Against the WWII Memorial

It's true, the newish World War II memorial in Washington really is a stinker. It's a bit hard to illustrate the badness because part of its terrible-osity is that it's been designed at a scale where it's almost impossible to take the whole thing in and offer anyone a decent photo to illustrate what it looks like. But the aesthetics are bad and vaguely un-American, the efforts at symbolism are simultaneously over-literal and incomprehensible. All-in-all it's something that comes closer to belonging in a third-rate Soviet city than on the National Mall.

Here's a lengthy complaint. I'll only note in the WWII memorial's defense that the Korean War memorial also sucks and nobody seems to mind.

Comments

What's this? Mr. Yglesias agrees with Charles Krauthammer on something.

Posted by SLC | June 2, 2008 8:53 AM

They forgot the abstract concrete replica of Esther Williams spewing water onto the Audie Murphy eternal flame.

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 8:59 AM

The Korean War memorial isn't so big and doesn't take up so much valuable Mall space, and it doesn't look like the sort of memorial the North Koreans would build (as opposed to the WW2 memorial's Albert Speer look).

Posted by KCinDC | June 2, 2008 9:00 AM

The memorials in D.C. all got together to make sure that the taste, simplicity, solemnity, and power of the Vietnam Memorial would never be repeated.

The Korean Memorial in good light borders on kitsch, but we saw it in failing light and a hint of fog. It may have still been kitsch but seeing the first soldier coming out of the fog was startling if not particularly moving.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 2, 2008 9:01 AM

I MIND! Thank you for saying it. The Korean War Memorial sucks!

Posted by Allan | June 2, 2008 9:03 AM

The visuals aside, the WWII Memorial is completely incoherent in terms of how the various state names, campaigns and panels are organized. At least the FDR Memorial can be figured out.

Matt, why do you not care for the Korean Memorial? I don't find it nearly as bad as WWII.

Posted by David Bruggeman | June 2, 2008 9:04 AM

I agree with Jeffrey Davis, although I would say that the Korea memorial can be quite moving on a foggy morning when the light is just right. Washington has a lot of those mornings.

Posted by M.C. | June 2, 2008 9:04 AM

The design of this thing is eerily close to the Soviet WWII memorial in East Berlin (in Treptower Park). Here are some photos:

http://www.war-memorial.net/mem_det.asp?ID=98

Posted by David | June 2, 2008 9:05 AM

All-in-all it's something that comes closer to belonging in a third-rate Soviet city than on the National Mall.

Well, we have the Soviets to thank for winning WWII in Europe (not to mention Hitler for insanely breaking the pact) so maybe it's somewhat appropriate.

Posted by Bill | June 2, 2008 9:05 AM

1) The Vietnam War Memorial received a huge barrage of criticism from the yahoos when it was first revealed. Which is usually a good sign.

2) I personally think we need a Memorial to Celebrate the Victory Over/Extinction Of the American Indian.

Maybe next to the Holocaust Memorial.

Posted by Don Williams | June 2, 2008 9:05 AM

Commenters are right about the Korean War memorial. It's only not good during the day. Which is weird, I know, but still true. Go see it at night, when it kind of kicks the shit out of a lot of other memorials.

Posted by jhupp | June 2, 2008 9:08 AM

The WW2 Memorial is yet another reason to hate Tom Hanks. He and Bob Dole went around calling anyone who opposed the design un-American haters of the troops. I might very well have joined the American Film Institute if the letter inviting me hadn't come from Hanks (and actually I still would if I went to Silver Spring more often).

Posted by KCinDC | June 2, 2008 9:09 AM

And it's not as if the USA can't do big world war memorials well - the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, built at massive cost in the 1920's to commemorate the First World War - is spectacular. The one for WW1 in St Louis - completely ignored, as far as i can tell - is also dignified and interesting [and big!].

Posted by James | June 2, 2008 9:12 AM

Maybe the aesthetics used to be vaguely un-American, but this is now a country that gleefully tortures people (to say nothing of how many of our own we incarcerate), so perhaps they're just right.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | June 2, 2008 9:15 AM

I'll be the lone spoiler in this group. The WWII monument isn't particularly ground-breaking or its design particularly exciting but works of arts are judged by the public's response to them. And from what I've seen, the public loves the WWII monument. It doesn't get the same kind of pilgrimages The Wall does but the crowds it attracts compare favorably to most others, including the FDR memorial.

The point about manufactured symbolism is well-taken, though. The should've left The Wall alone, rather than adding a flagpole and two statues to appease each and every group touched by Vietnam. The result has been a bunch of memorials that feel compelled to feature lights, flames, plaintive empty chairs etc.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 9:21 AM

I'll be the lone spoiler in this group. The WWII monument isn't particularly ground-breaking or its design particularly exciting but works of arts are judged by the public's response to them. And from what I've seen, the public loves the WWII monument. It doesn't get the same kind of pilgrimages The Wall does but the crowds it attracts compare favorably to most others, including the FDR memorial.

The point about manufactured symbolism is well-taken, though. The should've left The Wall alone, rather than adding a flagpole and two statues to appease each and every group touched by Vietnam. The result has been a bunch of memorials that feel compelled to feature lights, flames, plaintive empty chairs etc.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 9:22 AM

I'll be the lone spoiler in this group. The WWII monument isn't particularly ground-breaking or its design particularly exciting but works of arts are judged by the public's response to them. And from what I've seen, the public loves the WWII monument. It doesn't get the same kind of pilgrimages The Wall does but the crowds it attracts compare favorably to most others, including the FDR memorial.

The point about manufactured symbolism is well-taken, though. The should've left The Wall alone, rather than adding a flagpole and two statues to appease each and every group touched by Vietnam. The result has been a bunch of memorials that feel compelled to feature lights, flames, plaintive empty chairs etc.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 9:27 AM

I'm still pissed they nixed my idea of building a replica of an Iowa-class battleship in the middle of the reflecting pool.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 9:27 AM

Oh, I don't know...is it _that_ bad? The middle-school pageant earnestness about the symbolism ("PACIFIC THEATRE," "ATLANTIC THEATER," "each star represents exactly 487 American deaths," or whatever the heck it is) is indeed goofy, but you don't have to pay attention to it if you don't want to...it's not like the pillars are in the shape of the individual states or something really stupid like that. Mostly, it's a water feature with some columns around it. Sure, it lacks the greatness of the Big Three monuments, but it just doesn't bother me all that much.

I fist saw the Korean monument on a snowy morning, and found it quite moving, as a lot of people have observed. True, you have to ignore that stupid wall with the pictures on it--Norman Rockwell redesigns the Vietnam Memorial--but the ghostly soldiers can really stir something under the right conditions.

Posted by Craig | June 2, 2008 9:39 AM

I like the Korean War Memorial. I agree on the WWII memorial.

Posted by crack | June 2, 2008 9:40 AM

Here's another pretty good criticism.

I'll only note in the WWII memorial's defense that the Korean War memorial also sucks and nobody seems to mind.

But who cares about the Korean war?

Posted by right | June 2, 2008 9:42 AM

DTM, can the replica of Esther Williams be placed on the deck of the battleship?

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 9:44 AM

The WWII Memorial is more of a monument to male baby-boomer's daddy issues than it is a monument to the vets. "Is it big enough, daddy? Is it grand enough, daddy? Did I get the dates right, daddy?"

It's a perfect artifact of the Bush era, and that alone makes it tough to look at.

Posted by Tom | June 2, 2008 9:46 AM

According the WWII memorial, the war lasted 3 years 9 months - December 1941 to August 1945. You kind of wonder what was going for the prior two years.

Posted by Bloix | June 2, 2008 9:46 AM

Typical Yglesian misogyny. The WWII memorial complements the Washington monument. A big wet public vagina to join America's phallus.

Posted by Ikram | June 2, 2008 9:47 AM

The inscribed quotes on the walls of the WWII memorial - all from American politicians and military types - have the unintended effect of demonstrating that Churchill got all the good lines in that war.

Posted by politicalfootball | June 2, 2008 9:51 AM

"According the WWII memorial, the war lasted 3 years 9 months - December 1941 to August 1945. You kind of wonder what was going for the prior two years."

Obviously this only covers the announced American involvement.

Posted by Chris | June 2, 2008 9:55 AM

"the crowds it attracts compare favorably to most others"

That's because it's in the middle of the frickin' Mall, right between the Washington and the Lincoln monuments. The patch of grass that used to be there drew crowds that compared favorably to most other monuments.

Posted by Doug | June 2, 2008 9:58 AM

I'll stick up for the Korean Memorial. It's a bit cheesy, but it's in a quiet, wooded area and it keeps to itself.

On the other hand, I support DTM's plan to build a fully-functional battleship in the Reflecting Pool and use the 16-inch guns to shell the WW2 Monument.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 2, 2008 10:03 AM

Am I the only person who thinks that (a) Soviet-style, larger-than-life monuments aren't always bad, and (b) the mediocre aesthetics of the WWII memorial are probably just what the audience for it wants? The "middle-school pageant earnestness" is clearly preferred by some people out there, otherwise no one would keep writing those middle-school pageants.

The Vietnam Memorial is a truly "sophisticated" memorial, but there's limited room for such experiments.

Posted by Tyro | June 2, 2008 10:04 AM

The visuals aside, the WWII Memorial is completely incoherent in terms of how the various state names, campaigns and panels are organized. At least the FDR Memorial can be figured out.

It took me a little while to figure out, but it's done in order of joining the union. So one side starts out with Delaware (the first state to ratify the constitution) and the other side starts out with Pennsylvania (the second state), then New Jersey (#3) follows Delaware, Georgia (#4) follows Pennsylvania, and so on.

Posted by dzleprechaun | June 2, 2008 10:05 AM

We beat the Nazis, so we get to take their design concepts. That's how it works, right? If they had won, Berlin would be all art-deco now.

Posted by Rich | June 2, 2008 10:05 AM

Yeah, but the Korean War sucked too. WWII was a famously awesome war, and deserves a better monument.

Posted by aleks | June 2, 2008 10:06 AM

The visuals aside, the WWII Memorial is completely incoherent in terms of how the various state names, campaigns and panels are organized. At least the FDR Memorial can be figured out.

It took me a little while to figure out, but it's done in order of joining the union. So one side starts out with Delaware (the first state to ratify the constitution) and the other side starts out with Pennsylvania (the second state), then New Jersey (#3) follows Delaware, Georgia (#4) follows Pennsylvania, and so on.

Posted by dzleprechaun | June 2, 2008 10:06 AM

I object because I had to take a 2 year old to it. The water pool gently slopes in, like one of those fake concrete beaches at water parks. Yet you are not allowed in the water, even your toes, per the guards. Fortunately I guess they stopped construction before they could build the lollipop trees you can't climb and the puppies you can't touch.

Posted by jibeaux | June 2, 2008 10:08 AM

Drew Shaw is right -- even though the WWII Memorial is architectural shite, most people seem to love it, so in that sense it's so far a success. It's not just a matter of declining American standards of taste -- a few months ago, I was passing the monument when I heard a group of British tourists (with Midlands accents that could crack cement) gushing about how wonderful the memorial was, and why can't Britain make monuments like that? And, no, they weren't being sarcastic. The lumpenproletariat love for the WWII Memorial transcends national boundaries.

I'll also add my voice to the defenders of the Korean War Monument, in that it's at least pretty small and at the right time of day quite dramatic, although I would argue that it's the least "necessary" monument on the Mall in terms of subject matter.

And, just to show what an out of touch elitist I am, I'll chip in that the best memorial on the Mall, bar none, is the WWI Memorial.

Posted by cminus | June 2, 2008 10:15 AM

The memorial is situated below grade in the middle of a swamp. The first flood that comes along is going to screw it up pretty bad.

Posted by Spike | June 2, 2008 10:21 AM

This memorial was a conservative establishment effort to reclaim the reflecting pool from the legacy of MLK, and to sabotage future efforts at using this space for mass gatherings.

The memorial plans were strongly criticized for being unworthy of this position on the mall, and for the legacy of WWII, but the medio-crats on the commission approved them anyway.

Posted by TG | June 2, 2008 10:23 AM

If you'd like a moving World War II memorial, try the cruiser San Francisco memorial overlooking the ocean in San Francisco.

And FDR has some good lines there, particularly if you know that he really was a good friend of Admiral Callaghan who died on the bridge of the ship at the first Naval Battle of Guadacanal.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 2, 2008 10:24 AM

From the pics, I would have said Mussolini instead of Nazi or Soviet. I haven't been to DC for few years, and the last time I was there this was just part of the Mall.

Posted by Pesto | June 2, 2008 10:24 AM

I agree with Craig that the Korean memorial is stunning on snowy days (http://www.pbase.com/jehanson/image/25537256), but unfortunately that only happens a few times a year here. That monument would be more at home someplace far, far to the North.

The problem is that everybody is vainly trying to match the architectural power of the Wall, and these memorial commissions use size and prominent locations to try to make up for what they lack in vision. The one that currently has me freaked out is the MLK memorial. I guess it's to be expected that when you go hire a communist sculptor, your sculpture is going to end up looking like Lenin. (http://tinyurl.com/433knf)

Posted by Eric | June 2, 2008 10:35 AM

One of the few things in Indianapolis's favor is that the Soldiers and Sailors Monument downtown is truly awe-inspiring. It even appeared in a "Little Nemo in Slumberland" strip.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 2, 2008 10:40 AM

One of the few things in Indianapolis's favor is that the Soldiers and Sailors Monument downtown is truly awe-inspiring. It even appeared in a "Little Nemo in Slumberland" strip.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 2, 2008 10:40 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, the citizens of Indianapolis string the statue with a bunch of lights during winter holidays and call it "The World's Largest Christmas Tree". How in the hell is a concrete, marble and metal war memorial transformed into a "tree" merely by virtue if stringing it up with a bunch of lights? Um, where is the vegetable matter? You know, some flora? Indiana is really just northern Kentucky with slightly more teeth.

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 10:51 AM

I never understood why they list the name of the states on the columns, in a memorial commemorating a federal war effort.

Posted by Dave | June 2, 2008 10:55 AM

the Korean War memorial also sucks

Go wash your mouth out with soap, whippersnapper!

Maybe my view of war is colored by having read too many Joe Haldeman novels, but IMHO no other war memorial says, "this is what it's like," the way the Korean War Memorial does.

In a town full of statuary, I find the Korean memorial to be second only to the Lincoln Memorial in its emotional power.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 2, 2008 10:58 AM

Steve, I'm not going to defend the Christmas decorating habits of my former neighbors in Indianapolis. But I will say that you seem a bit unclear on the concept of an "inside joke."

Also, considering that Indy and its Northern suburbs went for Obama by a wide margin, I'd like to think we can draw the Kentucky border at least a few blocks south of Monument Circle.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 2, 2008 11:05 AM

Getting back to the main subject, the WWII Memorial does well and truly suck, on multiple levels.

It's somewhere between Albert Speer (as others have noted) and Memorials-R-Us.

It has contradictory thematic designs, with the "Atlantic Theatre" and "Pacific Theatre" arches at either end of the oval, and the state markers around the oval with, of course, no relation to the theatres of war.

And there's just nothing particularly moving or striking about it.

Maybe in another 30 years, they can raze this generic memorial and replace it with something worthy of the men who gave their lives.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 2, 2008 11:07 AM

Yeah, I was going to say, the Lincoln Memorial is the only one that can make me cry.

As for the World War II monument, it's not as bad as I expected it to be. It doesn't ruin the Mall, which is no small accomplishment. It's a place where you can take your kid and point at a name carved in the wall and say, "That's where your grandfather was during the war."

Posted by Jim Naureckas | June 2, 2008 11:14 AM

The Lawyers, Guns, and Money blog that Matt linked too is on to something when he says that a triumphal arch (or two, one for the Pacific and one for Europe) would have been more appropriate. Maybe a big triumphal arch or two leading onto the Mall.

The World War II memorial should be different than the Vietnam memorial because we won World War II. The US was attacked, and fought back against some genuine bad guys, and was completely united in the war effort. This also makes it completely unlike any other war the US fought, US participation in the other wars was morally ambiguous, the country was divided at the time, and its not clear what was accomplished by the three other big twentieth century wars (and where is the World War I memorial?).

The problem with modern day memorials is the kitchen sink approach, if you look at the other memorials and monuments on the Mall that work the key seems to be their simplicity (the US Capitol is, in a way, the Civil War memorial but not many people realized that).

The World War II memorial should be grandiose, triumphant, but simple. Hopefully, future generations with better taste in public architecture will tear it up and build something different.

A different approach will be needed for the Iraq war memorial, I suggest either a giant oil well, or a mosque.

Posted by Ed | June 2, 2008 11:18 AM

I was thinking what low-tech cyclist said: looking at the figures of the Korean war memorial, you come away with a sense of "whoa... so that's what that was like" in a way that you don't elsewhere. In addition, my dad explained to me that the details on the figures are right on, such as the guy carrying the tripod walking next to the machine gunner, the one Browning in the squad, etc. Guys like my dad love that stuff.

Posted by BudFox2 | June 2, 2008 11:32 AM

LaFollette Progressive, an interesting bit of trivia. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries those migrating northward from the southern states stopped just shy of the Michigan border. Those making the trek heard there were jobs to be had in Michigan and thus put down roots in the Indiana.

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 11:44 AM

Our WWII memorial is nothing but a cheap, scaled down knock-off of Victory Park in Moscow, which itself is kind of a monstrous monument devoted to making you feel small and insignificant compared to those who fought and suffered during the war.

At least at Victory Park, you can stop, drink beer and watch scantily clad 20 something hot Russian chicks rollerblading all over then place.

Posted by calipygian | June 2, 2008 11:48 AM

I agree with Ed. In a way, Maya Lin is both the best friend and worst enemy of modern public art. The Wall was so good that lesser talents have spent the past 20 or so years trying to equal its impact, Lesser talents, lacking Lin's skills, have turned to gimmicks, e.g. stainless steel "contrails" at the Air Force memorial, underlit empty chairs at Oklahoma City etc. It'd be worth appointing her the nation's memorialist emeritus until we come up with someone else of sufficient originality to bid on these projects.

And, for all the talk about how rotten the WWII memorial is, it seems to have prompted a good deal of debate, itself a good sign of an artwork's effectiveness.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 11:53 AM

And, for all the talk about how rotten the WWII memorial is, it seems to have prompted a good deal of debate, itself a good sign of an artwork's effectiveness.

There is a nonsubtle difference between "prompted a good deal of debate," and "prompted near-universal agreement that it's horrible."

Posted by rea | June 2, 2008 12:01 PM

for all the talk about how rotten the WWII memorial is, it seems to have prompted a good deal of debate, itself a good sign of an artwork's effectiveness.

I disagree, on two grounds: the placement of the memorial, and the war itself.

If the WWII memorial were off to one side somewhere (like the Vietnam and Korean memorials are), its crumminess would be less of an issue, because only those who made a special effort to see it, or who tripped over it by accident, would see it.

But even then, it wouldn't be a non-issue, simply because it's World War Freakin' Two, and people are going to care very much about what sort of monument is raised to those who fought in it.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 2, 2008 12:04 PM

A lot of old-schoolers detested The Wall but it's still the benchmark for modern memorials. In contrast, it's pretty hard to find Washington's monuments to World War I (Actually kind of a nice quiet thing.) or the victims of the Titanic.

Art is supposed to elicit a reaction. If it doesn't, it isn't art. It's just a pile of stone or whatever.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 12:07 PM

Re: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries those migrating northward from the southern states stopped just shy of the Michigan border.

Those making the trek a bit later on made it all the way to Michigan. Baptist churches abounded in Metro Detroit suburb where I grew up and the accents in our local K-Mart were indistinishable from those in Chattanooga.

Posted by JonF | June 2, 2008 12:07 PM

It also has hints of the Soviet Tiergarten memorial. (Stalin did like reminding Berliners of 1945.)

It's a hodge-podge of Jerry- and Joe-built forced-meaning modern neoclassical nonsense.

The battle box-score thing is very Arc De Triomphe; except the old hauteur and bombast of the Arc is now offset by the Unknown Warrior's tomb and eternal flame at its centre, directing the visitor back down to earth. The WW2 memorial's pool does the opposite: it drives you out to the edges.

Still, the WW2 vets seem to like it, though more for its being there than for how it's built.

(The UK doesn't have a national WW2-specific memorial; the Cenotaph in Whitehall and the small, local memorials put up after the Great War do double-duty.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 2, 2008 12:18 PM

I think the location argument is overdone. World War II was probably the seminal event of the 20th Century so any monument to that event merited a central location. Whether the design lives up to the location is debatable, as we have seen here.

Finally, all those arguments about whether the thing disturbs the symmetry and grandeur of the Mall should look at a picture of the McMillan Plan. Had the planners had their way, practically the whole Mall would've be paved in granite and marble ... and there was something pretty similar to the WWII memorial planned for the east end of the Reflecting Pool.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 12:19 PM

Am I wrong for wanting a concrete garden gnome set atop each of the columns?

Posted by stm177 | June 2, 2008 12:21 PM

World War II was probably the seminal event of the 20th Century so any monument to that event merited a central location.

Perhaps it's a grammar nitpick on 'seminal' (as opposed to 'central'), but I'd say the Great War fits that description better: 1914-18 sowed the seeds of 1939-45, and its harvest is still being reaped today.

That photo in the WSJ piece reminds me of Bernini's colonnade, and St Peter's Square is designed to demonstrate institutional power: the Catholic Church is very very big, and you are very very small.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 2, 2008 12:30 PM

To pseudonymous:

Good point. Which makes it kind of sad that no one can find D.C.'s WWI memorial and that it's badly in need of repair.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 12:34 PM

I always thought the WWII memorial looked like one of Albert Speer's designs. Weird. And sad.

Posted by Kevin | June 2, 2008 12:43 PM

Art is supposed to elicit a reaction. If it doesn't, it isn't art.

This is the consistent excuse made by anyone who faced criticism about his crap. "Star Wars: Episode I" elicited a reaction from me. I hesitate to call it an important artistic work.

Punching your mother in the face would elicit a reaction, too, but I would hesitate to call that art.

By all accounts, the WWII memorial is a mediocre but essentially unobjectionable memorial: to some people, that is enough to make it objectionable, but I happen to disagree. None of these arguments, however, confirm its "success" as a work of art.

Posted by Tyro | June 2, 2008 12:55 PM

My dad, a WWII fighter pilot and career military officer, was taken to the WWII monument shortly before he died. He liked it. That's good enough for me.

Posted by bemused | June 2, 2008 1:29 PM

Some years ago I served on a local arts council. The importance of reaction in validating a work of art was one of about four things I learned while serving on that board.

Later I had a portrait done. I had to wait an extra week because the portraitist liked to prop up completed works "so he could live with them" for a week. If he didn't feel the presence of the portrait, he went back to work and tried to figure out what he'd done wrong.

Lots of people hate Cristo but his work elicits a reaction. And I know more than a few film critics who swear Star Wars is an epic on par with The Godfather and Citizen Kane. I don't share that view but hey, they're entitled.

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 1:33 PM

If you think WWII Memorial is big and tacky, you should check out the National D-Day Memorial, located in my tiny old hometown of Bedford VA. It dwarfs the DC monument in both size and symbolism.

Posted by Other Ezra | June 2, 2008 1:34 PM

"But who cares about the Korean war?"

Over 30,000 Americans died jack-@ass.

Posted by Nuada | June 2, 2008 1:57 PM

In terms of aesthetics it's a big snooze for me - I do think Tyro has some good points. And like that NYTimes reviewer's father (comment by :right ") who said: "This looks like Hitler's Stadium," ... "reminds me of Mussolini."

The design of this was done with the mentality the WWII was a good war. Black and white. They wanted the model to be just as "simple" - even if some of the "imagery" is not totally understood. They wanted to make a statement and Americans like statements that are big and obvious - no thinking required (why people object so much to the Viet Nam memorial). I do think the real estate is occupies is part of it's importance - not only in terms of visitors - like anyone on the Mall is going to miss it but also in terms of it's importance to 20th century history. If some liked it, well then I guess it served its purpose. I don't, however think it will ever have the resonance that the Viet Nam memorial has.

As for the Korean memorial, I do think it looses something during the day in the middle of summer. Having the snow cover things or the soldiers coming out of the fog makes it look more like I think what the designers intended. And at least it isn't a behemoth like WWII.

Posted by ET | June 2, 2008 2:20 PM

"works of arts are judged by the public's response to them."

I think I missed that meeting. By that standard Celine Dion is the greatest musical genius of all time.

Posted by tomemos | June 2, 2008 2:27 PM

To tomemos:

Well, I understand she thinks so ...

But seriously, 60 years ago, Frank Sinatra was a pop star, swarmed by bobby-soxers. Now he's considered the ultimate interpreter of American song. Shakespeare wrote entertainment for the groundlings. Now he's part of the foundation of Western culture.

So we'll have to see how the WWII memorial will hold up over time. Celine, as well ...

Posted by DrewShaw | June 2, 2008 2:40 PM

No way! on the Korean War Memorial. I took this photo

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/2074969527_86684424b4_o.jpg

there after the President's Day storm in 2003. It was an eerie and evocative place to be.

Posted by Sturt | June 2, 2008 3:00 PM

It's a place where you can take your kid and point at a name carved in the wall and say, "That's where your grandfather was during the war."

Like, "Your grandfather was in Ohio." Or, "Your grandfather was in Missouri. He didn't do a damn thing during the war."

Posted by critic | June 2, 2008 3:35 PM

I agree that the focus on the States makes no sense at all, but so what. The design is dramatic when you walk around the area for a little while. Even though the design was required not to impose on the vistas of the Mall, it projects just what a massive undertaking the war effort was when you are surrounded by all that marble. And the effect that it has on the WWII generation is a sight to behold. It combines the power on Mia Lin's Vietnam Memorial with artistic syle the elderly can relate to. I could not disagree with your negative assesment more strongly.

Posted by phg | June 2, 2008 4:18 PM

I don't see what's so "un-American" about it. Is it the use of geometry? Math is horribly un-American.

However, I think it's really quite poignant that the memorial cannot be photographed as a whole. Considering the impact of the war, and those lost, I think it being difficult to confine the memorial to finite space is important, and possibly intentional.

Posted by brenna | June 2, 2008 4:22 PM

DrewShaw: Sure. On the other hand, Citizen Kane flopped, Van Gogh wasn't appreciated, and Sophie's Choice sold like hotcakes and was once considered a vitally important work. Seems like it's the quality that determines whether a work endures, which is not something that opinion polls, sales figures, etc. really get a say in.

Posted by tomemos | June 2, 2008 5:06 PM

i don't think the WW2 memorial is all that bad. The Korean War memorial is one of my favorites. It looks like that's how it was -an infantry squad on patrol. I also like the wall with the faint pictures of the thousands of different people who contributed- none of them heroes in particular, but all of them doing their part. The Korean War actually was a success, although most people didn't think so at the time. The Rewpublic of Korea survived, and eventually became a pretty good country, whereas North Korea is just one giant prison camp, run by a megalomaniac who cares nothing for his people. Harry Truman made the right call, yet again.

Posted by stonetools | June 2, 2008 6:02 PM