Press Release / July 21, 2006
How did SACRIFICE become a part of the Flight 93 Memorial?
And, will SACRIFICE designers ever receive promised recognition for their work?
(Erie,PA) ... When two Pennsylvania professors collaborated on a submission for consideration as the official design of the memorial for the victims of Flight 93, they knew there would be stiff competition. SACRIFICE, the work of Lisa Austin (Edinboro University) and Madis Pihlak, (Penn State) ASLA was one of more than 1000 entries submitted to the Flight 93 Memorial Committee.
The winning submission, titled Flight 93 National Memorial is the work of established architect Paul Murdoch of Los Angeles. Naturally, Austin and Pihlak, along with fellow competitors continued to followed the competition, after the committee asked Murdoch to make some revisions, and re-submit his design. Knowing the memorial would become a public work of art of great significance, they were eager to see the final Murdoch design. But, upon seeing Murdoch's revised submission, they were stunned.
Much of their rejected design SACRIFICE was now incorporated into Murdoch's revised Flight 93 National Memorial! Yet, since the Partners of the Flight 93 National Memorial stated in the submission guidelines, that they will "give appropriate credit to the author or authors of any material used," (section 08.13, on page 23) they believed their contribution would be recognized. Today, Austin and Pihlak are still waiting for that recognition. Preferring to avoid the courtroom, Austin and Pihlak are merely seeking the attribution promised by the organizers, (despite a patent attorney's opinion that the Murdoch design indeed appears to be infringing on the SACRIFICE copyright.)
John Reynolds, Chair of the Flight 93 Memorial Advisory Committee, and others, explain the two design's similarities as inevitable coincidences resulting from the events of 9/11 and the site's climate and terrain.
While Austin and Pihlak admire much of Murdoch's work and neither accuse him of deliberate appropriation, no one has addressed, or explained, how ten copyrighted features of SACRIFICE, not present in Murdoch's first design, have become a part of his revised work.
So, how did this happen? Murdoch's adoption of SACRIFICE may have resulted due to the following facts made known during the course of the competition:
1) Murdoch's lack of first-hand knowledge about the site. Austin and Pihlak live in Pennsylvania and toured the memorial site before designing SACRIFICE. Murdoch first visited the site AFTER he was named a finalist.
2) Murdoch's lesser skills in site-specificity and landscape architecture. Murdoch is a Los Angeles ARCHITECT. Austin has made site-specific artwork for 20 years. Pihlak teaches landscape architecture at Penn State. Murdoch did not consult a landscape architect for his initial design. Only after becoming a finalist, did Murdoch than hire a landscape architect.
3) Feedback from participants who had studied all designs. It seems entirely plausible Murdoch (and other finalists,) were influenced by COMMENTS from Park Service staff and jurors who had studied all 1,052 designs.
4) Murdoch's controversial winning design. Murdoch's CRESCENT OF EMBRACE was decried as a possible terrorist symbol. Murdoch then eliminated the crescent and adopted the form of a CIRCLE as seen in SACRIFICE.
Back to Sacrifice
The winning submission, titled Flight 93 National Memorial is the work of established architect Paul Murdoch of Los Angeles. Naturally, Austin and Pihlak, along with fellow competitors continued to followed the competition, after the committee asked Murdoch to make some revisions, and re-submit his design. Knowing the memorial would become a public work of art of great significance, they were eager to see the final Murdoch design. But, upon seeing Murdoch's revised submission, they were stunned.
Much of their rejected design SACRIFICE was now incorporated into Murdoch's revised Flight 93 National Memorial! Yet, since the Partners of the Flight 93 National Memorial stated in the submission guidelines, that they will "give appropriate credit to the author or authors of any material used," (section 08.13, on page 23) they believed their contribution would be recognized. Today, Austin and Pihlak are still waiting for that recognition. Preferring to avoid the courtroom, Austin and Pihlak are merely seeking the attribution promised by the organizers, (despite a patent attorney's opinion that the Murdoch design indeed appears to be infringing on the SACRIFICE copyright.)
John Reynolds, Chair of the Flight 93 Memorial Advisory Committee, and others, explain the two design's similarities as inevitable coincidences resulting from the events of 9/11 and the site's climate and terrain.
While Austin and Pihlak admire much of Murdoch's work and neither accuse him of deliberate appropriation, no one has addressed, or explained, how ten copyrighted features of SACRIFICE, not present in Murdoch's first design, have become a part of his revised work.
So, how did this happen? Murdoch's adoption of SACRIFICE may have resulted due to the following facts made known during the course of the competition:
1) Murdoch's lack of first-hand knowledge about the site. Austin and Pihlak live in Pennsylvania and toured the memorial site before designing SACRIFICE. Murdoch first visited the site AFTER he was named a finalist.
2) Murdoch's lesser skills in site-specificity and landscape architecture. Murdoch is a Los Angeles ARCHITECT. Austin has made site-specific artwork for 20 years. Pihlak teaches landscape architecture at Penn State. Murdoch did not consult a landscape architect for his initial design. Only after becoming a finalist, did Murdoch than hire a landscape architect.
3) Feedback from participants who had studied all designs. It seems entirely plausible Murdoch (and other finalists,) were influenced by COMMENTS from Park Service staff and jurors who had studied all 1,052 designs.
4) Murdoch's controversial winning design. Murdoch's CRESCENT OF EMBRACE was decried as a possible terrorist symbol. Murdoch then eliminated the crescent and adopted the form of a CIRCLE as seen in SACRIFICE.
Back to Sacrifice
