Frank Gehry’s proposed design for an Eisenhower Memorial—featuring large screens surrounding a statue of Eisenhower as a barefoot boy—has drawn a great deal of controversy. This came to a head in a recent public meeting when Gehry was confronted by an audience member. From a transcript of the event:
I happen to think that the giant screen represents winter, permanent winter — trees without leaves. It represents death and nihilism — in the same way that I see your black t-shirt [referring to his attire], much beloved by downtown hipsters and nihilists everywhere — and it’s a total rejection of the past and tradition and, honestly, of everything that Eisenhower himself stood for.
These remarks—reflecting the thoughts of many designers and other observers—were met by applause from the audience and silence from Gehry. My take is more positive than some. I think the design has its merits as an abstract form. There’s something eerie and evocative about screening in an outdoor space.
Still, to whatever extent it functions as a monument, it is a monument to the vision of its designer, not the unassuming public service of its subject. It speaks more of Gehry’s “boldness” (and the boldness of those who approved the plan, of course) than of Eisenhower’s bravery. If we are to be honest about it, then, we should either reassess the plan or rename the memorial for its creator.
(via @DinoMarcantonio)
October 21st, 2011 | 1:00 pm
I can understand not liking the proposed memorial, but I don’t understand the hostility towards Gehry.
Remember the hostile reaction to the Vietnam War Memorial?
October 21st, 2011 | 1:13 pm
I’m a bit confused by one thing–is there really just a single statue of Ike, and it’s of him as a little boy? Huh? What’s that all about? That’s truly absurd.
Any memorial in my mind has to include his farewell address in its entirety in some prominent place. It’s short and absolutely brilliant.
October 21st, 2011 | 1:30 pm
[...] Curtain’ Friday, October 21, 2011, 1:30 PM Matthew Cantirino As Matthew Schmitz notes in an earlier post, a furious effort is now being mounted to challenge the official proposal for an Eisenhower [...]
October 21st, 2011 | 1:49 pm
I am bewildered as to why this cannot be viewed as a matter of differing tastes rather than as good versus evil.
It’s been about 20 years since I visited the Vietnam War Memorial, and I don’t even remember seeing the sculpture, which was added to placate people who wanted something more “traditional.”
October 21st, 2011 | 2:01 pm
I am curios to know if the model is to scale (vis a vis the little cars on the street). If so, it is way too big to honor a man who was known for his modesty as much as anything else. Using the cars again as the reference point, this looks like it is 2 to 3 times the size of the Lincoln Memorial.
And the decision to put up a statue of Ike as a small boy is baffling too — will future genrations, less in touch with his achievements than ours, conclude that the memorial honors a child prodigy?
October 21st, 2011 | 2:05 pm
Jaime – yes, it is. See this:
http://newurbannetwork.com/news-opinion/blogs/dhiru-thadani/14948/misshapen-memorial-president-eisenhower
October 21st, 2011 | 3:55 pm
I can understand your criticism, David, but I think one of the reasons why people get more exercised over a monument like this is that A. it’s supposed to represent the national ethos to some degree, rather than just the designer’s own personal taste; and B. monuments are intended to be around for a really long time, so bad ones don’t just go away.
October 21st, 2011 | 8:03 pm
What is all the hubub? Can anyone name a single monument which was not a controversy? To say that a monument should reflect our collective is a nice thought. But it’s just a thought. Anyone really think the Washington monument should be an Egyptian Obelisk? The biggest in the world? That’s suppose to be appropriate to the American consciousness? Classical architecture has its roots from the Greeks and Egyptians. We’re Americans. We’re used to being different. In fact, we celebrate it especially if it’s different from what the Europeans do. Which is what this does. Get over it people, half of you will hate it no matter what it is and the other half will come to love it after it’s finished.
October 21st, 2011 | 10:23 pm
I am not surprised that some people don’t like Gehry’s design, but I think the audience member cited above was rude. I don’t blame Gehry for remaining silent.
And “nihilistic” is the last word I’d use to describe Gehry’s architecture. It’s anything but. I wouldn’t presume to know the “meaning” of his black shirt.
Also, is the monument supposed to show the “unassuming public service” of Eisenhower or his “bravery”? I think the former would make for a dull work—like the James Garfield Monument (remember that one? I didn’t think so). A commemoration of bravery, though, seems to demand a bold design. I bet a Gehry-designed monument will be a major attraction and this is not bad for sustaining our memory of Eisenhower—presumably the purpose of a memorial.
October 22nd, 2011 | 1:41 am
What is all the hubub? Can anyone name a single monument which was not a controversy?
Lots and lots of monuments haven’t been controversial; most monuments involve standard monumental tropes and so provide nothing to be controversial about. In any case, there seems a little bit of tension between insisting that all monument proposals are controversial and being exasperated over the fact that this one is.
I find the repeated mention of the Vietnam War Memorial in this thread and the other quite interesting; it’s as if people think that the major controversies had nothing to do with the fact that interpretation of the Vietnam War itself is a touchy point.
The models designed to present the overall layout look OK to me, but in all the mock-ups designed to show how it would affect the view from the ground it looks truly awful: the pillars are just huge, industrial-looking things rising up and blocking the view, and the steel-mesh tapestries are immense things that (apparently) can’t be seen in any panoramic view and could only be seen by wrenching one’s neck upward, which one would think would defeat the purpose. But I do sort of understand the desire to do something to make it very different: just looking at the map, it looks like it’s a tough location for a monument — just off the mall, competing with the Smithsonian museums on one side, with a bunch of very institutional government buildings on the other sides, having to maintain a clear view of Capitol Hill, etc.
October 22nd, 2011 | 12:40 pm
Ethan C.,
I still don’t understand why Matthew Schmitz chose to emphasize the comments of the audience member personally attacking Gehry as a nihilist. It is a very ugly charge. Why even repeat that slander here on First Things? Is there any justification for it at all? Does Matthew Schmitz believe it? Why make a disagreement over the design of a monument into a matter of good versus evil?
October 22nd, 2011 | 4:19 pm
“I still don’t understand why Matthew Schmitz chose to emphasize the comments of the audience member personally attacking Gehry as a nihilist. It is a very ugly charge.”
Yes, this rubbed me the wrong way, too. So unnecessarily mean-spirited and personal. It’s no way to treat anyone, let alone someone of noteworthy achievement.
October 22nd, 2011 | 7:23 pm
Joe Carter writes:
If we are to be honest about it, then, we should either reassess the plan or rename the memorial for its creator.
Great idea. The Frank Gehry Memorial of Eisenhower. Ouch.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact