Disgusting piece of art

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Someone posted this article from the NY Post on another board I frequent.

 

Who's the bigger waste of a human: the sculptor, or whoever agreed to display it in Rockefeller Center IN FRONT OF THE ICE SKATING RINK?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

The Moslems who made it happen.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

Well, true, but who's the genius @ Rockefeller Center who agreed to put it on display?

 

Considering the timing & location, I'm just *astounded* it is on display where it is.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I was astounded that TV network execs not only had the gall to edit out the people falling to their deaths, like they were unfortunate accidents in a nice clean disaster movie, but they also passed off their obscene decision as "respectful."

 

Placing the statue in front of an ice-skating rink is pretty dumb, granted; it's a public place and we don't blow up photos of Holocaust survivors and plaster them across Times Square either. But the people attacking the sculptor are aiming their guns at the wrong target.

 

People DIED. A statue of a woman falling to her death isn't disgusting. Pictures of emaciated and abused Holocaust survivors emerging from the death camps on the arms of Allied soldiers aren't disgusting. The victim of a crime against humanity isn't disgusting. What is disgusting is the criminal.

 

Mere days after the attacks they were being talked about like a natural disaster. They "occurred." Like an earthquake, I suppose. They weren't attacks, they were "tragedies." Like an unexpected coronary.

 

That's what's disgusting, immoral, and obscene. You want to be protected from the horror of that day? You want to forget? You're too "sensitive" to confront the fact that people died? Fuck you. You and your kind make another "tragedy" ever more likely to "occur" again.

 

Never forget. Never forgive.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Why on earth are people attacking the sculptor?

 

It might not be particularly tasteful, but neither was ramming a plane into the World Trade Center. Actually, you know what? I don't really think this scuplture is that distasteful. Looking at the picture, it's a pretty startlingly human reminder of the lives lost, and I think the accompanying "moronic" poem is a quiet, effective complement, much more emotionally affective than constant news reports or the same old thing we've heard for a year. Placing it in the direct public eye may be questionable--I'll agree that it would probably fare better inside, since some people simply don't want to see such a thing and really shouldn't be forced.

 

I however, think it is a remarkable and disturbing work, and, considering what it memorializes, very appropriate.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

You're too "sensitive" to confront the fact that people died? Fuck you. You and your kind make another "tragedy" ever more likely to "occur" again

Is this level of abuse really warranted?

 

At no point did the poster suggest he wanted to forget, forgive or shy away from what happened.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Stop whining. First of all, it was directed less specifically at Spiff than at the person who wrote the article and everyone who called the sculpture "disgusting." Second, I don't see Spiff complaining. That's because he's a big boy, he knows I like him, and he's perfectly capable of sucking up a few hits anyway.

Christ, I wish all you noble selfless martyrs for humanity would stop being so concerned about whether or not someone ELSE was offended. Go get a fucking day job.

[Guest Mystery Eskimo]

I have a day job, thankyou, and I like it very much.

 

I don't find it disgusting either. But I can understand how someone could be upset by it. That's all.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

We've all agreed a public skating rink isn't the best place for it. Calling the sculpture "disgusting" and the sculptor's poem "moronic," however, is beyond the pale. And the parallel to the "sanitising" of the WTC footage is direct.

[Guest Spaceman Spiff]

::sniff sniff::

 

j/k

 

I think everybody who's ever stepped foot in this forum has gotten a "fuck you" from Marney at some point, so it's no big deal. I've got my "big boy" pants on today

 

Getting back to the sculpture, an evisceral (sp?) scene like that works fine if the artist is trying to speak out against something, or trying to make a statement, or is angry about something, etc. However, I don't think it works when the artist is merely trying to commemorate something, which, having only read this NY Post article, is what I assume this artist is doing.

 

I want to retract my "disgusting" comment, which was typed "in the heat" of the moment after first reading the article ("Back pedal much?" Shut up ). I'd call it "inappropriate" for what the artist is trying to say (see above), as well as "inappropriate" placement by the folks at the Rockefeller Center.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I think the commemoration of such an atrocity at 9/11 must involve anger. We can indulge in the luxury of feeling grief alone if the loss of life occurs as a result of a freak accident or a natural disaster. What happened on 9/11 was an act of war. War was declared on us, cruelly and unjustly, and we have to feel angry about that in order to win. That is the best memorial we can give the dead: the assurance that what happened to them will never happen to those they left behind.

[Guest The Notorious CRD]

I, for one, don't consider that art. If anything, it's a desperate cry for publicity generated thru controversy. Sad? Yes. Disgusting? Maybe.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

I, for one, don't consider that art. If anything, it's a desperate cry for publicity generated thru controversy. Sad? Yes. Disgusting? Maybe.

Simply because of the subject matter, CRD?

 

Is September 11th a sacred cow then, one which artists shouldn't be allowed to use to express feelings or memorials?

 

It certainly could be as you see it--Fischl hasn't had much exposure lately, good or bad, except for a series of recurring shows in London--but this hardly seems exploitative. Exploitative would have the woman not at the moment of impact, but after, with blood and brains on the pavement.

 

See, I felt slightly uncomfortable typing those words, "blood and brains." Looking at that sculpture, I don't feel disgust. Maybe loss, and a little shock, but I think that's the intent.

 

Art, however, is one of the most subjective things in the world, and you're certainly entitled to your own feelings.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

For once, I wholeheartedly agree with Marney.

 

No matter what you truly think about this art, it wasn't as if he was mocking the people who jumped instead of facing a fiery death. This is no less art than a sculpture of the firemen raising the flag.

[Guest papacita]

The Moslems who made it happen.

 

HEY, HEY! Watch it girlfriend! ::snaps fingers/shakes head/stamps::

 

Anyway, as an artist, I think that the column is definitely overreacting to the piece. If I'm not mistaken, the slogan in reference to 9/11 is "Never Forget", and that seems to be the message that the sculptor is trying to bring across to everyone who views the piece. You could argue that it's a little harsh to display in such a public place, but to do so would remove a lot of the symbolism I suspect the artist was going for.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

We've all agreed a public skating rink isn't the best place for it.

True, but Rockefeller is NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY. It is privately owned and maintained, not a public resource.

 

The rink is closed just one day a year to keep it private. Thus, if those who own the rink want to put a sculpture in, they have every right to do so.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Rockefeller is NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY. It is privately owned and maintained... if those who own the rink want to put a sculpture in, they have every right to do so.

I'd forgotten that. Good point.

 

HEY, HEY! Watch it girlfriend! ::snaps fingers/shakes head/stamps::

Watch what? You don't think Mohammed Atta, his fellow terrorists, their funders, their supporters, and their enablers were/are a disgusting waste of skin?

[Guest papacita]

HEY, HEY! Watch it girlfriend! ::snaps fingers/shakes head/stamps::

Watch what? You don't think Mohammed Atta, his fellow terrorists, their funders, their supporters, and their enablers were/are a disgusting waste of skin?

I was just messing with you.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Okay then.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

"I saw 70 people fall from the tower," he said. "Fall from almost 100 stories! To see a statue of people falling to the ground - it's nothing to be happy about."

 

Of course not, and it's not a sculpture designed to evoke "happy" emotions. Not all art is meant to make people happy. It does evoke a reaction, though, so it's definitely serving the purpose the artist intended. It directly expresses the most horrific and disgusting thing about the attacks; the loss of human life. That, without delving into the cause, or using the towers themselves as a symbol. It's a great piece of art, IMO.

 

Besides, if it's private property, no one's got any right to say it should or shouldn't be there aside from the people that own the area where it sits. I'd be afraid of people vandalizing it, however, if I owned it.

[Guest Some Guy]

Whatever, if there is enough backlash the statue will come down and if there isn't it will stay. It doesn't really matter either way. Putting that statue in that place is probably a little distasteful and insensitive to those who's loved one's may have fallen from the towers like the women dipicted in the statue. I don't need statues of dead women to "Never forget" all I need is the anger and sorrow that I carry with me everyday to remember what was done to my country last year. The people of NYC don't need that statue to remember either, they need it far less than I.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Due to the protests of the more weak-minded among us, the statue has been covered up and will be removed.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Due to the protests of the more weak-minded among us, the statue has been covered up and will be removed.

Really?

 

Meanwhile, everyone watches gleefully on the news as planes slam in over and over again. Sigh.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Really.

 

CNN story

[Guest CED Ordonez]

Some passers-by in Rockefeller Center complained that the sculpture was too graphic

 

Would it help you if we put some business clothes on it and sprinkle the ground with ashes, glass and debris? And how about we crack open that statue's head to illustrate what a 110 story fall does to the human body?[/superdick Mode]

 

That's a controversial statue? Without an explanation of what it's supposed to represent, I'd probably mistake it as a sexual position (or a head-dropping puroresu manuever, as wrestling convolutes my mind). The statue in itself doesn't offend me at all. Then again I haven't witnessed people falling to their death, so what do I know?

[Guest mesepher]

so much for being respectful to fellow posters and their beliefs

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Get over it.

[Guest Some Guy]

::Looks at his no-sold post::

 

It may not be offensive to you but it certainly could be to those who actually lost loved ones in the fassion depicted in that statue. They don't need to be reminded, they will never forget. If the people of Manhatten don't like the statue then it should go.

It isn't about weak-mindedness, it's about respect for the living who lost on 9/11.

I sound like a fucking Liberal here, but I really don't see the what this statue accomplishes.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Actually, a liberal would say it's guarded under the first amendment.

 

It's guarded under the first amendment.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Yep. I, uhm, mark for First Amendment references when they're both applicable and justified.

 

(Hey, did I use that correctly? "Mark," I mean. From what I've seen on the rest of the board I think it translates to "like.")