The Wall: A War Without End

Regarding “More Is Not Better,” commentary by Times art critic Christopher Knight (Oct. 17):

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is not impressive from afar. Instead of rising majestically from the ground, the Wall sinks into the earth, looking a bit like the kinds of embarrassing cuts the developers made in the Southern California mountains in creating “terraced” home lots. It also begins deceptively, with a tiny panel at foot level on which are engraved a few names.

As one walks down and along the Wall, however, the panels get progressively larger until they are well overhead at the vortex. It is at that point that the enormity of the number of names becomes apparent and often overwhelming.

The first time I saw the Wall, 10 years ago, I sobbed uncontrollably and sought refuge in the engulfing arms of Abe Lincoln, as well as in his comforting words, as inscribed on the walls of his nearby shrine.

I had not seen the Wall again until recently, and I was appalled at the changes evident. Not only is the Frederick Hart sculpture intrusive, but at least the day I was there one had to pass a line of booths set up by veterans groups to reach the site. No matter the quality of the art or the praiseworthiness of its honorees, the women’s statue will be intrusive as well.

The Wall should be returned to its original state, so that we may clearly see ourselves in its polished granite as we reflect on the human cost of war, no matter how noble the cause.

WILLIAM F. EADIE

Washington, D.C.

*

It goes without saying that Knight will be in for an onslaught of letters regarding his article. During a visit to the capital over the Memorial Day Weekend, I had exactly the reaction that Knight described. His analysis and commentary are right on target.

After experiencing a deeply moving and emotional reaction to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial (despite the noisy motorcycle protesters), I could only be glad that Frederick Hart’s sculpture was somewhat removed and obscured from Maya Lin’s beautifully simple Wall.

I am sure Knight will hear from the ranters and ravers who must always make a political statement. But have these same naysayers ever stood beside the quiet, contemplative visitors who pay respect, lost in memories and tears, and not realized that there could never be a more fitting remembrance of those who died in the Vietnam War?

SHIRLEY PORTER

Sunland

*

You are right. More harangue about the issue of good or evil of the Vietnam War is not better. To view the giant tombstone of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is a gut-wrenching experience. Standing at Arlington overlooking the field of white crosses is equally painful. At Yad Vashem in Israel the art gallery displays the work of artists who all ended their life’s work in 1944-45, all memorials to the victims of war.

Frederick Hart and Glenna Goodacre were commissioned to create tribute to the returnees who were sent to war and fought as they were directed by the powers that be. Whether the war was glorious is not the issue here. To a vast majority of our populace, art is a visual creation to which they can relate. A skillful, beautifully composed abstract does not reach the audience.

Resisting the Hart and Goodacre commissions as unnecessary is repeating the negligence of our nation to honor those who served, suffered and returned to be reminders of the failure of a cohesive plan by our leaders, who represent you and me.

So make up your mind: Judge art or carry your flag in the next peace parade.

ELIZABETH SORENSEN

Pioneertown, Calif.

*

An art critic I am not. I have never been to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I have seen many pictures of it. I have heard it described as Knight has--gravely beautiful. However, I take great offense that, in his opinion, the Women’s Memorial Project is a “wheezy artistic cliche,” that the Hart and Goodacre statues glorify war and keep the closing wounds open, that the additions erode the meaning of the Wall.

I was an Army nurse and served time in Vietnam with my countrymen and countrywomen. Ask one of us how we feel about the two “kitschy” additions. The women’s memorial depicts caring, tender feelings. It honors women who served in Vietnam. This is part of our healing and the country’s feeling. It does not glorify the war. It does not make a political statement.

I will be at the dedication on Nov. 11. I will feel proud to be a part of the Veterans Day celebration. To me, this statue depicts how I felt when I was overseas.

BETSIE WARREN

Northridge

*

Mr. Knight, get a grip!

The treatment of the Vietnam vets upon their return home was disgusting. The Wall is dramatic and powerful in its length, names etched in black stone, forever reminding us of those who have perished.

Hart’s sculpture is also dramatic in its portrayal of the men who fought and died for nothing, bringing to our attention the youth that was destroyed by our own arrogance. Now comes Goodacre’s statue, which sheds some light on the unappreciated women who saved a number of our boys as they passed through their hands. It’s a stirring depiction of hope and salvation.

This new statue, along with Hart’s, is a heart-wrenching addition and in no way lessens the deep emotion that is conveyed by the stark and dreadful reality of the Wall.

Perhaps if Knight spent less time comparing Goodacre’s statue to Michelangelo’s work, he’d see what the statue stands for, not how well it’s sculpted.

SUSAN DIETZ

Los Angeles

*

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial is not art and should be bulldozed over and the statues buried. Since when is a scar in the earth, symbolizing the split views of Americans over the correctness of the war, art? The names on the memorial are those who were unlucky or did not try or could not position themselves to survive the war.

War is not fair. I recently visited the Vietnam Wall in Washington. To me, its hypocrisy was evident; it uses the good names of the Vietnam fallen to elicit a cheap feeling of sorrow for those who were unlucky enough to get killed in the war. When I came to my fellow B-52 pilot friend’s name, I felt no empathetic emotion of grief, but rather I felt I was lucky and he was not.

I had a feeling of anger, because I felt he deserved better: (1) better leadership from Johnson and McNamara, so that he would not have been killed and the outcome of the war would have been different, and (2) at least a better monument, one all could be proud of, a beautiful work of art to symbolize the honor with which those who served could be remembered, one that could bind the wound of division caused by that experience.

GEORGE M. SAYRE JR.

Major, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)

Riverside

*

Art critic Knight must remember that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was built for Vietnam veterans by Vietnam veterans. Before we raised the millions necessary for the project, none of the politician pukes in D.C. gave a damn. They wanted to forget the war they lost ( we were still winning when I left in 1973!).

Now we don’t give a damn what you leftist punks think except that those who protested the war in Indochina must accept the responsibility that their actions contributed to a massive violation of human rights: More than 3 million Asian lives were lost after the fall of Saigon, which is more than twice the number of deaths on both sides during two decades of constant fighting.

The only Americans who have the right to protest what the memorial looks like are those Vietnam veterans who were against the war--and they won anyway by getting the original black gash design accepted when the memorial was originally built.

In 1972, at age 18, I volunteered for Vietnam despite a draft number of 363. Those of us who served with honor in Vietnam are disgusted by you and your ilk, still marching about on your safe battlefields of political correctness. We don’t want to hear the opinions of cowards. You’re out of line, mister! Jump back in your flower-padded foxhole.

NICK UHERNIK

Temple City

*

Knight’s commentary on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was right on and very brave.

Merit of the sculptors aside, he will need support and protection!

HERB BROWNELL

Newport Beach