A matter of scale

First it was Michelle Malkin, Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Scott Johnson of PowerLine and other leading lights of the right blogosphere who started seeing things we didn't in the design for the Flight 93 Memorial. We took a deep breath, blogged forward against the tide and got a nod -- and a few nice links -- from Michelle and Scott. But now the earth is falling away beneath our feet. Mark Steyn himself (left, C-Span archives) has partaken of the Kool Aid being served up by "self-proclaimed bishop Ron McRae (right), a street evangelist based in Shanksville's Somerset County," and other seers who have vowed to fight the "Crescent of Embrace" to the death, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. This evening the WaPo is reporting that Rep. Tom Tancredo (R. CO) has jumped into the fray.

"That’s all that’s needed in that field: the kind of simple dignified memorial you see on small-town commons saluting Civil war veterans, a granite block with the names of the passengers and the words 'LET’S ROLL,'” writes an outraged Mark Steyn [via Brainster!], throwing in his lot with the multitudes of bloggers and their minions who are seeing red over the jury's selection of "Crescent of Embrace" for the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, as blogged here early and often:

After all, what better way to demonstrate your willingness to “embrace” your enemies than by erecting a giant Islamic crescent at the site of the day’s most unambiguous episode of American heroism?

The “crescent of embrace,” in its desperation to see no enemies and stand for nothing, represents the precise opposite of Beamer, Glick, Burnett and co: Are you ready, guys? Let’s roll over.

Whoa, big fella. Rousing, muscular prose as always, and we couldn't agree more about the idiocy of the name, but we're sorry to see that the otherwise totally awesome Mr. Steyn doesn't seem to have a clue when it comes to placemaking.

USCG aerial photo of the crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania (black vertical slit just to left of center near bottom of image marks the spot of impact).  The site designated for the Flight 93 Memorial is at a very large scale, 2,200 acres. "It had been forested, it had been farmed, it had been mined and now it had taken this violent impact on 9/11. And it had been able to absorb all of this and still had its own tranquil power. And that's the level that we wanted to operate on," says architect Paul Murdoch.

Mark Steyn's commemorative block set on an acre or two of greensward surrounded by a cluster of iconic buildings does not translate well to an immense, windswept field of 2,200 acres surrounded at vast distances by forested hills. The large scale demands large landscape gestures. Principal architect Paul Murdoch explains in an interview with architecture critic Patricia Lowrey in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

The very first sketches that we did were dealing with land forms. It was apparent right away that at the scale of this site, we weren't going to create a monument, a built object that would be able to make a heroic statement. And we wanted to make a heroic statement. We were going to have to use the land to do that. The land was somehow the key to creating a memorial here.

We can't help but wish that Mark Steyn et al had had a chance to read the following Q & A with the architect before closing up shop and going for the jugular:

Q. When did you first learn of concerns that some people were interpreting the open circle of red maple trees with the red crescent associated with Islam?

A. I believe it was mentioned in the second stage jury report.

Q. Did it occur to you in the initial design phase that this might be an issue?

A. No, this is not in any way a derivation of what we came up with. I think it's an unfortunate misinterpretation of what we've generated, which we feel is very unique. The generation of this form came from the place and the intention of this memorial.

We've received a lot of angry mail in response to our contrarian position on this raging controversy and were touched by the sentiments of one of our visitors, jegoing, who observed rather quizzically "I thought this site was slanted toward the conservative side?" Yes, but it's not an echo chamber.

Technorati tags:  crescent of embrace,  flight 93 memorial

Comments

[Tara]

Is this memorial kind of like staring at those pictures that have hidden objects within it that some people see and some don't?

[Brainster]

Thanks for the link. As I mentioned in an update to my post, I'll go along with the families of the heroes if they feel this is no big deal; Lisa Beamer and Liz Glick's votes count, not mine. And yes, I know that there were some family members on the jury; let's hear from them on the crescent issue.

It's funny because when I first came across the story of the Flight 93 memorial I wrote that it sounded and looked beautiful (from ground level renderings), but something was missing that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Then I remembered: Where was the anti-American part? Ironic, eh?

I do apologize that my prior comment here was snide. Flight 93 is a big deal to me, because it was a lifeline out of the depression that almost overwhelmed me the first week after 9-11. It's a major part of why my blog spends a lot of time talking about heroes and celebrating their achievements.

[James E. Going]

We will agree to disagree on this issue. This "memorial" is a touchy feely to the PC diversity crowd at the expense of the real people at the heart of this issue, the victims and brave people who took on these muslim fanatics.

A Circle of Embrace with a cross roads walk way would be much better symbolism than this crescent.

[Mo]

I've also been on the contrarian side of this thing, and noted a couple of days ago that I hoped folks like us wouldn't get drummed out of conservative blogdom over it; sounds like some of your angry e-mailers are sharpening their pitchforks, though.

For Brainster, who wants to hear from family members: In yesterday's AP story focused on Sen. Tancredo's crescent commentary -- way down at the bottom -- was a quote from Gordon Felt, whose brother died on Flight 93. He said of the design: "It was in no way designed to memorialize the hijackers. I cannot even fathom a family member on the jury thinking that they were trying to memorialize the people who murdered our family members."

Works for me.

[fatman]

Three things:

1) It should be noted that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is the local house organ for the Democratic Party.
2)It's Congressman Tancredo, Mo, not Senator.
3) If the families of the Flight 93 heroes don't have a problem with the "Crescent of Embrace", then I guess we shouldn't either. But I still think it looks too much like the Islamic crescent for coincidence, I still think Al-Jazeera and other parts of the islamofascists' propaganda mill will have a field day with this (if they haven't already), and for the aforementioned reasons, I still think it sucks.

[Brainster]

Michelle Malkin today:

"Some design contest jury members reportedly raised concerns about the jarring symbol of the hijackers' faith implanted on the hallowed ground where the passengers of Flight 93 were murdered. But their recommendations to change the name of the memorial (to "Arc of Embrace," or some such whitewashing) were ignored."

We'll hear more about the family members' reactions pretty soon, I imagine.

[Clint]

While interesting, the artist's intentions aren't really the point. (Though I'd love to hear a detailed explanation of how he came up with the name "Crescent" -- which the second jury had wanted to change -- and why changing that name to "arc of embrace" as the jury recommended would have been so unacceptable.)

Similarly, while opinions of the family members of the victims deserve more respect than those of any one other person, this is a public memorial of an American event.

When the symbolism of the red crescent was pointed out at the second stage of the jury report, that would have been a good time to rethink this, before it became a national debate. Symbolism is always important, but never more so than in the monuments we erect. A memorial is a purely symbolic construct -- and it needs to reflect how we as a people feel about the events it memorializes.

Can you point to the part of the planned memorial that represents the rush of pride we feel at the courage of the men who took charge of their lives that day and immortalized the words, "Let's Roll"?

[Jim]

You say in the piece above "Yes, but it's not an echo chamber" to explain why a "conservative" blog would go against the prevailing conservative wisdom (of which you cannot argue in any good faith) on the matter of the Flight 93 memorial.

Another way to describe the situation is to note that sometimes a minority of conservatives go off the beaten path because they simply do not "get" it.

But at the end of the day, even though I believe you are dead wrong in your analysis, I do not believe you mean any harm by it. And maybe that's the difference between us and the lefties?

[RheGirl]

And YOU get it, Jim? Your opinion on the Memorial is the epitome of conservative thought?

Next you're going to call us conservatives who disagree Muslim-lovers. Why didn't you just say so and get it over with, or are you trying to be "polite"?

[F15C]

Sissy -- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the disconnect I'm sensing between my position and yours in this matter is that it seems you are taking the designer's word that they did not intend in any way for the memorial to be construed as having Islamist connotations or interpretations. And you seem to want us to accept that as the last word on the matter.

I may be misreading your position, but while the designer's intentions are germaine, they are not the last word on the matter. The designer is responsible for reasonable interpretations of their work.

Also, I disagree with those that are questioning your conservatism in this matter. As a conservative myself I simply accept that two people can see the same thing and come away with two different interpretations - whether I like it or not. Supposedly, we conservatives don't have a perceptive litmus test (that I know of). When we disagree - and we will - we work it out with reasoned discourse and debate. Emotional debate maybe, but let's not start questioning each other's values. If we end up agreeing to disagree on this matter, then both sides should still do what they believe is right for America.

However to be clear, I will certainly question anyone's values, patriotism, and fundamental morality that holds a position of the, 'Ok, "Crescent of Embrace" has Islamic connotations, but that's all right with me', variety. I assume you would as well.

I'm sure that you too want the best memorial that America can provide for flight 93. The question is: Do you think "Crescent of Embrace" is the best America can do?

[Jim]

RheGirl......whoa.

Calm yourself. I believe I noted that we can agree to disagree. No one called you a terrorist sympathizer. I don't even remember trashing the Muslim faith, so even though I didn't call you a "Muslim-lover", I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Your post does illustrate a huge problem our country faces. Though we have a large population of citizens that can READ, we have a much smaller subset from that population that has COMPREHENSION skills.

So, before you spout off next time, make sure you take your prescritpion BEFORE you type.....