Dark Elegy

Taken from Syracuse, NY Post Standard, February 27, 2008:

Families of Syracuse University students killed in the 1988 bombing of Flight 103 visited Washington Tuesday to ask for a national memorial for terrorism victims. But a federal commission that oversees such things rejected the proposal that Dark Elegy, a memorial consisting of 76 individual sculptures by Long Island artist Suse Lowenstein, be chosen to commemorate victims of terrorism worldwide.

Lowenstein's son, Alexander, 21, was among 35 SU students killed when a bomb exploded in their plane over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec. 21, 1988, as they returned from a semester abroad.

Her sculptures portray mothers, wives and sisters of the victims in grief-stricken positions after hearing about the death of their loved ones. The sculptures have been displayed in several cities, including on the SU campus in 1995.

I can't tell you all how outraged I am at John G. Parsons, an associate regional director for the National Park Service in DC and Michael McGill, a commission member representing the U.S. General Services Administration.

First Mr. Parson's comments on Dark Elegy:

"...raised concerns about the sculptures in a May 2007 letter to Lowenstein. He told Lowenstein that "your female figures are intentionally highly figurative" and said that could pose a problem. "While they may be appropriate in a private sculpture garden, such a realistic grouping of naked women may be found objectionable to some aspects of American society," Parsons wrote.

Michael McGill came to the defense of Parsons at the hearing at the National Building Museum in Washington. "He has for the past 30 years been a major figure in this city," McGill said of Parsons. "He has learned by experience about problems that can arise. He was not being voyeuristic. He was not being odd."

Other commission members avoided the conflict over the nude sculptures, and instead focused their concerns on whether they would properly represent all terror victims.

There were 2 questions asked. They can be found below with my responses. I've also forwarded my response to Suse Lowenstein (artist).

My responses to the Post Standard

1. First, does a sculpture representing the destruction of Pan Am Flight 103 adequately represent all victims of terrorist acts?

What about this sculpture says explicitly Pan Am Flight 103? It was inspired by the mother/artist of one of the victims of 103. Mothers grieving. This sculpture captures the grief, the horror and the life changing event of the moment they learned of their child was killed in
planned act of terrorism. Was it different for the mothers of the victims of 9/11 or when the uniformed military personnel walk to her front door - "Your son/daughter was killed by a road-side bomb in Iraq at 13:00 hours on February 16, 2008."? Do you think it was different
for a mother learning the same news in 1946? In time of war, naturaldisaster or sinking ships it's ALWAYS been "women and children first."

Why should this different?

2. Can Washington, D.C., cope with the larger-than-life images of grieving, naked women?

You see naked women???? I see women exposed, without protection, vulnerable. Clothes reveal cultural background and social status. They are purposefully "stripped" to make one of the most profound statements one piece of art has ever made - we are all vulnerable regardless of who we are or where we've been. If we can't protect the "women and children" where are WE as a society? Can Washington DC cope with this? or is it: Washington D.C. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH !!!!

I wonder if this same type of conversation was had when the very phallic Washington Monument was erected.

To advocate and voice your opinion regarding this topic.