magicbeans. nothing if not awkward.

So yes, I am going to talk about the World Trade Center attacks. But not to gush eloquently about how meaningful today is. Or to bemoan how crass and unfeeling anyone who talks about anything else must be. Yes, what happened in this city, five years ago on this day, was sad and horrifying. And for the family members and friends of those who died, it is truly tragic. But aside from the magnitude of the event, it is no more tragic than when anyone is killed abruptly and unexpectedly. An act of terrorism does not trump a car wreck, a house fire, or a stray bullet. Personal grief is personal grief. And honestly, I am sickened by how we have fetishised the attacks, and the memory of those who died as a result, in order to feel a (false) sense of togetherness as a city, or a country, or what have you. Or even worse, for media sales and political gain.

I can't believe how much criticism the Mayor of New Orleans received for calling the site a 'hole in the ground'. And that he then apologised for saying it. It is a fucking hole in the ground. I understand the desire to attach some sort of significance to the spot where a loved one died (even if I don't fully empathise with the sentiment behind it). After all, humankind has a very long history of ritualising death and everything that surrounds it. But again, why should this be public? This is something that I've thought about since finding myself in a WTC architecture studio a year after the event, in which we were tasked with designing both new office buildings and a memorial on the site. I don't believe that there should be a public memorial dedicated to all the people who died. To the stock brokers, commuters, tourists, janitors, restaurant workers, and so on. To the first responders, yes, they gave their lives in the public service of saving others. (The FDNY has a memorial that was dedicated this June.)

I do happen to like the Tribute In Light. For me, it is more of a memorial to the buildings themselves, to the very public landmark that the city has lost. But, in its simplicity, it fills a range of interpretations and probably means something much personal to those who were more personally affected.

Maybe I'm the one who's crass and unfeeling. Maybe because I wasn't here when it happened, but was half way around the world, watching things unfold on Italian television, I just can't really understand. I don't believe that of course. Certainly, witnessing the event first hand would have been significantly more traumatic. But shy of a close personal connection (and even with one), what is the sense in memorialising that trauma?