-
ADD TIME NEWS
- MOBILE APPS
- NEWSLETTERS
9/11 Art

Tumbling Woman, Fischl, 2002 — Photo: AP
Over the past couple of days, Blogger Tyler Green has had a series of posts about art produced after 9/11 that tried to come to grips with the event. Interesting idea. Let me throw in one candidate not mentioned by him so far, especially because it's very effectiveness caused it so many problems. Five years ago Eric Fischl showed a sculpture called Tumbling Woman for less than a week in the underground arcade of Rockefeller Center. (Jerry Speyer, the chairman of the board of trustees of the Museum of Modern Art, is one of the two founding partners of Tishman Speyer, the real estate holding company that owns the Center, so for years now contemporary art has been a regular part of the public program there.) It was supposed to be there longer, but a few complaints from the public and a nasty and opportunistic column in Rupert Murdoch's New York Post led to its being removed on the grounds that it was too disturbing.
Was it? Or was it just disturbing enough? Plainly, it was meant to suggest a figure falling through the air, like one of the many people who jumped to their death that day. Fischl said repeatedly, as if it needed saying at all, that he meant the work as a tribute to the thousands who suffered and died. As a work of art, it was in some ways a conventional figure, a bronze that even seemed to refer deliberately by its pose to the Aristide Maillol's The River, a statue from the early 1940s that reclines voluptuously just a few blocks away in MoMa's sculpture garden.

The River, Maillol, 1938-1943 — Photo: MOMA, © 2007 Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York / ADAGP, Paris
The difference of course is that Maillol's woman is a symbol of contentment. She luxuriates in the sun. Fischl's woman simply plummets. She's a figure of anguish, and she's upside down, a posture that our body tries instantly, and uncomfortably, to connect to. An inverted human figure is universally understood in our very nerve endings as a sign of something wrong. That's one reason they're so rare in art, and when you do find them it's likely to be in a work like Rodin's Gates of Hell, where one of the damned tumbles backward and out from the door.

The Gates of Hell (detail), Rodin, conceived 1880-1917, cast 1928 — Rodin Museum
By itself, Fischl's statue would never be an adequate monument to 9/11, but it was never intended as that. It was intended as an attempt to capture one important aspect of the day, which was human suffering, and it did that in a representational, irony-free visual language that a broad public could understand and respond to. If it made some people uncomfortable, it was supposed to do that too. Pain is something art can speak to, but sometimes it has to do it in the language of pain.
-
1
Not to steer readers to another magazine, but there is a considerable discussion of Fischl's sculpture in Tom Junod's current Esquire piece -- http://www.esquire.com/features/ESQ0903-SEP_FALLINGMAN -- on the question of the identify of 9/11's "Falling Man," the figure in Richard Drew's semi-famous AP photo.
I say "semi-famous" rather than famous because images of those who fell or jumped from the towers before the towers themselves fell quickly became something of a taboo in public memories of that awful day. The speedy imposition of that taboo is another of Junod's subjects. In fact, the online version of Junod's essay reproduces the cover of Don DeLillo's new novel, "Falling Man," rather than the photo itself. Drew's photo is reproduced in the post at "::: wood s lot :::" that pointed me to he Esquire item: http://web.ncf.ca/ek867/2007_09_01-15_archives.html#09.11.2007 .
Richard Drew's photo, because he was where he was at the instant his shutter opened, is so perfectly composed that it has the appearance of art, even though it is actually a photograph of an actual man seconds away from his actual, horrible death. In the other shots Drew captured of the same man, he is tumbling just as Fischl's sculpted woman appears to be. Drew is at one remove from the awful reality of the moment he caught, and Fischl in his studio with a model on the floor is at one further remove from that reality, but both the photo and the sculpture ought to be seen and absorbed with eyes fully open.
Most Popular »
- Looking for Reasons to Care About Tiger Woods
- Piling On Desirée Rogers--Is The Social Secretary To Blame For Two Ticketless Boobs At The White House?
- Today Lands a Tell-None Interview With the Salahis
- Jay Leno a Failure; Also, Jay Leno a Success
- Cheney: 'No Aspirations' for Further Office
- The League of Ambivalent Columnists
- Is Walking Away from Your Mortgage the Smartest Thing You Can Do?
- Health Bill: What Would It Cost Me?
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Through The 2008 Campaign Looking Glass--John McCain on Medicare Cuts, Now And Then
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Tiger Woods Car Crash Bad Publicity for Rich Isleworth
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Dubai's Woes a Blow to Ambitious Ruler Sheik Mohammed
- The Women of Islam
- The Muppets Perform 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
- Amanda Knox Murder Trial: Verdict by Friday?
- Peru's Murderous Fat-Stealing Gang: Crime or Cover-Up?
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas













RSS