The attempts by Muslims to rebuild mosques and the hostile opposition they have encountered in the city of
Rebuilding can also be used to mask the past and create what R. Bevan calls “forced forgetting.” After World War II many cities rapidly redeveloped in order to obscure the memory of German occupation and the Third Reich. In the case of
In some instances history has been sought by later generations through archaeological studies and memorials. The Topography of Terror exhibition and site in
Sites of hurtful memories are proof against denial or attempts to mask the past, yet they may be offensive to some parties. So how can conservators ensure that history (and not memory) are preserved and represented in our daily landscapes?
Related Readings/Video
Rape of Europa (DVD 3420 at MSE)
Nora, Pierre. "Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memoire." Representation (Spring 1989): 7-24. (Available through JSTOR)
The Church of St. Alexander, Warsaw, was built between 1818-1826 and razed by the Nazis in 1944 following the failed Warsaw Uprising. Its reconstruction--although following the plan of the original--lacks the finesse of the original and has been described by critics as a 'Disneyfication.' (Destroyed: Source) (Rebuilt: Source)
.jpg){kind=link}
Reza really highlighted the importance that sites can have with what he had to say about the children “who are going to finally discover their country” – it’s a great comment on how important preservation is for future generations. Even though a lot of sites might be hurtful and evoke feelings that people would rather avoid, the fact remains that these sites will have important implications for others later on, and while the majority at one point might want to destroy a site, that same site might be the central factor in bringing a later generation together. Think of these sites as individual artifacts – just because someone doesn’t like an artifact or the feelings it causes doesn’t mean they can just destroy it. Whether it’s a country, a culture, a religion or some other group of people these sites must be preserved.
ReplyDeleteWhile I definitely appreciate the stories and memories that are often included in the preservation and display of a site, I think these might be the most painful parts for those who were involved, making them less historical and more emotional. Therefore I think the best way to preserve the pure history of the site is to focus on the physical site itself – the substance of the history – and let people draw their own conclusions regarding emotion and memories. Maybe once some time has passed, and the intensity of the hurt has had some time to die down and heal, the stories and memories that can being extremely important to historical understanding can be brought back in.
While I agree with Keelin that it is essential to preserve these sites of suffering, I don't believe that it is as easy to regulate and objectify as it may seem from a distance nor should it be necessarily. It is about the current present just as much as it is about restoring and preserving the past. You can't isolate time or people's perspective of what happened. Many heart-rendering stories are complex and continually morph. These places can be instructive, but they serve a higher purpose and contain a more significant identity than the average museum or historic house, and perhaps gain attention through the conflict and controversy surrounding it. These monuments and buildings testify people's values, achievements,history, heritage,and religion. They are charged statements made with brick, mortar, and stone. The emotional factor existed at the time and will continue to manifest into the future. This is best seen by the extensive documentation of the Warsaw Castle and almost immediate rebuilding. The smuggling out of materials and paintings during World War II also depicts a deep attachment.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the articles present the conundrum of how to fill this void. In certain situations such as in Warsaw and the Ukraine, they repaired there broken historical image away but not necessarily with same materials and methods. East Germany has made the choice between choosing to restore the old palace or leaving the monument as reminder of their recent Communist past There is also controversy within a group such as the modern Muslims vs. the more austere Muslims, Balkan style vs. Saudi style, those who wish to memorialize and those individuals such as the woman in Germany who wanted Berlin to be a contemporary, beautiful city. There is the sentiment there has been enough apologizing for particular events, namely the Holocaust, which holds some validity. While time may heal some of these wounds, these sore feelings tend to remain for a long time seen by Russia refusing to return Germany's artwork, China's blatant anti-Japanese tone at the Nanjing Memorial, the Hiroshima Memorial's bias and exclusion of the Korean suffering, and even Israel's constant reminder of the evilness of the British, the Romans, and Babaloynians at Masada, the Wailing Wall, and Safed not to mention the more recent sites that canote the bloodshed between the Israel and her Arab neighbors. Yugoslavia's political problems have existed for a long time, partially resulting in World War I and are not going to disappear very fast.
It is important that we recognize the need to protect place of historical conflict with a different set of values than we use when approaching an artifact. Rather than restoring the place as it was, which Bevan warns can lead to "implanting false memories" if people read "rebuilt history...as an authentic document of the past when it is a forgery," conservators must recognize the "object context" and "conservation context" of the site as R. Peters and D. Sully discuss. Because the significance, or "object context" of a place of conflict is deeply ingrained in the stories of individuals related to the place, it is appropriate to preserve their stories as if they were artifacts. While we should be weary not to turn these stories into propaganda that re-write the history, individuals' stories are a means of understanding the historic context and thus significance of these places of conflict. As Bevan notes in reference to French and English patterns of keeping ruins as a reminder of past wars, "there needs to be evidence of lessons learned." Similarly, the vacancies left by the destruction of the Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley are as important to the history of Afghanistan as their existence. Compromises between rebuilding and preserving ruins, such as the Topography of Terror exhibit, are a good way to learn more about the events through the location itself, without disrespecting the place and the victims.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important to preserve historical sites so that they accurately show the history behind them. Sometimes this may mean that these sites reveal painful memories about war and suffering. Nonetheless, in order for future generations to remember and honor the dead, as well as hopefully learn from the mistakes of the past, I think that we need to make sure that these sites are preserved. I don't think that conservators should worry so much about preserving a site so that it is not offensive, but they should try to make it as truthful a representation of history as possible. There are always going to be some people who disagree with remembering tragic events in the past, but it is important that we do not sweep our past--no matter how painful--under the rug. Sometimes, however, it may be impossible to recreate and conserve certain sites, such as the Buddhas in Afghanistan, and this is the real challenge for conservators.
ReplyDeleteNovik: I loved Dolff-Bonekamper's inclusion of a Freudian quote to support his arguments: "Freud’s term “work- ing through,” which appeared in his article “Erinnern, Wieder- holen, und Durcharbeiten” (“Remembering, repeating, and work- ing through”)... Found in texts on recent history, especially on the Holocaust, the term suggests a parallel between individual trauma therapy and collective work on traumatic events in history... the always-present and disturbing experience becomes part of the past, and the individual can live on with a relieved heart." Recognizing and reconstructing the sites that may cause controversy are essential in dealing with the past. Any suppression of the memories that the artifacts induce would be unhealthy.
ReplyDeleteNovik: I loved Dolff-Bonekamper's inclusion of a Freudian quote to support his arguments: "Freud’s term “work- ing through,” which appeared in his article “Erinnern, Wieder- holen, und Durcharbeiten” (“Remembering, repeating, and work- ing through”)... Found in texts on recent history, especially on the Holocaust, the term suggests a parallel between individual trauma therapy and collective work on traumatic events in history... the always-present and disturbing experience becomes part of the past, and the individual can live on with a relieved heart." Recognizing and reconstructing the sites that may cause controversy are essential in dealing with the past. Any suppression of the memories that the artifacts induce would be unhealthy.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't surprising to me that communities choose to preserve ruins to serve as reminders of wars and other "hurtful" historical events. We have evidence that after the Persian sack of the Acropolis in 480 BC, the Ancient Greeks planned their extensive rebuilding campaign around the completely destroyed old Temple of Athena. They likely left the crumbling foundations of this old temple undisturbed to serve as a war memorial, "a precious witness to history" (4 Dolff-Bonekamper). Even thousands of years later, archaeologists and historians are able to interpret the material substance of these ruins to gain insight into the culture and psychology of this ancient civilization.
ReplyDeleteWhile I hope that communities today choose to preserve these types of sites, it is still their choice. But I do agree with Dolff-Bonekamper that "strategies have to be negotiated among all involved parties and groups; otherwise consensus about the meaning of the place is obscured by secondary discourse" (9), though in practice, this may be a difficult ideal to achieve.
Emotions are often convoluted and complicate things, but emotions and history are forever linked. You can’t preserve one without the other. Emotions are what make that history real to us and connect us to something we may have had no associations with. Like particular artifacts, certain places shouldn’t be restored to their original forms. The absence of, or dilapidated nature of places speaks for itself, the Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley being a prime example. Not only is it forgery to replace the statues, but their absence transmits so much more. I agree with Max in that conservators shouldn’t worry about trying to separate emotions from the physical aspects, but instead try to figure out a way for them to work together. There is no possible way to cater to every emotion. We must realize that the physical is the representation of the emotional. Bevan’s article really made me realize that the physical representations are so difficult to decide on because of that link with emotions. Emotions are shifting and contradictory, even within a single person, but that is what makes experiencing things so authentic. He really asks us to think whose story is being told and how much of a story is told. While certain aspects of a place’s history are apparent now because of its temporal proximity, it will be interesting to see how future generations will react towards our current representations.
ReplyDeleteEmotions are often convoluted and complicate things, but emotions and history are forever linked. You can’t preserve one without the other. Emotions are what make that history real to us and connect us to something we may have had no associations with. Like particular artifacts, certain places shouldn’t be restored to their original forms. The absence of, or dilapidated nature of places speaks for itself, the Buddha statues in the Bamiyan Valley being a prime example. Not only is it forgery to replace the statues, but their absence transmits so much more. I agree with Max in that conservators shouldn’t worry about trying to separate emotions from the physical aspects, but instead try to figure out a way for them to work together. There is no possible way to cater to every emotion. We must realize that the physical is the representation of the emotional. Bevan’s article really made me realize that the physical representations are so difficult to decide on because of that link with emotions. Emotions are shifting and contradictory, even within a single person, but that is what makes experiencing things so authentic. He really asks us to think whose story is being told and how much of a story is told. While certain aspects of a place’s history are apparent now because of its temporal proximity, it will be interesting to see how future generations will react towards our current representations.
ReplyDelete