Is it too much?

[Arthur Dent]

Statue



My first impression when I saw this was, Damn that's really intense. It's a statue based on the image of a woman falling from the WTC.

Seems a few people complained and almost instantly the property managers chose to curtain it off and have it removed rather than risk offending people.

So, what we have is a very intense, raw, and possibly disturbing image of 9/11. And yes, I think this could be quite painful to view for people who lost loved ones. Loved ones who may have jumped themselves.

But, I also think it's art. Art isn't all about feeling nice. It's also about evoking the full range of emotions. Perhaps a public venue where people will view it wether they want to or not isn't the most appropriate, but it is a piece that deserves a viewing in a gallery dedicated to 9/11 inspired art.

What do you think?

[Hybrid]

it's art, but why someone would want to even make that is beyond me

[Goatweed]

It depicts a harsh reality that should never be forgotten. However, to put it on display in Rockefeller Center, so soon after the anniversary of the attacks, seems somewhat cold and tasteless to me. Did he have the right to display it there? Absolutely. But in doing so, he shouldn't be surprised by the reaction(s) that people have had to it.

If anything, a private display might have been more appropriate - so if people wanted to see it, they could do so - and not be forced to see it as they passed it on their way to work.

[YellowDiscipline]

It's pretty disturbing and I can definately see why people would be offended by that, but it is art and should not be removed regaurdless of popular opinion.



Edited By YellowDiscipline on Sep. 19 2002 at 4:45

[Joey BigArms]

I guess I did not waste two posts here.

[Keyser Soze]

Don't you have a sinking ship to attend to?

[Gooch]

i have no problem with the art. ART: expression. Who are we to be outraged by someone's perception and expression??? Someone turned upsidedown...like our sensibilites. I find it outrageous that people have problems with it. It's everyone else's overactive imaginations and PC'ified antics that make it an issue. Problem isn't the art or the artist...but the audience. ART makes people think...you don't have to like it. And above all, what you think doesn't mean that's what it was, or how it was intended.

[Gooch]

by the way...i found that horrendous country song about 9/11 far more offensive.

[Arpikarhu]

some attention hungry artist who thinks that being shocking is the same as being talented

[GonzoStyle]

I guess I did not waste two posts here.

waste, so redundant.

[PatCooper]

If you were a tourist just walking by and you saw that i dont think you would even know what the fuck it represented. It says nothing about 9/11 on the statue or around it. If the artist didn't say he was inspired by 9/11 there would be now problem with it. And yes it's art it's someone's creation. Leave it the fuck alone.

[Kid Afrika]

It would be too much if it was a statue of the body AFTER it hit the ground. But even then, it would've been kind of cool, in that faces of death kind of way.