...into the wild blue yonder!

One of my students drew my attention to the fact that the Air Force Memorial, designed by James Ingo Freed, was dedicated in Arlington, Virginia this past weekend. I saw the memorial under construction while visiting the area this June (see photo or visit the Airforce Memorial at Sites of Memory). It shows three blue streaks aiming high and can be seen from a great distance.

There is an inforamtive article on the memorial in the Washington Post by Philip Kennicot (October 12, C1) . Kennicot admires the general idea of the memorial - three towering blew streaks shooting off into the sky. He also praises the restraint excersized: There is no museum and no gift shop, additions he describes as, "the twin Gorgons of tacky memorial thinking." The memorial fulfills the primary goal, which he argues is remembering "service and sacrifice."

He is highly critical, however, of the statue of the "honor guard" at the base of the statue. His criticisms on aesthetic grounds ("poorly conceived," "badly executed," "oversize," "like a 35-cent bride and groom figurine stuck on a $500 wedding cake," "little better than park kitsch") are less interesting than the implications for memorial design in general. For one thing, these figures were included in the design to give people visiting the memorial a photo op. For another thing, he argues, "The statues distract the visitor from the essential reflective duty -- to honor service and sacrifice -- and introduce the specifics of military life: uniforms, medals, discipline." He included the "B-minus verbiage" and "corporate boiler plate" rhetoric meant as words of inspiration which decorate a wall near the statue in his criticism.

I have argued that memorials are effective when the wording and subject of memorials are specific. When the wording is exact, referring to specific events or people, the memorial is more effective. But the builders of memorials often aim for inclusiveness: they make the symbols vague and the wording mushy so as to leave room for all visitors to find themselves in the memorial. It would appear that this memorial, much like the World War Two Veterans Memorial on the Mall in nearby Washington, D.C., manages the walk between inclusiveness and contour well on the level of symbols - the three blue streaks - but misses the mark on the verbiage, trying to include too much, but not risking precision enough to have any edge.

The statue, which Kennicot compares to the three soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on the Mall and the sailor walking across the map at the nearby Navy Memorial. They are, "silly and unnecessary accretions," "bluntly literal." I think Kennicot is right on the mark when he argues that they are a "sign that the people who design and build memorials don't trust the power of their best ideas. Or worse, they don't trust the freedom of the visitor to think and reflect without the presence of oversize G.I. Joes made of metal." I would add: They have learned from the experience of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial that certain interest groups will not tolerate ambiguity and will insist on some imposition of patriotic kitsch. They have learned from places like the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin that people will not always come with the mood of reverance and awe that they want to impose. If Kennicot's analysis is right, their imposition of mood backfires.

There is an interesting article on the engineering challenges posed by this towering memorial also at the Washington Post.

I have now added the Navy Memorial to the Sites of Memory webpage. If someone wants to publish better photos of the Air Force Memorial than I currently have there, I would welcome them and publish them there under your name or anonymously, however you wish.