Tumbling Woman?

[Marvin Mattelson]

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

[Cynthia Daniel]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

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.

[Steven Sweeney]

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.

[Chantal Sulkow]

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.

[Marvin Mattelson]

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

[Lon Haverly]

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.

[Jim Riley]

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.

[Michael Fournier]

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.

[Mike McCarty]

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.