Art and Controversy of September 11th, 2001
September 11th, 2001 has become a day immortalized in the memories of a nation. Early in the morning two planes, hijacked by a group of terrorists, crashed into the World Trade Center towers. The world watched as the two towers fell down in smoke. Although media coverage was swift to censor the events of the attacks, people everywhere can recall the frightening live broadcasts. Never before had the safety of the American people been so systematically compromised. Although terrorist attacks occurred on United States soil before, such as the attack on Pearl Harbor, the lives of civilians hadn’t been jeopardized like they had been on 9/11. Alongside the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was hit, and a fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania, allegedly targeting the White House.
“No building symbolized the neoliberal world order better that the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and no building symbolizes military might in the United States better that the Pentagon. The White House, the target for the third failed attack, would have been the perfect representation of political power” (79, Bleiker).
To comprehend the intensity surrounding 9/11 countless pieces of art have been created to remember, process, and immortalize the events of the day.
The need to “Never Forget” the attacks and the people who suffered from them caused professional and amateur artists alike to make a monumental amount of art. Wherever art influenced by 9/11 appears, controversy follows. No public works are safe from the outrage of the community and reviews of the media. For the purpose of this paper I want to discuss the forms of controversy that have arisen, and examine the main tools artists have employed in their artistic endeavors. Materiality, representation, and location have taken on powerful roles in the art of 9/11, helping create deeper meaning for viewers, but also to stimulate debate.
Today, if 9/11 is mentioned everyone can immediately relate where they were, how they felt, and what impacted them the most from the events. At the National Museum of the Marine Corps these intimate memories can be shared in the temporary exhibit dedicated to the events. “The exhibit invites visitors to share their memories of the day that ushered in a ‘new reality’ for all Americans while also paying tribute to a generation that has borne the burden of our security during a decade of war” (http://www.usmcmuseum.com). A tower stands in the middle of the exhibit for visitors to place a note containing their own experiences of the attacks. The exhibit also contains building materials from both the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This community of sharing and witnessing, created at the “9/11 – We Remember” exhibit, is a rare example of a successful tribute to the events. However, the majority of information presented is factual. Quotes line the walls, building materials from the attacked structures are presented plainly, and people are invited to remember in a non-confrontational way. On top of all this, the Museum of the Marine Corps is far from the streets of New York where the majority of controversy has arisen.
At the one year anniversary of the attacks, in 2002, two artists presented works attempting to remember and process the events. Eric Fischl presented his bronze statue, Tumbling Woman, at the Rockefeller Center, and Sharon Paz created a site specific installation of silhouettes at the Jamaica Center for the Arts titled Falling. Both pieces were met with waves of outcry. Tumbling Woman was not the first piece of controversial art that Fischl had made. “Two years ago, he made a 14-foot nude statue honoring Arthur Ashe, facing the stadium that bears Ashe’s name at the National Tennis Center in New York” (¶ 14, The New York Times). In an interview with the New York Times a year later Fischl explained that he had lost a friend who had worked in the Twin Towers. Tumbling Woman acted as a tribute to her memory. The sculpture is highly figurative in its representation, depicting a woman falling through the air, in a contorted pose with her legs out to her side and head tucked in. A poem was placed on a plaque nearby. It read:We watched,disbelieving and helpless, on that savage day. People we love began falling, helpless and in disbelief.
Varying reports claim that it shows the woman in free fall or hitting the ground. Regardless, the image is haunting. The work was intended to be on display outside the Rockefeller Center for multiple weeks, however it was draped in fabric and enclosed only a few days after being revealed. Civilians walking past the sculpture complained that the image was too horrific and too jarring for a public space. One person commented to the New York Times explaining, ”I don’t think it dignifies their deaths. It is very disrupting when you see it.” The Rockefeller Center had the statue removed shortly after it was covered. Fischl had five copies of the statues made and sold them to private collectors. The University of Chicago had one copy on display in their museum garden. Fischl, in a statement to the press, said “[the work] was not meant to hurt anybody” but was a “sincere expression of deepest sympathy for the vulnerability of the human condition” (¶ 9, The New York Times).
Sharon Paz had a similar experience with her installation of eleven white silhouettes placed in three stories of windows at the Jamaica Center for the Arts. Her piece was also in memory of the one year anniversary and she claimed it was her way of confronting the disturbing images of people falling from the towers, (The Daily News, Bertrand). The silhouettes were taken from actual images of falling victims, such as the distinctive image of the Falling Man, made famous by photographer Richard Drew. Like Tumbling Woman, New Yorker’s were upset by the installation and it was taken down two weeks ahead of schedule with out Paz’s notification. One comment sums up the criticism that was received. “It sends out a very negative, subliminal message. It shows people dying in a horrible way and is very insensitive” (The Daily News, Bertrand). The consensus at the one year anniversary of the attacks was that is was too soon to show figurative representations of the day. Figurative versus abstract representation would continue to be a major debate for almost all pieces of work commemorating 9/11.
Figurative representations were not the only type of art created for the one year anniversary. Tribute in Light, an ephemeral memorial to the events, has been widely attributed as the most successful memorial to 9/11. The idea has been discussed as so intuitive that two groups of artists proposed the idea simultaneously. Artists John Bennett, Gustavo Bonevardi, Richard Nash Gould, Julian Laverdiere and Paul Myoda with lighting consultant Paul Marantz were all involved in the design of the piece. The project, overseen by the Municipal Art Society of New York (MAS Website), was originally intended to be a temporary installation while the competition for a more permanent memorial was being conducted. The piece was so widely acclaimed that it has continued throughout the decade. 2011 was designated as the last year the Tribute in Light would be shown due to the completion of the memorial at Ground Zero, Reflecting Absence, but currently the MAS website states that they are collecting donations and seeking sponsorship to install the tribute annually. The work consists of two towers of light, in the place where the towers once stood, briefly restoring the New York skyline with a ghostly image.
Comprising eighty-eight 7,000-watt xenon light bulbs positioned into two 48-foot squares that echo the shape and orientation of the Twin Towers, Tribute in Light is assembled each year on a roof near the World Trade Center site. The illuminated memorial reaches 4 miles into the sky and is the strongest shaft of light ever projected from earth into the night sky. (MAS Website)
The location of the towers, often referred to as Ground Zero, has sparked much debate. Many wished to leave the site untouched after the attacks, such as previously mentioned artist, Eric Fischl. Some individuals affected by the events claimed that leaving the site untouched would be an appropriate reminder of the drama, terror, and survival of 9/11 (The New York Times, Fischl). Others insisted that the site be rebuilt or memorialized. In the end Ground Zero was turned into the memorial that it is today. Tribute in Light was an appropriate compromise during the debate due to its ephemeral nature. However, Tribute in Light could not escape controversy either. “The light column was originally to have been called Towers of Light, but protests from victims’ families forced a name change. They felt Tribute in Light better reflected the lives rather than the property lost” (¶ 12, BBC).
Just as spaces are charged by the attacks, so too are the materials that made up the towers. Some reminders of the towers are simply pieces from the site, such as the rebar and blocks found at the Museum for the Marine Corps. One piece of found art from the wreckage of the towers is the infamous World Trade Center Cross, found standing up right, once imminent disaster was over by New York resident Frank Silecchia. The Christian public immediately latched onto the cross as an image of hope and resurrection. It was placed temporarily outside the St. Peters Church before being moved to its permanent home in the National September 11th Memorial and Museum (ABC News, Kirpalani). The inclusion of the cross in the depths of the museum was so contentious that legal action was taken to have it removed. “A group identified as American Atheists filed a lawsuit today claiming the inclusion of the cross-shaped steel beams promotes Christianity over all other religions on public property and diminishes the civil rights of non-Christians” (ABC News, Kirpalani).The American Atheists explained that they would happily drop the lawsuit if all religions were equally identified in the museum, because not just Christians suffered in the event. However, the museum has made statements about including other religious iconography in the exhibit:
The 9/11 Memorial foundation told ABCNews.com that other religious artifacts will be included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum. A Star of David cut from WTC steel and a Bible fused to a piece of steel that was found during recovery efforts will both be on display in the same historical exhibition as the cross. A Jewish prayer shawl, donated by a victim’s family member, will be part of the museum’s memorial exhibition. (ABC News, Kirpalani)
Religion has always been a hotbed for disputes in America and the tragedy of 9/11 has not been able to escape.
Other artists have also sought to to include materials from the wreckage of the Twin Towers in their works in hopes to increase the importance due to the power the materials have inherited from the attacks. International artist Xu Bing created a conceptual art piece, entitled Where Does the Dust Itself Collect? (2004) to contemplate the effect of the attacks on the city. For the piece he collected dust from Ground Zero and the streets of Manhattan, which he then spread across the floor of a gallery with a leaf blower. The words from an untitled Buddhist poem, written by the Zen Monk Hui-neng in the 1st century CE, were traced into the fine powder (Xu Bing Studio). The poem read:The Bodhi (True Wisdom) is not like the tree; The mirror bright is nowhere shining;As there is nothing from the first,Where does the dust itself collect?
The gray film across the floor was reminiscent of the dust that covered the street of New York for weeks after, and was highly contrasted by the words which showed the pristine floor of the gallery underneath. The work captures the post-attack atmosphere of New York during the recovery efforts the city experienced. His work won multiple international prizes, including the inaugural Artes Mundi prize and the Wales International Visual Art Prize. Dust was also shown at the Sao Paolo Biennial (Xu Bing Studio).
American artist Miya Ando created a towering sculpture for the city of London. The piece is sculpted from multiple girders that were part of a collection shipped across the world in time for the 10 year anniversary.
Draped in American flags and handled with reverence, these are the relics pulled from the rubble of the World Trade Center. They have been stored in Hangar 17 at John F. Kennedy Airport since the recovery operation was completed, and are now being shipped across the world for towns and cities to construct memorials in time for the tenth anniversary of 9/11. The photographs of twisted heavy steel, tattered uniforms and even a smashed-up fire truck reveal with terrible poignancy the full devastation of the terrorist attacks. (Daily Mail, Roberts)
The sculpture by Ando, After 9/11, was revealed in it temporary home of Battersea Park in London and commemorates the lives of 67 British citizens who lost their lives in the attack. Although only a small percentage of the almost 3000 victims of 9/11, the United Kingdom had the highest death toll besides the United States. Honored to have received materials from the actual trade center, British officials are still seeking the most appropriate home for the twisted structure of metallic silver and mangled, rusted iron. Ando thought the sculpture “’was a poetic way to express transformation. Not only are we having the piece stand upright in a gesture of resilience, but to create something serene and light” (Daily Mail, Gye).
Pieces of the actual World Trade Center are not the only materials that have been charged by the events. In the exhibition “Archive Fever: Uses of the Document in Contemporary Art” at the International Center of Photography, curator Okwui Enwezor included German artist Hand-Peter Feldmann. Feldmann’s installation, 9/12 Frontpage (2001), utilized the front pages of over 100 newspapers from around the world of the day after the attacks, 9/12/2001. The pages are simply framed and left without translation or explanation.
Questions flood in: Why were certain pictures of the devastated Twin Towers used in certain places? Why does Osama Bin Laden’s face appear on some pages and not on others? And how is the story reported in languages we cannot read; Arabic, say, or Persian? And what could readers who didn’t read English know of our reports? (The New York Times, Cotter)
In many ways Feldmann’s work addresses the public memory of 9/11 that has been briefly discussed here in this paper. Almost everyone today can recall their own experiences of the events, and Feldmann’s installation brings that awareness to a global level. Some critics have questioned the success of 9/12 Frontpage due to its lack of included commentary. “Do the fluttering sheets of newspaper illuminate the dark events of September 11th or do they banalize and ultimately diminish their projected impact? (29, Enwezor). Regardless of the exclusion of text the choice of material creates a statement about the attacks.
Not only have these past three pieces captured the importance of materiality in 9/11 art but they also show the international influence the events had. 9/11 cannot be remembered as only an American attack, but an event that reshaped society on a global scale. The fact that international artists, such as Feldmann and Xu Bing, are commenting on the magnitude and poignancy of the attacks shows the importance of the event. Even the materials have become international, with pieces of the buildings being shipped as far as London and beyond. These works are important because of their materiality, but they also step into the debate between abstract and figurative. Materials that are charged with significance often lend themselves to being left in a abstracted state. The sculpture by Ando and installation by Bing are strong examples of this. The sculpture by Ando does not give a literal representation of the victims, but instead tries to capture the intensity of the events through the raw form of the materials. But just as Fischl and Paz were criticized for showing too much of the drama, Ando is criticized for showing too little. It would seem that few artists have found a balance between representing the drama without becoming insensitive or grotesque.
The most poignant example of this tension between figurative and abstract is the memorial built at Ground Zero in memory of all the lives lost during the attacks, in New York and elsewhere. In 2002 the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC), “a corporation formed by the Governor and Mayor to oversee the rebuilding and revitalization of Lower Manhattan” (RenewNYC.com), began a competition for the creation of the memorial for the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001 and in 1993. The competition was open to almost anyone, including international applicants. Over 10,000 people registered and 5,201 proposals were received by the deadline in June of 2003 (wtcsitememorial.org). The guidelines for the memorial were meticulously constructed in a booklet of 34 pages which was publicly reviewed and revised several times. The booklet included the history of the site and the attacks, the mission statement, the plans for the location of the memorial, and the jury that would oversee the applications. The level of detail put into the competition was remarkable, making sure that no one would be left out of the memorial and that the memory of the attacks would be appropriately commemorated for the public. The mission statement for the competition sums up the guidelines:
Remember and honor the thousands of innocent men, women, and children murdered by terrorists in the horrific attacks of February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001.
Respect this place made sacred through tragic loss.
Recognize the endurance of those who survived, the courage of those who risked their lives to save others, and the compassion of all who supported us in our darkest hours.
May the lives remembered, the deeds recognized, and the spirit reawakened be eternal beacons, which reaffirm respect for life, strengthen our resolve to preserve freedom, and inspire an end to hatred, ignorance and intolerance. (wtcsitememorial.org)
Two stages of the competition included a first stage were all applications were reviewed, and then a second stage were eight finalists made further revisions before resubmitting their plans. The jury of 14 included artists like Maya Lin, who developed the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial in Washington DC, and a family member to victims lost in the attacks.
Michael Arad won the competition with his design officially entitled Reflecting Absence.
This memorial proposes a space that resonates with the feelings of loss and absence that were generated by the destruction of the World Trade Center and the taking of thousands of lives on September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993. (¶1, Arad)
The proposed plan, originally inspired by the Hudson River, includes two recessed pools of water in the exact footprint of the original towers. The water flows down the sides of the pools in continuous cascading waterfalls measuring 30 feet high, and in the middle the water vanishes into a hole, reflecting the absence left by all those who were lost. The remainder of the space designated for the memorial is left as a park, for quiet contemplation. Trees and planters help create an atmosphere away from the busy environment of the city, allowing visitors to have privacy during their mourning. “The landscape architecture of Memorial Plaza was designed by Peter Walker and Partners of Berkeley, CA. and is one of the most sustainable, green plazas ever constructed. Its irrigation, storm water and pest management systems will conserve energy, water and other resources” (¶ 9, Sweet). The construction of the memorial began in 2004 and the site was unveiled at the ten year anniversary in 2011. The original plans for the memorial also included thoughts on the museum to be completed underneath the site, which is still under construction.
Despite the efforts of Arad and the LMDC to create a space that would respectfully commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 for everyone, Reflecting Absence was still plagued by controversy. The controversy sparked by Arad’s design was so substantial that some thought the memorial should be completely reworked.
Criticism arose immediately after the public unveiling of Reflecting Absence. The day following the presentation, a local, albeit unscientific, poll showed that thirty-nine percent of New York City residents supported the statement “I don’t like it at all-they should start over. (¶ 15, Kaddy)
The placement of the victims names was the first aspect of the memorial to draw negative media attention and spark controversy among the public. In his original statement Arad wanted the names to be placed randomly.
After carefully considering different arrangements, I have found that any arrangement that tries to impose meaning through physical adjacency will cause grief and anguish to people who might be excluded from that process, furthering the sense of loss that they are already suffering. The haphazard brutality of the attacks is reflected in the arrangement of names, and no attempt is made to impose order upon this suffering. (¶ 4, Arad)
However those mourning the deceased were unsatisfied with this proposal. Individuals critiqued the “haphazard” arrangement for being too insensitive. Others feared that placing the names in any order other than alphabetical would create a hierarchy among the names. Despite apprehension around the placement, in the end the names were grouped into categories. The nine final categories designated victims from the two towers and the pentagon, the four planes that crashed, the first responders, and the earlier attack in 1993. The categories are further organized into unmarked groupings. For example individuals of the same corporation or in the same first responder agency will be grouped together, as well as spouses or family members being listed side by side. The public seemed satisfied with this arrangement and maps are available to assist friends and family in finding their loved ones on the memorial website, 911memorial.org. The names surround the two pools on dark bronze slabs. “The multitude of names that form this endless ribbon underscore the vast scope of the destruction” (¶ 3, Arad). Individuals are allowed to leave tributes beside names, either on the slabs or underneath.
The large pools also in-sighted criticism. Although constrained by the guidelines of the competition some have called the pools too large, each spanning at least an acre.
At the World Trade Center Memorial, water isn’t a grace note; it’s a blunt instrument. The water cascading 30 feet creates a thunderous roar reminiscent of Niagara Falls. The noise is so distracting that your impulse is to retreat to the relative quiet of the trees rather than linger and try to ponder the names on the parapets. (The Wall Street Journal, Gibson)
In the guidelines artists were instructed to somehow include the footprint of the towers in their designs. It seems intuitive to have voids of water where the towers once stood, but the scale of the waterfalls may have become a potential distraction as Gibson describes. The waterfalls, despite their size, have been called a metaphor for tears, the falling victims, and the collapse of the towers. Others have associated the water with cleansing and healing. One individual commented online; “I see this memorial as ultra-depressing. As if the image of constant[ly] falling down isn’t bad enough, the buildings and bodies the water represents are sent down into a never ending abyss. Kind of like flushing a toilet” (KPCC, Williams). The use of water has also been called cliche since other memorials have used it, like the World War II memorial in DC and the Princess Diana memorial in London.
The cost of the memorial also generated negative responses from the public. The competition guidelines stated that the budget would be determined by the designs, so in essence the artists had no budgets to worry about. The LMDC explained in the guidelines that budgets would be set in later stages of the competition. When the LMDC announced that the plan for the memorial would cost almost a billion dollars the media was quick to attack the plans. “In reaction, Governor Pataki of New York and Mayor Bloomberg of New York City initiated a cap of $500 million dollars to complete the project” (¶ 18, Kaddy). Even after severe changes were made to the original plans to cut costs the final cost for the memorial was over budget at approximately $700 million (KPCC, Goldberg).
However above and beyond all of these other controversies, the most debated aspect of the memorial is the abstract nature of it, a debate that has surrounded memorials in general for quite some time. Eric Gibson from the Wall Street Journal explains the disappointment many felt when the memorial was revealed:
One returns to the site hungry for something that would sum up the events of that day and their aftermath and put everything into perspective. To be sure, the memorial partakes of many of the tropes of contemporary commemorative art: geometric forms, water and the names of the deceased. But the result is oddly diffuse, more like a park containing reminders of what had been there previously than a focal point for remembrance and reflection. (Wall Street Journal, Gibson)
The abstractness of the site, for many, fails to capture the memory of 9/11. The space being closed to the public for ten years allowed the sights and sounds of the attacks to fade in the collective memory. There is a worry that future generations will only be left with the absence instilled by the memorial, with none of the drama of the event incorporated in the design. It is considered to be too sterile with the cascading water, pristine sitting areas, and smooth bronze names. After ten years visitors crave something visual that fully captures the scale of devastation and tragedy the world felt on that day. Without figurative representation the totality of the event might not be remembered. “To remember what ‘really happened’ on September 11 one must be more figurative; we need monuments that ‘capture the drama, the images that haunt us and objects that carry the scars of their survival” (86, Bleiker). Just as the use of figurative representation was too raw one year after the attack, such as in the pieces created by Fischl and Paz, now a decade later people are calling for exactly this kind of art. Artists are struggling to keep up with the demands of the public. Art that was too figurative has been replaced by art that now is too abstract. It seems artists cannot satisfy everyone.
Others worry that the issue of capturing the totality of the event is an issue of scale and not of representation. The pools only use a small part of the land set aside for the park, and the way the site has been laid out fails to allow viewers to gain a sense of the whole.
Sadly, there is no easy way for visitors to see the entire memorial laid out before them, preferably on first approach, as say from some elevated observation platform. This is the biggest lapse in judgment considering that the memorial’s greatest power is derived from seeing the overall lay of the land with its imposing footprints of the towers (The Huffington Post, Denson).
Individuals, such as G Roger Denson from the Huffington post, insist that the memorial lacks monumentality. In some respects the monumentality of Arad’s memorial is evoked simply by the location. Reflecting Absence is especially unique in that it is in the place the events occurred. Most American memorials can be found in Washington DC, which has more than a dozen memorials commemorating wars, veterans, presidents, and more. The memorials of Washington, DC are far from the battlefields of Europe and Asia. Reflecting Absence by contrast was built on Ground Zero, a space that has been forever charged and sanctified by the attacks of 9/11. The simple fact that visitors can stand on the soil where the event happens lends depth to the space and helps give the memorial poignancy. The space for the 9/11 Memorial, although officially dedicated at the tenth anniversary, is not fully open to the public. The memorial with museum and adjacent parks will be complete in 2014. Until then visitors must reserve a free visitor pass and can only visit during designated times. Security must screen all visitors. This in itself is a testimony to the significance of the memorial and the fear created by the terrorist attacks in 2001.
The controversy caused by art responding to 9/11 is most always born from peoples own interpretations of the events. People who experienced the horror of the attacks in New York have a very different point of view from someone who only witnessed the events through news broadcasts. Public art placed in New York was responded to very differently from works found in galleries or presented oceans away. Art responding to 9/11 simply cannot appeal to everyone because every person has a different memory of the events. The collection of quotes and photographs in Eleven: Witnessing the World Trade Center 1974-2001 is a quietly beautiful tribute to the world trade center. A quote from the photographers illuminates some of the weight felt by everyone who witnessed the events.
It’s all gone. A handful of photographers move from window to window, scanning the wreckage. No one speaks. The site is holy. Muffled footfalls crunch over broken glass in the dust, a church on the edge of the abyss, a church of apocalyptic vision, a church of incomprehensible darkness, on the edge of an instantaneous, monumental grave. No bodies, no injured. The devastation complete. (51, Pledge)
When considering the hard facts it seems like the attacks of 9/11 shouldn’t have left the world so speechless. The towers, which had become an iconic part of the New York skyline, had only been there 28 years. Less than 3000 people were killed, a number that pales in comparison to the numbers lost in wars, or even in car crashes every day. Terrorist attacks around the world have been more devastating and more destructive then the attacks on 9/11, but nonetheless the world stopped when the World Trade Center fell. Many have said that the world was forever changed when the towers fell. New York’s senator at the time, Rudolph Giuliani, said he “had a hard time understanding the attacks” (12, Giuliani). This sentiment was felt by so many, and especially children. As the world continues to move forward from the attacks individuals will continue to make art in attempt to understand the events of 9/11. Never before had the foundation of American invincibility been so thoroughly shook.
The exhibition conceived by the New York University Child Study center and the Museum of the City of New York, The Day our World Changed: Children’s art of 9/11, was met with resounding success. The subjective accounts of hundreds of children, as seen through their art, traveled to over twenty cities in the United States. The contributors to the project claimed that children will be the ones most deeply affected by 9/11 because if adults had trouble processing the events children would have an even more difficult time. The images in the collection span through all the emotions evoked by the attacks: terror, fear, confusion, hope, sadness, and more.
On September 11, children saw human beings at their very worst. The cruel, senseless violence of the nineteen terrorists and the cowardly acts of those who backed them will forever remind us that the world can be a frightening place. Children also saw human beings at their very best that day. They saw New York City police, fire, and emergencypersonnel heroically rush to the scene to lead one of the biggest rescues in history. (12, Giuliani)
The children included in the the Children’s art of 9/11 exhibition are the future artists who will continue to commemorate, process, and artistically define the events and emotions of September 11, 2001. The use of charged materials will continue to lend meaning to future works. The places affected by the events of 9/11, such as Ground Zero, will forever be changed, remaining the catalyst for future arguments. Wherever artists choose to show their works on 9/11 controversy will surely follow. Until every individual who experienced the fall of the World Trade Center towers perishes into the dust, like that following the attack, viewers will have opinions backed by their own powerful experiences. The debate between abstract and figurative representation is by no means isolated to the artworks responding to 9/11, making the art of the attacks simply one other place for the dispute to continue.
Artists will simply have to contend with these controversies because the creation of art regarding 9/11 is important.
These pieces underscore the complexity of issues and solutions, concepts not easily reduced to black and white, not definite or absolute. The range of affect evoked is quite remarkable– sadness, pride, anger, and hope among them– and art that allows these powerful feelings to be externalized. Some art is arresting in its outward calm, like a deafening silence. Other art quickly recalls the chaos and shock of the day (15, Goodman).
Even as the public critiques and complains, many more are profoundly moved and set on the path of healing after viewing these works. The collection of pieces in this essay are only a small portion of the art created to confront the events of 9/11. Artistic endeavors beyond the realm of the visual arts have also flooded the public including photography, literature, and music. All these means for coming to terms with the attacks of 9/11 are significant and artists need to continue to create pieces that address these momentous events, if not for the world, then for themselves. Controversy should simply encourage artists to keep trying, and should not become an obstacle for inspiration, creativity, or healing.
Written for ARTH 4919: Art and War
“After Complaints, Rockefeller Center Drapes Sept. 11 Statue.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 19 Sept. 2002. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/nyregion/after-complaints-rockefeller-center-drapes-sept-11-statue.html?ref=ericfischl>.
Arad, Michael. “World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition: Reflecting Absence: Statement.” World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition: Reflecting Absence: Statement. LMDC. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://www.wtcsitememorial.org/fin7.html>.
Bleiker, Roland. “Art After 9/11.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 31 (2006): 77-99. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
Bing, Xu. “Where Does the Dust Itself Collect? 何处若尘埃？ 2004.” Xubingdotcom. XuBing Studio, 2009. Web. 01 May 2012. <http://www.xubing.com/index.php/site/projects/year/2004/where_does_the_dust_itself_collect>.
Bertrand, Donald. “New Furor Sparked by Falling-Bodies Art.” Daily News [New York] 21 Sept. 2002, News sec.: 7. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
Bertrand, Donald. “WTC Display Yanked After Uproar.” Daily News [New York] 25 Sept. 2002, News sec.: 5. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
Cotter, Holland. “Well, It Looks Like Truth.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 18 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/arts/design/18arch.html?pagewanted=all>.
Davis, Ben. “7 Controversies That Shaped the Debate About 9/11 Art.” Artinfo. 10 Sept. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. <http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/38569/7-controversies-that-shaped-the-debate-about-911-art/>.
Denson, G. Roger. “Michael Arad’s 9/11 Memorial ‘Reflecting Absence’: More Than a Metaphor Or A Monument.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 11 Sept. 2011. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/g-roger-denson/michael-arads-911-memoria_b_955454.html>.
Duvall, John N., and Robert P. Marzec. “Narrating 9/11.” Modern Fiction Studies 47.3 (2011): 381-97. Project MUSE. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
Enwezor, Okwui. “Archive Fever: Photography Between History and Monument.” ARTH4919 Blog: Art and War. WordPress.com, 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://arth4919spring2012.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/enwezor-archive-fever.pdf>.
Fischl, Eric. “A Memorial Thats True to 9/11.” Editorial. The New York Times [New York] 19 Dec. 2003, late ed., Editorial sec.: 39. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
Gibson, Eric. “A Memorial We Want to Love.” The Wall Street Journal [New York] 15 Sept. 2011. Wall Street Journal: Arts and Entertainment. Dow Jones & Company, Inc, 15 Sept. 2011. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904353504576569192422618376.html>.
Goldberger, Paul. “Reflecting Absence – the Battle to Build New York’s 9/11 Memorial.” Rev. of 9/11 Memorial. 89.3 KPCC 9 Sept. 2011. Southern California Public Radio. 2011. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/09/09/20613/reflecting-absence-the-battle-to-build-new-yorks-9>.
Goodman, Robin F., and Andrea Henderson. “Children’s Art Captures and Captivates.” Foreword. The Day Our World Changed: Children’s Art of 9/11. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002. 14-17. Print.
Giuliani, Rudolph W., and Andrea Henderson. “Introduction.” The Day Our World Changed: Children’s Art of 9/11. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 2002. 12. Print.
Gye, Hugo. “Mangled Girders from Twin Towers Unveiled as 9/11 London Memorial (but Sculpture Is Still Seeking a Permanent Home).” Mail Online. The Daily Mail, 6 Sept. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2034284/9-11-memorial-sculpture-World-Trade-Center-girders-unveiled-London.html>.
“Http://mas.org/programs/tributeinlight/.” Tribute In Light. Municipal Art Society of New York. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <Municipal Art Society of New York>.
Kaddy, Jesse. “The 9-11/World Trade Center Memorial.” Journal of Art History 2 (2007). Http://journal.utarts.com/. University of Tampa, 2012. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://journal.utarts.com/articles.php?id=5&type=paper&h=auto>.
KIRPALANI, RESHMA. “American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 27 July 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/US/atheists-sue-cross-world-trade-center-museum/story?id=14169830>.
“Lower Manhattan Development Corporation.” Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. 2007. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://renewnyc.com/>.
“The National Museum of the Marine Corps: Temporary Exhibits.” National Museum of the Marine Corps. 2006. Web. 01 May 2012. <http://www.usmcmuseum.com/Exhibits_Temporary.asp>.
“National September 11 Memorial & Museum | World Trade Center Memorial.”National September 11 Memorial & Museum | World Trade Center Memorial. National September 11 Memorial & Museum, 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://www.911memorial.org/>.
Pataki, George E., and Michael R. Bloomberg. World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition G U I D E L I N E S. New York: Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, 2002. PDF.
Pledge, Robert. Eleven: Witnessing the World Trade Center, 1974-2001. New York: Universe, 2002. Print.
Puente, Maria. “What Have Artists Wrought from 9/11?” USA Today 3 Sept. 2004.LexisNexis Academic. Web. 17 Apr. 2012.
Roberts, Fiona. “‘A Sacred Mission’: Extraordinary Pictures of 9/11 Relics Revealed as They Are Shipped across World for Tenth Anniversary Memorials.” Mail Online. The Daily Mail, 18 June 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004961/9-11-relics-shipped-world-10th-anniversary-memorials.html>.
Sweet, Laura. “UPDATED: A Look At the 9/11 Memorial, Museum and Monument Designs at Ground Zero.” Rev. of Reflecting Absence 9/11 Memorial. Web log post. If It’s Hip, It’s Here. Blogspot.com, 11 Sept. 2011. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://ifitshipitshere.blogspot.com/2011/09/images-and-information-about-911.html>.
“Tribute in Light to New York Victims.” BBC News. BBC, 03 June 2002. Web. 27 Apr. 2012. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1857699.stm>.Picture Credits In Orderhttp://www.luxtica.com http://www.nydailynews.comcnn.comxubing.comflickr.comonline.wsj.com ifitshipitshere.blogspot.com search.it.online.frnyclovesnyc.blogspot.com http://www.aboutourkids.org/content/children039s_artwork_september_11_day_our_world_changed