9/11 memorial statue covered after complaints
 

NEW YORK (AP) -- A statue of a falling woman -- designed as a memorial to those who jumped or fell to their death from the World Trade Center -- was abruptly draped in cloth and curtained off Wednesday because of complaints that it was too disturbing.

"We apologize if anyone was upset or offended by the display of this sculpture. It was certainly not our intent. The piece will be removed this evening," said Suzanne Halpin, spokeswoman for Rockefeller Center.

Eric Fischl's bronze, "Tumbling Woman," depicts a naked woman with arms and legs flailing. It went on view about a week ago in the lower concourse at Rockfeller Center and was supposed to remain on display through Monday.

Numerous news photos captured images of desperate people leaping to their deaths as the 110-story towers burned.

Some passers-by in Rockefeller Center complained that the sculpture was too graphic.


"I don't think it dignifies their deaths," said Paul Labb. "It's not art. It is very disrupting when you see it."

Some onlookers said there is a need for art that captures the horror of September 11.

"I don't think that it's done in bad taste," Christine Defonces said before the statue was covered. "It's an artist's reaction to what happened."

"The sculpture was not meant to hurt anybody," Fischl said in a statement. "It was a sincere expression of deepest sympathy for the vulnerability of the human condition. Both specifically toward the victims of Sept. 11 and toward humanity in general."

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/Northea....statue.ap.jpg

I think the statue is in bad taste but thats just my opinion.

i personally think it is an artist's reaction to what happened. everyone has their own "outlet" for their emotions.. it's just my opinion that this is how he expressed what he was feeling.

maybe but did he imagine that women jumped out of the building naked? If the statue had clothes I might see it as more respectful....

This just reinforces my opinion that modern art is just plain tacky.

Everyone's a critic.

-Rudey
--Now let's go paint on caves because really old art is much less tacky.

maybe it sybolizes something?

i think debates over art are totally irrelevent here. so many new yorkers saw people jump from the towers with their own eyes. many of my friends feel they will never be the same after what they saw. here in nyc there is no safe distance between us and the events of that day. to put a statue like that in public is to force people to relive a traumatic incident or imagine people they know. it can should be displayed in a room somewhere where people can choose to look at it but will not inadvertently do so.

I'm sorry but that statue looks NOTHING like what it's supposed to. It looks like a man first of all, naked, doing crunches. How is that supposed to look like someone falling is beyond me!

I see axo's point too however. If I were a New Yorker and witnessed people falling to their deaths, I wouldn't want something to remind me of what I have imprinted in my mind already. How sad and terrifying!

Hootie

There was a story about this on the Atlanta news last night, and they (of course) flashed to a picture of the statue. Now, I wasn't in New York to witness those poor people jumping to their deaths, but the image of that statue was still extremely disturbing to me. I can only imagine how upsetting it was to the eyewitnesses of the tragedy. I'm glad that they removed it from Rockefeller Center. I just wish that it had never been put there in the first place.

I understand that freedom of expression allows artists to depict disturbing events, and I'm not against that freedom. However, I personally find the sculpture in question to be tasteless and insensitive, and I feel that it was extremely poor judgement that caused it to wind up as an exhibit in New York of all places. Just my .02!

Uhh...yeah. Okay.

Since when has it been the point of art that it *not* be disturbing? Does it have to be sugar sweet all the time?

I can't say that I find the sculpture appealing, but that's just my opinion, and as far as art as concerned, opinions are just that.

THe artist had the right to her opinion- I think that the nudity was supposed to represent vulnerability (but that's just my opinion, one never knows).

The folks who comissioned the statue likewise had every right to remove it. I just wonder what they were thinking in the first place. I doubt that they had not SEEN the sculpture, or been told it's subject beforehand. In what way does a sculpture of a woman falling from a building sound like a good way to commemorate the day?

That sculpture is a memorial to terror, and that's not what people need to go out of their way to remember- some people remember it EVERY DAY. Everyone will have a different idea of what can and should be taken away from that day. What they need to remember is the unity that came afterwards IMO.

I couldn't agree more, but I certianly don't think that every outlet of emotion out to be expressed, especially in such a manner as this! I really find this piece of artwork disturbing at best, downright disrespectful at worst.

I don't know what the heck the curators were thinking when they allowed this to be showed. Any artist should be able to express his feelings and reactions in his artwork, but sometimes its just in poor taste to display it!

XOXO,
Annie.

I think that the nudity is because the clothes of many of the victims were burned or blown off their bodies because of the force of the fall.

I don't like the statue.