at its heart, the memorial has come through at least somewhat intact. And at ground zero, that is saying quite a bit. - Christopher Hawthorne — L.A.Times
If anything can be said from a single image above, the upcoming memorial will be highly emotional, meaningful, well visited and worth the wait.
4 Comments
I am so glad to see this project coming to completion. Nice to see that something "good" can come out of the whole re-building process, down near Ground Zero.
Additionally, the below passage makes me wonder why Lin's memorial seems to always be the gold standard for memorial design (at least in the Modernist/minimalist tradition). Has there really been no other example of a powerful and simple memorial design in the 20 + years since the Vietnam Memorial?
"Unlike Lin's devastatingly simple design in Washington, this is far from a brilliant or transformative memorial. It lacks the sharp conceptual power that an artist, rather than an architect, might have brought to the job."
Also, if Hawthorne is saying that an artist would be better suited than an architect and one assumes a landscape architect as well (since Maya Lin was a landscape architect) to design a powerful memorial, it begs the question. Did Lin work with an artist to develop her concept?
Finally, I wonder, if as Hawthorne also writes the project "has managed to preserve at least a kernel of genuine and affecting meaning." but he believes hasn't been executed (due to the messiness of the process/site/stakeholders etc) perfectly, if the implication is that a landscape architect would have been able to result in a stronger, final project? Perhaps, cause their better understand of process? (and yes i know Arad worked with Walker) Meaning, was the problem just the given issues of the site, or the fact that we had an architect not landscape designer as the lead conceptualize or maybe that this was an architect that had not yet made a name for themselves? Would a more well known designer with more experience/etc been able to have a stronger hand in shaping the final result?
If I'm not mistaken, Lin designed the Vietnam War memorial while she was an architecture student at Yale, not an MFA student, and that proposal was initially met with the just as much controversy. Over time, I think, it has proven to be something very deep and meaningful.
I've followed this project since the competition winner was announced, which seems like a very long time ago, but I remember having a very cerebral response to the entry. Looking at these final photos, I still get the same sense, meaning I would disagree with Hawthorne over the idea that the initial concept was not fulfilled. At the least, Arad fought very hard to save it from the fluff that the Lebiskind master plan would have induced. Dig up the previous iteration to know what I mean.
I look forward to seeing this memorial in person when it's open to the public, and I look forward to having what I imagine will be a very visceral reaction to it.
I do not know where I stand on memorials. Should we construct and memorialize events that has scared us deep? Do we need to mark this horrible time forever in stone? I am all for honoring those that have passed, but why must we keep the scar physically for its what the mastermind(s) of this horrible event wanted. Even though it is a positive reinforcement of progression, and moving forward, there will always be a constant reminder at that site. It will always be there, marking it as one of our saddest moments. I was always intrigued by Cemetery for the Unknown, Mirasaka-Hiroshima, in Japan by Hideki Yoshimatsu & Archipro Architects on this very topic.
Maya Lin was studying architecture when she won the competition for the memorial (at 21), but she considers herself an artist as much so/or more than an architect. She is not a landscape architect, she is a landscape artist.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.