http://nypost.com/commentary/57305.htm SHAMEFUL ART ATTACK By ANDREA PEYSER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEART OF STONE: Eric Fischl's "Tumbling Woman" is on display in Rockefeller Center's Lower Concourse. - Dan Brinzac September 18, 2002 -- IS THIS art? Or assault? As grieving New Yorkers marked the anniversary of the World Trade Center's destruction, the folks at Rockefeller Center got in your face to commemorate the terror attacks. A violently disturbing sculpture popped up last week in the middle of Rock Center's busy underground concourse - right in front of the ice-skating rink. It depicts a naked woman, limbs flailing, face contorted, at the exact moment her head smacks pavement following her leap from the flaming World Trade Center. The worst part about the piece is that you can't miss it. Even if you try. Titled "Tumbling Woman," the sculpture is by '80s darling Eric Fischl. Since it's planted in one of the city's best-traveled locations, tourists, stroller-pushing moms and office workers - many of whom lost friends and colleagues in the trade-center atrocity - are confronted daily with a larger-than-life rendition of a grotesque episode. "It's disgusting!" said Ken Fidje, 34, who was poring over paperwork at a table facing the sculpture yesterday when he looked up and noticed it. "I used to work at the trade center, and I know a lot of people who worked at Cantor Fitzgerald [which lost more than 600 workers]. "It's awful. It's awful!" Images of desperate people leaping to their deaths last Sept. 11 were captured by news photographers and seared into the memories of trade-center survivors. But out of respect to families of the dead, the most brutal still and video images are rarely displayed publicly - and then, only after sensitive viewers are warned that they may want to look away. No such warning is found anywhere near the sculpture. There is a plaque featuring a Fischl-authored poem that reads, in part: "We watched, disbelieving and helpless, on that savage day. People we love began falling, helpless and in disbelief." Fischl - who was traveling in Croatia yesterday - was not in Manhattan, but way out in the Hamptons Sept. 11 last year, and, despite the moronic poem, he did not witness the scene his work exploits. But one Rock Center security guard, forced to endure the sculpture because of his job, said he felt as if he were being dragged against his will back to the terrible day when he actually watched human beings fall from the sky. "I saw 70 people fall from the tower," he said. "Fall from almost 100 stories! To see a statue of people falling to the ground - it's nothing to be happy about." He said he was considering filing a complaint. "You have to respect other people and what trauma this will impose upon them," said Michael Cartier, who co-founded the Give Your Voice victims'-advocacy group after losing his brother, James. The sculpture is on display through Monday. Steven Rubenstein, a spokesman for Rockefeller Center, said the work was not commissioned.
The standard argument will be that art is meant to provoke emotions and/or memories, not make us feel all goodie...While this obviously accomplishes that, I think it's another ridiculous example of art/music/film/tv/literature based on the assumption that shocking=significant which is a trend I am hoping will die off with Madonna's career...
Dude, you cannot kill off Madonna's career. Everyone has been waiting since 1983 for her career to end and she's still going. Just when you think she's done, she isn't. I'm no fan of her music, but her ability to alter herself and retain her success is simply amazing. They should teach entire business courses on her. As for this sculputure, this is one person's view of the world, nothing more or less. The best way to make art go away is to ignore it. Controversy sells. Apathy doesn't.
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the sculpture, but I do have a question. There have been numerous mainstream magazines, and news channels that captured and showed the people jumping out of the building. It was real when they showed it. Is it wrong for them to show that? If it is then I can see why people would not like the sculpture, if it's alright for the news to show it, why is it different when an artist does it?
i didn't say that. I was commenting on his poem.i know he's talking about the collective "we" when he says "we watched....." hell, I didnt even have TV on that day because of reception. does that negate me from being horrified,?no. just a comment on the poem itself. update: they have covered the statue with a drape and it will be removed from Rockefeller Center CNN reports: NEW YORK (AP) -- A statue of a falling woman -- designed as a memorial to those who jumped or fell to their death from the World Trade Center -- was abruptly draped in cloth and curtained off Wednesday because of complaints that it was too disturbing. "We apologize if anyone was upset or offended by the display of this sculpture. It was certainly not our intent. The piece will be removed this evening," said Suzanne Halpin, spokeswoman for Rockefeller Center. Eric Fischl's bronze, "Tumbling Woman," depicts a naked woman with arms and legs flailing. It went on view about a week ago in the lower concourse at Rockfeller Center and was supposed to remain on display through Monday. Numerous news photos captured images of desperate people leaping to their deaths as the 110-story towers burned. Some passers-by in Rockefeller Center complained that the sculpture was too graphic. "I don't think it dignifies their deaths," said Paul Labb. "It's not art. It is very disrupting when you see it." Some onlookers said there is a need for art that captures the horror of September 11. "I don't think that it's done in bad taste," Christine Defonces said before the statue was covered. "It's an artist's reaction to what happened." "The sculpture was not meant to hurt anybody," Fischl said in a statement. "It was a sincere expression of deepest sympathy for the vulnerability of the human condition. Both specifically toward the victims of Sept. 11 and toward humanity in general."
It's too soon and unexpected. Maybe in 5 years when people have resumed their daily lives is when this is needed.
not offended at all then again, I bet you have laughed at racial jokes religous jokes, anti crippled jokes. its all about the context. as art, I find this piece almost necessary. if it were a cartoon, well I would be agast. then again my mother is an artist. edit: IF, its been a year, very few people havnt resumed their normal lives. everything alters our lives, however everyone that I know whom was seriously affected by that day have resumed "normal lives"
True...but it isn't suprising. It's hard not to be offended by a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine...and that got Federal funding under the NEA. It has just gotten out of hand.
So then what was your point? Could he also have been horrified when "he watched" various things happening. My sister saw BBC coverage (in the US) where they showed a lot of footage of people jumping/falling and said she was horriified - I am sure anyone who did see such things - in any way - could be horrified (my cousin saw it up close and personal and he was more horrified and is in counseling). So, again, what was your point? He is a moron for writing a poem? Can anyone find a better - less manipulated image of the work. I find it interesting that the opinion article talks about it being the "exact moment" her face hits the pavement, but everything else just depicts it as a falling woman. Why were people not offended by that hideous drawing of an eagle with a tear and within the tear - two flaming buildings of death? Maybe the Holocaust museum should be closed down because that is violent as well. Maybe Titanic and Pearl Harbor movies should all be banned. I just don't get the fuss. Cover it with a drape? Yet everybody could be glued to the set a few days earlier - watching all of the coverage again. Yeah, "80's darling" Eric Fischl - pretty condescending for an artist who has been active (in the spotlight) since 1970 and has continued to work, and be influential, to this very day. Do you know anything about Andres Serrano or his "Piss Christ"? Did you know that he photographed many different htings in urine, in blood, etc? Did you know that this was strictly a formalist issue? A "reworking" of something that has been done since about 400 CE? Did you know that he was raised a devout Catholic? Did you know that the crucifix he used was a "found object" that he discovered lying in the gutter/curb? Did you know that the only message (non formal issue) he has ever said it could have was that the urine was a connection to the human side of Christ (since urine is human (or blood in other cases) in origin)? In other words, if it is to be read as a message, it would be this connection between man and God, not a simplistic "pissing on Christ." In all honesty, formally, this was really nothing new - Friedrich had crucifixion paintings that looked very similar to this (red/yellow, etc)...as did Zurburan and later, Dali.
Kinda like athlete's foot...gross, annoying, and gets spread around a lot, but you gotta admire her staying power...
I know that he submerged a crucifix (similar to the one I have hanging on my wall) in a jar of piss. I know that I've seen said item. I know the message that it conveys to many Christians. I know that he submerged a religious symbol in a jar of piss, and we gave him tax dollars for it. Tell you what...in the name of art, why don't you go and submerge a Star of David in a jar of piss and see what happens? I'll be the guy in the middle of the pack of people yelling at you. Did you know that the Confederate stars and bars had been flown over state buildings in South Carolina since Reconstruction? They have since been taken down because it was offensive to a group of people. You can talk about what it really was supposed to signify, but it doesn't change the offensive nature of the display.
Art is just an expression. It means different things to different people. I find it really strange that it is ok to depict horrid acts of violence on television and in film and that is accepted as part of the norm. It makes billions of dollars every year. Yet, the artistic expression of an artist is disgusting and obscene? I just don't get the sub-context. It's a horrible act of moral indecency to submerge a crucifix in urine, but blowing up the entire city of Baltimore or disembowling another human being on film is ok? I'm guessing that, if this hadn't made the news, a few thousand people would have seen the sculpture. How many saw Resident Evil or The Sum of All Fears? The sculpture probably made very little money for the artist and offended a few thousand people. Those two films were released in theaters across the globe and no one seemed to be bothered. Ref, you like wrestling. On one hand, it's just entertainment. On the other, it's violent, sexist, mysogenistic and fake. For you, wrestling is probably just good entertainment. For others, it's ugly and a bad influence on children. Just like this sculpture, what it means and how it effects people is in the eye of the beholder.
Jeff-- As usual you make a strong point. Just one thing... Ugly only when the ring work is bad. It IS not appropriate for children. When Mrs. Ref and I are blessed with kids, I'll be watching my wrestling where the kiddos can't see it. I still think that "Piss Christ" is offensive and an affront to my faith. But that's just me.
I'll let the rest go because there is no point in making you upste...but I just wanted to ask how, exactly, our tax dollars paid for it?
If you've seen Eric fischl's other work, his paintings and such, its pretty bland figurative stuff. This sculpture fits about his same criteria. Its not a very exciting sculpture no matter what he calls it, now is it? Don't believe the hype!
