Tumbling Woman?
 

How does everyone feel about this most disturbing sculpture honoring WTC collapse?

I am absolutely horrified. I realize artists have freedom of expression, but I think that it is very distasteful. I am glad they're taking it down. There are so many better ways to keep those people and that day in remembrance.

Susan

I don't know
 

I don't know the work, but taste has never had much to do with art production.

I personally think that anyone doing anything extremely patriotic that has never done anything like this before is shameful. I see all the more commercially focused artists doing portraits of DC (for the first time) flags are in 1/2 the paintings sold today. That is in bad taste I think. You can't find an SUV that doesn't have a flag glued to it usually with a fish beside it. Those of us who have always owned flags find all these trends a bit suspect. Bandwagon behavior is distasteful to me.

But back to art; good art doesn't have to be shocking and shocking art doesn't have to be good. Most galleries that represent traditional representational art can't get the city paper to mention their exhibits. The shocking galleries get all the free write-ups. Thing is, it's the wild new galleries that still go bankrupt even with the free publicity.

Tim,

You can see the statue here: http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/art...oman18-ON.html

Tumbling woman
 

The first time I saw this statue I was paralyzed with emotion. I never wanted to look at it again. The second time, I felt tremendous sorrow as as I stared at it, all the fear and all the vulnerability of this woman. The third time I looked at it I was angry, not at the artist who "made" me feel all these emotions, but at the terrorists who were responsible for the subject. I believe that art is meant to evoke emotions. Love-hate, serenity-discomfort, pain-pleasure,sorrow-elation. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every beautiful piece that stops you cold and takes your breath away, there will be art that horrifies and disgusts us. Unfortunately, this may not have been the time or place for this unveiling. Reminds me of Picasso's Guernica.

There's absolutely no doubt that the piece is incredibly disturbing. Anyone capable of viewing it at site without at least welling up with tears would be a stoic person indeed. I was in on the early footage on 9/11, showing the people jumping from the buildings and hitting the ground, before the networks and cable stations began to pull those scenes, and it was the horrible of horribles. (I was overseas at the time, so the cut-off of the graphic footage was a bit delayed, I suppose.)

I gather that many of the objections relate to the issues as to the naked representation of the woman, or the horrendously inexplicable circumstance visited upon her, one that people don't wish to be reminded of. "Let's get those picket fences whitewashed!"

I've been several times to the Vietnam Memorial on the Washington mall, and the guys in camouflage fatigues, placing letters and flowers and unopened beer bottles and medals and crying their hearts out, are at Maya Lin's artistic creation that at one time one of the project's art commissioners labeled a "black gash of shame." That the designer was of Asian descent had obvious effect in such judgments. I've never yet seen anyone walk up to the much "neater and cleaner" (no names of dead, no body parts, no written letters) statues of the soldiers coming out of the rain forest, and express the same kinds of emotions displayed in the reflections of that brutally cold black wall engraved with the names of 50,000 dead, that "shameful" monument despised by the few -- nay the one. What a tribute that wall has become for Lin's vision, and against the deficit of vision in that one and his council.

The sculpture is horrific, as was the event. I know I'll take heat by saying that I think it's a useful counterpoint to the portrayal of all the professional heroes whose nobility is being rightly honored in the aftermath of this tragedy. Surely hundreds of civilian, nonprofessional heroes unsung also perished in the collapse of the Towers. Hundreds more perished not wanting anything more heroic in their lives other than going home to their families again. Where now are their statues and portraits, the reminders of what they endured? Perhaps this one was intended to remind us of how incredibly inhuman -- and at the same time, certainly human -- was this exacted retribution for perceived wrongs. Shall we pretend that no one leapt from those Towers, in the face of that terror? And that no artists were moved by that profound event?

I'm not sure how this discussion fits into a portrait artists' site, but isn't it too serious a subject for anti-SUV campaigns right out of the gate? I think the guys at CarTalk are covering that. My Tahoe is back in the shed for another year and I'm riding a motorcycle -- a suicide wish, if ever there was one -- in Taipei. My SUV in storage doesn't have an American flag sticker in the window (though one flies from my deck in the midwest, and has for years), but it does have a Boy Scouts of America decal (it's hauled a lot of Scouts and camp gear over the years) and county, state, and national park passes, a resident pass for the Cape Cod Tunnel (a joke.) It would have a sticker for Nude Beach Parking on the Cape, but my daughter -- then a very few miles distant from all the 9-11 events -- stole it for her Taurus.

Personally, I think those Taurus owners are the reason for the Middle East troubles and the decline in morals in this country, and I'm getting suspicious of drivers of "early year" Asian and Scandanavian models with all those "Save the Earth/Air/Children/Forests" types of bumper stickers holding them together and patching the rust spots.

Artists are starting to get my attention, too, and I think something should be done about them.

My point
 

My point stands very well w/o seeing the work. Thousands of artists are cashing in on a national tragedy. There are others cashing in on the new patriotism borne of the tragedy.

As to the "sculpture", it's so grobby and coarse how could anyone be offended by the nudity? I imagine the "artist" had enough trouble with the blobs called a figure and sure didn't want to try to "sculpt" fabric. This was not the Peita'.

It's the easiest thing in the world to evoke an emotional response...it's an animal thing. Depict a recent tragic event and you've got a response. In movies they can place a child in danger and get an easy emotional response. Cheap trick-bad form.

I looked at this page earlier tonite, and decided not to reply. I turned off the computer and went off to do some sewing and then had to come back to it to give my opinion. The longer I thought about it the more annoyed I got that someone would represent the victims in this way. I hope the sculptor didn't get paid for it.

Cheap, grubby, tasteless, cashing in. I don't have enough adjectives to describe my opinion, not of the workmanship, which is good, but of the image.

On second thoughts, if it had no explanation, no label, would anyone even realise what was being portrayed? If it was displayed unlabelled, or let's say archaeologists excavated it, in three thousand years time, what would it represent? Perhaps some kind of gymnastic exercise.

I watched the coverage of this event with horror, the same as everyone else. I did not see naked overweight middle aged women falling and tumbling. I saw tiny clothed unidentifiable shapes. (presumably both men & women) How demeaning of the artist? to attempt to represent a body of people like that. Maybe the concept is too horrible to dwell on. If he wants to portray victims at point of death, what will his next pieces be?

Who needs that memorial? The victims' families and friends, I think not. The rest of the world? We won't forget!

The enduring image that stays in my mind is the crowds of people with photos of their loved ones. I also saw a documentary on the retrieval and resurrection of the Kurnig sculpture which stood in the WTC courtyard. I think that is an appropriate memorial for all the victims.

Maybe the sculptor should put his/her skills to better use by getting involved in making portraits of the victims for their families. That would be useful.

I can't imagine a time when that particular sculpture would be acceptable.

Quick! Find a tree and a rope!
 

I can't believe the response to Eric Fischle's sculpture could bring out so much vehemence and anger among fellow artists. I have yet to read anything indicating the circumstances under which the artist undertook this project and, unless something has been disclosed to indicate otherwise, am disappointed that his own community is so quick to hang or stone him. Why assume his sculpture was done for other than the best intentions? I would be very careful about reducing his effort to shallow flag-waving and "cashing in."

On the other hand I will say that I have no idea what approach I would have taken and though wouldn't have ruled out a reminder of the horror of it all, I don't think this piece was very successful in doing that. What significance is there to a nude leaping from a burning and collapsing building and the positioning of the figure looks more like a bad floor exercise. Or worse.

Bad taste is always inexplicable!

Fischl Smishell
 

NEW YORK (AP) -- A statue 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.

The sculpture "Tumbling Woman," is not the first controversial one created by the artist Eric Fischl. Last year another tasteless sculpture, his

I did hear on the news that the work was not a commissioned piece.

I imagine that the news article and accompanying photo will go away at some point. So, in order for this thread to have meaning to future readers after the article goes, I am posting the piece here.

Not that it will matter much here, but the Fischl design for the Arthur Ashe sculpture was selected by his widow from among 12 finalists, so to say that it's self-promotional is merely to note that he entered the contest. Mrs. Ashe herself had imposed the requirement that the sculpture NOT be done in the likeness of Arthur Ashe. She is reported to have been very pleased with the sculpture and stated that she was sure her husband would have been, too. That sculpture was also of a nude, hence much of the controversy surrounding it. Apparently sculptures of Greco-Roman sports participants aren't shown in schools anymore. Too nasty. (Yet we insist that academic training include years of life drawings of nude models. Go figure.)

Being somewhere between enlightenment and idiocy (you make the call), I would not insist on "defending" Fischl's design choices, just as I would not insist that anyone bothered by the nudity of Michelangelo's "David" -- and a lot of people are -- should just have to deal with it because the majority have accepted it as "great art". (I, insophisticate, find it rather ordinary and uninteresting.) And I also doubt that the "David" would go over very well either in Rockefeller Plaza these days.

I do all the cooking around this ranch, and occasionally I prepare Italian dinners while wearing an apron I bought in Florence, depicting the "David" from neck to knees, which is placed in roughly similar global position on me (and let me tell you, as my wife told me, it's a lousy match). It gets a laugh but makes people very uncomfortable, quickly. There's no accounting for taste. I hope that Michelangelo guy didn't get any funds from the Roman Endowment for the Arts.

The more often I see photos of this sculpture, and the more often its impact plunges into my sensibilities, the more I understand what the sculptor was doing. I'm beginning to find this to be a brilliant grip on the the horror and revulsion I felt on that evening (half a world away). Isn't that precisely the effect that artists are supposed to be so adept at capturing?

I would ask the detractors, what images of the event, what visual samples of that day, do you think would be more graphic, and instructive? Are you also offended by photographs of Auschwitz, because that was an unpleasant aspect of the war? The protest is often lodged that "we'll remember, you don't have to show us." So why 2,000 years later the paintings of manger and crucifixion scenes? Why the Eden banishment paintings from 14th, 15th, and 20th Century artists who are never criticized for their negative portrayal of the human condition? Why all that silly poetry? Why the reprintings of the prurient Sappho and Rumi? Apparently we don't remember. Yet nothing we do hasn't been done before.

Falling Woman
 

I am a member of the Forum who (unfortunately) does a lot more reading (with fascination) of posts than I participate in; as a New Yorker, I'd like to comment.

At this time last year, New York City was wallpapered with posters and signs of the "missing", the people who disappeared on Sept. 11th. The walls, which were in many subway stations or busy places where they couldn't be missed, became memorials for a short time, with flowers and candles.

Huge crowds would gather and stand silently, reading, staring and crying. Some people would run past and try not to look, because it was unbearably painful to look. Eventually, though it was, in one way, hard to see these go, the signs were all taken down.

For me, it was a relief in that it began to return New York City to normal life. It is my feeling that placing a statue like the one in question in very populated and public thoroughfare is a constant reminder of pain that impairs the healing process, as the posters of the missing would have been had they remained up any longer.

Art, or anything created relating to Sept. 11 should be considerate of the fact that this is an unusually sensitive topic. Putting that statue in the middle of Rockefeller center seems tactless to me. Like the presence of all the missing faces posted all over the city last year, it's just too painful to keep looking.

Ugly is ugly
 

Trying to shock and therefore engage others is an immature technique to garner attention used by children when they are frustrated by lack of attention. Do they have a right to do this in our society? Of course they do, but, although they get the attention, they certainly do not impart a sense of well being. Shock jocks, tabloid publications and

You will not see any crucifixes in my home. (I am a believer).

As for the photos of Auschwitz, they are important historic documants, not artwork.

Fischl's work is repulsive. Even animals are repulsed by death. How must those who lost loved ones in this manner feel about this? I am sure they are not comforted. Even the news networks had more sense than he. If the artists wanted people to experience that same revulsion, I would say that he succeeded. But like the rubble of the destruction of the towers, human decency will demand that it be cleared away.

Why not work for Disney?
 

This thread could be an extension of the discussion on Freud's painting of the Queen. For those that ascribe bad motives to anything that differs from their views and concepts of art and the world should write or illustrate fairy tales. It seems to be a common response to things that challenge or provoke to relate them to all kinds of sins. Why are Fischl's efforts and those associated with it demoted to shameless and "enlightened" idiots? Once again it's suggested that some large conspiracy continues for the sole purpose of eliminating representational art by furthering their own cause. Who could argue that one of "the purposes of art is to heal and to elevate the human condition" but the list of artists that fit that lofty description can't be large and seems to be a rather short description of what we do.

I like Henri's definition: "Art when really understood is the province of every human being. It is simply a question of doing things, anything, well. It is not an outside, extra thing. When the artist is alive in any person, whatever his kind of work may be, he becomes an inventive, searching, daring, self-expressing creature. He becomes interesting to other people. He disturbs, upsets, enlightens, and he opens ways for a better understanding. Where those who are not artists are trying to close the book, he opens it, shows there are still more pages possible..."

I don't care much for Fischl's effort but I hope my world is not so small as to define it by my beliefs and what I am inclined to do. Unless you do harm I will defend your right and will, until I see otherwise, assume your intentions are honest.

I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will always agree with your right to say it.

To create a piece of art that is your own interpretation of an event is simply that. The interpretation of the event as you saw it or felt it. This statue is not meant to be a literal interpretation of the event, but to be the artist emotional interpretation of it. Now I am not sure how successful he was at portraying the event in a way that speaks to all who see it, but you or I can not judge how sincere his efforts or motives were.

Now, as to its removal, the owners of the Rockefeller Center can do whatever they want. After all it is their property it is displayed on. But to say the artist should not have created it or to order its destruction - that would be censorship. As for its artistic value, well I have seen worse. I think I have to agree with Jim.

To me there is an interesting aspect to this as it relates to a recent "art episode" in NYC. Do we all remember the painting smeared with you know what that appeared in a NYC gallery, and the stink that accompanied that? My recollection is that the "art piece" survived all the hubub.

The distinction here is that in the above mentioned episode the art was within the confines of a gallery. Within the perview of those things artistic. You could make a specific effort to see it or you could ignore it completely.

With regard to the falling woman statue, the "art" was taken and placed into the public domain. Thus taking it out of the "artistic" confines of the gallery and eliminating the choice to see or to ignore. We got a much different response and a much different outcome.

Art
 

Life is more important than art and love stronger than hate.

Everyone cannot have everything. Maybe artists' rights to express themselves are not really all that important. As Monet said, "...we are after all, just craftsmen."

Censorship
 

If I stated how I feel about this, yet another outrage in the name of art without exerting some self-censorship, I would be disallowed to be part of this Forum. Is this a form of censorship? Obviously.

Yet we here very carefully and politely defend others' holy right to say whatever they want however they want.

[QUOTE]You can have Fischl; I

Just for clarity, I did not say if the Fischl statue was removed it was censorship. Only if it was forced to be destroyed or was stopped from being created. But if the owners of the Rockefeller center felt they wanted to put this piece on display in their lobby forever, it would be well within their rights to do so. And forcing them to remove it would be censorship.

Even if I choose to make a public statement, as long as I don't ask for public funding or support, it most definitley is censorship to stop me.

Now here is clearly a case were many feel offended or disturbed by a image that they feel disrespects the memory of those who died on September 11th. And I agree the right to object to its public display is as equally protected as the artist's right to create it. And in this case it may serve no greater good to disturb us but that is not always the case. And who is to decide?

There are many governments around the world who have been given the ability to censor words and ideas and the free expression of artists, and it is a much worse evil in my opinion. What if this was a piece of art to bring attention to a lynching of a black man in the southern US during segregation and it was allowed to be censored because the majority were too disturbed by its image, or wanted to deny the act it depicted ever happened?

Or if it was a piece of art to bring public attention to a act of genocide in Bosnia. By the way, there is a movement that is claiming all such acts never happened even though we have photos of mass graves. Now who is to make the distinction between a display of photos of mass graves in Bosnia that brings world attention to persecution of Bosnian Muslims, and a statue we feel is in bad taste?

Sometimes a majority can use censorship to oppress views, that if brought out, could have a positive outcome, even if the message used is a disturbing one. We often do not want to see the dark side of human nature but at times seeing it in all its horror can open one's eyes to what we would rather choose to ignore. I do not like Fischl's statue as a memorial, or even feel it truly represents the horror of that day, since without any caption, it would not have any meaning beyond a nude tumbling woman. But do I feel we should stop all art that is deemed disturbing? Or limit art only to subjects that depict the beauty in the world? No. That would be far worse then the disruption caused by Fischl's statue.

We all know the horror of Sept. 11th now because we were here to see it happen live on national TV or in person in NY. But what of people 100 years from now? Will they know people jumped to their deaths because the fire was so hot it drove them to the broken windows to leap? In the light of history will the events of Sept. 11th still loom as a huge tragedy? Yes. Even one life is precious and 3,000 lives is a tragedy but in comparison to the mass deaths in history, the death tolls in the major wars, it is not a huge number.

Of US Servicemen alone, it pales in comparison.
Civil War Battle deaths: Union army 140,414
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (Union) 224,097
World War I 53,402 non-battle deaths: 63,114
World War II battle deaths: 291,557
Other deaths in service: 113,842
Vietnam War battle deaths: 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater): 10,788
America's Wars Total battle deaths since revolution: 650,954

And by comparison the number of alcohol-related traffic deaths has stayed between 16,000 and 17,000 annually since 1994. And In the past 10 years 250,000 people have died in alcohol-related accidents. Now that makes 3,000 seem pretty small. No disrespect intended, for I feel even one senseless or preventable death is one too many. But maybe this disturbing reminder is really needed so history will not forget those who leaped to their deaths on Sept. 11th? After all, how often do you think about how many have died because someone had one for the road? If we can forget 17,000 deaths a year when we decide to drive after maybe one too many, maybe history does need a reminder of the horror of 3,000 deaths like this statue? I don't know, but maybe once in a while we need to be disturbed and feel the horrors of life to appreciate the beauty when we see it.

Censorship?

I'm missing something! Who has imposed or suggested any form of obvious "censorship"in this Forum while, at the same time, defending the right of others to say what they wish? There seems to be a contradiction here. I for one would hope that short of bad behavior, language, or the like, participants should be able to present their full arguement. I can handle it.

I like Monet's quote: "we are after all, just craftsmen". It is my belief that so to are Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, and most all professions for that matter. And conversely, as Mr. Henri suggested in my earlier post, "art is the province of all human beings". Why suggest that "an artist rights to express themselves are not really all that important"? My training as an artist served me very well in the corporate world where my opinions were given more than fair consideration. As fine artists, I would hope that each of us would do our best to bring a larger perspective to events large or small and even tragic.

The observation that a public display of art/sculpture gains a differing response than a piece introduced in a gallery/museum is interesting. The response to Fischl's work of course was immediate and comes from a public grouping not predisposed to weigh its intent or value. On the other hand it does seem to be the advantage of major public works that it does reach many more than the relatively small numbers of people who visit our sometimes musty archives known as museums.

Say it don't spray it
 

In our society each of us has the right to communicate (freedom of speech). This means that an artist is free to produce anything he desires and call it a work of art. It also means I have the freedom to bemoan the lack of intelligence it demonstrates and call it a piece of garbage or worse. I can also deride those who admire, praise, commission or buy the garbage. I also have the right to define what I think should be called art. Anything less would be censorship.

The fact that Fischl is now a household name just goes to prove my original point: if you can

Yes, Marvin you're right; I did not intend that anyone was wrong in not liking Fischl's statue. A big part of free speech is being able to voice your opinion for or against. I personally don't love it ether. And if it was not for its context I would not even give it much thought ether way. But In I also feel many hate it more for its context then its design. Rodin's work was no more defined or detailed then this statue; it is the implied meaning of a falling woman from the tower that is the problem, not the style of the piece.

If he has a right to display it, we have a right to say it stinks. I think we should define the world by our beliefs. Why do people abandon their beliefs? I do not expect or require anyone to agree with me. But I do not compromise my values for the sake of being intellectually acceptable.

I don't think this has anything to do with censorship. I haven't even had an opportunity to see a good enough photo of the statue to know if I absolutely don't like it, based on artistic quality or merit alone (though, so far, I don't care for it). Most people are traumatized by the television images of people jumping from the towers, so a statue of a victim on impact would be equally traumatic, not to mention too grotesque and violent for a young child to look at.

People go to specific places to mourn. Last year a gallery in New York opened temporarily displaying photos and videos from the 11th. Each image was extremely disturbing, but each person viewing the photos made a choice to go inside and deal with what they saw. Regardless of whether I like the statue, it may have a place in a different setting - just not in public where people who lost loved ones on 9/11 pass on the way to work every day.

Go Lon go
 

:thumbsup:

I totally agree.

If you want a license to do anything today- just declare yourself an artist.

Someone recently pointed out that people cutting music CD's are artists, people putting junk into speciman jars are artists, movie scriptwriters are artists, people digging holes in museums floors are artists. The only people who are still not artists these days are illustrators-yikes!

Then, once you become a holy artist everyone must allow you to do anything because creativity is sacred. I happen to think that woodworkers and florist are creative. Why are these people so well behaved? Maybe they didn't learn as art majors how important their creative impulses were.

After 9/11, I was one of those who read the daily mini-bios of those who lost their lives in that tragedy. And it made a profound impact on me. Their lives weren't just about being "victims." Each and every one had been a living, breathing, magnificent human being.
At funerals we usually remember and celebrate the good parts of the life of the deceased...and we seldom dwell on the horrible way they died. Imagine the family's outrage if we did otherwise?

I think that "tumbling woman" is unfortunate in that its focus is on the exact method and moment of death...and in no way reminds us of any individual prior existence of those who died so tragically on September 11th.

I think that the reason I broke down and cried in front of the powerful Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC is because each and every person who died is remembered and honored equally with the dignity they deserve.

"Tumbling Woman," and others of that ilk that depict a suffering victim don't impress me much. They don't depict a life that really seems to matter....except in the manner of their death. Forever and always they narrowly define some poor soul as a "victim" whereas in reality, we are all so very much more than just that.

I feel that Fischl's work is fine as artistic sculpture...but as a concept for a memorial, this piece is insensitive and therefore I find it tasteless.

In my opinion!!!
 

Michael,

I feel that Fischl's work is clumsy and heavy-handed. This has nothing to do with whether it is tight or loose. In comparison, Rodin was a great sculptor with a loose representational style. When I cited Bouguereau and Paxton as examples of art that I find appealing, I could just as easily have said Sargent or Raeburn. Sargent was a great painter with a loose representational style. William Merrit Chase was, in my opinion, clumsy and heavy-handed with a loose painterly style. Tightness or looseness has nothing to do with the quality of the work. I feel that Fischl's work is poorly executed and in order to get attention he flirts with controversy. I also happen to think his artistic statement was in extremely poor taste.

I have a great respect for all who have posted. Including those adamantly opposing Fischl's work and those that defend his rights to create and all those who's opinion is somewhere between.

I am done with this post I do not care to discuss this any longer. And in some ways wish I had not posted on the subject at all. :(

Timing is everything
 

When my father died.....I gathered many of his favorite things into a box. I knew that some day, I would place them in a glass case to be remembered. But I also knew that it would be some time before I did so. None the less, that box tugged on me. I pulled it out and looked through it privately. It was several years before I could display it and discuss it openly.

We have all lost this year. And we are being pulled by our feelings. I too wanted to express myself in some artistic way, for my own personal healing.

I don't think the subject peice would be so disturbing if it had been saved for a later date. I question the judgement of putting it on display this soon. I also understand the creator need to create it.

Just my two cents

Michael

I, for one, am glad you posted. It is quite easy to post on threads dealing with sizes, compositions, lighting, the slant of a nose, etc., and yet another to engage in a heated discussion on subject matter, content, and execution of a sensitive event. In any case your comments never resorted to name calling or trash talk and were absent of any attempt to attach spurious motivation to those who simply differ in the role of art and artists.

These posts have away of revealing more about the respondents than the issues.

Thanks

I'm thinking
 

"I don't know, but maybe once in a while we need to be disturbed and feel the horrors of life to appreciate the beauty when we see it."

On the same vein - maybe once in a while (possibly with a little more than one year's space between the horror and the presentation of emotionally charged memorial statues) - we need to be disturbed and feel the horrors of life in order to be able to remember, put our problems in perspective, and appreciate what sanity and comfort we experience in the moment of our own lives.

I'm thinking - could this possibly be the reason The Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. was so painstakingly created? Could this possibly be the reason we travel on "unknown to ourselves" pilgrimages to Dachau and Auschwitz and view the painful images in the statues that tribute the dead of that horrible holocaust? I do not mind at all the pain I feel as I look at those statues - it's the least I can feel - since I was fortunate enough to not suffer the way that generation of people did.

I think the tribute should be well done by talented artists - but who is picking them? The patron - as usual. The patron is not always full of artistic knowledge and the artist could be a fast talker (hmmmm, sounds likely).

I'm not at all familiar with this artist's work so I can't really criticise the statue. I think the fact that it was removed from the area it was displayed in says enough - the people most closely involved with the tragedy of September 11 cannot bear to look at it. It's too soon. I am glad they took it out.

Maybe some very talented artists will paint tributes or statues that merit the respect and emotional connection of the victims' families and the rest of us who will need to remember someday.

I don't understand why someone would go out of their way to create "disturbing," violent or horrific "art" for any reason...most especially as a way to "appreciate beauty."

If I wish to get upset these days, I can read the newspaper or watch the evening news.

Here is how the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary describes PORNOGRAPHY: "Pornography is the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction...as in the pornography of violence."

By this definition, "Tumbling Woman" could even be called "pornographic" although it would be a stretch for me to label it as such.

Shock or excellence
 

It's always easier to create something shocking. Well-executed art, so lovely and original that gives people pause and lifts their spirit - that's much tougher.

Any drunk can scream at a football game, we just don't get many Gettysburg Addresses.