Young is famous for studying and writing about memorials. What does he propose for Ground Zero? What does he think a memorial must — and must not — do?Why? Do you agree with him? What do you think he’s trying to say with the phrase ‘ever-changing landscape of memory’?
Add User
If you want to add yourself as a user, please log in, using your existing Macaulay Eportfolio account.
Mr. Young implies, from the beginning of the article, that the United States has had sufficient time to remember those who were killed on 9/11 and is now prepared to construct the proverbial gravestone at ground zero. This gravestone will serve two distinct purposes: it will honor those who lost their lives and demonstrate the country’s ability to overcome hardships. Mr. Young clearly stresses the point that what is now ground zero should eventually be renamed the New World Trade Center. This new name will symbolize a period in our country’s history in which we have overcome, but are still mindful of, the attacks our country sustained in 2001. In addition to the construction of (a) new building/buildings, Mr. Young cites instances in which other tragedies were memorialized, which could potentially serve as an example for what we should do. I specifically remember a documentary in which an organization attempted to collect six million paperclips in order to symbolize the six or so million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust. He suggests something along the lines of planting a tree in Washington D.C. for each of the three thousand people who died on 9/11. This, in conjunction with the rebuilding process, sounds like a proper way to memorialize the attacks. However, I have I slightly different idea about the construction on ground zero. I remember that Donald Trump once made an astute suggestion. He suggested that the towers should be rebuilt exactly as they were except one story taller. I believe this is the best suggestion because the sight of the towers would rejuvenate the New York City skyline, remind us of our losses, and send a message to the terrorists, because it is one story taller, all in one. I do not think Mr. Young would agree with Trump’s suggestion for two reasons. One, because he is Donald Trump and two because it would act less like a memorial and more as a scary reminder of the astonishing loss of innocent life that day. In a sense, it would not be a memorial. This brings me to the last point, Mr. Young’s notion of the ‘ever-changing landscape of memory.’ Indeed, as time passes our memory of the day fades to some degree. We will never forget the images of the towers falling, but we may forget the tremendous impact it had on us in the days, weeks, and months following the attacks, now that it is a decade later. That is why Mr. Young assigns great importance to the memorial. It must preserve the honor of those lost and conjure the same feelings experienced on that day for many decades to come, even when all who witnessed the event are no longer around.
Mr. Young believes a memorial should not just remember the lives lost, but also celebrate the lives lived (end of paragraph 4). He also brings up an excellent point in that the way the memorial is perceived by terrorists is important and warns us that this memorial should not serve as a victory to terrorists; “our memorial to the destruction…could even become the terrorists’ victory monument to the success of their attacks”. In these two aspects I do agree with him, I believe that the memorial should commemorate the lives lost and not serve as a sign of weakness or acquiesce to the ego of the terrorists. Mr. Young suggests planting trees as a living memorial, he’s very big on the idea of letting life remember life. He suggests this as an “evolving memorial” that will be stress the importance of why the World Trade Center is to be remembered through future generations. I’m not quite sure if I like this idea as much as Donald Trump’s idea, mentioned in Joe’s response, which shows much more of tenacity, resilience, and strength against the attacks on 9/11. I also like Trump’s idea because it reminds us of what we had and how we’re continuing to grow despite this tragedy. The phrase “ever-changing landscape of memory” alludes to the shifts in the NYC skyline and ground zero, as well as the growth of herbal life in the memorial.
Mr. Young approaches the idea of a 9/11 memorial by questioning which way the day should be immortalized. While he is fully aware of the sadness the day evokes in those affected by the tragedy, he clearly believes that it is up to those who build- artists- to remind the public the importance of commemorating the beautiful and “rich” lives their loved ones once led, rather than simply identifying them for that one, single “terrible moment of destruction.”
I believe that Mr. Young wouldn’t look kindly at Donald Trump’s idea of rebuilding the World Trade Center’s replica with it’s slight twist, even though it is a very clever idea. The new World Trade Center would be much too close to the previous one, and while it allows the memory of the original to live on, it does not allow people to embrace the end of the old era that the new World Trade Center should represent.
Building the same exact replica as well as remembering the day simply for its destruction does not give the victims of 9/11 the justice it deserves. In the same way Japan and Israel planted trees, a living form, to heal both their country and their people is honorable and restorative at the same time. I believe that people heal and deal with their loss best when they are “constructing and building;” when they are “cleaning up the mess behind.” That is the work of an artist.
Art is a living form; it is a beautiful representation of just how powerful the human memory truly is. The new World Trade Center should embrace “modern” ideas that the terrorists hated so much. It should have open space, as Mr. Young suggested, so that it can be open to change and new ideas, so that while it firmly exists, the commemoration can be interchangeable and move, so that in its own way, it is art itself.
In his article, Young focuses on the theme of remembering life with life. “Defeat the culture of death with emblems of life…where life is contemplated and death is rejected.” He thinks the memorial must commemorate those who lost their lives but it should venerate their lives, not just the tragedy of their death. The memorial should represent a start of a new era and a time of change in America, not just act as a tribute to the past disaster. “We must animate and reinvigorate this site, not paralyze it, with memory,” Young explains. “In this way, we might remember the victims by how they lived, not merely how they died.” I completely agree with this concept. The memorial would be so much more beneficial to our country if it honors those who died instead of mourning them.
In addition, Young makes the point that the memorial should not display the pain and grief our nation felt after 9/11 as this would only make the terrorists more triumphant. If we make a relic of the “terrible moment of destruction,” we are acting as the victims that the terrorists want us to be and are allowing them to be victorious. Instead, it should represent everything the terrorists were attacking- our “ideological roots of modernity,” as Young describes it. Leaving the site as the disturbing abyss that it currently is, creates a constant reminder of the tragedy and the emptiness in the hearts of Americans, and it is a reminder to the terrorists of their success.
I agree with Young when he says that the memorial must be a place of remembrance and reconstruction. It will be an emblem of the destruction but also a representation of the reconstruction and renewal of all the values America upholds. It should become, “a place where all stages of memory…are remembered as parts of a living continuum and necessarily evolving memory.” The memorial should become a symbol of our nation and the ideals and values we uphold generation after generation. Our nation is always adapting as the people, ideas, and circumstances change, contributing to the, “every-changing landscape of memory.” The 9/11 memorial will be a constant representation of how it is the ever-changing landscape of memory that makes our nation the unique and distinctive place it is.
The memorial that Young feels would be most appropriate is planting groves of trees at the locations of the three attacks on September 11th, in order to commemorate the victim’s lives. These living specimens must be nurtured, just as the memory of those who died will be cultivated and sustained. In addition, Young supports the creation of the “Towers of Light,” at Ground Zero, and that The New World Trade Center should contain a museum and memorial to 9/11.
I agree that the memorial at Ground Zero should represent all the beliefs and values our country holds to and everything the terrorists attempted to take from us. It should be a sight of celebration and rejuvenation of America instead of a place of emptiness and fear. Planting the trees is a symbolic way to cultivate the memory of those who died as opposed to focusing on the devastation of their death. September 11th was undoubtedly a tragic and destructive event for our nation- we lost a lot of innocence and realized that we weren’t untouchable. However, if we choose to use this attack as a way to strengthen the unique and special qualities of our nation that we are so lucky to be able to uphold, the memorial can be significant to everyone for generations to come. Decades from now, when the attack is a distant memory for those who were around for it, the memorial will still be standing tall as a representation of our strength and unity as a nation- September 11th will always be remembered, and not as a day of loss but as a day of rebirth.
Tim Migliore
Throughout the article “Remember Life with Life,” James Young always repeats one theme: remember and rejuvenate. Such a message is his proposition for ground zero. He starts by naming the new site as the “New World Trade Center” and then explains that there must be both a memorial but also a sense of moving on from the tragedy. He wants a “design into this site the capacity of both for remembrance and for reconstruction, the space both for memory of past destruction and for present life and its regeneration” (Young 217). He wants a complex of high-rise office buildings, museums, new housing, and especially a memorial that will have 2850 white blossoming trees.
To Young a good memorial is one that is not an empty void, he claims that this kind of a memorial is a victory for the terrorists, but one that is living. He references the memorial in Israel of the 6 million murdered Jews during WWII by having 6 million trees planted. He wants the same in Manhattan, 2850 symbolizing each individual who dies on 9-11. Until reading his article, I never thought of the idea of planting trees. I totally agree that trees will future generations remember while showing that New York City has moved on (since the trees are alive). Leaving a big hole in the ground is terrible because that just reminds New Yorkers of the pain that they have gone through and it will be a constant one of pain. But with new growth in the area we will show the terrorists that New Yorkers and even Americans can rise up to the occasion and move past troublesome pasts.
I think his mentioning of an “ever-changing landscape of memory” is one to invoke a sense of responsibility for future generations. After all it will be they, not us, who will interpret what happened here. According to Young, the site will have something added every now and then by future generations as a way of paying their respects. He believes that new generations will create their own interpretations of what happened here.
~Tim Migliore
Young proposes the name of the new complex to be the “New World Trade Center” so that the attack will “be regarded not as the beginning of a new era but as the end of an old one.” Also, he emphasizes that Ground zero must be the place “both for memory of past destruction and for present life and its regeneration.” As the Japanese and Jewish have planted in commemoration of their natural disaster and mass murder, respectively, he suggests Ground Zero to include “memorial groves of some 2,850 white blossoming trees, each one planted and dedicated in the name of one of the victims of the World Trade Center attacks.” He further suggests that similar groves to be planted “simultaneously on the other 9/11 attack sites” and create a “national memorial matrix, allowing us to remember them separately and together.”
In Young’s ideal memorial, lives, not deaths, must be commemorated for death is what the terrorists have imposed on the innocent people. Likewise, the void must not be preserved because that is how the terrorists left the place. He stresses that this site should not be turned into a graveyard where it could appear as the “terrorists’ victory monument.” He also points out that it is critical to have the commemoration evolving and living as memories can only last when it is a “process not a finished result.”
I absolutely agree with Young’s idea of having the memorial emphasize on the lives as opposed to the deaths. The terrorists may have taken innocent lives, but they cannot invade the memories of the loved ones. Their lives will be remembered, and their deaths will not be forgotten with the help of the memorial.
The phrase “ever-changing landscape of memory” depicts changes in two aspects. First, it describes the landscape that has physically reformed. As there will be more and more new buildings constructed in the city, hopefully no more destructions, the landscape is subject to physically transform endlessly. Second, the phrase addresses the memories that are related to downtown New York. The mental picture of New York each person has varies. The city is so vivacious that it continues to change the memories of the city in people’s minds. It will not let its citizens stagnate upon the grief they faced after the attack. Hence, the memories of New York we have are also ever-changing. developing and, hence,
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘950194090 which is not a hashcash value.
Young proposes that ground zero should not only remember the past tragedy, but also celebrate American culture. A magnificent celebration of all the values that terrorists abhor, the memorial should be a site that symbolizes rebirth of American culture after the great tragedy that struck ground zero on that day. With that in mind, Young suggests that the memorial site at ground zero should include plant groves, with 2850 plants for each of the victims who tragically lost their life on 9/11. This follows the holocaust memorials in Israel and the Hanshin earthquake memorial in Japan, where plant-life is a display of the victims’ lives and not their tragic deaths. Moreover, the care required for the nurture for plants symbolizes the work necessary to ensure that memories of victims of 9/11 will not be forgotten. In the end of the essay, Young also suggests a museum for commemorating 9/11.
I agree with most of Young’s ideas, as memorials need to show the vitality of life led by the many victims instead of their violent deaths. However, I believe that the new world trade center needs to be a taller building as suggested by Trump (Joe’s column). However, the design can be anything but the old one as the previous design would just show families of victims the awful horror that took place on 9/11. Instead, a new design is necessary for the building, as it would symbolize the growth of American values of freedom, modernity, etc. since 9/11, as those values are spreading across the globe. Moreover, it will be a symbol of ever-present strength of America, as the larger building would show that the country could bounce back up from any number of tragedies. In this way, the memorial will not only reflect the life of the victims, but also show that the country as a whole can rise back stronger from any tragedy that strikes the nation.
In addition to suggestions for the memorial, Young’s phrase of the “ever changing landscape of memory” suggests that memories of significant events like the destruction of WTC and immigration to the US through Ellis Island are changing as each new generation tries to identify with these events in history. He suggests that the new world trade center will itself be considered a memorial, which will bring importance to all the other memorials in southern Manhattan, instead of overshadowing them because of its height, because of the importance it brings to the region.
The tragedy happened ten years ago, but sorrow at the loss of families, friends, and buildings is still on the mind of people in New York and the United States because they all have direct or indirect experiences of that event. They are living witnesses who can expose the brutality of terrorism and remind loss of deceased. However, this strong emotion memory on this tragedy will be faint as new generation continuously rises. This really happened in Korea. Korea had a harsh war sixty years ago and those who directly experienced still witness misery of undergoing war and losing people. However, new generations including myself has been rising during the sixty years after the war, and most of us do not feel sorrow for it anymore but accept it as a historical event that we should know as Koreans. New generations of New York may face a similar phenomenon in the future.
In this article Mr. Young suggests building a new World Trade Center so that people can keep the memory of the dead and continues the way of lives that terrorists abhor. When the building is reconstructed according to Young’s idea, we will see another grandeur and fine World Trade Center. However, would this new building be able make new generations sympathized with the way people feel now? Mr. Young says, “It may not up to us now to decide just how long these memorials will last rather up to the generations who visit them, who will need to decide for themselves why they continue to recall what seems to be, so selfishly, our own special loss.” New generations, who accept an event as a part of history, scarcely “visit” memorial buildings because they cannot feel the same on the special loss of old people.
Therefore, I agree with Mr. Young’s idea of rebuilding and using it as a complex of offices, cultural center, new housing, and memorial. It will be part of lives. People will continue their own lives by working, living, or studying in this building, where they can find memorial of the event and people who used to have similar lives there. This will not be like any other museums that only keep historical relics and get ignored by ordinary lives of people but something that keeps reminding people of the event. There may not be people who weep at the monument anymore in the future but new generations will keep witnessing of their ancestor, who were sacrificed on that site, and terrorism, which the world should continue to fight against. This is what I think is the ideal job of a memorial, new World Trade Center
After the 9/11 attack, New Yorkers have been mourning on Ground Zero attempting to remember the lives lost from the horrific attack. The site, which has been empty for a number of years, has started to regrow with the new “Freedom Tower”. The memorial is something that should not only remember the thousands who died but also replace the towers. According to Young, in the Jewish tradition it takes a year to mourn before the gravestone is shone. In comparison to the 9/11 memorial, Young believes we have past that “year” of mourning and now must regrow with a memorial to show our regeneration. Instead of drowning with memories of the past, he believes this is now the time to regenerate life. Memorials should not be held to commemorate the death, but there must be a way to remember the lives that once lived.
A memorial, according to Young, must not become a shrine for those who died because it will give the murderers a victory. Instead Young thinks there should be a memorial that shows the regrowth. For example, in Israel there is a forest planted with six million trees in the Judean hills. By using trees, it presents a regeneration of life, rather than pointing out the tragic deaths. The “living memorials” should allow the creators to make something creative, better and new. It should be made with a new design to remember those who once lived. As Young says, “Let life remember life”.
Young’s last line is playing off the idea of a “living memorial”. If Young’s idea of a memorial is set through, the site will allow for new businesses, new architecture, and even new opportunities. The “landscape of memory” will not only focus on the death of thousands, but the growth of the site in which thousands had once lived. Our memory of the site will no longer be the same, but and ever changing history.
The memorial should honor those who have died with life. Yes, this is a tragic event but the life we live after should be regenerative. By saving the ruins of the 9/11 attack, the mourning process is put it on hold. Instead of moving on New Yorkers would be stuck in the past with a land unrepresentative of the soul of the city. This ideal of “living memorials” has been completed throughout the city and elsewhere. With the death of Martin Luther King multiple gardens have been set up around the country. There have been schools erected in his name. There have been playgrounds that have been created in his name. His death has been memorialized through the expansion of life. Although the ruins on the 9/11 site are definitely not memorializing the event, they are still very important to history. Life is not simply about moving through life with regeneration, there must be some way of remembering the event educationally. The ruins on the site should be preserved for a museum for an educational look – not for a memorial.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘66667829 which is not a hashcash value.
James Young starts out by asking the question, “will this be a site commemorating the old world trade center and the thousands murdered there or one that merely replaces what was lost in the attacks?” Just like Young, I think the memorial should be both. Mr. Young is clearly a patriot and I respect his opinions. He says over and over again that we cannot make it look like the terrorists won, but instead make it a reflection of what we survived and that we will rebuild and continue to grow as a nation.
I also like the fact that he brought up Israel’s relation and reaction to the holocaust because I can really relate to it. He says that they are planting a forest of six million trees in between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem to commemorate the six million Jews that died in the holocaust. This is not just a memorial, it is also a symbol that you may have taken lives away from us, but we will continue to create life. Examples like these show that even though there was a tragedy, we are not giving up.
I really enjoyed the end when Young says, “If they hate our buildings, lets rebuild them here. If they hate our lives, lets live them here, etc…” Young shows us some heart when he says this. He is basically saying that we should be proud of who we are and not let anybody bring us down or suppress us.
I can relate to James Young because we are both New Yorkers who lived through the 9/11 attacks and we both have Jewish backgrounds and learned a little Jewish ideology. He brings up the “etz chaim” (tree of life). I grew up learning about this and it is basically saying that there is a circle of life and as lives are lost, lives are being born. It is interesting that he brought this up about the 9/11 attacks, but it makes a lot of sense that he did. He is stating that we lost a lot of lives that day, but we will rebuild and continue to prosper.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘66667829 which is not a hashcash value.
Young’s theory that the new memorial must delicately balance commemoration for the lives lost, with celebration of a new era was a very intelligent call. If we simply make it a shrine for those who were lost, the terrorists have won. We are a new nation, firm in our convictions, and by making the memorial a monument to our regeneration, we win.
I thought it was interesting how Young predicts a newfound appreciation for memorials in the City. Although I’d like to believe this, I can foresee people maintaining their current ways. I respect his idealism, that of believing the new tower will “highlight” the other memorials, but because the world is and “ever-changing landscape of memory,” I think people will push on as they’ve always done with the same amount of reflection.
Young’s concept of “living memorials” that Alison briefly talked about is very inspiring. We must move on and make ourselves stronger than ever. We can’t dwell on the past, preserving the ruins for mourning’s sake. We must acknowledge them, knowing that America has the strength to overcome even the worst of tragedies.
“Defeat the culture of death with emblems of life” was well put as an idea that Young presented through his opinion of the new memorial. His association of the memorial with both death and life creates an interesting dilemma because the death of thousands is as important as embracing the life of each victim. By remembering “how they lived and not merely by how they died”, Young wants us to be more attentive to one’s life in general since death is only such a small portion of life. People do need to have that way of thought when they approach this memorial because by associating happy memories spent with those victims the memorial becomes more lively rather than just “aesthetically pleasing”. Future generations definitely will shape what the memorial represents to them since they will have a less intimate relationship with the victims. Nevertheless, the memorial will become a symbol of hope and acceptance on each and every single person who passes by because of the abundant symbols of life including trees as well as water. Young portrayal of “tree planting as a memorial act” fascinates me in that I never took it that way but I can now see how the growing of trees, the longevity of trees, the way the roots can create new paths underground can all symbolize life and moving on. Moving on is what the memorial is trying to do but I feel that the presence of a new structure should not replace the empty hole left by the attacks. The conflicts that arose between the Muslims and Americans on the design still show that there is still a tension between the two groups that has not been resolved, but hidden in the background ready to generate uneasiness.
Young proposal involved planting trees, “one tree for each of the victims”, in commemoration of the lives that were lost during the World Trade Center attacks. His idea to remember the dead through living forms was really poignant and appealing to me. The grove of trees is a memorial of that day yet it also represents each of the victims of that tragedy. Consequently, nurturing those trees nurtures both the memory of that day and the memories of the people who died that day. To me, it’s as if the dead live on through those trees.
Young believed that turning the site into a memorial for the three thousand who died there might “preserve the sanctity” of the area but could also become a victory monument for the terrorists. However, he also points out that to leave the site as it is would mean that we were remembering it the way the bombers forced it upon us. I agree that the memorial should not be a tribute to the bombers but I also think that it should be something that every New Yorker should somehow be able to relate to, including those who weren’t directly involved in the World Trade Center attacks
From my point of view, the ‘ever-changing landscape’ seems to refer to NYC’s landscape. The NYC that we see now is definitely different from what it had been in 2001. Similarly, the NYC that we will see in another ten years will be drastically different from what we see right now. With the addition of the word ‘memory’ to the phrase, I feel that Young is trying to re-convey the idea that just like NYC’s landscape, the memories revolving the city will also be ever-changing; the memories won’t always stay focused on the World Trade Center attacks.
Daisy Berisha
In his article titled “Remember Life with Life: The New World Trade Center”, James Young addresses the controversy of how America should go about commemorating the victims of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 and also makes a proposal about the memorial himself. In a statement I found to be especially riveting, Young went on to write that “memory is, after all, a process, and is everlasting only when it remains a process and not a finished result” in regards to what a memorial must encompass. By saying this, I took Young to mean that we should never stop memorializing this tragic event, and we should somehow make it so that it takes up a certain part of our daily lives; whether it is by having to tend to this memorial consistently or making it a part of the landscape we gaze at through a subway car window.
Though I realize the aforementioned statement was meant to be a direct correlation with his plan of planting and growing groves in the different locations of the attacks, I still agree wholeheartedly that a memorial should be a process, much like the process of watering and tending to a tree. I love the idea of “living memorials”, as Young put it so well, though I don’t know how well an already tight-fitting downtown Manhattan would do to accommodate 2,850 white blossoming trees, as well as other office buildings, museums, and new housing that would be built there. We might do better to locate these groves somewhere in central park, which is an, already, green scenery, than to place them at or near the location of the attack in Manhattan, where other structures more beneficial to our lifestyles, such as museums and schools, should be built. Young is, after all, essentially telling us to remember life with life, so what better way to do that than to build a memorial that is more advantageous to those living while also remembering those deceased?
In the article, Young also goes on to coin the phrase “ever-changing landscape of memory”. To me, this statement means that the way in which we memorialize evolves, the same way art evolves through the centuries. In this generation, for instance, we may have a tendency to memorialize with building structures and naming them after certain people or places, but who’s to say the next generation will come to depend more on a different type of memorial, such as planting trees? All in all, the “ever-changing landscape of memory” can be seen as somewhat of a timeline but also a continuum of the different kinds of memorials of different and evolving cultures all over the world.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘1526160378 which is not a hashcash value.
In entirety, James Young proposed to move forward from the tragedy, creating a new World Trade Center which would replace the loss and commemorate the old World Trade Center. Young advised to plan this reconstruction by phases, answering different questions regarding the interest of the memorial. The memorial must encourage rebuilding of the community and moving along with time. He stated that the memorial must not commemorate only the dead and destruction, for he believed ruins, death, and destruction should not define America by being memorialized. Ultimately, the memorial should be meant to “remember and rejuvenate” as an ever-changing landscape of memory.
Young’s idea is encouraging and strong. However, I wonder about the practicality behind this ideal method. To commemorate and replace could contradict with one another. If one were to remember, then one would remain more attached to the commemoration. People would remain stuck to the Old World Trade Center and might not be willing to create a new one. But if one were to replace the towers instead, then one would have to realize the action doesn’t change the loss. The new World Trade Center cannot replace the lives that were affected and the old two towers. There has to be a balance between remembrance and replacement, and this might be challenging if there are different opinions from the community. Young may assert the need to thoroughly plan the stages for making this monument, but he did not state the course of action needed to take for his idea, the people who would decide the answers to the questions he proposed, and the people who would be responsible in leading this plan. Without the method being practical, a wonderful idea would not make any changes.
As for the ever-changing landscape of memory, things will change over time. Rivers form new courses. Cities transform with larger communities. Fields will be filled for residential houses. From this we can say that every landmark, place, etc is an ever-changing landscape of memory. Therefore, it is redundant to say the memorial should be of this nature, for it will be like this anyway.
In his proposition for a memorial to 9/11, Young states that the memorial must celebrate the lives of victims and survivors from that event. Young does not want the memorial to center on the actual deaths and loss that took place on 9/11. This would “paralyze” the area with death and make the memorial a victory emblem for terrorists. I agree with Young because he explains that the memorial is being built because of the void left behind by the towers and it must provide the city with what it needs. This memorial needs to express the fact that 9/11 did occur but it also needs to express that survivors and family of victims are alive today and they need to celebrate life. Life must continue and the best way to do that is to use this memorial to continue the prosperity of life that survived the attack. Young’s idea to have a mixture of trees and buildings, lively with culture and commerce, is the best way to commemorate life in New York City. The life commemorated in this kind of memorial is the “ever-changing landscape of memory” that Young speaks about since it will continue to grow and prosper after 9/11 instead of remaining paralyzed by death.
From the beginning of his article, Young speaks of the transient properties of grief and of how time changes the feelings one experiences during a mourning period; He refers to the changing of this immediate grief to memory as “a process, a continuum”. Just as one’s feelings regarding an event- especially one as catastrophic as 9/11- change over time, so Young believes should a memorial. It should, if not represent then bring to mind, the different stages the individuals and the community must undergo to cope with their emotions and situation.
Young also believes that a memorial should not simply serve as a reminder of the event that has taken place, but as a commemoration to all those whose lives have been lost. Young believes that if a memorial were to be done right, “we might remember the victims by how they lived, and not merely by how they died”. In erecting a memorial to the events of September 11th we allow the perpetrators to win- we become surrounded by our memory of the attacks on an everyday basis. The same would occur if no memorial is built- if the then gaping hole was simply left- then the void which was forced upon us, is allowed to exist into eternity, thereby never providing closure with our experience. Yet, if a memorial that celebrates life versus the memory of life lost is constructed, we emerge victorious.
However, a memorial must also stand the test of time. The emotions of a community during one generation should not necessarily dictate how following generations should perceive an event. Erecting a memorial that is a physical manifestation of wallowing in our own grief, promotes the living of future generations under the shadow of the calamity. It is selfish on the current generations part.
Young makes a fair argument for the use of trees, or plants in general, as a living memorial. Their care would necessitate constant attention from the community, just as the events for the construction of the memorial would need remembrance for proper closure and memoriam to take place.
Young hereby proposes that a grove of trees be planted in each of the three main sites of the attacks: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania where Flight 93 crashed. The grove at the new WTC would contain “2,850 white blossoming trees”, one in memory of each victim, with the groves in Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania housing a corresponding number. In doing so this multi-part memorial would represent not only the vastness and solemnity of the attacks, but also the importance of each and every life that was lost.
I agree with Young in that a memorial should not be a constant reminder of our grief, but of the positive outcome- the unity felt across the nation in the direct aftermath, the strength we found in those who rose to the occasion. Personally, I believed his vision of the memorials particularly beautiful because of the sheer magnitude: thousands of trees existing as one entity, yet each one completely and entirely separate. As the trees would grow, flower and wither year after year, they would represent our nation’s own different outlooks on 9/11 and its legacy.
Meghan Bravo
Author James Young clearly addresses the issue in this paragraph promptly from the beginning to the end. To create a memorial that would help remember and celebrate the lives lost without allowing the terrorists to feel any sense of victory or accomplishment.
Creating a proper memorial was necessary to try and provide some relief for the United States; something to help us remember the lives the victims had lived. While memorials can bring tears they can also bring joy. “Let this be a place where all stages of memory- recalling the terrible attack in all it’s immediacy, recalling the void left in the aftermath, recalling the attempt to commemorate life with life.” (Young 218) I feel this line appropriately addresses the entire subject and discussion of the passage. For such an important and tragic day, a memorial of outstanding measures had to be created to even begin to do justify for the lives that were lost.
In the end, Young states how the memorial will be able to be seen from many different sites in the city. This I feel is symbolic of how not only ones who lost loved ones in the tragedy of 9/11 were affected, which is what makes this memorial special. Young goes on to stay how it remind tourists and New Yorkers of that day in different ways and new lights and will continue to change the way we remember that horrific day in time.
“So when the avant-garde composer Karlheinz Stockhausen declared the attack a work of art, he was thinking as a terrorist, and his comment was rightly received with moral disgust.” From Danto’s perspective Stockhausen, whether intentionally or not, was speaking from some enlightenment he received through terroristic lenses. Is this true? In a glance, Stockhausen’s comment may seem harsh and inconsiderate of the degree of extreme disaster that occurred on 9/11. Possibly it is, but the significance beyond its harshness is the truth behind it. What is art? Is it an expression of the extraordinary? Art lives everyday. Not only is it an expression but an occurrence. Danto would say that Stockhausen is getting at the literal meaning of 9/11 being art and Osama Bin Laden being the artist.
Taken from an article by William Osborne on September 22, 2001
“After Stockhausen described the WTC bombing as “the greatest work of art ever” a journalist asked him if he equated art and crime. He answered:
“It is a crime because the people were not agreed. They didn’t go to the ‘concert.’ That is clear. And no one gave them notice that they might pass away [draufgehen]. What happened there, spiritually, this jump out of security, out of the everyday, out of life, that happens sometimes poco a poco in art. Otherwise it is nothing.”[1]” (draufgehen – “to fly apart” or “bite the dust”)
Stockhausen speaks to the essence of art in occurrences, behind the literal and actual incident there are feelings that derive from it that are extraordinary and are captured in art, in the moment. Reading Danto’s piece, it was disturbing to imagine that he would speak so boldly about 9/11. Nevertheless, feel free to examine resources for yourself. Attached is a secondary source based on Karlheinz Stockhausen’s comment on 9/11.
[1] “Stockhausen provoziert Eklat mit Äußerungen zu USA” _ Associated Press_ (September 18, 2001.) German original:
Auf die Frage eines Journalisten, ob er Kunst und Verbrechen gleichsetze, antwortete Stockhausen: «Ein Verbrechen ist es deshalb, weil die Menschen nicht einverstanden waren. Die sind nicht in das “Konzert” gekommen. Das ist klar. Und es hat ihnen niemand angekündigt, Ihr könntet dabei draufgehen. Was da geistig geschehen ist, dieser Sprung aus der Sicherheit, aus dem Selbstverständlichen, aus dem Leben, das passiert ja manchmal auch poco a poco in der Kunst. Oder sie ist nichts.»
http://www.osborne-conant.org/documentation_stockhausen.htm