NEW YORK (AP) -- A statue of a falling woman -- designed as a memorial to those who jumped or fell to their death from the World Trade Center -- was abruptly draped in cloth and curtained off Wednesday because of complaints that it was too disturbing.

"We apologize if anyone was upset or offended by the display of this sculpture. It was certainly not our intent. The piece will be removed this evening," said Suzanne Halpin, spokeswoman for Rockefeller Center.

Eric Fischl's bronze, "Tumbling Woman," depicts a naked woman with arms and legs flailing. It went on view about a week ago in the lower concourse at Rockfeller Center and was supposed to remain on display through Monday.

Numerous news photos captured images of desperate people leaping to their deaths as the 110-story towers burned.

Some passers-by in Rockefeller Center complained that the sculpture was too graphic.

"I don't think it dignifies their deaths," said Paul Labb. "It's not art. It is very disrupting when you see it."

Some onlookers said there is a need for art that captures the horror of September 11.

I don't think that it's done in bad taste," Christine Defonces said before the statue was covered. "It's an artist's reaction to what happened."

"The sculpture was not meant to hurt anybody," Fischl said in a statement. "It was a sincere expression of deepest sympathy for the vulnerability of the human condition. Both specifically toward the victims of September 11 and toward humanity in general."

Hmm...I'll bet some of the same people who are complaining about Fischl's piece (he is a very well-respected modern artist, I might add) have no problems beholding Giambologna's 'Rape of the Sabine Women' or any number of scultures depicting Christ on the cross. As with any other art, if one does not like the subject or the artwork, simply turn away from it. No one is forced to behold artwork, it's a choice we all have to make.

I think America has become a nation of pampered children...adults are treated as if they can't make rational decisions for themselves about what to do with their bodies, what they can listen to or view with their eyes and ears, etc. etc.

By the way...I'm sure this 'controversy' will do wonders in heightening Fischl's stature as an artist. The art world thrives on controversies of this sort and always has...

I think that it may just have been too soon to display that statue--particularly in NYC.

The current level of stress and trauma connected to 9/11 is understandably higher in NYC than it is anywhere else in the country. Peoples' emotions may still be too raw to view this work without it arrousing vivid images of the original event. I think that a little more time might have to pass before this work can be appreciated on a purely artistic level.

Personally I find the statue quite powerful and quite well done. I do not find it disturbing.




This artist has produced controversial works before--like a huge nude statue of Arthur Ashe facing the tennis stadium named after him.
This time I'm not so sure he meant to be controversial--and I don't think the statue itself really is controversial. It's simply too soon for people in NYC to look upon it just as a work of art.

I'm not feeling it's a sure fire philistine call here Jazz, I think I'm feeling the too soon thing too...think of the Raft of the Medusa by Géricault. It was too recent an event, too charged with things.

Plus there is something sometimes kind of shocking to people in the sort of depiction, you said that people didn't have to look, but sometimes an artists' vision is too far away from what they've seen and yet it's been purchased or promoted by someone, a public commission, and they do have to see it when they go about their daily business.

I'm not sure if it's occurred to some people that it is taking advantage of something as well.


If we depicted the Holocaust soon after the event and used nudes...I think that people would have a very strong reaction...even now I wonder if it would be accepted..not just the nude thing as I think this is why it bothers people, but that they actually were stripped of their dignity and clothing...

It's not the nudity that bothers people per say, in my opinon, but the fact that they find the person has lost her dignity...it's not just a figure representing those who lost their lives, it strikes very close to home.

Wonder if they would have reacted to a nude male figure in the same way, like Icarus?

I will never forget the horror of watching people jump to their deaths from the World Trade Center on 09/11; I think about it often.

Fischl may be a gifted, renowned and respected artist but, in this case, he should have displayed some sensitivity, taste and social responsibility to his creation. We are all aware of what transpired on that ghastly day, but I wouldn't want to see a statue of a terrorist slitting a flight attendant's throat, a disabled person engulphed in flames as they waited for help, or a selection of body parts found during the cleanup. This flailing woman is in the same category.

In my opinion, this statue is an insensitive and undignified 'tribute' to those who died a horrific death (not to mention the families who I'm sure still wonder if their loved one is one who jumped) and, as such, is in very poor taste.

We don't need to be reminded of the carnage; that will be with us forever. Perhaps something bit more inspirational and uplifting would help heal the wound....the scar will never go away.

valois, why does an artist necessarily have to have "social responsibility"? Why does an artist have to necessarily "inspire" or "uplift"? Why does an artist have to pay "tribute" to anyone?

I certainly don't equate a nude figure with indignity. I do not equate a representation of a dying person with something that is necessarily insensitive and undignified.

If this figure lacked a title I don't think that it would bother people at all. The figure itself is not distasteful. I think the associations to the title of this sculpture are what disturb people.

When I saw this sculpture on the news this morning what struck me was the power of this figure. It is a powerful and very strong woman. It is not a figure who appears to be a pathetic woman plunging to a victim's death. It is a strong human being who, perhaps in an instant, took control of her destiny by making one final, last choice. So, in a way, I do think that this work gives great stature and dignity to the victims by revealing great strength at a moment of unbelievable horror. And the work captures the horror too. The figure is not flailing about. She looks like she has fallen from the sky with awful suddenness. And, as Americans, we did stop soaring on 9/11, we did fall from the sky that day. In some ways, this woman is all of us.

Now, obviously, I am responding to this sculpture with my own set of unique associations. I can see something positive and uplifting in this work. I can also see something quite horrible in this work. Both are equally valid for me. And, what I see may not even be what the artist intended, but I'm not sure that matters. The artist made me stop and think and react and that's what is important. The artist did transform an event for me. The artist did articulate and communicate visually. Isn't that what art is all about?

I think that displaying this work in a public concourse at Rockefeller Center, within one week after the anniversary of 9/11, when so many wounds had recently been reopened, was the true insensitivity. Had it been placed in a museum, people would have had more of an option about choosing to view it and the statue would have been seen by a more selective audience. But it really is not the sort of work that should be displayed rather casually--not right now.

I suspect that this sculpture will get a better reception at a later time, perhaps in a different place. It may still offend or upset some people, but that's true of any creative work.

Chelse:

When dealing with such a horrible event, with emotions still so fresh and families still suffering, I think the artist owes some social responsibility and a modicum of sensitivity to those of us still trying to come to terms with the tragedy. I know that if I had a loved one working on the 104th floor of Tower One and was aware that so many jumped, the last thing I would want is a constant reminder of the horror. I would live with it every day. Perhaps I would appreciate this work if 09/11 never happened. But to relate it to such an event I think is insensitive and inappropriate.

You and I may see this as a very strong and powerful woman but, in fact, it represents pathetic individuals plunging to their deaths. Certainly the choice between burning to death and jumping was not a moment of strength for these poor people; it was desperation, terror and horror.

You're right....displayed at another place and time, it probably would be more palatable. I don't think many of us needed the artist to give us a mechanism to think and react; we've done that for the last year, and for a long time to come, I fear.

I know that some people had their throats slit by the terrorists, others were stabbed and shot to death, others incinerated in the flames, dismembered, crushed to death and so on. But I don't want to see it cast in bronze. And I feel sure the families of those who perished wouldn't want to see it either. I think we should all work to minimize their trauma and suffering, not cast permanent reminders. They, and the victims, deserve better than that.

valois, I basically agree with everything you've said. I just wouldn't point the finger at the artist. I feel artists should be relatively free of social constraints when they create. The public doesn't have to buy, or view, or hear the work if they don't like it for any reason. But an artist should be free to deal with whatever subject they choose, in whatever manner they choose. And if they continually turn out works that meet with public disapproval they won't find an audience or an exhibition space and they won't earn much of an income.

It's not clear just how many people were upset by this particular sculpture--or if even a majority of people were upset. And it's also not clear how many were upset simply because they suddenly came upon this work in a public place.

I don't think this statue demeans victims of 9/11 in any way. I really do see the act of jumping from the tower as an act of courage--I thought that when I saw the victims falling in the news videos and still photos. They chose to embrace death on their own terms, through their own actions, rather than to lose all control over what might happen in the next few minutes. But that was a horrible choice and one of the most awful things I have ever seen.

I would not go out of my way to view this particular sculpture. I would not seek it out. For me the images of reality are still too terrible to want to see any artistic representations.
But maybe some people are ready for this sort of thing. Some people who saw this statue did appreciate it.

They have already held exhibits of 9/11 photographs, and many books of photos are already on the market. So, presumably there are people with an appetite to continue consuming the reality of 9/11. I can't see that artistic representations are any worse than the photos.

But this work was put in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not sure that the artist is the one to blame for that.

Picasso's Guernica is still an upsetting work to view. Any depiction of horror will always remain upsetting. But most people do need some distance and time from the actual event before they feel like subjecting themselves to artistic renditions of any sort. And I'd guess that most people haven't had enough time yet with regard to 9/11. Almost all 9/11 related art will wind up being controversial right now.

I don’t necessarily believe that a good portion of the people are upset because the sculpture in itself is offensive, but because the meaning it has to them is so strongly negative. It wouldn’t be surprising if this statue were introduced in a place like the Brooklyn Museum of Art, the place of the Virgin Mary surrounded by dung exhibit, and had the same reaction.

For me as well, the sculpture is a representation of the American public at large. However, I don’t see it as courageous. Courageous maybe if she said to herself, “I’m going to die my way instead of their way,” but in reality, she probably would have been jumping in fear that dying another way would be more difficult.

The way I see it, she, like us, was vulnerable (nudity=unprotected). She isn’t flailing or fighting, but rather her body language seems to say that she knows she is unable to take control of her situation and has no choice but to go with it. The grimace on her face represents that she, like us, couldn’t change what was about to happen and was anticipating what was to come.

I think it should be on display now. Good art is *supposed* to evoke strong emotions, it's supposed to trigger something in you, to make you react, to make you think. This piece does all of that. Of course it's upsetting to the people who actually lost someone in the towers- but do you think they'll be any *less* upset by not looking at a piece of art?

As to the time factor- do you think we could look at this piece in 20 years and not be moved by it?

ShadowHippie