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
Gina-- I completely agree with you on some of the questionable aspects of memorials, but what I think is that a memorial is a memorial-- it could be one grave or a thousand -- it's how we, the people left behind, wish to honor the lives lost, that makes the difference between a truly eye-opening memorial experience and an over-dramatic TV program. And I think Goldberger would agree with you to some extent, too, as he closed his article talking about how the "the museum provides a much more American experience, really, than the outdoor memorial, since it is grounded in the belief that almost anything, including the most horrendous events imaginable, can be made entertaining". I appreciated that ending note a lot..
ReplyDeleteI actually prefer the lights to the fountain. I think the lights are a more effective way of showing that they can tear the foundation down, but we will still stand and shine brighter than ever. I appreciate your careful evaluation of memorials. I agree that sometimes memorials can be more flashy and showy than meaningful. That is why I think I like the lights for the World Trade Centers because it is so simple, yet tells the story in an "in-your-face" kind of way. Why do memorials have to be over-the-top installations? I think a more simplistic design can be just as effective, if not more effective, than the most highly designed structure.
ReplyDeleteI think that your point is valid, but I don't agree that I can't see the point in memorials. I think that the reason for creating memorials is to outwardly express that the event in question was truly meaningful, and memorials are a constant reminder of this. Think if Ground Zero was just paved over and a Chipotle and Banana Republic were built in its place?
ReplyDelete