Posted by  Jan Orfe on October 10, 2003 at 09:29:14:

In Reply to:  Re: abstract, cerebral, "memorial units" posted by that guy from greg.org on October 09, 2003 at 21:00:02:

I was amazed to receive two responses
from my recent post, both insightful and
empathetic. I'm now emboldened to speak more frankly myself. Initially, I did not
like Libeskind's cluster of jagged shapes
because (and don't laugh) I'm a typical
Libran who functions better in a balanced
and calm environment. Chaos, loud noises
and imposed standards drive me up walls!
(Not to mention my disdain for authority
figures in general, but that's another
story.) Simply, I didn't want Libeskind to tell me HOW TO FEEL. And his crystalline, truncated, hard-edge architectural forms (phew) are going to be my 1st impression when I visit the site? Do I need to feel displaced? It wasn't until I researched his Berlin Museum creation, that I truly
understood the power of his vision and
the reason I never felt threatened by
the boxy but majestic Twin Towers. Those
shapes were solid, imperious and soothing
to my sensibilities. They had a quiet stage presence. Thus, I didn't have to feel anything, but go about my business.
And then I submitted my memorial design.
What was I thinking?
The Pentagon Memorial winning team, in
my opinion, was too easily influenced by the Oklahoma Memorial's overly symbolized
layout. Our response to terrorist acts, whether domestic or foreign, should not
cover over, nor sanitize the realities of
death and destruction. There is no better way to "never forget" than to let stand
an artifact of each tragedy. My concept
would have been to leave the Murrah
Building exactly as it was, it's innards
exposed, it's massive concaveness a clear
reminder what our nation is up against in
the war on terror. In contrast to that
ruined piece of steel and stone, I would
have then placed 168 white lucite slabs, each of varied height (to represent the men, women and children) engraved with their names, and arranged into a semi circle that would match up with the missing concave piece, suggesting a full circle of life and death. And in the winter, snow would cover the ground and
those precious slabs would virtually disappear, with only the black inscribed names to tell their story.
Your ramp-contrail idea, as you stated,
perhaps should have conveyed a greater
sense of personal loss via a combination
of flight path and 184 "units"? I just
thought of a possible solution, if you're
interested. Divide your ramp into two
lanes of travel, up and down, with a
frosted-glass type of partition, to
simulate a semi-tanslucent cloud cover.
Visitors ascending would vaguely see
shifting bodies and moving heads of
those descending, and vice versa. Would
that not add a much-needed element of
eeriness and confusion, as if being
passengers on that plane? I might also
create a sense of claustrophobia by
enclosing your ramp with a continuous
curved canopy made of pitted or flawed
see-through lexan panels, causing the Pentagon itself to disassemble as one
travels upwards. At ramp's end of course,
there is respite in seeing blue sky and
greensward, until it's time to turn the corner and make your descent. Just an
idea or two. Oh, and I would support the ramp with 184 pieces of twisted metal
uprights, each bearing a named plaque,
unlike the winning design which has the victims facing each other... I thought
separating them in that fashion was a bit forced where more contrast was needed
between stationary victims and those
travelling at 500 mph.
My memorial design could have used some
of those very same spur-of-the-moment creative strokes. Too late now. But in
ending here, what frustrated me MOST about Libeskind's pit boundaries was
that his site plan drawing provided no meaningful graphic scale, i.e., (1"=12').
And I expressed this blatant oversight on my presentation board. What good is a concept if you don't even know the true width of one of his ramps??

Orfe

Post a Response -