making memorials would not be considered an art. Architects are creating these great abstractions that also function to persuade people to look at it and ponder, wonder, dream, reminisce, and possibly hurt and cry. And like Goldberger said, memorials are "most effective [...] when viewed as a series of abstract shapes" because then it starts to give the essence of "peace and awe".
The reason I chose this image of an old man touching the Vietnam Memorial is because, one: I watched a documentary on Maya Lin's journey to create this masterpiece and two: you can see how the memorial makes the old man connect, possibly to his past. I believe any art can cause a person to go back in time, and either grieve, or reminisce.

Goldberger Response

Memorials and monuments are not what I normally would think of when I think about art. Even if someone uses the word "installation," I'm more likely to think about a sculpture or light show a la Jenny Holzer before I think about memorials.

I didn't need to read any article to understand that a lot of planning and debate goes into creating a new monument. How to memorialize something is always going to create tension amongst people. An example of this in the Oklahoma monument is the use of the word "left, killed, or murdered." Some people are going to think that using the word "left," is the most appropriate, because the word itself does not focus on the gruesome way in which the people died, rather the emphasis is that their presence is missed. On the opposite end of the spectrum, one might use the word "murdered." This focuses on the way that the people died, and puts the emphasis on the murderer. In between to two extremes, is the word "killed," which was what was eventually chosen.

Something that is interesting about monuments is that, unlike the other art that we have studied, it is heavily influenced by many different individuals. The influence of these individuals can be emotional, professional, or artistic. For example, a family member of a person who died in the even which is being memorialized would have a heavy emotional tie to the piece. The trauma that this person endured may lead to a very different idea of what the memorial ought to look like. A politician, on the other hand, may ask him or herself questions such as, “What will this cost?” “Do we need this space for commercial purposes?” The artist may see things different and use the memorial as an outlet for creative expression. He or she may be more interested in more sophistacated work, and not want to include the doves or “hands of God” that the emotional family member may push for. In the other art that we viewed, it was mostly only influenced by the artist.

The picture I included is of a memorial at the site of the 9/11 attacks. I found it to be interesting, not necessarily because of its content, but because of how much thought and planning and debate must’ve gone into it, due to the fact that it is such a big event in American history.

Goldberger Response

When first reading Paul Goldberger’s Requiem, I was confused as to whether to analyze his writing or Hans and Torrey Butzer’s memorial dedicated to the Oklahoma City Bombing victims. When I began to research on Goldberger, I learned he was actually a very well-known and influential architectural critic who formerly was a dean at Parsons School of Design.

Goldberger opens the discussion on the Oklahoma City memorial by comparing the bombing to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Goldberger describes the differences between the two cities and how the memorial process differs immensely. The most interesting difference I found is who the memorial is directed to: Goldberger describes the residents of Oklahoma a more “homogenous” group of people versus New York City’s very diverse population. Because of this homogeneous population, I believe Goldberger is hinting at how it may be easier to build a memorial because of similar interests.

Goldberger goes on to describe how Oklahoma City’s mayor, Ronald Norick, was troubled in trying to create an “appropriate” memorial; therefore, hired a task force to see what to do. A mission statement was created in order to help conceive a memorial, which would be created by picking the best design out of a 624 entries from the general public. Ultimately Hans and Torrey Butzer’s simple, but effective memorial was chosen to commemorate the victims of the bombings.

I find the “Field of Empty Chairs” as a very appropriate and elegant way to honor the victims and the families of the bombings. Though, I wish the article had discussed the general Oklahoma City publics’ response to the memorial, because I am sure some might have wanted a less “conceptual” idea.

I chose an image of the temporary 9/11 memorial of lights shining up in the sky, because its simplicity reminds me of the Oklahoma City memorial.