The Flight 93 Memorial

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
walstan:
Actually it symbolises two arms outstretched to embrace the world, forms a crescent though!
Click to expand...
Perhaps through the same reasoning by which the French have been baking croissants since the annihilation of the Islamic armada at Lepanto? :rolleyes:
 
40.png
walstan:
Actually it symbolises two arms outstretched to embrace the world, forms a crescent though!
Click to expand...
Uh-huh. That is all it “symbolises”? Is that your assertion? How would you support such an assertion?
 
40.png
gilliam:
It is more than a work of art. It is a memorial. By definition, a memorial is a symbol.
Click to expand...
It’s a new age “memorial” that does nothing to impart the courage of those resisting the islamofascist terrorists. One of the members of the committee that chose it even expressed reservations that it evoked the terrorists’ cherished symbol.
 
Has it ever occured to anybody that what it may say is that by evoking the crescent; as important a symbol to Islam as the Cross is to christianity, it is symbolising the REAL Islam in solidarity with those who lost loved ones on Flight 93. In other words mayby it’s aimed at being a unfying rather than devisive symbol?smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_5.gif
 
40.png
walstan:
Has it ever occured to anybody that what it may say is that by evoking the crescent; as important a symbol to Islam as the Cross is to christianity, it is symbolising the REAL Islam in solidarity with those who lost loved ones on Flight 93. In other words mayby it’s aimed at being a unfying rather than devisive symbol?%between%
Click to expand...
So at Pearl Harbor whe should have made a giant rising sun?

So at Auschwitz they should have made a giant swatztica?

Don’t be silly.
 
40.png
gilliam:
So at Pearl Harbor whe should have made a giant rising sun?

So at Auschwitz they should have made a giant swatztica?

Don’t be silly.
Click to expand...
We were at war with the Japanese whose flag was the Rising Sun, we were at war with Germany whose flag was the Swastika so what you are really saying is that America is not at war with terrorists, its at war with Islam! Do I detect a Fruedian slip here maybe?

Why is it that we can sit here an feel sorry for Iraqi’s being killed left right and centre and sympathise with them in their loss but, if there is a possibility of anyone from Islam sympathising with our loss it’s rejected as “Silly”? smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_11.gif hummm…
 
Ani Ibi noted correctly that the work is not understood solely by the intent of its author. So, given the numerous opinions on this thread alone, it may just be that each viewer understands the work by what he or she individually sees in it. Just as in many other works of art.

There’s no single understanding attributable to the work.
 
40.png
walstan:
We were at war with the Japanese whose flag was the Rising Sun, we were at war with Germany whose flag was the Swastika so what you are really saying is that America is not at war with terrorists, its at war with Islam! Do I detect a Fruedian slip here maybe?

Why is it that we can sit here an feel sorry for Iraqi’s being killed left right and centre and sympathise with them in their loss but, if there is a possibility of anyone from Islam sympathising with our loss it’s rejected as “Silly”? hummm…
Click to expand...
We are at war with Islamisists who are using the banner of the Crescent. There is no way to rationalize placing that symbol predominately into this memorial. Simply because other people use that symbol is no reason. The Boy Scouts used the swaztica before Hitler did, but that does not justify using it in a memorial for the Jews who died in WWII. The Founding Fathers used the rising sun, rarely, as a symbol for the birth of our nation, but that is no reason to use it in a memorial for Pearl Harbor.
 
Arba Sicula:
Ani Ibi noted correctly that the work is not understood solely by the intent of its author.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Arba Sicula:
So, given the numerous opinions on this thread alone, it may just be that each viewer understands the work by what he or she individually sees in it. Just as in many other works of art.
Click to expand...
False dilemma. You are positing (by omission) that only two approaches are possible: intentional and subjective.

Once again, there are other interpretive approaches which must be accounted for.

historical, cultural, psychological, authorial, formalist, and so on.
Arba Sicula:
There’s no single understanding attributable to the work.
Click to expand...
This argues for relativism. There are more disciplined approaches to interpretation.
 
Ani Ibi:
False dilemma. You are positing (by omission) that only two approaches are possible: intentional and subjective.

Once again, there are other interpretive approaches which must be accounted for.

historical, cultural, psychological, authorial, formalist, and so on.
Click to expand...
To an art critic or even someone else, maybe so. When I look at a work of art, however, I understand it in light of my own impressions and my own experience. Someone can’t say to me or to you, “this is how you must interpret this work of art,” or “you haven’t taken all these factors into account.” Well, they can say that, but we can reject that and choose to understand the work of art through our own experience, not that of those others. Even if they’re right, and we’re wrong, we still see what we see.
This argues for relativism. There are more disciplined approaches to interpretation.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but again, I’m not out to write an article for some Arts magazine, I’m only out to please myself, so my relative judgment suffices for me. Those who want to apply more rigorous tests to an art work may do so.
 
Design for 9/11 site to change

Moving quickly to snuff out controversy, the National Park Service on Wednesday said key changes would be made to a proposed 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania in order to eliminate any association with a crescent - the symbol of Islam.

denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3029872
 
gilliam said:
Design for 9/11 site to change

Moving quickly to snuff out controversy, the National Park Service on Wednesday said key changes would be made to a proposed 9/11 memorial in Pennsylvania in order to eliminate any association with a crescent - the symbol of Islam.

denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3029872
Click to expand...

This confirms for me what I always thought–that the crescent was never intended to be a symbol of Islam. Not that I think it the best thing that they could have come up with, either. I think it a poor choice, but that’s just my opinion. Still, for the sake of harmony the design should be changed to match the sentiments of others besides the family members. For although they bore the greatest brunt of the hijacking and crash caused by the terrorists, the whole country was affected in the most profound ways. This memorial is for all of us who want to honor the great sacrifice made by the 40 passengers and crew of Flight 93.
 
Arba Sicula:
When I look at a work of art, however, I understand it in light of my own impressions and my own experience…I’m only out to please myself, so my relative judgment suffices for me.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh.

The work in question is a memorial. One of its principle functions is to remind people of something. What is it that people are being asked to remember?

a) you
b) moderate Islam
c) the courage of the passengers
 
Ani Ibi:
Uh-huh.

The work in question is a memorial. One of its principle functions is to remind people of something. What is it that people are being asked to remember?

a) you
b) moderate Islam
c) the courage of the passengers
Click to expand...
Point well taken. I was speaking of “a work of art,” generalizing in that last post. To be sure, the memorial is specifically about Flight 97.

And, as Gilliam pointed out, the Park Services’s revision should eliminate the controversy about the symbolism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top