9/11 Wingnut Watch: Seeing Things

I don’t even think it looks like a crescent, which is wider at the side and then kind of tapers at the ends. But I guess it doesn’t help that it’s called “Crescent of Embrace”.
Just for the record, though, the crescent really isn’t any kind of official symbol of Islam. See Crescent Moon: Symbol of Islam?

Wingnut logic: We should get rid of our lovely satellite, the Earth’s Moon. Or force it to stop going through its lunar phases and promoting Islam in the night skies with its waxing and waning.

Anytime trees are to be used in forming a memorial site it’s good by me. Concrete and marble memorials have the feeling of a cemetary or an office building. Trees are living objects that many generations of people and birds can share.
Switching to wingnut mode … I see a doughnut with a couple o’ bites out of it.
Mmmmmm … cinnamon doughnut.

Pyramid in Our Pocket.

The design is called “Crescent of Embrace,” which the designers intend to symbolize “a gesture of healing and bonding.” By casting the memorial in this light, they set themselves up for attack by bellicose right wingers, many of whom prefer yellow ribbons over thoughtful discussion. I suspect some people want such memorials to be places where they can harbor thoughts of rage and revenge, rather than deeper reflection. In any event, the designers might have chosen a less politically charged title for their design, for the healing and bonding must first begin between the factions in this country, left and right.

Can’t See the Forest for the Trees.

I cannot think of a single memorial project that didn’t have their lunatic detractors in the design and presentation stages. The Vietnam Veterans Memorial was beset by all kinds of lunatic accusations back in the 1980’s. It took several years after the opening to the public to gain acceptance.

I LOVE the design. I do, however, feel rather guilty as I sit here eating my terrorist croissant.

I’m pretty far from being a right-wing wingnut, but, um, well, gee, the word “crescent” is in the name of the thing.

It most definitely resembles a crescent as its name implies.
So what is the purpose in making a memorial to the passengers of flight 93 that resembles a shape generally associated with Islam?
It really is a legitimate question. No doubt not everyone will see it this way but that is not relevant to this question.
Why not a design that doesn’t possibly cause an immediate association with any religion? What 93’s passengers did had nothing to do with religion and everything to do extreme bravery in the face of an almost sure death. There are many shapes available that are not associated with religion. If this basic layout is the one that is liked by most that will make the final decision then maybe with a little tweak here and there it can be changed to nor resemble a crescent and it can also be just as easily renamed.
Regardless of what you think about this design and it’s suggestion/relationship with Islam I believe it would be a very bad idea to build a memorial to “93’s Hero’s” that in anyway pays any kind of(however remotely associated suggestion) to anything Islamic
.

It’s beautiful. And yes, it’s a red crescent.
I can see the argument against it because of a possible interpretation of the symbolism. But overall, I just can’t help but think it’s beautiful.

Well to speak up for the symbol, “a new moon” according to my WordWeb, which was actually a surprise to me, thinking it a waning Moon, past gibbous (“more than half full”) is perhaps the intent of the designers? That site still drives me to distraction as the seismic data on the crash requested by the US Army, in time, does not match the description of the crash, and some eyewitnesses claim to have seen a pursuit aircraft, though the time between those two times perhas should also be in question.

So BAGNews, which so often calls out thers on their insensitivity of how they project themselves (see the just previous post on Laura Bush for a classic example), is now telling others to chill out in reacting to imagery for a very sensitive subject? I’m curious as to what privileges your ability to interpret images over Malkins’ to do likewise.

If this were pre-1990 the wingnuts would be calling it a hammer and sickle. And don’t get them started on the fact that the trees are RED.
As for Annoying Old Guy, it’s ok for wingers to be as perceptive and discerning as BAG is, but we can take issue with what they are sensitive to.
The swastika of the Third Reich was the official symbol of Nazism. The crescent is a symbol used by all Muslims including those who love peace, condemn the terrorist attacks, and were victims of those attacks.

EG: The crescent is a symbol used by all Muslims including those who love peace, condemn the terrorist attacks, and were victims of those attacks.
One Flag Over All

I have a question and a comment.
First, if the project was named “Arc of Embrace,” would the verbal OR the visual discomfort be the same? (Partly, I’m interested in how the name pulls for a particular visual interpretation. Along those lines, by the way, I have no trouble saying that the architect could have used better judgement in how he named the project.)
Re AOG’s comment: My main point here is that the design is being taken out of context based on one drawing that is primarily a technical rendering. A primary reason I started this blog (and also, why I like this story so much) is because our culture is so deficient when it comes to visual literacy. The real problem here is that those of us who haven’t been to art school or taken design classes have next-to-no idea how to read and understand technical illustrations or presentation graphics or scaled computer-generated images. Therefore, they tend to be taken at face value, and understood as flat images at a 1:1 scale.
C’mon AOG. I’m not being a hypocrite. How can you compare the photos of Laura Bush to a computer-generated architectural rendering of a completely schematic topology? The problem here is not the design, per se. The problem is the ability to read the design. If that wasn’t the case, then why was the response to the complete presentation so moving and so strongly accepted by the families of the victims?

have these folks been examined by a mental health expert?

I live very near the crash site and visit it frequently. Currently I am taking photos to document the curious trinkets left behind at the make-shift shrine by visitors. (It is so bizarre what people will leave behind in their attempt to connect with, communicate to, and commemorate something they can’t comprehend.)
Anyway, in consideration of the topography of the terrain at the Shanksville site, the semi-circle is, in my mind, most appropriate. The design competition has been presented many times in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and I’ve had a lot of opportunities to consider the entries. The semi-circle works with the landscape, and it never occurred to me that religious symbology was involved in the planning (if indeed).
For all the critics of this design, I say, drive to Shanksville Pennsylvania, see where the plane plummeted to the earth, feel (if you are sensitive enough) the psychic ripples eminating from the death pit, and leave behind something personal, like your sunglasses, a beat-up teddy bear or your car’s license plate, to show how much you give a damn.

The BAG;
I don’t buy the “out of context” argument primarily for a reason you mention, that the architect himself referred to it as a “crescent”. I think it’s quite reasonable to take his word on what he was designing over secondary sources. And not only did the architect chose that term, he explicitly rejected changing it to something more neutral like “arc” when this issue was brought up in some of the presentation meetings. Unless you want to claim that the architect is also taking his work out of context and is too visually illiterate to grasp his own design, you have to allow that the crescent interpretation is valid. Beyond that, I am not going to comment.
Even if, however, the Right Wing Death Beasts are taking this out of context by picking a single image and using that to interpret the overall concept, isn’t that exactly what most of your posts do? The discussion and commentary on Judge John Roberts comes to mind in this regard (particularly this one, or maybe this comment about how Roberts verbally abuses his family).
One can certainly disagree with the overall claims being made by Malkin and the other RWDBs, but to claim that they can only see a crescent out of ignorance is, in my view, unjustified and given some of the examples I’ve cited rather hypocritical.
A few other notes:
As you mentioned, I think that the architect’s choice of terminology had a definite effect on the interpretation of the memorial. However, even if he hadn’t said it, given what we know now it would still have been his design intent and would not be an unreasonable view.
I actually have several friends who are architects and the idea that they don’t embed symbology in the overall layout of buildings is completely untenable. Even if you can’t see it from ground level, the architect thinks about it and makes his design with the over all shape strongly in mind. I mean, do you think the drawers of the Nazca lines didn’t mean to create those symbols?
And finally, have you ever considered whether the tendency of the left to label those who disagree as “ignorant” or “stupid” (as you do) might possibly be a reason for the resurgence of the right?

if the name were changed, despite aog, i do think the issues would remain. the recognition of a red cresent or whatever shape you like to call it would call upon the recognition of its religious iconography. and for those that notice that, some (particulary politically inflammatory types) would yell about it, as they are. i also think there may be some validity to their arguements (of it being inappropriate), which is unfortunate, as i do think it’s a noble and beautiful proposal and would be a beautiful earthwork. again i say this despite who i may appear to be sympathizing with.
this context may have been intentional by the artist, i don’t know enough about the him or his work to say, and which may be of noble origins. however, if this association offends or disturbs the survivors (in particular the loved ones of the deceased) reasonably, there exists a legitamate issue in questioning it.

Fallen

Annoying Old Guy,
My comments about Roberts are my own responsibility… and I stand by them. If anything, the more I read about him, the more wary I am that Roberts is a very dangerous man. He has only been a judge for THREE years. He may be brilliant, but he is also extremely inexperienced. And his family life is obviously rooted deep in 1950s “perfection”… where the men rule and the women cower in obedience and docility. I am an animator by profession, and use characters’ body language to convey motive and attitude as well as other things.
Now as to this landscape design…
The architect was deliberately using a symbol which has been adopted by a religious group where the adherents had been the cause of the suffering being remembered here. He probably had noble intentions.
Let’s suppose that somebody decided to mark the place of burning at Pskov with a planting in the shape of the cross born by the Teutonic Knights… do you think it would have made those who’d lost their families any happier? If some folks planted a blackpine swastika in a large circular field of brilliant red poppies, would that have consoled the Londoners who’d been blitzed? Let’s say that earnest folk wanted to give the people of Jericho something to salve their mental wounds and so planted a large star of david (Bachelor’s Buttons in a white pebble bed?) to mark where the walls fell… would that have eased their pain, or just made everything Much Worse?
If the crescent had been any other color than red, it would have been subtle, and the explanation of fitting with the shape of the land would be more believeable. However, the bowl of the crescent cuts ACROSS the terrain, not with it. Symbols, like any brand, become more potent with exact repetition. Purple or green crescents wouldn’t have the same shock of recognition.
I am a gardener and have planted my share of trees. I like most trees. Memorials of living trees are a wonderful idea. However, using trees to make a political or religious statement is abhorrent and runs the risk that the heightened emotions will affect the innocent trees adversely. Like the larches being sawn and destroyed in Fotonique’s example above… why plant trees only to set them up for destruction?
If America goes on overt crusade, some good ol’ boys will deface this memorial. If they will run over crosses planted in a ditch outside Crawford, they’ll feel no remorse about destroying a symbol of another religion.
I wouldn’t want a cross of any color planted there, either. Given the number of shapes which aren’t used by a religious group, it ought to be possible to find something meaningful but without arousing wrathful emotions. If they really want the sweep of trees, why not a shooting star with curving tail? It would commemorate those who fell from the sky rather than those who caused such grief… and could make good use of the lovely reds and golds.
Carolly

Are the trees always red? They don’t look like red maple trees but rather sugar maples in the fall. Red maple trees are maroon in color, sugar maples are green then turn bright red (as pictured) for about 3-4 weeks at the end of their foliage.
Asta, I now visualize the Pope feverishly working a keyboard with his pointing fingers when I read AOG’s comments. Much fun

Re: Asta’s comments – I was at the location this Sunday for the memorial service, and the topography indeed meets the “crescent,” as it were, so it’s not like they’re going to have to terraform too much to get it right.
As for the trees, I believe they are sugar maples, and the summertime storyboard that the firm had up at the site on Sunday was that it would be green the rest of the time, and only red at the peak time for the color change, which would, of course, be in September. While the coincidence surely seems there, I find it hard to believe that the creators of this were looking to give a pointer to the Muslim world at all.

Professional, Philosophy, Project, Palette, Brush
Nice.

a crescent can stand for many things, not just Islamic states. When I analyze an image, I take into account all the “language” in that image to find what I think it means. Any interpretation of an image, therefore, isn’t “wrong,” exactly, but there isn’t only one interpretation to any visual symbol. By saying any crescent automatically represents Islamic states is denying the crescent’s ability to represent the moon, or an encompassing but yielding enclosure, or even a croissant (delicious!). You see the crescent shape from the air, but you feel it from the ground: as in the above illustration, the line of trees encompasses you but lets you consider the surroundings as a whole, let’s you leave whenever you want, the very idea of “embrace” if you ask me.
I don’t think it would be appropriate to call the shape an “arc,” as an arc refers to a section of a circle whereas a crescent tapers towards the ends. Landforms that are crescent-shaped are probably referred to as “crescents” bceause of their 3-dimensional qualities and this tapering you don’t see when you look at “arcs.”
If these wingnuts can’t see a shape in other contexts, they must have inflexible one-track minds. The Christian cross and the Red Cross don’t mean the same thing, but if all crescents are derivative of the Islamic crescents, then why is the Red Cross any different from the Christian cross? Likewise, not all swastica shapes refer to the Nazi regime. Again, the viewer and designer bring their own biases when interpreting an image. To go beyond these biases is to truly interpret an image.

Sorry for the personal laziness, but can anyone post a specific link or links which elaborate the architect’s specific intention and rationale for using a crescent. Also, is there any link (or supporting evidence) that he intended to specifically evoke the crescent as a religious symbol?

Wow, miracles do happen.
AOG ~ I can see where you’re coming from … ! I know absolutely nothing about this project, I know absolutely nothing about the history of the crescent and it’s use by Muslims, I know absolutely nothing ’bout geometry.
But I see a beautiful red crescent and I understand AOG’s argument.
The right wingers have been working hard to spread the notion that liberals want to give aid, comfort and therapy to the enemy. Liberals need to be sensitive to this characterization, as false as it may be. Why play into it? Really, aren’t there 100 other designs that could be envisioned that would be just as beautiful?
I can’t stand Malkin and like you, BAG, think she’s a symbol of everything wrong in this country right now. But in playing art critic, she’s modeling herself after liberals. She may be completely off-base in her analysis, but it is interesting to watch her try. I’ve had some personal experience with this in blog land. The rabid right cannot stand the idea of funding art of any kind. Drives them completely off the deep end. They also cannot abide by the notion of a liberal education yet they often try to mimic critical analysis as a way of trying to outsmart their liberal opponents. But they don’t really understand or honor the principles of liberalism so their attempts come off as amateurish.
You have to give them credit for trying. And feel bad for them that they didn’t receive a proper liberal education.

BAG,
Paul Murdoch Architects
Flight 93 National Memorial Competition:

The design embraces the place and memory of Flight 93 with a curving arc of maple trees along a walkway through the Bowl, with a focus on the Sacred Ground. At the western end of the curving landform is a Portal, defined by walls that frame the axis of the Flight Path to the crash site.

Google searches of PMA Web site:

Your search – site:www.paulmurdocharchitects.com crescent – did not match any documents.
Your search – site:www.paulmurdocharchitects.com “crescent of embrace“ – did not match any documents.

Flight 93 National Memorial
Selected Design
Crescent of Embrace:

Through the gesture of embrace, a curving landform formally defines the edge of the Bowl. The CRESCENT OF EMBRACE enhances the form and monumental scale of the Bowl to commemorate the heroic actions of the passengers and crew of Flight 93…

Google Web search:

Results 401 – 492 of about 493 for “paul murdoch” “crescent of embrace“

Crescent: the First Result

Also, is there any link (or supporting evidence) that he intended to specifically evoke the crescent as a religious symbol?

I have seen nothing of that nature.

Like AOG, I also know a few architects. In fact, my clinical practice is heavily populated with architects (many of the rigorous modernist kind), my wife is an architect, and a lot of our friends are architects. Given that L.A. has been a hotbed of modernist architecture (Gehry, Morphosis, etc.), there is something about this story that just isn’t coming together. My initial instinct was to be protective of this design, and to protect (considering it as almost the very basis of democracy) the freedom and power of good art to evoke strong, but ultimately random metaphors and associations.
That being said, I can’t dismiss the qualifications of bob crane and AOG and others. Where significant confusion arises is in the intention of the architect and the extent to which he put forth this design given the seemingly obvious “political” associations. In considering this, and spending some time talking to my wife and others about it, it seems unimaginable that the architect wouldn’t have been fully aware of the “Islamic dimension” and taken this into consideration (in both the naming and design of the project).
Well, perhaps the lesson here is that a lot of things seems obvious in hindsight. (Isn’t that one of the primary truths about the 9/11 attack itself?)
This afternoon, I gave a call over to the architect’s office. I talked to an associate there who was very professional, very discreet and very hesitant to say anything at all about this potential controversy (which I can understand, now that that wackjob congressman, Tom Tancredo, has unfortunately stuck his nose into this). What the associate did intimate, however, is that the architect never considered the (now seemingly obvious) association to Islam either in the naming of the project, or the design. (Again, he didn’t state this “flat out,” but it seemed pretty obvious from the way he addressed my question about it.)
In talking to my wife and to other architects I know, the unanimous reaction is: how could this architect and his team not consider this association, and how could it be that not one other person — design-trained or not — failed to pick it up through the entire design, conception and review process (and I mean, even before it was ever submitted).
At the same time, however, it’s instructive to consider that a 15-member jury (made up of family members, community members and design professionals) was tasked with making a final recommendation on the design, and they apparently didn’t think of the association. Also, other families of the victims were involved in the process, and they were reportedly all present for a thorough presentation of the project, and were nothing but moved and impressed.
Sorry for the extraordinarily long post, but this issue brings up questions that I’m not sure any of us here have considered yet. Beyond ideology and issues of visual representation, there are psychological factors at play. Certainly, that encompasses issues of hermetic thinking and decision making. Of course, it’s now impossible to look at that red moon shape and not see the Islamic association as clear as, well, day.
But, of course, that’s because it’s “now.”

If the trees are green most of the year and only turn red in September, that seems very symbolic of what happened there. But green is actually the color associated with Islam (again, it’s not anything official), so a green crescent should be more controversial than a red one.
By the way, a lot of people do take the Red Cross to represent a Christian cross, which is why the organization is called the Red Crescent in Muslim countries. And it’s why Israel has never joined the Red Cross, because they don’t want to use a cross or a crescent; they want a star of David.

well, I guess 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong.

BAG said: …other families of the victims were involved in the process, and they were reportedly all present for a thorough presentation of the project, and were nothing but moved and impressed.

It’s not JUST a named crescent; it’s a RED CRESCENT.
Now, I’m a long-time Liberal, but honestly? WERE THESE DESIGNERS TONE-DEAF OR STUPID OR, it must be said, TREASONOUS??

Okay, “treasonous” was over the top.
But I’m sticking with “stupid”!

BAG, you raise excellent points as always. I agree that good art has the power to lift us all up, to make us think, to touch our emotions. Artists need the freedom to create and should be able to work free of societal pressure to conform. However, given the political nature and importance of this project (and the current red-hot political climate), you would think that there would’ve been more sensitivity and analysis brought into play here. On the other hand, at what point does that sensitivity become the tyranny of correctness? I see liberals at working so hard NOT to offend that they then become easy targets for abuse. Isn’t that what has been happening over the years? I’ve been chided by conservative folk to be more “open minded” about what I see as their close-mindedness. It really is an upside down world these days.
Frankly, it could drive one to see a shrink!

If mark of the cresent in that field is the response to an airplane, full of people like you and me, being taken out of the sky and slammed into the earth by a group of Muslim fundamentalists, it only highlights the insane, self centered, mindless, and plain old mean nature of religious fundamentalism. Not a positive mark on the Muslim religion imho. It would be like rebuilding Abu Garib to look like a big white cross.
Good art can lift us but great art stirs the mind and stimulates conversation – good and bad. By the looks of these comments this is a great design. Much great art has been rejected by the masses upon introduction.

btw – BAG I’m fascinated with the archtecture connection with you and your readers. My design mentor, would constantly compare works in graphic design with architecture. There are a lot of common rules and practices between the two.

The Blog-o-sphere can make one a master of what he or she spends little time to comprehend. I challenge critics to visit the following website and understand the design intent. http://www.flight93memorialproject.org/
All of the family members support this design. The memorial is important enough to them to take the time and invest in the complex design process. They are not moving on to the next media blip after branding others as stupid or treasonous.
When rooted in a ritual symbolic mindset, you will see what you want to see. Art can unseat the ritual mindset allowing one to see things as they are, unadulterated by ideology. Free from ideology, vision penetrates our misconception allowing the restoration process to take place.
But then again, none of this means anything to you, and maybe it shouldn’t, then the following article will make you happy.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SEPT_11_MEMORIAL?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=customwire.htm
I am happy that this website has taken up the issue. More comments please.

i’m feeling defensive readiing this discourse. while, as i mentioned, i find it is a beautiful proposal and would be a lovely piece/park, i can’t help empathizing (and agreeing) with the sentiments of hauksdottir. to many it would be offensive to find a memorial which has a cross as a central element at buchenwald, particularly for a jew, and rightfully so. and i think there is certainly a parallel. the perception of the situation is similar, the victims of a homicidal ideology identifying itself within religious iconography are presented a memorial which reflects the perpetrators symbolism.
i also agree with archidork, but within an aesthetic framework only. this is a public piece, a memorial for the dead. perception is never free of ideology, archidork, i wish it were. it’s a memorial of those killed by what we’re identifying as an radical ideology. i find this a difficult analysis, precisely because of the quality and beauty of the proposal. but regardless of the aesthetics, i think i’m coming to the conclusion that i find it inappropriate.
as i said earlier, it is up to the survivors (particularly the loved ones of the deceased, but all of us, as americans, as citizens of the world are survivors of that day) to approve or disapprove. and after BAGs and several others postings of survivors’ families’ involved, supporting and moved by the proposal, i have to wonder; was the symbolism recognized? and if it weren’t, would it make a difference?

According to the article mentioned by archidork, they may be changing the design. I think many people have sincere objections, but I hope the changes aren’t driven by Rep. Tom Tancredo, the guy who suggested that the U.S. should threaten to bomb Makkah (the holiest site in Islam).
This does make me think of the strong opinions against the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall… much of the hostility was because the winning design was by a young woman of Asian background.

Oh hell, why not just remove the letter “C” from the alphabet and have done with it?

Flight 93 Monument latest in a long line of public monuments to draw criticism
And on a lighter note: Crescent conspiracy is on a roll
…A General Mills spokeswoman in Golden Valley, Minn., declined to discuss the Pillsbury Doughboy’s activities in his spare time. Nor would she address whether he has ever associated with any radical Islamic fundamentalists.
“OK then,” I said. “Care to comment on the doughboy’s fanatical endorsement of crescent rolls over the years?”…