"Was not the framing of the shot itself reminiscent of spectacular shots in catastrophe movies?"
"America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise"
Zizek's critical view about the media coverage of 9/11 and the international affairs that followed might have seemed distasteful in the aftermath of the tragedy, but as the years go by, I think more and more people are seeing his criticism to be closer to the truth than previously believed. On the anniversary of 9/11 this year, I read a piece entitled, "The Worst Day of My Life is Now New York's Hottest Tourist Attraction.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevekandell/the-worst-day-of-my-life-is-now-new-yorks-hottest-tourist-at
This article was written by a man whose sister was working in one of the twin towers on the day of the attacks and passed away, and his experience attending NYC's 9/11 Museum, back in 2014 when it first opened. He marvels at the way everything is told and the lens in which the event is shown.
Even before its opening, the museum had been criticized for its supposed glamour, taking up a tremendous amount of space for a memorial, and even having its own gift shop. The commercial aspect of it was one thing, but the glamour was what conflicted with the content inside the most.
The author discussed the fact that he and his family had tried to stay out of the "pageantry" of 9/11 coverage and memorialized for the past decade, and that the invite he received to attend a preview to the museum felt like a slap in the face to everything they had been trying.
"Why would I accept an invitation to a roughly $350 million, 110,000-square-foot refutation of everything we tried to practice, a gleaming monument to What Happened, not What Happened to Us?"
But he also acknowledged that his refusal to participate in the commodification of the tragedy meant that his voice and the voices of others like him would remain unheard.
"My sister's profile has incorrect information in it that we'd never signed off on or even seen, and the annoyance is tempered by the realization that nonparticipation in the pageantry has its drawbacks."
He also points out the fact that, though the museum at the end seems inappropriate, selling goods is not half as bad as selling the ideas that 9/11 has been used to promote.
"The events of the day have already been exploited and sold in ways previously incomprehensible, why get mad at a commemorative T-shirt now?"
This article provided a perspective on 9/11 and everything that followed that often gets swept under the rug. It was personal for him and for many, it became fuel for a fire that no one involved agreed to donate. First nationalism, then commodification, and now, a combination of both.
"I can feel the sweat that went into making this not seem tacky, of wanting to show respect, but also wanting to show every last bit of carnage and visceral whomp to justify the $24 price of admission — vulgarity with the noblest intentions."
"America got what it fantasized about, and that was the biggest surprise"
Zizek's critical view about the media coverage of 9/11 and the international affairs that followed might have seemed distasteful in the aftermath of the tragedy, but as the years go by, I think more and more people are seeing his criticism to be closer to the truth than previously believed. On the anniversary of 9/11 this year, I read a piece entitled, "The Worst Day of My Life is Now New York's Hottest Tourist Attraction.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevekandell/the-worst-day-of-my-life-is-now-new-yorks-hottest-tourist-at
This article was written by a man whose sister was working in one of the twin towers on the day of the attacks and passed away, and his experience attending NYC's 9/11 Museum, back in 2014 when it first opened. He marvels at the way everything is told and the lens in which the event is shown.
Even before its opening, the museum had been criticized for its supposed glamour, taking up a tremendous amount of space for a memorial, and even having its own gift shop. The commercial aspect of it was one thing, but the glamour was what conflicted with the content inside the most.
The author discussed the fact that he and his family had tried to stay out of the "pageantry" of 9/11 coverage and memorialized for the past decade, and that the invite he received to attend a preview to the museum felt like a slap in the face to everything they had been trying.
"Why would I accept an invitation to a roughly $350 million, 110,000-square-foot refutation of everything we tried to practice, a gleaming monument to What Happened, not What Happened to Us?"
But he also acknowledged that his refusal to participate in the commodification of the tragedy meant that his voice and the voices of others like him would remain unheard.
"My sister's profile has incorrect information in it that we'd never signed off on or even seen, and the annoyance is tempered by the realization that nonparticipation in the pageantry has its drawbacks."
He also points out the fact that, though the museum at the end seems inappropriate, selling goods is not half as bad as selling the ideas that 9/11 has been used to promote.
"The events of the day have already been exploited and sold in ways previously incomprehensible, why get mad at a commemorative T-shirt now?"
This article provided a perspective on 9/11 and everything that followed that often gets swept under the rug. It was personal for him and for many, it became fuel for a fire that no one involved agreed to donate. First nationalism, then commodification, and now, a combination of both.
"I can feel the sweat that went into making this not seem tacky, of wanting to show respect, but also wanting to show every last bit of carnage and visceral whomp to justify the $24 price of admission — vulgarity with the noblest intentions."
Comments
Post a Comment