“The notion of a modern monument is veritably a contradiction in terms,” Lewis Mumford wrote in the 1930s.
A new generation of cubists and expressionists, in particular, rejected traditional mimetic and heroic evocations of events, contending that any such remembrance would elevate and mythologize events.These are the monument’s sustaining illusions, the principles of its seeming longevity and power. die besten sex dating seiten Krefeld But in fact, as several generations of artists—modern and postmodern alike—have made scathingly clear, neither the monument nor its meaning is really everlasting.Still others have argued that rather than preserving public memory, the monument displaces it altogether, supplanting a community’s memory work with its own material form.“The less memory is experienced from the inside,” Pierre Nora warns, “the more it exists through its exterior scaffolding and outward signs.” In fact, Andreas Huyssen has even suggested that in a contemporary age of mass memory production and consumption, there seems to be an inverse proportion between the memorialization of the past and its contemplation and study.
Single community Kassel
As intersection between public art and political memory, the monument has necessarily reflected the aesthetic and political revolutions, as well as the wider crises of representation, following all of this century’s major upheavals—including both the First and Second World Wars, the Vietnam War, and the rise and fall of communist regimes in the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European satellites.In every case, the monument reflects both its sociohistorical and aesthetic context: artists working in eras of cubism, expressionism, socialist realism, earthworks, minimalism, or conceptual art remain answerable to the needs of both art and official history.More recently, the late German historian Martin Broszat has suggested that in their references to history, monuments may not remember events so much as bury them altogether beneath layers of national myths and explanations. dating sider uden betaling Næstved As cultural reifications, in this view, monuments reduce or, in Broszat’s words, “coarsen” historical understanding as much as they generate it.Rather than commemorating the destruction of a people with the construction of yet another edifice, Hoheisel would mark one destruction with another destruction.
Rather than filling in the void left by a murdered people with a positive form, the artist would carve out an empty space in Berlin by which to recall a now-absent people.In another vein, art historian Rosalind Krauss finds that the modernist period produces monuments unable to refer to anything beyond themselves as pure marker or base.After Krauss, critics have asked whether an abstract, self-referential monument can ever commemorate events outside of itself, or whether it only motions endlessly to its own gesture to the past, a commemoration of its essence as dislocated sign.The result has been a metamorphosis of the monument from the heroic, self-aggrandizing figurative icons of the late 19th century, which celebrated national ideals and triumphs, to the antiheroic, often ironic and self-effacing conceptual installations that mark the national ambivalence and uncertainty of late 20th-century postmodernism.In fact, the monument as both institution and concept had already come under withering attack well before the turn of the century. ” Nietzsche declared in his blistering attack on a 19th-century German historicism that oppressed the living with stultified versions of the past, what Nietzsche called “monumental history.” To which critique a chorus of artists and cultural historians have since added their voices.