Tasteless and simply awful. Awful.

I saw that and my jaw dropped. Almost as bad as that tv documentary where they showed the sidewalk where someone had jumped, and all you could make out was a head and a stain. No need for that crap.

I am inclined to disagree - perhaps it's too much, too soon, but all in all the art sums up the human tragedy of the event in one split second of sculpted action. Perhaps the very idea that people look at it, and turn away in disgust (because of remembrance of what we all saw in person or on television that day), is the redeeming quality of it.

Let us never forget.

I think it's in poor taste. The actual depiction of the death isn't necessary. Shall we have statues of hangings and beheadings now too?

I agree. "Art" like that isn't necessary because I don't think it teaches us anything that we didn't know before. It just gives the impression of being a money-spinning publicity stunt for the "artist"

I am all for freedom of expression, but I draw the line at this. There is no need for something like this to be created. This is shockingly bad taste.

I have an idea for a complimentary piece...let's pitch it to the artist, shall we?

We get some people to gang up and brutally beat and kill his wife, and then we paint it!!

I bet he'd love that art, almost as much as the children of the men and women who jumped must love his statue.

(I'd like to add that I am not, in any way, advocating violence towards women. Had the "artist" been a woman, I'd have suggested killing her husband.)

"Fear no art." As an artist, myself, I must play devil's advocate. This sculpture, in and of itself, is harmless. In fact, had the piece been released before 9/11/01, many would look at it through very different eyes. Is it hard to look at now? For many, yes. It reminds them of something they saw, or read, or watched on TV. But to others, it's an artistic reminder that life is often cruel and not pretty to look at. That's what art is supposed to do -- remind us of life, good and bad. Banning art for "bad taste" is as old as history. But when we start banning art -- or books or movies -- we become just like those that decided that women should cover themselves, and Jews should be "removed", and gays should be stoned to death.
"Fear no art."

I will have to think about this one for awhile. My very first reaction is that it is out of place. I spend a lot of time looking and thinking about art. It is what I do for my living. On September 11 of this year I chose to NOT listen to the news reports and the presidents messages. It was too much for me and I wanted to have SOME control of my emotional life. I do not think that is too much to ask.

When artists like Eric put images up without a space in which the viewer can have a choice whether to view or not...they are forcing the public to look. It feels abusive to me.

Audrey Flack wrote this in her small book "Art and Soul, notes on creating"...

"Great art is in balance, in harmony. Art that is in balance and harmonious is restorative, soothing and healing. Chaotic, disruptive art without any inherant order or balance can be damaging. The act of producing disturbing art can be temporarily therapeutic for the artist in getting rid of anxiety and dispelling bad feelings. The effect of such images on the viewer is another matter."

I think that the majority of us will *never* need a piece of "art" to ensure that the events and aftermath of 9/11 aren't forgotten.

The argument that art is in a class by itself and thus need not adhere in any way to standards of decency, tact or solemnity is so *tired.* This "artwork" that was paraded in front of thousands of people -- not set aside somewhere in a gallery or museum for people to view, or not view, by choice.

People felt assaulted by the image. They were assaulted by the image.

I don't advocate the banning of any "art" nor do I think most open-minded individuals. But surely, we can agree that there is an appropriate place (and, perhaps time in this case) for a sure-to-be contraversial piece like this. A museum. A gallery. Fine. But the councourse in Rockafeller Center. No. Way. In. Hell.

Aaron, the statue doesn't seem to be anybody in particular - it's a generalization of an event, perpetrated by someone other than the artist. Your analogy of killing someone solely so you can depict their death is a) more disturbing than the sculpture and b) logically invalid for comparison.

Based on what you (and others) have written, I assume you find Picasso's Guernica to be a horrible insult to those who died at the hands of the fascist bombs, rather than a memorial to needless death.

Or is this statue somehow different because the event happened in your lifetime?

(however, let me add, there is some merit to the idea that the placement of the statue was not well thought out - but that's a different issue from that of the statue itself)

Okay, first of all, let me point out that by discussing this, we're doing exactly what the "artist" wanted us to. Judging solely by the placement of his work, it is clear that he was trying to create a controversy, not a masterpiece. This is not art. This is marketing.

And Andy - You can't be serious, comparing Guernica to this thing, can you? Guernica uses pointed symbolism and imagery to take what is graphically a VERY unrealistic scene, and show us the atrocities of war. This guy has essentially created nothing but a 3-D rendering of Television Footage. There's no creativity, there's no message, there's no symbolism, there's no vaguery. Just graphic realism, with no intent other than to get his name in the papers.

There is nothing for the person viewing the art to think about - other than their own memories of this horrible event, memories which falsely give the piece some meaning. Had he created a statue of mangled straight-beams? Had he created a statue of the woman...BEFORE the fall? Had he given us any reason whatsoever to look at this piece other than for the sake of this very arguement? Then I'd be right there with you.

But in my opinon, "art" purely for the sake of controversy....is not.

Well, I'm glad that there is "some merit" to something said here. (rolls eyes)

As a person who considers herself an artist -- yeah, I'm one of those artsy types who wears black turtlenecks and hangs out in coffee shops -- let me say that the over-bearing sense of self many "artists" have is even MORE of a turn-off than that hideous sculpture.

Now we're really getting off topic though. hehe

I can't believe I'm about to write this; The art is as valid as it is repugnant.

This piece wasn't modeled after any real person nor does it show gore. Banning this makes as much sense as banning the song "Let the bodies hit the floor" did last year. It is art, and by itself is quite valid.

The poem that accompanies it is amateurish and awful. Even artists that support the art itself must realize that, much the same way genuine music artists refute Britney's music as tripe. Also, the location was picked for with intent to HURT people. No true artist wants to hurt people for the sake of hurting them. Whether it be music, with it's warning labels, or in visual art, with private showings that clearly state the subject nature, real artists choose an appropriate location and venue for their art. In this sense, the art is repugnant.

Such is the inequities of free speech.

It seems that the 'artist' is as others of you have said, going for a fast buck with this. If that's the case, then the guy is a weasel of the lowest order.

Free speech and freedom of expression are all very well, but not at the expense of the hurt caused to a very large number of people, by rubbing their noses in a tragic event that they're in no danger of ever forgetting anyway.

Yes, we should all be allowed freedom of expression, even if others disagree, but there comes a point when something is so universally upsetting that it's placement in such a public arena has to be questioned.

Whilst the artist is defending his right to freedom of expression, he should also consider another concept:

Thinking of people other than yourself.

get over it. art is art. turn away.