|
By Timothy P. Whalen
The urge to destroy cultural icons for political and symbolic reasons
has been with humankind for millennia. When we at the GCI dedicated
our previous issue of Conservation (vol.
16, no. 2) to the topic of the destruction of cultural heritage,
the catalyst was the willful annihilation in March 2001 of the Bamiyan
Buddhas by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Since the publication
of that newsletter, the toppling of the colossal fifth-century religious
images has receded from memory in the wake of the incomprehensible
terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, which resulted in the deaths
of thousands of innocent peopleindividuals of many different
nationalities and many different faiths. We mourn their loss.
The attacks of September 11 intentionally targeted iconic buildings
of the American 20th century, severely damaging the Pentagon and
completely eradicating the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.
The Pentagon is a symbol of United States military power, as well
as a National Historic Landmark. The World Trade Center, while not
a designated historic landmark of any kind, was nevertheless a symbol
of the power of the American economy, and it had become for the
residents of New Yorkand for many of its numerous visitorsa
kind of visual touchstone, visible from the scattered corners of
this unique American city.
The Pentagon will be repaired and will retain its status as an
American icon. And already there is discussion of what to do in
lower Manhattan after the seven-story piles of rubble and debris
are barged away and the site emptied of the physical remains of
the attack. Prominent architects and business leaders argue for
the rebuilding of the site, perhaps with a structure that is just
as symbolic of industry, capitalism, and commerce as were the Towers.
Others have called for the acreage to be left open as a park, and
for its dedication as a monument or memorial to the thousands who
died there, and through whose deaths it has become a burial ground
and a sacred place. Philippe de Montebello, director of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, has suggested that a fragment of one of the towers
should be preserved, citing Coventry, Berlin, and Hiroshima as precedents.
These decisions lie in the future, and it is hoped that they will
be made with due deliberation and thought and with rational discourse
and debate.
I wrote four months ago that we need to try to understand what
underlies the desire to destroy monuments and icons of shared cultural
heritage. I still believe that. I also continue to believe in the
profound value of conserving cultural heritage, particularly when
it serves to increase a universal appreciation of the diversity
of human creativityand of how, ultimately, that creativity unites
us. Indeed, to the extent that conservation strengthens the bonds
among people, it works toward a future in which such acts against
humanity and culture as we witnessed in September are, universally,
unthinkable.
|
 |
|