eric fischl's 9/11 statue censored

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 21 Sep 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

emily2otters	21 Sep 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/19/national/main522528.shtml so far i've heard three main responses to this story: 1) this is awful and should never have been made 2) this will probably be okay someday, but it's way too soon for any 9/11 art to be released 3) this is beautiful and should never have been censored the majority of people i've talked to are in the second camp. i'm in the third... how about you?

Liliana	21 Sep 2002
Im in between the 2nd and 3rd camp. Artisitc censorship is a HUGE pet peeve of mine (as anyone who has heard me rant about the covering of parts on the international rohrig knows) so I really believe this statue shouldnt of been censored. But truthfully the artist might of wanted to wait a bit longer to make it, like Ive also said the twin towers would be a great tower card in 10 years after the edge has worn off. But I actually do find it lovely, if disturbing, form the not too great picture they show. And Major Tom is already using the Twin Towers as the Tower for his deck, which is his right and Id never censor it, in fact its a great, amazing lovely card ;) Another artist also is using it as the Tower in hers. :THP

truthsayer	21 Sep 2002
i think the statue and the poem are beautiful. the emotions the statue captures are very raw and could be very disturbing to some ppl. however, i think it's wrong to censure art. i think the artist was respectful in an empathic way. however, some would argue that there be something more "dignified" that portrayed the ppl. but the statue is so true to reality that unless you see what the artist intended and appreciate the ability to express raw emotion, then you would want it censured. i don't have a problem w/ it put away for a few years if that helps others heal. however, sometimes, the best way to deal w/ pain is thru it instead of around it--avoiding it. avoiding what you know to be true doesn't make reality less true. it only prolongs the time you take to heal. when i saw the statue and read the poem i felt a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes. but it makes me feel human to know i can remember that day so vividly. as an artist myself, i know it had to take a lot out of the artist emotionally to create a piece like that. you can't create a tangible work of raw emotional beauty w/o feeling it yourself. i believe in time ppl will be able to handle it. afterall, 50 years ago we could never have imagined creating a holocaust museum yet we now have it to show the world the horrors humans are able to perpetrate against other humans. no one needs to forget these things b/c to honor the dead we must remember and find something from our own lives to try to prevent atrocities like that from happening anywhere in the world. you can't just sweep it under the rug. that pink elepant is still going to be in the living room no matter how you try to cover it up.

tigerlily	21 Sep 2002
Did I understand this article correctly - the statue was covered because it was naked? Now that's a reason that this European can't understand ...

zorya	21 Sep 2002
i saw an exhibit of eric fischl's paintings, back in the early to mid 80's. at the time i felt he was attempting to 'shock' the viewer. i was offended by the titles of his works. something on the line of 'dogs on yacht', which were paintings of a dog and a woman, spread eagle, on a yacht. anyway.... the whole exhibit was made of such works. so i was not surprised to read that one of his peices was causing an uproar. having said this...i am opposed to censorship. i have no problem with nudity in art. i do feel that commisioning fischle to do this particular work was a mistake and exhibiting a work of this nature at this time was in poor taste. the wounds are too raw. perhaps one or two generations from now, it will be appropriate.

emily2otters	21 Sep 2002
another news report i read said that rockefeller center did not commission the piece.

emily2otters	21 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by tigerlily Did I understand this article correctly - the statue was covered because it was naked ? Now that's a reason that this European can't understand ... :) no, i don't think so. the paragraph that said she was naked was just describing what the statue looked like. people object to it because it's too graphic a representation of how some people died that day.

Kismet	21 Sep 2002
I personally am not thrilled with the piece as I watched live on TV as people jumped or were blown out from the force of explosions ensuing from jet fuel and it horrified me. I don't agree with censorship, I suppose I'm in group 2, although I worry too that when we show things of this nature we desensitise to the event being portrayed, thus a colder society. Love and Light, Kismet

RedWood	21 Sep 2002
I watched on tv also...For the people who was there and lost family I can understand it..but on the other hand..I do like it..I think it is a good portrayal and those people are rememberd..not just the fireman and policeman and the people inside the building and on planes..I would not have censored it..and I dont think it is too soon..I didnt lose anyone tho..so I guess for those who like it atleast know that someone did this..and for those who dont..well it got covered..

VGimlet	22 Sep 2002
I am also in between 2 and 3. I personally have problems with most types of censorship. Although I found his work disturbing, and it made me sad, there are lots of things, including works of art, I feel that way about. Personally, it is too soon for me to want to experience such a sculpture, but I don't think it should have been censored. I hope that he finds a place to exhibit it, for those who want to see.

the hermit	22 Sep 2002
I'm in camp 1 and 2 partly and 3 partly. I personally find the concept of the subject and the statue offensive, as I do all of the artist's work I've seen. And I agree with zorya and feel the artist's aims are to shock, not pay tribute... again as he has done and even admitted to in the past in various interviews. But... The wonderful thing about America is that he has a right to his artistic expression. And though his art offends me, I will fight for his right to continue. The mistake, imho, was made by whoever commissioned THIS artist to do a "memorial" piece given his reputation AND whoever decided that Rockefeller Center was a great place to display it. Just put it where those who might be upset or offended aren't forced to look at it because they happen to work or pass through somewhere like the Center regularly. Put it in a gallery, let people know where it is and they who wish to see it can and will see it. Don't force a person to be shocked, upset or offended. I HATE CENSORSHIP! of any kind! Thus all of 1, and part of 2 and part of 3.

Umbrae	22 Sep 2002
I am of the first camp. Some things are called 'art' which are not. I suppose you could call anything art. Sometimes censorship is fine and dandy.

RedWood	22 Sep 2002
I will have to go with Hermit on putting it in a gallery..That would be a better place..so people have a choice..If it is considered to soon for that piece of art..Does the fact that the media showed 9/11 over and over and over throughout the year..On the other hand you did have a choice to watch or not...So I would definately so gallery..

faunabay	22 Sep 2002
I was initially shocked by the statue and my first reaction was "oh it's too soon" but then almost immediately following that was that I liked it. Yes it's very, very shocking and maybe that was the artist's intention and maybe not. But I'm like most of you - censorship in any form is bad IMO! I was trying to figure out how I felt about it being in Rockefeller Center when I read the Hermits suggestion, and I totally agree!! I think it would be WONDERFUL to have this in a gallery somewhere people can look at it if they want, but Rockefeller Center is too much of an "in your face" place to put it. I'm not sure I'd agree with putting it there even after a longer amount of time. I like the statue just not in Rockefeller Center!!!!

Umbrae	22 Sep 2002
So I suppose that you ‘people’, so high and mighty and Oh-so-correct who hate censorship of any kind…support the child porn industry. Pornography is art, by your naive and ignorant standards. Think about your children being degraded…in the name of art. …And you think you are enlightened. You are not. Just one artist’s opinion.

RedWood	22 Sep 2002
Good point..i didnt say censorship is bad..no definately not..I was being specific about that statue...

ChrisTheObscure	22 Sep 2002
Mark me down as one more vote for putting it in a gallery. 9/11 affected me immensely, and I wasn't even there. I can't imagine what a gaping wound it still is for the people of NYC. I think it was insensitive and ill thought out to put it in a public place like that where everyone would see it. C.

Sam	22 Sep 2002
this a beautiful sculpture! it deserves an exebition!

truthsayer	22 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae So I suppose that you ‘people’, so high and mighty and Oh-so-correct who hate censorship of any kind…support the child porn industry. Pornography is art, by your naive and ignorant standards. Think about your children being degraded…in the name of art. …And you think you are enlightened. You are not. Just one artist’s opinion. umbrae, i feel that what is said in this is post out of line. it's a jab at aeclectic members who are brave enough to state an opinion. it's an unneccessary jab at art. what does child porn and 9-11 art have to do w/ the price of tea in china? yeah, 9-11 art can be quite distasteful but so are things at the holocaust museum. but we have a legal right to be exposed to them. they remind us of the universal horror of what human beings can do to each other. it encourages us to do better as a species. there is nothing socially redeeming about child pornography. it's definitely not art. only select ppl like it and it's considered illegal. it's harmful and degrading to us as human beings. we don't need to view it to realize the harm and dehumanization it does children and the world. there's a big difference b/t a statue that's distateful to some and porno. are you saying that ppl that like that statue are as mentally sick as ppl into child porno? i am fully aware and against the child porn industry and i consider myself an artist. our first amendment freedoms are important. books like harry potter are burned at book burnings. catcher in the rye once was burned in book burnings. a free society must be able to speak w/o fear of reprisal in the appropriate situations. expression pain at 9/11 deserves the upmost respect but is one thing. child porn is a totally different argument. photographers aren't supposed to take pictures of unknown children any more b/c of the fear of pedophiles and child kidnapping. as an amateur photographer, i don't have a problem w/ that rule of thumb. i don't take pix of children w/o permission. a personal expression of pain even if controversial isn't the same. put away or put it in a gallery but censorship goes against the freedom of speech. porn is degrading to any being and the viewer. i know sites at yahoo that fight against the sites at yahoo that promote it. i've tried to help close down child porn sites on the web. what that artist did wasn't illegal. it was thougth provoking and even emotional but it's not dehumanizing or illegal. it can be displayed legally in some kind of gallery and ppl who can handle it view it. while i know the same argument can be said of porn i think there is a subtle difference. over time art remains universal in creating feelings in us of wonder and beauty or other universal feelings like shock, sadness or anger. porno is manipulative towards it's victoms and degrading universally. i'm not trying to debate semantics here. i've seen "art" in museums that i questioned was art. our society has been walking a thin line b/t with porn for years. sexuality is everywhere--clothing, media, art, advertizment. but that's sexuality not an expression of emotional pain that was totally devastating to all of us. when i found the holocaust museum emotionally devastating but it needs to be expressed. it's about human suffering not a question of appropriate or inappropriate sexuality as is the case w/ porn.

Umbrae	22 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by truthsayer umbrae, i feel that what is said in this is post out of line. it's a jab at aeclectic members who are brave enough to state an opinion. it's an unneccessary jab at art …i am fully aware and against the child porn industry and i consider myself an artist. our first amendment freedoms are important. books like harry potter are burned at book burnings. catcher in the rye once was burned in book burnings. a free society must be able to speak w/o fear of reprisal in the appropriate situations. So some folks have the right to speak their opinions without reprisals, but others are not. I suppose that some people are enlightened enough to know what art is, and others are not… I was… Quote: brave enough to state an opinion and yet you cry unfair. Some folks think that porn is art. That is what the two have to do with each other. Art and Censorship. I only ask…when you say you are against censorship in any form – you had best realize your own values are at stake. Had you watched the subject fall to her death, perhaps you would know that her death was not art.

the hermit	22 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae So I suppose that you ‘people’, so high and mighty and Oh-so-correct who hate censorship of any kind…support the child porn industry. Pornography is art, by your naive and ignorant standards. Think about your children being degraded…in the name of art. …And you think you are enlightened. You are not. Just one artist’s opinion. I'm sorry Umbrae... But I'm going to have to call you on this one! You’ve just made an incredible and extremely OFFENSIVE leap of NON-LOGIC! I thought better of you than that. Child porn is illegal and the exploitation of a child in any way is immoral, and rightfully against our laws in America. Those guilty of such crimes need to be and are criminals that should be pursued with the utmost vigor possible. I don’t believe that anyone on this thread supports such outrageous degradation of any child in the name of anything... least of all art. But to make the connection that you made was rude. I am not “high and mighty and Oh-so-correct” nor are my standards “naïve and ignorant” nor do I believe that concerning this subject others here are either. The fact that I stated “I HATE CENSORSHIP! of any kind!”, or others who echoed my sentiments, has nothing to do with the support of child porn. I respect your right to be offended by the so called “artwork” this thread is the subject of. As I stated, it offended me, as did other work by this “artist”. But in the interest of good discussion and debate I ask you to refrain from such insulting and inflammatory remarks in the future.

the hermit	22 Sep 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Umbrae Had you watched the subject fall to her death, perhaps you would know that her death was not art. You're upset about one thing and are dragging it into a totally different conversation Umbrae. Please sit back, take a deep breath and be logical. Don't offend when it isn't called for.

cricket	22 Sep 2002
I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but it's about time I stepped in. (Call that statement egotistical if you like. It's my right to be that way.) First of all, I liked the artwork, except for the fact that the subject was nude. Having watched the videos, and knowing some of the witnesses and spoken to them, we - as a group - have decided that none of the leaping people were nude. It might have been a statement. It might have been the artist saying "Hello, I'm an ass, pay attention to me." It could have been something else. I don't know. Secondly, I agree with the hermit that the timing was right but the placement was wrong. Something like this will hurt people for the rest of their lives. That's simply the way it is. However, some of us are ready to face it. Some sort of tribute like this is a good idea for those of us who are ready. It just should not have been pushed on those who aren't. Third, believe it or not, is the fact that the statue in question could be considered pornographic here in the states simply because the subject is depicted as nude. Especially here close to the bible belt. (Trust me on this - I've been accused of collecting child pornography simply because I have pictures of my own children in the bathtub.) I do not agree that it is porn, not by any means. It is a piece of art. It could be a little more tasteful, but it still is not porn. Fourth, Umbrae, you're right. Death is not art. Death is painful. It's also very necessary. It might be the subject of many, many wonderful pieces of artwork, but it is not art. The subject's death was not glamorous. It was a horrible way to die. That doesn't mean it's not a good subject for an art piece. You may not agree that it makes a good subject. Many others do. I would ask, like the hermit did, that you calm yourself and try to think a little more rationally before responding to this thread again.

Frequency	22 Sep 2002
I feel alot of mass hysteria surrounding 9/11. I hope that in time September 11th will just be another day, but I doubt that will happen. There's way too many people who have no connection to the tragedy that get emotional over little things like this. Society's vulnerability to such a large lifestyle change disturbs me. Barely a year ago, people would have been in an insane uproar if anyone was to censor artwork, and now it's ok? I've always done my own thing in my own time. I'm not affected by these social changes, for whatever reason. Freedom used to be a virtue, and now it is an enemy. It boggles my mind.

Umbrae	22 Sep 2002
…Never said that nudity was an issue. Therefore, I shall step back. One of the planes was filled with children on a field trip. So how about a bronze representation of one of the children, her face screwed up in horror at the moment of knowing her death…would that be art? Autopsy and morgue photographs…are they art? Your mother or father splayed out so all can see their liver…is that art? The film series, “Faces of Death”…is it art? Should such pieces of art be displayed where others have no choice to observe or not? …and those of you who claim to object to censorship – but believe my voice should be stilled…shame… The tie in between 9-11 and pornography, is man’s inhumanity to man – displayed not as a memorial – but as art. Very very different things…

Phoenix	22 Sep 2002
Please, let's try and keep this post on topic. It is not fair to the original poster, or to the people who read this thread to see two well respected members of this community having a war of words. It isn't fair to the moderators either. I have discussed this with tarotlady, and we decided that we will not delete any post in this thread. However, we will refer you to the Posting Guidelines and ask all of you to be courteous and respectful towards one another. Debate is good, but not when it hurts the feelings of others. Thank you Phoenix Co-moderator of Chat

floracove	22 Sep 2002
It is so very sad.... *gives Umbrea a great big hug*

Laurel	22 Sep 2002
I personally do not like art that depicts graphic violence. There's a lot of "classical" art that makes me unconfortable because I dislike watching human suffering. I identify so deeply and sensually with art that depictions of raw emotions strikes me very deeply, be it painting or sculpture or photographs. I won't go to the Holocaust museum. I almost immediately looked away from that 9/11 statue. Beautiful? Yes. Apropriate for the Rockerfeller Center in 2002? No. Laurel

Dark Inquisitor	22 Sep 2002
I actually agree with Umbrae. Aside from that, I AM A SCULPTOR and just looking at the work objectively, I don't think it's very good. When I see it, it looks like something that belongs at a sporting event. It doesn't say anything to me about 9/11. (I capitalized the sculptor part in case your are reading quickly & intend later to accuse me of being ingnorant on the subject.) The above is just my opinion- you don't have to like it or agree with it. There is another side to it. You could be very cynical & say that if you wanted to get publicity for your work, you'd make it nude, and you'd tie it to 9/11 somehow. And you'd try to get it displayed somewhere as public as possible to be in people's faces. You are bound to offend somebody and get a controversey going. *This is not to say that is what happened, * but just bear in mind that it could happen, and probably does happen. Artists are not any different or better than anybody else. Just because they create something does not make it worthy. There is a famous artist that sells cans of his own feces. As an artist, I can create whatever I want. But I certainly don't have the right to make everybody look at it, or expect blanket approval for what Ive done. Tarotphelia

truthsayer	23 Sep 2002
over the course of today, i have rethought my perspective. i am working on a scrapbook for this club i'm in. the front portion is dedicated to how all our lives changed on 9/11. the more i thought, the more i remembered of the horror and i wasn't even there. so w/ this thread in mind, i'm making every effort to be respectful and do this in good taste that will promote healing--not encourage pain. another thought is this: i can't believe i didn't think of this before. umbrae, i think i understand your perspective once i considered several of my own issues. 1. i have post traumatic stress disorder. from your posts, umbrae, i sense that your reactions are more like a flashback to 9/11 and not who you ordinarily are. this thread has triggered you. i know what that feels like and i'm truly sorry not to remember earlier what happened to you so i could have been more sensitive to your feelings. 2. i understand the child porn comments when i remember how i feel about being a victim of child molestation and rape. to have been there while the attacks occurred would be very much like rape b/c it invades who you are down to a soul level. i don't know who i would have become if it hadnot happened but i know i've spent around 25 years of my life trying to figure out who i have become as a result of it. 3. nothing makes me angrier than someone who invalidates my experience and intense feelings about the sexual assault. nothing makes me angrier than someone to imply,"that happened a long time ago. just get over it. forget it. move on". unless something extremely traumatic has happened to you, there's no way to understand that i can't forget. i can't let go. the shock and horror are embedded in my neural pathways. i can be thinking nothing about the things that happened and get triggered. in our way, we have invalidated your experience and pain. i'm sorry that happened. you have every right to be angry about this. 4. i have participated in sexual abuse survivors art and literature programs as a form of healing. when i couldn't write or speak how hurt i felt anymore, the only thing left was to draw and paint out my pain. i've showed some of that work outside my home. one lady told me how beautiful my work must look hung in my home. i told her no, that i would never hang my "survivor" art. i didn't want to be reminded. it wasn't art to me. it wasnot beautiful. no one knows what it costs me emotionally to face my feelings thru my art and writing but it keeps me sane. 5. around 15 years ago, i was a crisis counselor at a rape crisis center. we had an art show to exhibit the work of female survivors of rape and child sexual molestation. it was quite difficult to look at that art b/c it sheared me to my soul. however, it made me aware that other women shared my pain--that i wasn't alone.***the key here is that only survivors were allowed to contribute art. i couldnot have tolerated anyone who had not experienced it to even attempt artistically what i felt inside. it would have felt insulting, degrading and vile for anyone but a survivor to pretend they could understand that kind of raw pure pain w/ absolutely no escape.*** 6. looking at all this from a refreshed perspective, i do think the sculpture is inappropriate. what's in the holocaust museum are things survivors of it have put together. since we weren't there, we can only empathize but we havenot earned any right to attempt the creation of art about the holocaust. the same w/ 9/11. if 9/11 survivors wanted to put together an exhibit then that would be more appropriate. i can only create as what i experienced in my community. i wasn't in NYC that day. how could i even hope to know? even the pictures in papers and magazines feel like a voyeur's(peeping tom's) evaluation of something intensely personal like changing your clothes and underwear. it's a private hell that's too intimate and too raw be shared. so where does this leave us? i think we all need more time to heal. i apologize for anything i said that triggered you, umbrae. when you have pain that deep, it's hard to control your feelings. i have been afraid of men most of my life. part of my healing has been to recognize that b/c a few men aren't nice that doesn't mean they all aren't. i either went ballistic or became terrified if a man did something to trigger me. this happened to me at work once when an auditor wanted me to sit beside him while he went over my work. i simply lost control of my emotions and exploded on him. i ran out of the room and locked myself in the bathroom to cry for a while. all that came in my mind in those moments was i had to get him away from me-that i had to survive. i would have fought anyone who had disagreed w/ me whether verbal or physical. what i did was a reaction totally unrelated to what was happening in real life. i was embarassed by what happened later. i was afraid i would be fired for insubordination. fortunately, my manager already knew i have PTSD and smoothed things over for me. so i ask we just let this matter drop. we are all still too emotionally raw about 9/11 to handle our feelings openly. i just want us all to be friends.

tabbycat	23 Sep 2002
I don't have a problem with the nudity - nude figures are a standard meme in sculpture. I'm not familiar with the artist, but I have to say that this piece didn't work for me at all. It was blocky, shapeless and uninspired, and I do feel that its creator was just aiming to be sensational. Art, especially modern art, depends on where you're standing. Like the classic quote about S-F, it's art if you point at it and say it's art. Have to confess that I like my art more naturalistic and pretty - as far as I'm concerned, a shark suspended in formalin is just a dead fish. I'm against ALL censorship. Adults should be free to watch/read/listen to anything they want to* - and saying that doesn't make me in favour of child porn, because that's a different issue. Child porn is illegal - and that's to protect children from harm and nothing to do with censorship. Jilly *even if I consider what they want to watch/read/listen to is offensive (Brittney, Jim Carrey films, Jeffery Archer books, etc) - and that's the hard part with being liberal!

Bella	23 Sep 2002
I'm with Umbrae... I think the statue is horrible. not beautiful, no redeeming qualities. The artist did this as a tribute to those who jumped?? really?? how would he feel if it was his wife, mother, sister? if he was there, like Umbrae? if he was watching from a window, like me? to me this is not a censorship issue, but an issue of why he would do something that would hurt so many who are already hurting, and why would they exhibit it where people who have to work there must see it? I'd go around the block just to avoid it. as for her being nude, well, if you fell 100 stories, at that velocity, by the time you hit the ground, your clothes would probably be in tatters...but i think that artist was just doing it for exploitation purposes.

catlin	23 Sep 2002
I think that the statue does not justice to the things that happened on 9/11. I think the fact to provoke or to shock is more in the artist's intend than to set a memorial for the victims of 9/11. I would have preferred a brass or copper plate with the names of the victims engraved or a poem and a dedication on such a plate so I could not range myself in 1, 2 or 3.

truthsayer	23 Sep 2002
again let me state, that the shock value of this work is very painful to those who were there and lived thru 9/11 at the site. it doesn't matter if it has artistic merit or not.that's beside the point. for someone who is experiencing 9/11 flashbacks this statue is cruel reminder and something they can't forget no matter how hard they try. to be respectful of the survivors and those who lost their lives, we need to give more time for healing. some things you just can't get over no matter how hard you try. what happened that day was like a rape of the american soul and many in the world who care about us. even if the statue has artistic merit, we don't need an artist to use our pain as a platform for his desire to shock the masses. if that was his intent, then it was a very cruel thing to do. it's the same difference as if some hollywood producer had bought the rights to a story about 9/11 and was planning to do one of those tacky disaster movies. i hope to god/dess no one ever does that in my life time. i couldn't even watch the 9/11 specials last week. let's please be friends and let this pass. there is the censorship issue but that's not the real issue. we have to look past the art vs. not art argument and look at the real human issues. we need to help each other cope w/ what happened that day instead of attacking each other over a stupid statue! that's ridiculous! we need each others' support!

DarkElectric	23 Sep 2002
I personally find the statue sensationalistic, and in my opinion, horrible and inappropriate. I find pornography in all forms repulsive, and most certainly undeserving of the title, "Art". Exploiting people for purposes of sexual gratification is not, in my opinion, art. As an artist myself, I am saddened by the tendancy of certain artists to go for visceral, horiffic shock value. It does seem to me to be the"Controversy=$$$$$$$$$" approach to art. If one is truly an artist, one can create a work which is indeed profound, but does not resort to cheap, tawdry ugliness to make a point. And as far as censorship goes, If someone disagrees with a point I'm making, I call it debate. If they try to shut me down, though, and in essence, tell me I shouldn't discuss my opinion, I would call that censorship. But that's just me.

tigerlily	24 Sep 2002
Ok, I must admit that I still don't understand why the statue evokes so much debate - some posts give the impression that it's the nudity, others that it's the fact that there is a reminder of 9/11 there *at all*. I agree that you shouldn't shove a piece of art that is designed to stir up emotions or trigger memories in the face of the public - so I don't consider putting it in a gallery as censorship; because people can choose to go there and look at it when they feel they're ready. Putting it away completely deprives them of a choice in the same way as forcing them to encounter it does. So. I'm fine with this kind of compromise. But I don't see nudity in this case as degrading to the victims. Nudity seems to be an expression of vulnerability here, and a reminder of the fact that humans are all the same under all those layers of clothing. We wrap ourselves not only in cloth, but also in our culture, language, color of skin. To strip someone of those superficial layers is to show the underlying humanity - the fact that we are all humans, and that this fact makes us equal. Something the terrorists didn't want to see. Would you strike out against your enemy as easily if you knew he was your brother? In order to hate, you must be convinced that he is so very different from you... I think it says something if the frist association with nudity is sexuality - shows an exaggerated fascination with this subject IMO.

emily2otters	24 Sep 2002
thanks, everyone, for your posts. i appreciate both the passion and the thoughfulness; i think they both have their place. i had posted the same link and solicitation for discussion on other lists, and got very little intelligible response. i knew i'd have better luck with aeclecticians, and i was right. :) you guys rock. there are two main issues that i'd like to add my thoughts to: 1) i sympathize with truthsayer's assertion that only those who are direct survivors of 9/11 have the right to create art about it. i'm a survivor of trauma myself (abortion), and it frustrates me to no end when people hold forth about things they have no experience with. marge piercy wrote a poem about women's sexuality that compared bearing a child against one's will to being "used like a public sewer". jesus. apologies to marge if it turns out that she's either aborted or carried to term an unwanted pregnancy, but i assume she hasn't and her ignorance and callousness are breathtaking. on the other hand, people who have never been raped, beaten up by their parents, gotten pregnant accidentally, or lost family or friends to terrorist attacks are still affected by the very existence of such things. i believe that marge has a right to her poetry and her feelings, and i believe that eric fischl has a right to his sculpure and his tribute. both of them mean well, and both of them are expressing how they feel about living in proximity to horror. (and by the way, how do we know that eric didn't lose loved ones and wasn't in manhattan when the towers came down? he's a new yorker, born, bred, and pastured.) i've come to agree with folks who think rockefeller center was a poor choice of location. i'd never heard of it before, and didn't know what it was. i think i assumed it was an art gallery. i certainly agree that an art gallery would be a better venue. possibly an art gallery in seattle. 2) i also want to say a thing or two about censorship, but i'm out of time. stay tuned!

Poetlove	26 Sep 2002
Maybe he should have thought about the people it would hurt to see it. I realize he made from him, but he should have kept it to himself. There are still a lot of very opened wounds right now. I mean women lost their husbands, and children their fathers. Plus all the other lives lost in the towers. Maybe he should have waited to bring it in the light. I do understand why the would watch what happens to it.

The eric fischl's 9/11 statue censored thread was originally posted on 21 Sep 2002 in the Chat board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Chat, or read more archived threads.