Some members of the AU community described their first viewing of the World War II Memorial with mixed feelings or disappointment. The monument, which opened to the public April 29 and was dedicated a month later, is the only memorial to a 20th century event on the central axis of the National Mall.
"I think that aesthetically it's really cool, but it lacks meaning," said Susan Schenk, a senior in the School of Public Affairs. "It could, and should, mean so much, but I didn't walk away with anything."
Schenk thought that the memorial should be more personal, like the Vietnam War Memorial, and have the names of soldiers.
"Something other than just the names of states and battles," she said.
Another SPA senior, Karen Fischer, agreed that the memorial needed something more.
"It's really pretty and the fountain and lights are really neat, but the states were put in a ridiculous order," said Fischer. "There wasn't a lot of symbolism. The monument is impressive, but I don't think it adequately portrays the sacrifice that was made by that generation. We're about to lose this generation and I don't think it's going to be remembered in an adequate enough way."
On television, the memorial looked like a cold monument to war, said Honors Professor Michael Mass. However, he went to visit the monument after the ceremony and found it to be different in person and emotionally moving.
"Between the end of the ceremony and the time I arrived at the monument, the vets had made it their own," he said. "It was no longer cold granite and stone; it had pictures, dolls and memories."
Mass knew that the memorial was very important to the veterans and said this softened his view of the architecture.
"At night, the monument is very impressive," he said. "And in the end, I came away with a more positive view than expected"
