Memorial design fails the test
By DENNIS SMITH
Tuesday, January 20th, 2004
I am a New Yorker, a writer and former firefighter, not an expert on
architecture. But I think somebody has to speak up for first
responders about the memorial that is being planned at the World
Trade Center site. A lot of them are disappointed.
They're not alone. In all the commentary on the design, I have
not seen one article that could be called a rave. Everyone has an
objection, or at least a reservation, about the square pools
surrounded by trees. It is minimalist architecture that is supposed
to inspire Americans for generations to come. In fact, it is pulp
architecture that, like pulp fiction, is a secondary thing.
I know that I have lost sleep in trying to reconcile myself to
the decision of the mostly arts-community crowd that made up the
Lower Manhattan Development Corp.'s panel of 13 jurors.
Why did we rush into this decision, particularly when so many
people and editorialists do not approve with a full heart of the
final choice? And why are so many of us acquiescing? This is, after
all, a memorial that should make an artistic statement that lasts
for hundreds of years.
We are in the middle of a culture war in America, and the
memorial design must be seen in this context. It's a culture war
that separates the design committee from most New Yorkers.
The post-modern minimalists have won for the moment. And although
my mother taught me not to cry in my soup, I feel a responsibility
to weigh in on this subject before the construction begins, for this
memorial will be a structural wall of our civilization as it builds
for the future.
Will we build beautiful buildings, or will we have square
minimalist constructions, designed in the tradition of the Bauhaus
school by people who disdain the classical forms?
Maya Lin, a leading member of the jury, created the Vietnam
Memorial, a large and imposing representational gravestone. Yet the
design for Ground Zero will not contain any representation of the
events of 9/11. (Yes, there will be a museum of artifacts, but I'm
talking about the design itself.) She was the major supporter of
what was chosen, and she is certainly at the top of American
architecture's new pecking order. But the consequence of her
thinking has left us with what are essentially crying pools where
presumably we will want to be exclusively sad.
Lin and the rest have not given us an environment of memory where
we may be strengthened in our resolve to protect our way of life.
Where we might be angered by the brutality of the attack on our
soil. Where we will be inspired by the heroism of many who, like the
first responders, were in those buildings caring about others more
than they cared about themselves. Where we can teach our children
about the historical truth of so many beautiful and inadequately
protected lives taken by Islamist extremists. In short, where we can
remember the significance of that day as it existed for so many of
us.
Because of what we all went through in America on 9/11, we
deserve great architecture and great sculpture at the memorial. If
we can create powerful buildings to house our art - think, for
example, of Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim Museum - we can do as
well in remembering our loved ones.
Gov. Pataki and the selection jury will not escape a true
analysis of what they have done. History will catch up with them.
They've won a battle in the culture war, but the war is not over.