The Modern Cult of Counter Monuments, 2012
The Reconstruction of the Concept of History and Monumentalism in a Post World War 2 Era
As we make our way through into the 21 Century, our concept of monumentalism struggles to exist. In our post World War society, we’re growing more aware of the mistakes and the human nature of our nations. No longer do we strive to assert our righteousness of the birth of our country nor do we consciously construct monuments in fervor of nationalism. Instead, we are aware of our history; conscious of our mistakes; and worried about our future. But how do we build monuments in such an era? For Lewis Mumford, the sheer fact that we are in a modern era disrupts the ability for us to build monuments. “The notion of a modern monument is veritably a contradiction in terms. If it is a monument it is not modern, and if it is modern, it cannot be a monument” (Mumford, 435). The added layers of history upon a monument definitely help define its form. However, within Alois Riegl’s three types of monuments, history is not always a requirement. His “Intentional Monument” disrupts the concept of time. “Intentional commemorative value simply makes a claim to immortality, to an eternal present and an unceasing state of becoming” (Riegl, 38). If monuments, contrary to Mumford’s beliefs, could be constructed in a modern era, thus removing them from any palimpsest of history, whole role would they fill? Instead of acting as a representation of the past, surrounded by a contemporary context of the city, the modern monument calls for a consideration of the past. Now that we have reached a maturity where we can admit mistakes within our own past, we do not need Monumental method of history – according to Nietzche’s “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life” – in which we highlight certain accomplishments through our history. Rather it is time for a Critical method of history where in which we question and critique ourselves as nations in order to change our future. It is from this critical method of history do we arrive at the conception of the counter-monument.
However, to understand the counter monument one must first understand the monument. Of course the condensed version of such a definition can barely do any justice to do word, but a basic background is helpful nonetheless. The word stems from Latin monere “to remind”. The monument forms as an “architectural reminder” (Leerssen, 122). The German word for it denkmal – literally “think” and “time” – captures this. According to Leerssen, “monumentality results from a combination of two historical processes: the increasing temporal distance between us and the object and, linked to this, the object’s loss of its original purpose or function” (Leerssen, 122). It is the isolation of the object (through use, time, and even framing) that it becomes a formal monument. Riegl refers to the monument as a “human creation erected for the specific purpose of keeping single human deeds or events (or a combination thereof) alive in the minds of future generations” (Riegl, 21). The historic value of the monument is important because history is “everything that has been and is no longer… what has been can never be again, and that everything that has been constitutes an irreplaceable and irremovable link in a chain of development” (Riegl, 21). The monument is therefore the permanent, tactile representation of this link of history and serves to remind the future of what has been done.
The counter monument is not just a mere opposite of the monument. It is an extremely difficult to define object due to its very recent origin, hence the lack of published writings about it. Art historian James Young tackles the subject in “The Counter-Monument: Memory against Itself in Germany Today” whereupon he analyzes post-holocaust monuments in Germany that are “brazen, painfully self-conscious memorial spaces conceived to challenge the very premises of their being” Young, 53). But how can we begin to discern the formal characteristics or definition of a counter monument? Unlike the monument, there are no “9 Points on Counter-Monumentality” to guide its role. But by using Young’s selected monuments as a base, we can draw our own similarities and qualifications. One of the earliest forms of this counter monument is Jochen and Esther Gerz’s “Monument against Fascism, War and Violence – and for Peace and Human Rights” in Hamburg, Germany. The structure was unveiled in 1986 and consists of a 12 meter tall 1 meter square lead tower with an accompanying steel tipped pen at the base inviting the passerby to carve into its surface. At the base a sign reads:
We invite the citizens of harburg and visitors to the town, to add their names here to ours. In doing so, we commit ourselves to remain vigilant. As more and more names cover this 12 meter tall lead column, it will gradually be lowered into the ground. One day, it will have disappeared completely and the site of the Harburg monument against fascism will be empty. In the end, it is only we ourselves who can rise up against injustice. (Young, 58)
Since the structure is not a fragment of the past or a ruin, but rather his intentional monument requires a constant state of restoration. “Laws have always protected intentional monuments from human destruction” and “without restoration the monument would rapidly cease to be intentional” (Riegl, 38). The question then arises of where does the Gerzes’ monument, with its gradual sinking (fig. 1), fit in? Riegl has no explanations for monuments that are intentionally self destructive in design. Perhaps then, instead of being “intended to outlive the period which originated them” as is said in the first point on Monumentality (Sert, 1), the counter-monument continues to be a “link between the past and the future” but through conceptual means.
Figure 1. – Monument against Fascism, War and Violence and for Peace and Human Rights
Another key aspect of the Gerzes’ monument is the required interaction the structure demands from the passerby. By having a vanishing monument, they managed to transform the viewer into the subject of the work. It is the public who become aware of the dilemma, learn from it, and will spread its word when the monument is absent. For Jochen, “art, in its consciousness, in its recognizability, is an indication of failure. If it were truly consumed, no longer visible or conspicuous, if there were only a few manifestations of art left, it would actually be where it belongs – that is, within the people for whom it was created” (Young, 60). Much like the role of art, the monument is intended for the people. The counter monument focuses on the public’s response and responsibility to uphold the ideals it stands for.
While the city of Hamburg watches the gradual disappearance of its monument, the city of Kassel (also in Germany) is brought into the debate of how a post-catastrophe monument should form. Just before the outbreak of the war, one of Kassel’s historical monuments was destroyed. The Aschrott Fountain was originally funded by a Jewish entrepreneur and was therefore condemned as the “Jew’s Fountain” and was destroyed April 8, 1939 by Nazi activists (Young, 70). Decades later after the heat of anti-Semitism, the “Society for the Rescue of Historical Monuments” called for the restoration of the fountain. The new monument’s designer, Horst Hoheisel, felt that neither the preservation of the ruins or the literal reconstruction would do justice. As an alternative, he uses the absence as the key form with his description:
“I have designed the new fountain as a mirror image of the old one, sunk beneath the old place, in order to rescue the history of this place as a wound and as an open question, to penetrate the consciousness of the Kassel citizens – so that such things never happen again. That’s why I rebuilt the fountain sculpture as a hollow concrete form after the old plans and for a few weeks displayed it as a resurrected shape at City Hall Square before sinking it, mirror-like, 12 meters deep into the ground water. The pyramid will be turned into a funnel into whose darkness water runs down. From the “architektonischen Spielerei,” as City Hall architect Karl Roth called his fountain, a hold emerges which deep down in the water creates an image reflecting back the entire shape of the fountain.” (Hoheisel, 7)
Fig 2. Underground View of Hoheisel’s model of the fountain.
Figure 3. Above Ground view of fountain
Hoheisel’s concept of the monument focuses on the negativity of space. He provides no ruins nor restoration for a glimpse of the past but rather subtly creates an intentional monument which makes the viewer more aware by emphasizing the absence. “An absent people would now be commemorated by an absent monument” (Young, 50).
Similar to the Gerzes’ reversal of subject and object, the pedestal of the fountain’s base makes the viewers into being the monument. For Hoheisel, “the sunken fountain is not the memorial at all. It is only history turned into a pedestal, an invitation to passerby who stand upon it to search for the memorial in their own heads. For only there is the memorial to be found” (Hoheisel, 8). Through this conscious flip of form, space, and role, the Aschrott-Brunnen fountain forces the city of Kressen to consistently be aware of its past. No monument could cover up and heal the wounds of the holocaust, but by remembering and highlighting what has been done, the counter monument hopes for history not to repeat itself.
Drawing back to Riegl’s description of history, “what has been can never be again” (Riegl, 21) making the defining characteristic of counter monuments their disregard of Riegl’s definition of history. The counter monument believes that history can repeat itself – after all, wars, revolutions, and genocide continue to exist. If history does repeat itself, does that make it into a cyclical path as opposed to a linear one? The late 21st Century no longer sees history as a direct building towards success. It has been tarnished through so many catastrophes of human nature that our monuments can no longer serve as self-praising forms but rather guide the public to be consciously aware of the past and their role in the future. With Nietzsche’s Monumental form of history calling for a nationalist people to willingly accept the decisions of their government or leader, the switch towards the Critical form of history makes the people be cognizant of their mistakes and the tragedies of the past. It is within this era that the counter monument is called for. It’s disruption of permanence, emphasis on the viewer’s role as the memorial, non nationalistic subject matter, and the somber mood it gives the passerby are all the shared characteristics of the counter monument, countering the previous perceptions of past.
Works Cited
Young, James E. "The Counter-Monument: Memory against Itself in Germany Today." Art and the Public Sphere (1992): 49-79.
Mumford, Lewis. “The Culture of Cities.” (New York, 1938): 435-438.
Leerssen, Joep. “Size, Seriousness and the Sublime.” Monumentalism[e]. Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam: NAi Publishers, 2010.
Hoheisel, Horst. “Rathaus-Platz-Wunde.” Aschrott-Brunnen: Offene Wunde der Stadtgeschichte (Kassel, 1989).
Riegl, Alois. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin.” Oppositions. Translator Forster, Kurt and Ghirardo, Diane (Fall, 1982). MIT Press: 21 – 51.
Sert, J.L and Leger, F and Giedion, S. “Nine Points on Monumentality” (1943).