This was a post by +Carter Gibson that I took quite a while to read, digest, and finally add my commentary. I found it to be quite interesting and wanted to share the conversation. I'm going to close comments on this post and encourage anyone with thoughts on the matter to join in the commentary on Carter's original post. Original post: https://plus.google.com/u/0/115121555137256496805/posts/CUEXoS8aAEq
My comment (also posted there) is as follows:
Wow, it took a while to read through all the comments and associated links. I break this down into two different discussions. Did the architects intentionally evoke the imagery of 9/11? If they did, is it a bad thing?
Without more evidence than what I've read so far, I don't think we can say irrefutably that the architects had 9/11 on their conscious minds from the beginning. Was it in their subconscious? There is no way of knowing that. My gut feeling is that the project probably came about naturally enough and when you come up with an idea from whatever pool of creativity in the recesses of your mind, then you are blinded by almost everything else except your idea. I can see the possibility that part way into the process someone may have looked at it in just the right way and saw the 9/11 connection. At a certain point a project has enough momentum (and monetary investment) that you just don't want to scrap it. I'd like to go down another thought from that last sentence a little further. Look at the pictures of these buildings. When I view it from above and see the terraces and rooftop gardens, I don't see the 9/11 connection. I really think it's quite cool and envision living in one of the units in the middle and how awesome the view and uniqueness of it all would be. If 9/11 had never happened I think every article about this architecture would compare it to retro 8-bit graphic inspired design, Lego-inspired design, an artist's envisioning of a cloud encircling two buildings, a Jack & the Beanstalk wonderland, or anything whimsical — but not destructive. I don't even get the destructive view unless I look at the buildings at the right angle; and I notice the comparisons showing the 9/11 towers and these buildings all mirror the same angle for the comparison. So they say they did not do it on purpose. Architects, are in my mind, artists. I find it hard to believe an artist would make such a bold statement and then not stand and embrace it fully. The purpose of art is not just beauty, but the reaction (and therefore controversy) that it evokes.
So, let's say the architects did it on purpose; and if not, it no longer matters because the comparison is out there in the world and it's never going away. So what? Are they in any way openly celebrating the negative or destructive events of 9/11? I have not heard or read anything that would suggest that; and they even apologized for the association. Looking at their creation from above (there are several links to images earlier in these comments) I think the imagery is quite striking, in a positive way. If I were the architects I would totally own this conversation and the associations to 9/11 imagery. My version, as the architects would go something like this:
"Okay, there is no argument that terrorists carried out a dastardly and evil deed on 9/11. The image of these buildings evokes a memory of two other buildings and the tragedy surrounding them; however we will not ignore or hang our heads in sorrow and be stuck in that moment of tragedy forever. We will not live in the world that terrorists have tried to mold for us. These buildings, aspects of which echo a moment in time — for we can not selectively erase just the bad from our past — are also standing proud. Whereas some might see a glimpse of that tragic memory, and we do not suggest anyone just forget, we also see a majestic structure full of life, and considering the rooftop terraces, actually covered in vibrant beautiful life. I think we can remember the past in reverence and due respect, yet still look forward with grandeur and awe, and most importantly a celebration of life. As architects, we set out to design something new; something different, of which we, and the city in which it resides, could be proud. As artists we embrace the vision that each viewer brings to the table and would deny no one the opinions or feelings that are invoked from something we have created. This creation was intended as another accomplishment of what we can do physically with the space in which we live. Hearing the comparisons to 9/11, we now hope our creation can also be an accomplishment to what we can overcome in the emotional world we also share."
They should totally own this discussion. Me personally, I like the buildings. I do not find them offensive. I personally thought of old Super Mario graphics before 9/11 imagery. However, 9/11 imagery evoked, I choose to take the buildings not as a monument to the success of terrorists, but as thumbing my nose to past and future terrorists in that we remember but we also go on, undaunted, and stronger than ever.
Reshared post from +Carter Gibson
Do South Korean Towers Mimic Twin Towers Attacks?
Full article: http://goo.gl/NxUPk
A new plan by Dutch design firm MVRDV is receiving heavy criticism for looking too much like the 9/11 attacks. The architects claim that say no resemblance calling the towers' "explosion" pixelated clouds. The towers are called "The Cloud" and are expected to be completed in 2015.
I don't know really think this too fair. What's your take?
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
