as it seems that as we are observing a need for independent arrangements of public and private visitation, we have instituted a policy of referring to the private visitors as “mourners” and public visitors as “rabble”. i feel that this is a misrepresentation, in so far as the mourners are indeed rabble themselves, albeit a division of rabble who, unfortunately, are in a position which warrants special consideration. perhaps there is a more specific term for identifying the “public” visitors upon which we should decide, for, despite their more specific and personal reasons for visiting the site, the private visitors are otherwise indistinct from the uwashed herd from which they are dredged.

No Comments »

i plan to continue to explore the relationship of multiple sham tombs to the full amount of voided tombs. i think that your reading of section 2b is productive in its introduction of a variegated circulation system, however, i continue to believe in the relevance of a rich (even analogous) experience for non-mourners. i definitely see a few overt instances of exploitative mourning that have occurred in the wake of so many deaths (ex. “lets roll”)… i continue to support your notion that the physical experiences and architectures be distinct, not necessarily exclusive, but polar. i plan to investigate the relationships between these 2 systems through ’section perspective’ and ‘plan diagram’. i would also like to state that i have a slight aversion to the over-use of water. i feel that cavernous depth of space may be just as strong as the fear of getting ones shoes wet (+ you mocked me when i put that reflecting pool on the site of villa savoye, my interest in water as an architectural device has since waned).

No Comments »

perhaps some mourners want the attention? they feel that more visitors or strangers touching or leaving ribbons their loved one�s grave somehow makes reasonable the tragedy that has befallen them? public display validates their postion (as though they suspect that the world secretly harbors questions or doubt of their grief).

m.i.t. has to have all freshmen stay at dorms this year because some student drank himself to death off campus, and the family sued the school ($4.75 million for themselves and a $1.25 million scholarship program). as a result, thousands of other students who were somehow smart enough to get into m.i.t. and not drink themselves to death must have to have their behavior affected, just because these two parents allowed their child to be raised to understand that drinking excessively is necessary for acceptance.

i am not fully comparing these situations. in the case of the MIT parents, they are partly responsible for the mind of a child who would engage in this dangerous activity; they can not accept this responsibility, so they try to rationalize it by publicly placing the blame elsewhere. on the other hand, the victims and the families of the terrorist attacks did nothing at all to warrant this fate (one could argue, like a slave owning saudi prince argued, that they indeed were partly responsible, by allowing the united states government to adapt a foreign policy that could only end in these results. this logic, of course, demonstrates a lack of comprehension of how the marriage of democracy and federal republic operates and it shows a disturbing imagination of what is foreseeable and then tolerable in disagreements between supposedly civilized mammals. as this argument is so tangentially related as to be almost absurd, i do not think it is as relevant as raising your son to be an irresponsible drinker.) however, some victims� families are already discussing lawsuits against the airlines, citing their poor security as the cause of their love ones� deaths. whether or not this is sensible, it perhaps display a grasping attempt to assign some [legal/official] reason upon a situation [terror/asymmetry] that they may never fully understand – as does, perhaps, a stranger leaving a flag where your daughter was killed.

No Comments »

short channels of circulation are almost level with the water. mourners are able to use these to approach the private tombs. public channels may intertwine or overpass the private channels, but there is not physical connection. perhaps with closer proximity, the spectacle is reduced. i would like to keep the public’s concentration on the dummy tomb, the overall scheme, the helicopters, or anything except the privacy of the mourners.

the private areas are placed below the level of the pool. when the mourners enter their private space chambre, they descend to chamber surrounded by water on five sides and by sky on the sixth. within the chambre, they are out of the field of vision of the public passageways; inside they have a ledge/box/shrine for placing any materials that they need to serve in their ritual (flowers,photos,notes). if the tomb is flooded, perhaps these are sealed first in a transparent capsule, so that it may vaguely be discerned from the passersby of the future.

No Comments »

hard demarcations of public and private? perhaps one dummy tomb can be set up for public intercourse and marking. the populace can fill the open tombs with baubles and balloons and tshirts and teddy bears. i am interested in the notion of filling or sealing of the markers. as time passes, the mourners may decide to have their private tombs sealed or filled. this can be done with soil or (preferably) water or with a slab/seal over an empty chambre. upon sealing/closing, the tomb becomes approachable by the public. they may see the name and any artifacts that the mourners have left for this purpose, but they are unable to interfere.

No Comments »

are you aware of this phenomenon? potential numerical symbolism; a “pentagon” apparently has five (5) sides.

1 Comment »

underlined texts: questionable material

strikethroughs: word tuning

italics: action and onomatopoeia

this is an artifact/artifice constructed by americans to commemorate

mark {without specifying the trajectory of / without

singularizing the impact of} the deeds of others/foreigners. this

is not a monument to heroism; it is an acknowledgment of an

instant

act(ion) of malice. existing u.s. monuments serve the

purpose of tribute/summary to a cause or an undertaking;

particularly exemplary specimens of this function are the icons of

vietnam war, iwo jima, and lincoln. however, here there is no

underlying theme or moral for americans to concretize for the

benefit of posterity. on the contrary, what we are left with is

the discussion of the lack of reason and of the dangers of

maniacal fundamentalism. this is no place for the gaudy

celebration of ourselves or our accomplishments. Bzzzzzz

{plurality, making something, anything! Implies an answering of a

call, a singularity, let the theme then be hsssssss

{plurality, neutrality, ascription, rosa,

non-sequitur} ⁹

memorial

of grief:

{not to degenerate to numerology or symbolic

composition}¹⁰
killed: 184 125 inside / 59 on plane

this

is a place of private loss, not a public spectacle. the victims

of the events on september 11th were not part of a collective

movement or public enterprise. they were individuals trying to

earn a living or take a trip. it would be an obscene display for a

stranger to stand before a victim’s wife or son and profess to

share his or her feelings of grief. while the visitor certainly

may sympathize with the victim’s survivors, the nation’s

obligation to show deference to the remains is distinguishable

from individual tragedy.

the mourning of the family and

friends should be allowed on this spot, as many of the victims may

otherwise have no traditional ‘resting place’ where their

survivors may visit them in peace. however, the mourners should be

able to visit this site and pay their respects in peace, without

having their moments of grief intertwined with the trappings of

public nationalism or manufactured nostalgia {which are not

necessarily embodied by the company of other visitors / mourners}.

There is air between the private and the collective, the visible

and the tangible, there need not be a perpetual sealing.

Suggestions: {harbors: congregating ports of soft seas} {slips:

inlets, bays} {confessional} ¹¹

monument

to purpose:

we do not betray the dead by living. the dead

will not be honored by a morose fetishization of the moment of

their demise. remembrance can not be a monument built as a

perpetual reminder of destruction. we do not forget or disrespect

the dead by setting ourselves to the task of rebuilding. we, the

living, have something that the dead do not; a failure to utilize

it to the fullest would be the ultimate disrespect to them. the

presence of the

monument should notify that a people who are prepared to move

forward, in spite of their grief, do a greater service to both the

living and the dead than remaining stagnant by dwelling on moments

of mind numbing misfortune.

{a

more atrajectoral ‘message’ might be in order, not a recreation of

utopia in stasis, but an environment that affects people in such a

way to move them toward the benevolence of their memories and

their futures} {ahssssssss remain, retain, not for

USA, but for life}¹²

proposal:

rather

than 184 names on a slab or 59 airplane seats in a field –

such totems potentially serve as gruesome lists for the prurient

curiosity of tourists and vulgarians – we prefer a

distinction between the public responses to memory and the private

sessions of grief. this proposal therefore separates the site into

distinct terms of use.

there are 184 private locations,

one for each victim, reserved for the victim’s family and

survivors. these points of meditation will serve as symbolic

tombs, where those who knew and loved the victims can visit in

solitude. as these points will be inaccessible to the public, the

family may securely fill them with anything they wish (personal

effects, religious paraphernalia, nothing). the public can view

the tombs as part of the memorial, but they are required to keep

their respectful distance; they are not allowed to

enter.

 {silent (physically and architecturally) …

static… scattered or unified? I lean toward a disparate

unification (a plural mass)} {public vs. private seems

incredibly important… schema: public_visual, atmospheric,

plain / plinth(s), ambient ; private: tactile, silent, enclosed,

luminous, capsule, isolation.¹⁴

perhaps

there need not be an imposed division between the physical icons

of grief (ie, the tomb and the vista point), perhaps the mourner

and the citizen are both provided with tombs, the

citizenry(rabble) are provided with palliative sham tombs,

kssssssssa these are solid (or somehow physiologically

different than the accessible tombs…) the mourner (as discussed)

is provided with a tomb, sswhhhhsssss a hollow, those who

have experienced a physical void in the event are given access to

what is theirs on this site… the relationship between sham and

voided tombs can be explored in many ways: the two types could be

paired in the field arrangement; they could be randomly

distributed in a grid; they could be, as i mentioned before, in a

vertical relation in field, the voided above the (use ‘dummy’ now

in place of sham) dummy, as if it had fallen from the

upper…; the ratio of voided to dummy tombs is variable: if there

are to be 184 voided tombs (is there any info on family units that

were on the plane?) should there also be 184 dummies? should the

number of dummies reflect another numerological condition? … i

am in agreeance that the mourners should be given devoted

elements, however, i feel that although the grief of the

victimized (voided) differs from that of the polis (rabble,

gentry), they both may still validly grieve, however, the

experiences are

distinct from one another, i think it is possible to allow for

this without physically dividing the nation (those who have

physically lost and those who have not)…

notes:

1) should the ‘tombs’ become public after a certain time period (911

years) ? Yes, for first small increment they are private and

unadorned, then for an even shorter increment they are public,

finally they are once again private and are ‘fillable’

2)

should the ‘tombs’ be sealed after certain time period or at the

decree of the family? I’m not sure there should be a ‘tomb’ for

each ‘victim’, lets discuss…

3) if the monument is the

conglomeration of the memorials, does the distance of the public

from the tombs make it more of a tourist spectacle? one goes to

the vietnam memorial to read names of strangers, but one doesn’t

spend time in normandy reading the names on the tombstones.

{interesting point, if the ‘tomb’ is visible, then the mourner is

a spectacle… these should be two disparate yet related

experience, visitor / mourner.}

the

experiences of visitor and mourner can be completely different:

the viewer may be unaware of the function of his/her chambre in

the overall scheme; the viewer of the field need not know that

mourners are present.

4) “the victims of the events on

september 11th were not part of a collective movement or public

enterprise” – except for the defense department

employees?

5) appropriate to refer to the victim’s family

as ’survivors’? while in the classic obituary sense, the term is

suitable, the fact that there is another group of ’survivors’ of

these events could lead to confusion.

6) further

elaboration should be made on the necessity of absence of

religious or patriotic overtones at this location. let us not

confusedly continue a myth that the people on the planes or at

their desks died ‘for god and country’. let us not overlay the

myth of god and country onto ground that was the spot of death for

people with a panoply of creeds.

x)

symbolism and analogy seem dictatorial in their approach to form

and place making,, this space of markers or markings should be

developed in tune with: effect, sequence, and tactility

7)

i hope there is distinction between the character and merit of the

nation and that of the government that is clear to everyone but

the nimrods at .mil who are judging this shit.

8)

9)

the actions that took place on this spot have already made

something, anything! here beyond our feeble capabilities of

manipulating construction materials. is it a calling to wish to

address only this event, and not to use it as an excuse to

further justification for a cause? (ie, statue of uncle sam with a

louisville slugger)

10) while not, yet, declaring that the numerology plays a role in the scheme, it must be noted that this theme is prevalent in (american?) monuments, regardless of how obscure the numeral in focus: lincoln memorial has 36 columns = 36 states in the union at his death. korean war memorial has 19 soldiers facing mirrored stone. 19×2=38 = 38th parallel, the battle line of the war. the reliance on numbers as a symbol is interesting, considering the overbearing

nature of religion, though unofficial, in this country.

911 of anything = out of the question.

11) it is possible to provide separate places and still not slight

the experience of either group; although, it is dangerous to risk

turning a site such as this into a space of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

being that the visitors are the ones who are prohibited from total

access, they would likely be the ones who feel unfulfilled.

however, it seems that the public manages to find their own method

of signifying their attendance at places of despair; a popular

method is the tying of ribbons and taping of photos to chain link

fences. whether or not the memorial prescribes a place for

congregation, the public will undoubtedly find a way to take and

add something to take from the site, such as the handprints on

bronze in oklahoma city.

12) the constant repetition of the video of planes crashing is static.

here a memorial quietly allows people to leave the site with the

dead in mind, yet also with more optimism and ebullience that

will, hopefully, translate into action.

13) private impetus.

14) “scattered or unifed?” perhaps disparate + hemmed.

the private spaces can be spread throughout a confined void within

the heart of the memorial. though perhaps two equivalent

components with distinct zones of entry and boundaries are more

respectful than an auditorium/arena with the tombs/confessional as

the stage.

No Comments »

If there was hope, it must lie in the proles…

No Comments »

underlined texts: questionable material

strikethroughs: word tuning

italics: action and onomatopoeia

this

is an artifact/artifice constructed by americans to commemorate

mark {without specifying the trajectory of / without

singularizing the impact of} the deeds of others/foreigners. this

is not a monument to heroism; it is an acknowledgment of an

instant act(ion) of malice. existing u.s.

monuments serve the purpose of tribute/summary to a cause or an

undertaking; particularly exemplary specimens of this function are

the icons of vietnam war, iwo jima, and lincoln. however, here

there is no underlying theme or moral for americans to concretize

for the benefit of posterity. on the contrary, what we are left

with is the discussion of the lack of reason and of the dangers of

maniacal fundamentalism. this is no place for the gaudy

celebration of ourselves or our accomplishments. Bzzzzzz

{plurality, making something, anything! Implies an answering of a

call, a singularity, let the theme then be hsssssss

{plurality, neutrality, ascription, rosa,

non-sequitur} ⁹

memorial of grief:

{not to degenerate to numerology or symbolic

composition}¹⁰

killed: 184 125 inside / 59 on plane

this

is a place of private loss, not a public spectacle. the victims

of the events on september 11th were not part of a collective

movement or public enterprise. they were individuals trying to

earn a living or take a trip. it would be an obscene display for a

stranger to stand before a victim’s wife or son and profess to

share his or her feelings of grief. while the visitor certainly

may sympathize with the victim’s survivors, the nation’s

obligation to show deference to the remains is distinguishable

from individual tragedy.

the mourning of the family and

friends should be allowed on this spot, as many of the victims may

otherwise have no traditional ‘resting place’ where their

survivors may visit them in peace. however, the mourners should be

able to visit this site and pay their respects in peace, without

having their moments of grief intertwined with the trappings of

public nationalism or manufactured nostalgia {which are not

necessarily embodied by the company of other visitors / mourners}.

There is air between the private and the collective, the visible

and the tangible, there need not be a perpetual sealing.

Suggestions: {harbors: congregating ports of soft seas} {slips:

inlets, bays} {confessional} ¹¹

monument

to purpose:

we do not betray the dead by living. the dead

will not be honored by a morose fetishization of the moment of

their demise. remembrance can not be a monument built as a

perpetual reminder of destruction. we do not forget or disrespect

the dead by setting ourselves to the task of rebuilding. we, the

living, have something that the dead do not; a failure to utilize

it to the fullest would be the ultimate disrespect to them. the presence of the

monument should notify that a people who are prepared to move

forward, in spite of their grief, do a greater service to both the

living and the dead than remaining stagnant by dwelling on moments

of mind numbing misfortune.

{a more atrajectoral ‘message’ might be in order, not a recreation of

utopia in stasis, but an environment that affects people in such a

way to move them toward the benevolence of their memories and

their futures} {ahssssssss remain, retain, not for

USA, but for life}¹²

proposal:

rather

than 184 names on a slab or 59 airplane seats in a field –

such totems potentially serve as gruesome lists for the prurient

curiosity of tourists and vulgarians – we prefer a

distinction between the public responses to memory and the private

sessions of grief. this proposal therefore separates the site into

distinct terms of use.

there are 184 private locations,

one for each victim, reserved for the victim’s family and

survivors. these points of meditation will serve as symbolic

tombs, where those who knew and loved the victims can visit in

solitude. as these points will be inaccessible to the public, the

family may securely fill them with anything they wish (personal

effects, religious paraphernalia, nothing). the public can view

the tombs as part of the memorial, but they are required to keep

their respectful distance; they are not allowed to

enter.

 {silent (physically and architecturally) …

static… scattered or unified? I lean toward a disparate

unification (a plural mass)} {public vs. private seems

incredibly important… schema: public_visual, atmospheric,

plain / plinth(s), ambient ; private: tactile, silent, enclosed,

luminous, capsule, isolation.¹⁴

notes:

1) should the ‘tombs’ become public after a certain time period (911

years) ? Yes, for first small increment they are private and

unadorned, then for an even shorter increment they are public,

finally they are once again private and are ‘fillable’

2)

should the ‘tombs’ be sealed after certain time period or at the

decree of the family? I’m not sure there should be a ‘tomb’ for

each ‘victim’, lets discuss…

3) if the monument is the

conglomeration of the memorials, does the distance of the public

from the tombs make it more of a tourist spectacle? one goes to

the vietnam memorial to read names of strangers, but one doesn’t

spend time in normandy reading the names on the tombstones.

{interesting point, if the ‘tomb’ is visible, then the mourner is

a spectacle… these should be two disparate yet related

experience, visitor / mourner.}

the experiences of visitor and mourner can be completely different:

the viewer may be unaware of the function of his/her chambre in

the overall scheme; the viewer of the field need not know that

mourners are present.

4) “the victims of the events on

september 11th were not part of a collective movement or public

enterprise” -except for the defense department

employees?

5) appropriate to refer to the victim’s family

as ’survivors’? while in the classic obituary sense, the term is

suitable, the fact that there is another group of ’survivors’ of

these events could lead to confusion.

6) further

elaboration should be made on the necessity of absence of

religious or patriotic overtones at this location. let us not

confusedly continue a myth that the people on the planes or at

their desks died ‘for god and country’. let us not overlay the

myth of god and country onto ground that was the spot of death for

people with a panoply of creeds.

x)

symbolism and analogy seem dictatorial in their approach to form

and place making,, this space of markers or markings should be

developed in tune with: effect, sequence, and tactility

7)

i hope there is distinction between the character and merit of the

nation and that of the government that is clear to everyone but

the nimrods at .mil who are judging this shit.

8)

9)

the actions that took place on this spot have already made

something, anything! here beyond our feeble capabilities of

manipulating construction materials. is it a calling to wish to

address only this event, and not to use it as an excuse to

further justification for a cause? (ie, statue of uncle sam with a

louisville slugger)

10) while not, yet, declaring that the numerology plays a role in the scheme, it must be noted that this theme is prevalent in

(american?) monuments, regardless of how obscure the numeral in focus: lincoln memorial has 36 columns = 36 states in the union

at his death. korean war memorial has 19 soldiers facing mirrored stone. 19×2=38 =

38th parallel, the battle line of the war. the reliance on numbers as a symbol is interesting, considering the overbearing

nature of religion, though unofficial, in this country.

911 of anything = out of the question.

11) it is possible to provide separate places and still not slight

the experience of either group; although, it is dangerous to risk

turning a site such as this into a space of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

being that the visitors are the ones who are prohibited from total

access, they would likely be the ones who feel unfulfilled.

however, it seems that the public manages to find their own method

of signifying their attendance at places of despair; a popular

method is the tying of ribbons and taping of photos to chain link

fences. whether or not the memorial prescribes a place for

congregation, the public will undoubtedly find a way to take and

add something to take from the site, such as the handprints on

bronze in oklahoma city.

12) the constant repetition of the video of planes crashing is static.

here a memorial quietly allows people to leave the site with the

dead in mind, yet also with more optimism and ebullience that

will, hopefully, translate into action.

13) private impetus.

14) “scattered or unified?” perhaps disparate + hemmed.

the private spaces can be spread throughout a confined void within

the heart of the memorial. though perhaps two equivalent

components with distinct zones of entry and boundaries are more

respectful than an auditorium/arena with the tombs/confessional as

the stage.

No Comments »

draft: 26 august 2002

underlined texts: questionable material

strikethroughs: word tuning

italics: action and onomatopoeia

this

is an artifact/artifice constructed by americans to commemorate

mark {without specifying the trajectory of / without

singularizing the impact of} the deeds of others/foreigners. this

is not a monument to heroism; it is an acknowledgment of

victimization

an instant of malice. unlike the purpose of existing u.s.

monuments – exemplified by the icons of vietnam war, iwo jima, and

lincoln – this is not a tribute to a cause or an undertaking;

there is no underlying theme or moral for americans to concretize

here for the benefit of posterity. on the contrary, what we are

left with is the discussion of the lack of reason and of the

dangers of maniacal fundamentalism – in others. this is no place

for the celebration of ourselves or our accomplishments. Bzzzzzz

{plurality, making something, anything! Implies an answering of a

call, a singularity, let the theme then be hsssssss

{plurality, neutrality, ascription, rosa,

non-sequitur}

memorial of grief:

{not to degenerate to numerology or symbolic composition}
killed: 184

125 inside / 59 on plane

this is a place of

private loss. the victims of the events on september 11th were not

part of a collective movement or public enterprise. they were

individuals trying to earn a living or take a trip. it would be an

obscene display for a stranger to stand before a victim’s wife or

son and profess to share his or her feelings of grief. while the

visitor certainly may sympathize with the victim’s survivors, the

nation’s obligation to show deference to the remains is

distinguishable from individual tragedy.

the mourning of

the family and friends should be allowed on this spot, as many of

the victims may otherwise have no traditional ‘resting place’

where their survivors may visit them in peace. however, the

mourners should be able to visit this site and pay their respects

in peace, without having their moments of grief intertwined with

the trappings of public nationalism or manufactured nostalgia

{which are not necessarily embodied by the company of other

visitors / mourners}. There is air between the private and the

collective, the visible and the tangible, there need not be a

perpetual sealing. Suggestions: {harbors: congregating ports of

soft seas} {slips: inlets, bays} {confessional}

monument to purpose:

we do not betray the dead by living. the dead

will not be honored by a morose fetishization of the moment of

their demise. remembrance is not a monument {and} can not be built

to perpetual destruction. we do not forget or disrespect the dead

by setting ourselves to the task of rebuilding. we, the living,

have something that the dead do not; a failure to utilize it to

the fullest would be the ultimate disrespect to them. the message

presence of the monument should be that, despite its grief,

{a more atrajectoral ‘message’ might be in order, not a recreation

of utopia in stasis, but an environment that affects people in

such a way to move them toward the benevolence of their memories

and their futures} the nation is determined to move forward

with a solemn dedication to overcome a future of uncertainty and

to secure a destiny of liberty and peace. unfortunately, as of

yet, there is no clear elements to this purpose. {ahssssssss

remain, retain, not for USA, but for life}

the record of

the current endeavor has been lackluster and uninspiring: the

arrests of mexican laborers who have merely peacefully sought

employment in this country, the refusal of the u.s. justice

department to adhere to rulings of the federal court, the

deportation of palestinian professors, a military campaign marred

by friendly fire and civilian casualties, the incarcerations

without trial or disclosure of middle eastern men, and the

persistence of the fate of the ‘evil one’ to refuse to be brought

to a conclusion. in fact, the only possible evidence that may

serve as a benchmark or progress in the ‘war on terrorism’, the

progress of the soldiers and special forces who undoubtedly are

engaging the battle with typical heroism and devotion, is shrouded

in mystery and defense department doublespeak.

proposal:

rather

than 189 names on a slab or 64 airplane seats in a field – a

gruesome list for the prurient curiosity of tourists and

vulgarians – we prefer a distinction between the public

responses to memory and the private sessions of grief. this

proposal therefore separates the site into distinct terms of use.

there are private 189 locations, one for each victim,

reserved for the victim’s family and survivors. these points of

meditation will serve as symbolic tombs, where those who knew and

loved the victims can visit in solitude. as these points will be

inaccessible to the public, the family may securely fill them with

anything they wish (personal effects, religious paraphernalia,

nothing). the public can view the tombs as part of the memorial,

but they are required to keep their distance; they are not allowed

to enter them.

 {silent (physically and

architecturally) … static… scattered or unified? I lean

toward a disparate unification (a plural mass)} {public vs.

private seems incredibly important… schema: public_visual,

atmospheric, plain / plinth(s), ambient ; private: tactile,

silent, enclosed, luminous, capsule, isolation.

notes:

1)

should the ‘tombs’ become public after a certain time period (911

years) ? Yes, for first small increment they are private and

unadorned, then for an even shorter increment they are public,

finally they are once again private and are ‘fillable’

2)

should the ‘tombs’ be sealed after certain time period or at the

decree of the family? I’m not sure there should be a ‘tomb’ for

each ‘victim’, lets discuss…

3) if the monument is the

conglomeration of the memorials, does the distance of the public

from the tombs make it more of a tourist spectacle? .one goes to

the vietnam memorial to read names of strangers, but one doesn’t

spend time in normandy reading the names on the tombstones.

{interesting point, if the ‘tomb’ is visible, then the mourner is

a spectacle… these should be two disparate yet related

experience, visitor / mourner.}

4) “the victims of the

events on september 11th were not part of a collective movement or

public enterprise” – except for the defense department

employees?

5) appropriate to refer to the victim’s family

as ’survivors’? while in the classic obituary sense, the term is

suitable, the fact that there is another group of ’survivors’ of

these events could lead to conclusion.

6) further

elaboration should be made on the necessity of absence of

religious or patriotic overtones at this location. let us not

confusedly continue a myth that the people on the planes or at

their desks died ‘for god and country’. let us not overlay the

myth of god and country onto ground that was the spot of death for

people with a panoply of creeds.

x)

symbolism and analogy seem dictatorial in their approach to form

and place making,, this space of markers or markings should be

developed in tune with: effect, sequence, and tactility

7)

i hope there is distinction between the character and merit of the

nation and that of the government that is clear to everyone but

the nimrods at .mil who are judging this shit.

No Comments »

draft: 25 august 2002

this is an artifact/artifice constructed by americans to commemorate the deeds of others/foreigners. this is not a monument to heroism; it is an acknowledgment of victimization. unlike the purpose of existing u.s. monuments – exemplified by the icons of vietnam war, iwo jima, and lincoln – this is not a tribute to a cause or an undertaking; there is no underlying theme or moral for americans to concretize here for the benefit of posterity. on the contrary, what we are left with is the discussion of the lack of reason and of the dangers of maniacal fundamentalism – in others. this is no place for the celebration of ourselves or our accomplishments.

memorial of grief:

killed: 189 125 inside / 64 on plane

this is a place of private loss. the victims of the events on september 11th were not part of a collective movement or public enterprise. they were individuals trying to earn a living or take a trip. it would be an obscene display for a stranger to stand before a victim’s wife or son and profess to share his or her feelings of grief. while the visitor certainly may sympathize with the victim’s survivors, the nation’s obligation to show deference to the remains is distinguishable from individual tragedy.

the mourning of the family and friends should be allowed on this spot, as many of the victims may otherwise have no traditional ‘resting place’ where their survivors may visit them in peace. however, the mourners should be able to visit this site and pay their respects in peace, without having their moments of grief intertwined with the trappings of public nationalism or manufactured nostalgia.

monument to purpose:

we do not betray the dead by living. the dead will not be honored by a morose fetishization of the moment of their demise. remembrance is not a monument can not be built to perpetual destruction. we do not forget or disrespect the dead by setting ourselves to the task of rebuilding. we, the living, have something that the dead do not; a failure to utilize it to the fullest would be the ultimate disrespect to them. the message of the monument should be that, despite its grief, the nation is determined to move forward with a solemn dedication to overcome a future of uncertainty and to secure a destiny of liberty and peace. unfortunately, as of yet, there is no clear elements to this purpose.

the record of the current endeavor has been lackluster and uninspiring: the arrests of mexican laborers who have merely peacefully sought employment in this country, the refusal of the u.s. justice department to adhere to rulings of the federal court, the deportation of palestinian professors, a military campaign marred by friendly fire and civilian casualties, the incarcerations without trial or disclosure of middle eastern men, and the persistence of the fate of the ‘evil one’ to refuse to be brought to a conclusion. in fact, the only possible evidence that may serve as a benchmark or progress in the ‘war on terrorism’, the progress of the soldiers and special forces who undoubtedly are engaging the battle with typical heroism and devotion, is shrouded in mystery and defense department doublespeak.

proposal:

rather than 189 names on a slab or 64 airplane seats in a field – a gruesome list for the prurient curiosity of tourists and vulgarians – we prefer a distinction between the public responses to memory and the private sessions of grief. this proposal therefore separates the site into distinct terms of use.

there are private 189 locations, one for each victim, reserved for the victim’s family and survivors. these points of meditation will serve as symbolic tombs, where those who knew and loved the victims can visit in solitude. as these points will be inaccessible to the public, the family may securely fill them with anything they wish (personal effects, religious paraphernalia, nothing). the public can view the tombs as part of the memorial, but they are required to keep their distance; they are not allowed to enter them.

notes:

1) should the ‘tombs’ become public after a certain time period (911 years) ?

2) should the ‘tombs’ be sealed after certain time period or at the decree of the family?

3) if the monument is the conglomeration of the memorials, does the distance of the public from the tombs make it more of a tourist spectacle? .one goes to the vietnam memorial to read names of strangers, but one doesn’t spend time in normandy reading the names on the tombstones.

4) the victims of the events on september 11th were not part of a collective movement or public enterprise – except for the defense department employees?

5) appropriate to refer to the victim’s family as ’survivors’? while in the classic obituary sense, the term is suitable, the fact that there is another group of ’survivors’ of these events could lead to conclusion.

6) further elaboration should be made on the necessity of absence of religious or patriotic overtones at this location. let us not confusedly continue a myth that the people on the planes or at their desks died ‘for god and country’. let us not overlay the myth of god and country onto ground that was the spot of death for people with a panoply of creeds.

7) i hope there is distinction between the character and merit of the nation and that of the government that is clear to everyone but the nimrods at .mil who are judging this shit.

8) usa today says casualties = 125 service members + 65 plane victims. pentagon says casualties = 125 service members + 59 plane victims. i assume that neither of these counts includes the hijackers.

No Comments »