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.
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.
I think you make an interesting argument about leaving the site as it was after the event, but I have to disagree somewhat. The reason for that is that I believe the American people as a whole could not handle the pain of seeing the site everyday. If you imagine a family member of someone who died, who works in the city and has to travel by the site everyday, it would be incredibly hard for them to do so. Creating a memorial allows for a sense of peace to start to settle in, feeling less emotional than leaving an ugly pile of stones lying around, reminding you of something horrible everyday.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of the Vietnam memorial you saw, I am curious as to whether that was in the city, or somewhere in the outskirts, that not many travel by.
I do agree that the idea of making "art" out of an emotional and painful event can be seen as disrespectful. I do think that if the artist understands the idea of it being a memorial, they would go about it with more respect, giving it the respect needed.
I also have to disagree. I think leaving the site in the ruins would be a constant reminder of the pain that the event caused. The point of a memorial is to symbolize the rebuilding of the lives that were shattered by the event. I think that maybe sometimes memorials become to flashy and maybe that is where the disrespect can come in. However, I think that the rebuilding of the site into a memorial is an important step in our culture to symbolize the fact that we must go on. A memorial serves as a reminder of the tragedy but also as a motivation to keep going for those who lost their lives.
ReplyDeleteI really find your idea of leaving the site as it is really interesting like Paulina and Mallory. I think there are preset dispositions about how to handle a tragedy, and how to memorialize it, and so I think leaving the site as it is would defy a lot of these social ideas. That said, I think it's definitely an interesting thought. Think what would happen though, if we had left all of the rubble from the towers there? Or, how do we memorialize things that didn't happen at a specific place? For example, the Lincoln Memorial is one of the most well known memorials in the world, but it's not attached to a specific disaster site. It's simply memorializing a brilliant man. The same thing goes with war memorials etc.
ReplyDeleteI also think that leaving the site would not be the best choice. I get what you are trying to argue but I think people need a lasting reminder of history. Its not only a memorial for the people who were affected but also a reminder and a lesson for other people. I think it is important to show the effects of hatred and how many people it affects.
ReplyDeleteI think it's an interesting point you make about leaving the site as it is. It's certainly debatable though. Some people will think that by leaving the site as is, you're simply reliving the pain. For others, it is the best way to preserve a memory. I personally think that making something beautiful out of the site is the best way to honor the event.
ReplyDelete