Well, if you bothered to read the article you would have noticed that the Fire Department was behind the idea and so was the Vulcan Society (which represents black firemen). So, it would seem that quite a lot of firemen are ok with it. It's fitting that you would think that all firemen would think alike since this is the very mentality that finds diversity so insidious.
Let me suggest that if you were a relative of one of the 12 black firemen that died fighting the fire you MIGHT think differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WHAT!?
the fire department "higher ups" support it. I want you to go to the local firehouse right here and tell them you support it. I don't think you'll be welcomed to kindly. it has caused an outrage in the fire department. you should not comment on something you have no idea on other than reading an article that interviewed one guy.
12 black firemen died. how does that change the fact that 3 white guys raised the flag. if we are all equal why do the black guys need to be portrayed. so they are putting their race above everything else. you are being racist by saying race needs to be depicted here.
let me ask you. if 3 black guys had raised the flag and white firefighters were portrayed instead what kind of response do you think we would see from black "leaders" and communities.
All the people for is this switch ask yourself this. If it had been three black guys and they switched to be more racial sensitive what you you think then? What side do you think the Vulcan Society would fall on? Diversity or accurate.
<strong>If it had been three black guys and they switched to be more racial sensitive what you you think then? What side do you think the Vulcan Society would fall on?</strong><hr></blockquote>OK, but ask yourself this question: If they hadn't changed race, but they had made some guy taller or something like that, would you still have been clamoring for accuracy?
Why would they even do that, BRussell? Nobody IS changing anyone's height. That's one of those strange questions that prolongs things because it's too weird to answer and doesn't speak directly to what's going on.
What if one of the firemen had a caterpillar on his jacket...
Hardly the issue here. There probably aren't people running around demanding that everyone of a certain height/weight be represented.
But they ARE changing the content/context of the famous photo.
Like I said in my post above, how hard is it to design and create a nice, beautiful statue NOT based on this photo, thereby circumventing all this bullcrap?
It's obvious to me now that you can't just simply do something easily and quickly these days without it getting hung up in politics, race, class, political correctness, etc.
Amazing. ONLY in late 20th/early 21st Century America would the cool photo of three firemen (not WHITE firemen) being the basis for a cool statue turn into a big ordeal and pain-in-the-ass.
To prove it isn't about race, I'd be pissed off if they stuck a woman in there. Or a robot. Or a butcher, a Senator or a movie theater usher.
There, that help?
Yes, it is about accuracy. NONE of those people were in the photo or were the three main figures seen - worldwide - participating in that moment! And it's lame to pretend they were.
If two black firemen and a Korean paramedic had raised the flag, assisted by a female Hispanic steelworker, AND a famous, moving photograph was taken of it, I GUARANTEE you that I, nor anyone I know, would expect the statue based on the photo to depict anything different.
I would think "wow, those four people will be memorialized forever...cool!"
It would bother me if they DID change it, even if they were adding a white guy, in the interest of "inclusion" or whatever. I'd also see THAT for what it is and bitch about it too, BRussell.
In other words, I would not be running around, pissed off and demanding they "stick a white guy in there!".
Jeez.
Why does it work the other way? And why is that accepted and not called what it is?
<strong>The fire department "higher ups" support it. ... it has caused an outrage in the fire department. you should not comment on something you have no idea on other than reading an article that interviewed one guy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no indication in the article that all firefighters are uniformly against this. In fact, the article suggests otherwise. You are outright asking me to ignore the article and start imposing your biased assumptions. I'm supposed to assume that despite the fire department and a firefighter association supporting it that, to the contrary, every single living breathing fire fighter (black, white, and hispanic) thinks like you. I'm supposed to assume that the head of these groups are not and never were fire fighters themselves.
[quote]<strong>you are being racist by saying race needs to be depicted here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man do you have a limited attention span. I clearly stated that I find it ridiculous to always apply a racial filter to such things. But this racial filter is also being applied by many of the people who are so upset about this. Ok, I suppose people can hide their racism behind the photo-realism thing, but no one has yet said that they would be just as upset to see the artist shave a few pounds off a fat fireman or beef up his biceps or make the flag large and unfurled as if supported by a celestial force or remove an errant playboy from the rubble, etc, etc, etc...
[quote]<strong>if 3 black guys had raised the flag and white firefighters were portrayed instead what kind of response do you think we would see from black "leaders" and communities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When arts concerned I can guaranty that someone will object no matter what it is. I personally would try and judge the art by the statement it's supposed to make and not it's photo-realism. In the scenario you propose I don't think the NAACP would be upset if the 3 black guys were replaced with one white guy, one black guy, and one hispanic (the three white guy example isn't a fair counter-example) for the stated purpose of promoting diversity with the understanding that the art is meant to reflect the accomplishments of firefighters as a whole and not the actual accomplishments of just three firefighters.
Now, let me ask you this. Does the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (or statue it inspired) really piss you off because it was staged? If not would you be pissed if the WTC flag raising had been staged (say using black, white, and hispanic firefighters) to begin with?
[quote]When arts concerned I can guaranty that someone will object no matter what it is. I personally would try and judge the art by the statement it's supposed to make and not it's photo-realism. In the scenario you propose I don't think the NAACP would be upset if the 3 black guys were replaced with one white guy, one black guy, and one hispanic (the three white guy example isn't a fair counter-example) for the stated purpose of promoting diversity with the understanding that the art is meant to reflect the accomplishments of firefighters as a whole and not the actual accomplishments of just three firefighters.
Now, let me ask you this. Does the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (or statue it inspired) really piss you off because it was staged? If not would you be pissed if the WTC flag raising had been staged (say using black, white, and hispanic firefighters) to begin with?
And please spare me the righteous indignation.<hr></blockquote>
I think you are naive. The NAACP won't cause a ruckus if a black man is replaced by a white man? What about people with cult-like followers...like Jesse Jackson, who throw out boycotts left and right if there aren't enough black employees at a particular business to suit him?
The flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged in a sense that the original, puny flag was taken down and replaced by a larger flag. It wasn't exactly posed for, as there was a film cameraman and photographer on hand.
<strong>Let me guess: "Righteous indignation" only works from one side, right?
Coming from anyone else, it's "closeminded, borderline racism"?
I don't know...I'm asking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, in fact the point I'm making that everyone seems to ignore so as to jump right into the familiar barking that occurs on P.I. (with Mahr not Magnum) is that it's just as annoying to see this emphasis on race coming from both sides. Also, I get annoyed with people who are quick to be appauled as if to even challenge their position is equivalent to pissing on firefighters graves.
To restate a little- it's art, it's symbolic. It could have faceless firefighter statues and I wouldn't care. But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.
To change the slimness or muscularity of a person is one thing, to completely change the race or gender is something else altogether. I do not think it is right to alter the moment because it makes people feel better about a situation that was not that way. If there had not been said flag raising in reality then let them choose their heroes/heroines. No biggie. The moment happened, the reality is far more powerful than the made up baloney the artist is now trying to pawn off. It should be as accurate as possible for the people and the moment. Some of the details like playboy in the rubble or the shadow of the sun are just that, details. Altering ones race or gender for diversity is more than a detail. It changes the entire person, and the man that was there who gets replaced by one of anotehr race has now been cut from the scene that he unknowingly helped to create. Not right, predictable, and not too suprising given that diversity reigns supreme when those that are "hurt" by it are white males.
But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So next time they should be sure to search the rescuers for three men of diverse ethnic background so that they can be "represented fairly" for the American media to photograph.
This is not about fair representation. This is about a real moment that is being altered in the name of fair representation and diversity. Goodnight!
I think you are naive. The NAACP won't cause a ruckus if a black man is replaced by a white man? What about people with cult-like followers...like Jesse Jackson, who throw out boycotts left and right if there aren't enough black employees at a particular business to suit him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't think Jesse speaks (or raps) for the NAACP (that would be the Mfume guy), but as I said, I'm sure someone will object when it comes to art. The amount of outrage would seem to be a matter of PR. If it was made quite clear that this was a work of art meant to represent the valiant efforts of all the firefighters and that the flag raising was simply a template, then no, I don't think it would be a big deal.
[quote]<strong>
The flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged in a sense that the original, puny flag was taken down and replaced by a larger flag. It wasn't exactly posed for, as there was a film cameraman and photographer on hand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This can quickly become a debate of he said, the military said, but let's just stick with what we can agree on. 1. They felt it necessary to get a bigger flag (if that ain't symbolic I don't know what is) and 2. the people (and flag) who's image we see and celebrate are not the same people who first planted a flag on Iwo Jima. Do I think it detracts from their original accomplishment? No.
<strong> If there had not been said flag raising in reality then let them choose their heroes/heroines. No biggie. The moment happened, the reality is far more powerful than the made up baloney the artist is now trying to pawn off. It should be as accurate as possible for the people and the moment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of the acts performed by firefighters during the WTC disaster I would think that putting the flag up would have to rank pretty low in heroism. If this artist chose to sculpt three firemen of different races carrying wounded people down stairs of a collapsing building you would have no beef, yes? Even if at no time were a white, hispanic, and black guy together in the same time and space? I guess your position is that this picture is simply sacrosanct and beyond artistic embelishment. On this point we simply disagree.
[quote]<strong> Some of the details like playboy in the rubble or the shadow of the sun are just that, details. Altering ones race or gender for diversity is more than a detail. It changes the entire person, and the man that was there who gets replaced by one of anotehr race has now been cut from the scene that he unknowingly helped to create.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since you concede that photo-realism isn't the standard here then we agree that this is, indeed, art? So this really comes down to asthetics. What you like may differ from what other's like. Plain and simple.
The sculpture is kitschy crap whether it has three black women or three white guys.
It practically mocks the Iwo Jima photo, as does, and I know I will be wildly flamed for this, lavishing the same kind of worship onto the photo of the firemen at the WTC site.
It's a very different thing to put a flag up in a territory that you just claimed from an enemy after what is perhaps the bloodiest fight in American history a fight to save the world from Imperialist militant thugs, and to be still in the midst of battle, then it is to put a flag on a building that was blown up (where people were killed by madmen who saw through our weak spots) in your own country, to put the flag up at least a day after and in full awareness that the media's many eager eyes are watching watching and trying to set whatever they can to the musical strains of Wagneresque granduer.
They are still powerfull events --the flag raisings-- however, one of these appears to be the precursor to the other.... its almost as if the photographer and all those in the picture were watching themselves try and fill the footprints left by the innitial image. Now everytime I see it I can't help but feel that maybe they are just slightly acting for the idea of the 'heroism' in the photo that will be.
As far as the whole PC take on the three races in the sculpture: its not that it is too PC, it's just too schlocky and sickeningly sentimental... that's the real sentiment behind the adding of all three races... its like the worst aspects of Rockwell distilled into this farcical heroism . . . which just cheapens the real heroism that took place.....
but then that's what usually happens with sentiments that uses the term 'heroism' without caution . . . it's a very tricky idea that can very easily move towards a self-parody, or worse, to jingoism.
anyway, it kind of reminds me of the famous saying --but not quite -- about history and repetition and farce.
Staged or not, I felt a wave of emotion come across me as I saw them place and raise that flag.
To me it was simple. Just human beings taking a symbolic piece of cloth and raising it in defiance in public view to show the terrorists that even if it came down to the last man standing, THIS act or raising a flag can be accomplished. No one will deny us our freedom!
I think the statue thing is just a poor decision. But, I couldn't care less about it in the end. The real symbol of our strength is shown everyday with people doing what they do best to keep America strong and proud and a nice place to live. In MY mind, I salute everyone that died and survived on 9/11.
Maybe it should be a heap of smoldering body parts with a flag sticking out of it...
Face it...figurative, realistic or representational scupture here isn't going to work in these "frail" times. Hell, might as well start tearing down all scuptures with people in them and replace them with the Cingular cartoon figure...
Where's Alexander Calder when you need him...
In a way both sides are being pussies in this debate. Toss the whole idea and design a boring abstract symbol of a memorial that points to nobdy but everyone who died at Ground Zero...period.
Wait a minute...reality check here...Isn't this statue going to be placed in front of the NYFD administration building? The firemen have a beef about this?
<strong>It practically mocks the Iwo Jima photo...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The WTC photo by itself is very good but I agree about the comparisons with the Iwo Jima photo. It's way over the top and undermines the value of both photos.
[quote]<strong>It's a very different thing to put a flag up in a territory that you just claimed from an enemy after what is perhaps the bloodiest fight in American history a fight to save the world from Imperialist militant thugs, and to be still in the midst of battle, then it is to put a flag on a building that was blown up... in your own country...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Precisely.
[quote]<strong>... to put the flag up at least a day after and in full awareness that the media's many eager eyes are watching watching and trying to set whatever they can to the musical strains of Wagneresque granduer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you were doing so well. You had to overreach, didn't you? Well, I guess what this is all about, isn't it?
[quote]<strong>As far as the whole PC take on the three races in the sculpture: its not that it is too PC, it's just too schlocky and sickeningly sentimental... that's the real sentiment behind the adding of all three races... which just cheapens the real heroism that took place...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep.
And saying it's art not history ignores the historical/political context which art often addresses. This sculpture isn't being produced in a vacuum. It's almost all about historical context.
To restate a little- it's art, it's symbolic. It could have faceless firefighter statues and I wouldn't care. But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
if its arts than the "artists" should have been original. he had to know that changing what could possibly become the most famous american symbol of perseverance and freedom would cause an outrage among many people, especially in the fire department. and its even for the fire department!!
1. The statue will be erected (that is if all this B.S. doesn't stop) in front of the NYFD building...not Ground Zero. Ground Zero will probably be the WTC fragment they tore down.
2. Once anyone puts on a fireman's uniform they become a fireman. Not black, white, hispanic, asian, american indian or female...a fireman.
3. Put up the damn statue. It's not like its firemen in a container if piss. It's art. It's a representation of something not someone.
4. The photo of the firemen at grand zero was posed. I heard that the photographer asked them to go back up and then he re-shot it.
Comments
<strong>
Well, if you bothered to read the article you would have noticed that the Fire Department was behind the idea and so was the Vulcan Society (which represents black firemen). So, it would seem that quite a lot of firemen are ok with it. It's fitting that you would think that all firemen would think alike since this is the very mentality that finds diversity so insidious.
Let me suggest that if you were a relative of one of the 12 black firemen that died fighting the fire you MIGHT think differently.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WHAT!?
the fire department "higher ups" support it. I want you to go to the local firehouse right here and tell them you support it. I don't think you'll be welcomed to kindly. it has caused an outrage in the fire department. you should not comment on something you have no idea on other than reading an article that interviewed one guy.
12 black firemen died. how does that change the fact that 3 white guys raised the flag. if we are all equal why do the black guys need to be portrayed. so they are putting their race above everything else. you are being racist by saying race needs to be depicted here.
let me ask you. if 3 black guys had raised the flag and white firefighters were portrayed instead what kind of response do you think we would see from black "leaders" and communities.
this is just sad
<strong>If it had been three black guys and they switched to be more racial sensitive what you you think then? What side do you think the Vulcan Society would fall on?</strong><hr></blockquote>OK, but ask yourself this question: If they hadn't changed race, but they had made some guy taller or something like that, would you still have been clamoring for accuracy?
What if one of the firemen had a caterpillar on his jacket...
Hardly the issue here. There probably aren't people running around demanding that everyone of a certain height/weight be represented.
But they ARE changing the content/context of the famous photo.
Like I said in my post above, how hard is it to design and create a nice, beautiful statue NOT based on this photo, thereby circumventing all this bullcrap?
It's obvious to me now that you can't just simply do something easily and quickly these days without it getting hung up in politics, race, class, political correctness, etc.
Amazing. ONLY in late 20th/early 21st Century America would the cool photo of three firemen (not WHITE firemen) being the basis for a cool statue turn into a big ordeal and pain-in-the-ass.
There, that help?
Yes, it is about accuracy. NONE of those people were in the photo or were the three main figures seen - worldwide - participating in that moment! And it's lame to pretend they were.
If two black firemen and a Korean paramedic had raised the flag, assisted by a female Hispanic steelworker, AND a famous, moving photograph was taken of it, I GUARANTEE you that I, nor anyone I know, would expect the statue based on the photo to depict anything different.
I would think "wow, those four people will be memorialized forever...cool!"
It would bother me if they DID change it, even if they were adding a white guy, in the interest of "inclusion" or whatever. I'd also see THAT for what it is and bitch about it too, BRussell.
In other words, I would not be running around, pissed off and demanding they "stick a white guy in there!".
Jeez.
Why does it work the other way? And why is that accepted and not called what it is?
[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
1) made the statues faceless
2) made the statues generic
3) stayed true to the photo
Why a black and a latino? I feel left out!
<strong>The fire department "higher ups" support it. ... it has caused an outrage in the fire department. you should not comment on something you have no idea on other than reading an article that interviewed one guy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no indication in the article that all firefighters are uniformly against this. In fact, the article suggests otherwise. You are outright asking me to ignore the article and start imposing your biased assumptions. I'm supposed to assume that despite the fire department and a firefighter association supporting it that, to the contrary, every single living breathing fire fighter (black, white, and hispanic) thinks like you. I'm supposed to assume that the head of these groups are not and never were fire fighters themselves.
[quote]<strong>you are being racist by saying race needs to be depicted here.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man do you have a limited attention span. I clearly stated that I find it ridiculous to always apply a racial filter to such things. But this racial filter is also being applied by many of the people who are so upset about this. Ok, I suppose people can hide their racism behind the photo-realism thing, but no one has yet said that they would be just as upset to see the artist shave a few pounds off a fat fireman or beef up his biceps or make the flag large and unfurled as if supported by a celestial force or remove an errant playboy from the rubble, etc, etc, etc...
[quote]<strong>if 3 black guys had raised the flag and white firefighters were portrayed instead what kind of response do you think we would see from black "leaders" and communities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When arts concerned I can guaranty that someone will object no matter what it is. I personally would try and judge the art by the statement it's supposed to make and not it's photo-realism. In the scenario you propose I don't think the NAACP would be upset if the 3 black guys were replaced with one white guy, one black guy, and one hispanic (the three white guy example isn't a fair counter-example) for the stated purpose of promoting diversity with the understanding that the art is meant to reflect the accomplishments of firefighters as a whole and not the actual accomplishments of just three firefighters.
Now, let me ask you this. Does the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (or statue it inspired) really piss you off because it was staged? If not would you be pissed if the WTC flag raising had been staged (say using black, white, and hispanic firefighters) to begin with?
And please spare me the righteous indignation.
Coming from anyone else, it's "closeminded, borderline racism"?
I don't know...I'm asking.
Now, let me ask you this. Does the photo of the flag raising at Iwo Jima (or statue it inspired) really piss you off because it was staged? If not would you be pissed if the WTC flag raising had been staged (say using black, white, and hispanic firefighters) to begin with?
And please spare me the righteous indignation.<hr></blockquote>
I think you are naive. The NAACP won't cause a ruckus if a black man is replaced by a white man? What about people with cult-like followers...like Jesse Jackson, who throw out boycotts left and right if there aren't enough black employees at a particular business to suit him?
The flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged in a sense that the original, puny flag was taken down and replaced by a larger flag. It wasn't exactly posed for, as there was a film cameraman and photographer on hand.
<strong>Let me guess: "Righteous indignation" only works from one side, right?
Coming from anyone else, it's "closeminded, borderline racism"?
I don't know...I'm asking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, in fact the point I'm making that everyone seems to ignore so as to jump right into the familiar barking that occurs on P.I. (with Mahr not Magnum) is that it's just as annoying to see this emphasis on race coming from both sides. Also, I get annoyed with people who are quick to be appauled as if to even challenge their position is equivalent to pissing on firefighters graves.
To restate a little- it's art, it's symbolic. It could have faceless firefighter statues and I wouldn't care. But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.
<strong>
But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So next time they should be sure to search the rescuers for three men of diverse ethnic background so that they can be "represented fairly" for the American media to photograph.
This is not about fair representation. This is about a real moment that is being altered in the name of fair representation and diversity. Goodnight!
<strong>
I think you are naive. The NAACP won't cause a ruckus if a black man is replaced by a white man? What about people with cult-like followers...like Jesse Jackson, who throw out boycotts left and right if there aren't enough black employees at a particular business to suit him?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I don't think Jesse speaks (or raps) for the NAACP (that would be the Mfume guy), but as I said, I'm sure someone will object when it comes to art. The amount of outrage would seem to be a matter of PR. If it was made quite clear that this was a work of art meant to represent the valiant efforts of all the firefighters and that the flag raising was simply a template, then no, I don't think it would be a big deal.
[quote]<strong>
The flag raising at Iwo Jima was staged in a sense that the original, puny flag was taken down and replaced by a larger flag. It wasn't exactly posed for, as there was a film cameraman and photographer on hand.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This can quickly become a debate of he said, the military said, but let's just stick with what we can agree on. 1. They felt it necessary to get a bigger flag (if that ain't symbolic I don't know what is) and 2. the people (and flag) who's image we see and celebrate are not the same people who first planted a flag on Iwo Jima. Do I think it detracts from their original accomplishment? No.
<strong> If there had not been said flag raising in reality then let them choose their heroes/heroines. No biggie. The moment happened, the reality is far more powerful than the made up baloney the artist is now trying to pawn off. It should be as accurate as possible for the people and the moment.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of the acts performed by firefighters during the WTC disaster I would think that putting the flag up would have to rank pretty low in heroism. If this artist chose to sculpt three firemen of different races carrying wounded people down stairs of a collapsing building you would have no beef, yes? Even if at no time were a white, hispanic, and black guy together in the same time and space? I guess your position is that this picture is simply sacrosanct and beyond artistic embelishment. On this point we simply disagree.
[quote]<strong> Some of the details like playboy in the rubble or the shadow of the sun are just that, details. Altering ones race or gender for diversity is more than a detail. It changes the entire person, and the man that was there who gets replaced by one of anotehr race has now been cut from the scene that he unknowingly helped to create.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since you concede that photo-realism isn't the standard here then we agree that this is, indeed, art? So this really comes down to asthetics. What you like may differ from what other's like. Plain and simple.
It practically mocks the Iwo Jima photo, as does, and I know I will be wildly flamed for this, lavishing the same kind of worship onto the photo of the firemen at the WTC site.
It's a very different thing to put a flag up in a territory that you just claimed from an enemy after what is perhaps the bloodiest fight in American history a fight to save the world from Imperialist militant thugs, and to be still in the midst of battle, then it is to put a flag on a building that was blown up (where people were killed by madmen who saw through our weak spots) in your own country, to put the flag up at least a day after and in full awareness that the media's many eager eyes are watching watching and trying to set whatever they can to the musical strains of Wagneresque granduer.
They are still powerfull events --the flag raisings-- however, one of these appears to be the precursor to the other.... its almost as if the photographer and all those in the picture were watching themselves try and fill the footprints left by the innitial image. Now everytime I see it I can't help but feel that maybe they are just slightly acting for the idea of the 'heroism' in the photo that will be.
As far as the whole PC take on the three races in the sculpture: its not that it is too PC, it's just too schlocky and sickeningly sentimental... that's the real sentiment behind the adding of all three races... its like the worst aspects of Rockwell distilled into this farcical heroism . . . which just cheapens the real heroism that took place.....
but then that's what usually happens with sentiments that uses the term 'heroism' without caution . . . it's a very tricky idea that can very easily move towards a self-parody, or worse, to jingoism.
anyway, it kind of reminds me of the famous saying --but not quite -- about history and repetition and farce.
[ 01-13-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
To me it was simple. Just human beings taking a symbolic piece of cloth and raising it in defiance in public view to show the terrorists that even if it came down to the last man standing, THIS act or raising a flag can be accomplished. No one will deny us our freedom!
I think the statue thing is just a poor decision. But, I couldn't care less about it in the end. The real symbol of our strength is shown everyday with people doing what they do best to keep America strong and proud and a nice place to live. In MY mind, I salute everyone that died and survived on 9/11.
Face it...figurative, realistic or representational scupture here isn't going to work in these "frail" times. Hell, might as well start tearing down all scuptures with people in them and replace them with the Cingular cartoon figure...
Where's Alexander Calder when you need him...
In a way both sides are being pussies in this debate. Toss the whole idea and design a boring abstract symbol of a memorial that points to nobdy but everyone who died at Ground Zero...period.
Wait a minute...reality check here...Isn't this statue going to be placed in front of the NYFD administration building? The firemen have a beef about this?
[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Artman @_@ ]</p>
<strong>It practically mocks the Iwo Jima photo...</strong><hr></blockquote>
The WTC photo by itself is very good but I agree about the comparisons with the Iwo Jima photo. It's way over the top and undermines the value of both photos.
[quote]<strong>It's a very different thing to put a flag up in a territory that you just claimed from an enemy after what is perhaps the bloodiest fight in American history a fight to save the world from Imperialist militant thugs, and to be still in the midst of battle, then it is to put a flag on a building that was blown up... in your own country...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Precisely.
[quote]<strong>... to put the flag up at least a day after and in full awareness that the media's many eager eyes are watching watching and trying to set whatever they can to the musical strains of Wagneresque granduer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you were doing so well. You had to overreach, didn't you? Well, I guess what this is all about, isn't it?
[quote]<strong>As far as the whole PC take on the three races in the sculpture: its not that it is too PC, it's just too schlocky and sickeningly sentimental... that's the real sentiment behind the adding of all three races... which just cheapens the real heroism that took place...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep.
And saying it's art not history ignores the historical/political context which art often addresses. This sculpture isn't being produced in a vacuum. It's almost all about historical context.
<strong>
To restate a little- it's art, it's symbolic. It could have faceless firefighter statues and I wouldn't care. But I do understand that it's not meant to celebrate just those 3 firefighters and that minorities have a somewhat legitimate beef about being under-represented in American culture.</strong><hr></blockquote>
if its arts than the "artists" should have been original. he had to know that changing what could possibly become the most famous american symbol of perseverance and freedom would cause an outrage among many people, especially in the fire department. and its even for the fire department!!
1. The statue will be erected (that is if all this B.S. doesn't stop) in front of the NYFD building...not Ground Zero. Ground Zero will probably be the WTC fragment they tore down.
2. Once anyone puts on a fireman's uniform they become a fireman. Not black, white, hispanic, asian, american indian or female...a fireman.
3. Put up the damn statue. It's not like its firemen in a container if piss. It's art. It's a representation of something not someone.
4. The photo of the firemen at grand zero was posed. I heard that the photographer asked them to go back up and then he re-shot it.