Because I have been called for Jury Duty, we cannot hold class on Wednesday, February 1. So, we will have a blog "discussion" instead.
Do your readings:
James E. Young, “Memory/Monument,” in Critical Terms for Art History, eds. Robert S. Nelson and Richard Shiff, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 234-247. pdf
James E. Young, Introduction to The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 1-15.
Next, add your comments. Here are some questions for you to think about. But you are welcome to write about things beyond the scope of these questions.
1) James Young quotes the historian Lewis Munford as saying: "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." What do you think Munford means? Do you agree?
2) Opinions vary about what a monument is versus what a memorial is. What, if any, do you think are the differences between monuments and memorials? How would you define these terms?
3) On page 5 of the Introduction to The Texture of Memory, Young mentions the concept of "memory-work"? What does this mean?
4) Why does Young say that abstraction is a problem for contemporary memorials?
2.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on monuments versus memorials.
Monuments are important individual in history; they are shown in statues and buildings. Memorials such as the Vietnam Memorial, are intended to remind people of a certain person or event in history.
~~
Last class reading on Memorial Mania by Erika Doss, the author explained the differences between Monuments vs. Memorials on page 38. She mentioned how monuments honor the past, figurative sculptures, massive stone like the National Mall etc. As for memorials pay tribute to the dead and are national days of remembrance such as in Martin Luther King memorial.
In The Texture of Memory, James Young described how monuments commemorate the memorable of heroes while memorials are intended to remember and honor the dead.
-Maysa
Last week, I mentioned the definitions of memorial and monument that I was taught in my Contemporary Art class last semester. In the textbook, memorials and monuments were defined by whether the person or I guess people, commemorated were alive or dead. Of course, looking at memorials and monuments, we see that this isn't the case.
ReplyDeleteI think about the word "memorial" in other contexts like, memorial services which are to celebrate the life of the individual rather than mourn their passing. I think memorials are perhaps more personal tributes to those who have passed. A monument, I think, is a broader tribute to an event where people may have been affected.
So far as the readings are concerned, I found the Young article to be most interesting. I thought the mentioning of Maurice Halbwachs concept of identity groups defining memories to be useful in defining the difference between monuments and memorials stating that monuments seek to appeal to a national identity. By placing the victims of a tragedy or members of an event under a national identity, a monument that appeals to all the members of that event is possible.
1) James Young quotes the historian Lewis Munford as saying: "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." What do you think Munford means? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteTraditionally the monument is "self-aggrandizing" and generally depicts a heroic figure. Modern society considers the horrors of war, the price we pay for war, and for every "victory" there is a side that loses, victims, and tragedy. Currently we are jaded about the leadership of our government, tired of being advertised to, tired of the con-man trying to sell us something. We are evolving as a species and we want to move onward and upward.
Artist often are the catalysts for change, they think outside the box. But if monuments are to continue to be made in a traditional aesthetic style, figurative for example, and anything else is criticized as an abomination or blasphemy, the artists' sentiment can be further defeated and jaded. Their hope for educating society, calling out and planting seeds of wisdom, change and creative problem solving, lost. A static image does not entice the modern mind nor does it honor themselves, the living, with empowerment to erase mistakes of the past or solve current problems. Also there is no interaction. The monument stands there, we look at it. Modern art and culture revolves around interaction.
I disagree that the traditional monument represents the greatest values and there are no universal values and society is only working to deflate any values that remain. I think more than ever we are concentrating on the universal, and we are questioning limited, narrow values and ideas from the past. We all agree we have learned from the past, but we are moving forward and need something or someone to believe in now. Feeling the pressure to put an end to the downward spiral our planet and humanity seems to be headed, I believe modern society feels resentment that publically we are forced to honor who and what the government chooses for us, and we still fear speaking out and representing what we believe is important because regardless of "equality" and "freedom of speech" and "religion" rights and law, we all know that really still doesn't always apply and violators will be ignored or punished.
The fall of a monument these days speaks to us. Something more suitable these days might be to dedicate usable sites to the living. For instance, instead of spending money on another statue, a vacant strip mall could be demolished and an architect could design a 5 story public greenhouse used for urban school meal programs. We are bombarded with images of the elite few, but modernism could be geared around humanity.
4) Why does Young say that abstraction is a problem for contemporary memorials?
Public art is a way for people to publically grieve and share experiences. A memorial is meant to honor, share and reflect the reality of human suffering. That word "reality" is key. Some believe that abstract art is too far removed from depicting actual experience, "alienates" the people it is supposed to represent, is too modern aesthetic for the older public which is its subject, and confounds everyone else. Those who view figure work for modern monuments as no longer effective say that although the human form is something people relate to, eventually it no longer a symbol standing for something greater than itself, it is translated as a literal representation. The argument in favor of modern abstract art for public art memorials is that by catering to popular visual culture (a wider audience), it is more accessible to the public and thus more readily absorbed into their memory or psyche. Then it can become a "basis for political and social action."
(-J. White)
#1 I want to try to understand Lewis Mumford's idea: he talks how modern urban civilization is all about renewal, change and perpetuation of life, while the monuments are about things past, and they are "mummification of ancient and forgotten ideas". Perhaps, when he wrote those words (I assume it was around middle of 20th century) he was referring to statue mania (that Erika Doss talked about in our previous reading) and maybe he is talking about a traditional kind of monuments, which would be statues on a pedestals mostly of white males, the kind that in that time period started to get "out of fashion". He seems to be frustrated. He mentions how monuments were also an attempt of powerful and vain people to gain immortality, and how "the shakiest of regimes would install least movable monuments, as a compensation for having accomplished nothing worthier by which to be remembered." So he meant that, those kind of monuments which glorified people or ideals that were not worthy of remembering, didn't belong in modern cities and communities.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question if a monument can't be modern, I don't agree with Mumford, I also don't agree that monuments don't fit with modern ideas of "renewal and change". I liked what James Young says about it: he says that each new generation comes to a monument with their understanding and in their circumstances, assigning new meaning to the monument. Also the place around the monument may change with time, new monuments can be installed next to it, new buildings built. All of it influences the meaning and significance of the monument. I like how Young says that "monuments start living life of their own" and they evolve with time.
#4 this question about modern memorials is connected to the problem with abstracted contemporary memorials. James Young believes that there is a differentiation between public art and memorials, and artists who create memorials should be foremost thinking not about their artistic pursuit of creating cutting-edge conceptual art, but about needs of public / groups of people that these memorials are being built for.
There are however successful examples of abstract memorials out there, like Vietnam Veterans Memorial, or 9/11 Memorial. They are very minimalistic and abstracted in a way, however they are still very emotional and serve the purpose of commemoration and honor to the people they are dedicated to.
1./2./4. As for the modern/not modern debate about monuments, I don't know if that is necessarily the question I am concerned about. I mean in term of the fact that when a monument is created in a time, it will always be stuck in that time, and be hard to remove from that time period and the understanding that different people in that time had of that monument are lost. The only thing that a monument may express in modern times, is that it exists and something happened to "deserve monumentation" i think that it is impossible for a monument to live outside of it's own time because the people who understood that time will die and the truth is impossible to know. I think this problem is possible for both monuments and memorials, it is the abstraction and distortion of what that monument/memorial really means. I guess when i think of the term "monument" and "memorial" i think about where they come from, a memorial is based in memory, and trying to remember something, where as a monument seems to be more of a glorification, instead of just a rememberance, its the deification of the individual or thing to which the monument was created. For me the problem with monuments is that it removes the masses of people behind the important individual. Its a form of idolatry to me, sure, martin luther king jr did awesome things but he would have gotten no where if it hadnt been for the massive support behind him, and the power of the people and ideas he was activating. I think it is interesting that this quote by mumford has appeared in multiple readings that we have had, i think in light of what i think about the idolatry associated with monuments, that explains how the modern world is learning more and more that it is about the groups, and not the individuals, which explains the outdatedness of monuments. and perhaps the desire for memorials, and that "memorial mania".
Delete3.i understand "memory-work" to mean that memorials and commemorations are like a cop out, so that we dont have to truly remember because we can visit the memorials, and dismiss them because we know tehy are there but we dont have to fear "forgetting" because the memorial will always remind us. in cultures (like the mandinka in africa) where oral tradition is the method of rememberance, the people must remember by their self, lest they forget. they do their own memory work, instead of leaving it in a physical memorial.
abby
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"i think in light of what i think about the idolatry associated with monuments, that explains how the modern world is learning more and more that it is about the groups, and not the individuals, which explains the outdatedness of monuments. and perhaps the desire for memorials, and that "memorial mania"."
Delete~I think what Abby says here is a very legitimate statement about our contemporary concern with the memorial. As with Jenn's statement (in reference to Young's article on Memory/Monument (p.236) where he quotes Mumford, "...An age that has deflated its values and lost sight of its purposes will not produce convincing monuments.") ...
"I think more than ever we are concentrating on the universal, and we are questioning limited, narrow values and ideas from the past. We all agree we have learned from the past, but we are moving forward and need something or someone to believe in now. Feeling the pressure to put an end to the downward spiral our planet and humanity seems to be headed, I believe modern society feels resentment that publically we are forced to honor who and what the government chooses for us, and we still fear speaking out and representing what we believe is important because regardless of "equality" and "freedom of speech" and "religion" rights and law, we all know that really still doesn't always apply and violators will be ignored or punished."
~Especially as of recent, people across the globe, including the Wall Street protests in the United States, have broken out into riots in demand of their rights as citizens and their needs as human beings. We are certainly undergoing an epoch of transformation in which we can all more or less relate to, no matter where we are situated, geographically or ideologically. Yes, the people are coming to a universal agreement to this extent, and it is made apparent through the mass-rioting and mass-protesting. However, we are still fragmented by varying degrees of cultural relativism, and I think that what Mumford has said, "Monuments are...only possible in periods in which a unifying consciousness and unifying culture exists," addresses the problematic issues with monuments and their self-referential tendencies. Has there ever been a monument constructed that successfully represents global unification? This is perhaps what defines the monument, that it seeks to have that sort of profound impact on an illusory level to the public, yet in its narcissistic characteristics, it is reduced to merely the celebration of an individual and/or the belief structure of specific social groups. In response to the readings from recent weeks, it seems that the majority of monuments are highly literal structures constructed to demonstrate dominant powers specific to their historical timeframe, whereas memorials have a tendency to be left more open-ended, more abstract, dealing with issues that have had sweeping impact on societies, often a response to questions about how one is supposed to remember, and of what exactly is one commemorating.
back to the question about abstracted monuments: I forgot to say that Young doesn't see abstracted monuments as successful because abstractions can be read in many ways and each viewer can interpret abstraction in their own way and find their own meaning, that wasn't intended to be communicated through that particular monument. Also some people just might not understand, or even get offended, especially if they have a personal connection to the person/idea/event that is being commemorated. Young says, that no matter how archaic traditional figurative monuments may seem, people will actually associate with them better than with the abstracted ones. He also says that "literal" monuments are generally better understood and accepted by public.
ReplyDelete1. I do not agree with Munford's quote- what if someone wanted to make a memorial for a modern artist?
ReplyDeleteThe very purpose of a Memorial is to remind(as said in the first paragraph of this reading) No matter the mode it is made in if it accomplishes this purpose it is a memorial at the very least.
2. I believe that a monument is something that is erected for not necessarily a person but more-so a thing an idea a group perhaps. A memorial is more toward a certain person or event to me.
3. "memory work" is described as something that does not necessarily "embody the memory" but something attributed to a monument that makes us work to remember it's significance. Like the difference between memorization learning and theoretical deep-thinking learning. Something that will not less us be forgetful.
4. On page 10, near the last paragraph "abstraction encourages private visions in viewers, which would defeat the communal and collective aims of public memorials."
I think simply the fact that a monument is invariably intended to symbolize an event or a "memory" from the past, makes it impossible to be a "modern" work. The two obviously contradict each other, because of course, a monument looks to the past and modern art, to the future.
DeleteI liked what Young said about how "monuments are erected so that we always remember, and memorials so that we never forget." I kind of of got the implication that monuments are intended to be celebratory, and memorials are meant to be mournful.
I also liked the part about how "all monuments are kind of memorials, but not all memorials are monuments." I agree with that completely. It makes sense that a monument is meant to memorialize someone or something, but that a memorial is not always meant to monumentalize (?) a certain event or person, especially if what's being commemorated is a tragic event.
Young seems to use the term "memory-work" to describe the effort people go through to form a memory in their own minds based off of the information acquired from a monument or memorial.
Abstraction is a problem for memorials because in a public setting, it just becomes completely self-reverential and devoid of the purpose of being a reminder for the event or moment it was intended to represent. Because an abstract work is so open to intention, it essentially becomes removed of the strict narrative agenda most monuments are meant to carry.
2.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a monument is there to commemorate a person and/or event that has happened which has become important through history or historical events or possibly just historical architecture. As for a memorial It's more of an object that has a focus for the memory of someone or something, usually because of a persons death or an event.
3.
The concept I think young is trying to get across is that some monuments or memorials may relieve viewers of their memory burden. The monument's job is to provide "memory-work" for the viewer as a reminder of what happened. Pierre Nora says "The less memory is experienced from the inside." Someone might remember what they were doing the day it happened or the actual event itself, but they might forget the facts all together. In this day in age we have a huge amount of memory consumption especially through media and social networking. We put memories on the back burner until they are ready to be talked or written about.
In response to question number 1: A monument implies some sort of permanence and documentation of the past, but “modern” suggests something relevant to a society in the present. While a monument has the possibility (arguably) to be modern, ten or twenty years after its construction it will no longer be modern. Monuments, for the most part, fail to grow, shift, or change as the culture that created it does. Munford’s statement, “a contradiction in terms” seems to mean just that. Young speaks about monuments almost as artifacts of a culture or society saying, “the monument reflects both its sociohistorical and aesthetic contexts.” In this way, monuments serve as a record for the time period in which they were constructed. As different art movements come about, monuments change aesthetically and become instantly dated to that time period.
ReplyDeleteOne thing these readings made me think about is the historical accuracy of monuments. Martin Broszat is referenced as saying that, “monuments may not remember events so much as bury them altogether beneath layers of national myths and explanations.” It seems that people in power meaning, in the western world, mostly white, wealthy males are the ones deciding what gets created and what gets commemorated. How is such a small demographic of the population supposed to represent or include an entire society’s view of a historical event? Even written accounts of history are so debatable and dependent on perspective; how could a monument account for that?
the power-holders bury all the meaning underneath the fluff of myth and "morality" to distract people from the other bullshit they are trying to do.
DeleteMonuments and memorials are difficult to define because of their essentially synonymous use in modern English. However, despite the similar uses of the words, there do seem to be underlying differences when either term is used. When I think of monuments I picture the Washington Monument. This is a modern obelisk built to glorify George Washington, but what does this say about the man? Nothing. It is simply a symbol of power over the city of Washington D.C. It is big and phallic, kind of like a middle finger to the rest of the world. It embodies the idea that America should be a shining city on a hill by taking stylistic cues from both the Egyptians and Romans. When thinking about memorials I think of war memorials like the one in Overton Park (excluding the Soldier Statue). To me, memorials create a space for remembering an event, or a person as a whole where a monument is more concerned with grandiose depiction of the person or event. For example that statue of the flag raising at Iwo Jima would be a monument because it puts the soldiers on this grand pedestal while neglecting the fact that to raise that flag they had to kill innumerable other humans.
ReplyDelete- - - - -
"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."
This is an interesting quotation. It seems to make the point that a monument can only be monument if it is out of its time. That is to say, when no one is alive to have an actual memory of the event. It is when all memory is lost that the site of commemoration is no longer a place for people to go to remember, but becomes a place where people go to be told what to remember.
The idea of being told what to remember by any institution is odd. The basis being, "who is wise enough to officiate MY perception?" This question could be asked about education, but enters particularly muddy waters when asked about government sponsored commemoration; especially when that government grants freedom of thought and expression to its citizens. This is so troublesome because any government wants to seem strong and in charge, that's their purpose. But, by no means should a government lie, misconstrue, exaggerate its history solely to form a stronger national identity. I thought it was particularly interesting, the idea that as a people become less homogenous the desire to create uniformity was increased and expressed through monuments glorifying a national identity.
The argument made in the reading memory and monument about abstraction was solid. This is based strongly on a single point which is that anything abstracted can be viewed with freedom. Freedom from the world of what is tangible and familiar. Within abstraction there is room for all onlookers to not only see but experience something uniquely. Within abstraction there is the potential to please nearly any point of view about what is being commemorated excluding those views which seek a more grand and tangible representation. The problem with abstraction is, "what if the viewers don't glean anything from the work?" What if, within all the freedom given to the viewer nothing is imparted. But, what if...
Finally, I really enjoyed the discussion about Germany's present problem of overcoming their past. This is interesting because this is such a nagging problem to them that new ideas of how to commemorate have come about. The idea of the antisolution. With regards to Germany this was Hoheisel's idea to blow up the Brandenburg Gate. To commemorate destruction with destruction. Although this is an interesting idea it is too in line with "eye for an eye": we would end up being blind to the past. A better idea I thought was the "Monument for Peace and against War and Facism" where the public was allowed to graffiti the monument until it was sunk into the ground entirely. This allowed people to vent their feelings but also be left with a personal memory and opinion in the end. This method of commemoration leaves people to find solace in the past's mistakes rather than tell them how to feel about the past.
ReplyDeleteWhen James Young quotes the historian Lewis Munford as saying: "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.", I think he means that a monument can not be modern because it is remembering an event that is in the past, and he is likely thinking of statues of dead guys made of stone. In which case I think that I might agree with him because I feel that we are more advanced and have other materials and other means of remembering events. However, I don't fully agree with Munford because Maya Lin's Vietnam Veterans Memorial is made of a type of stone and it is very modern, especially when it was constructed. Perhaps that is something that distinguishes a monument from a memorial?
ReplyDeleteAbstraction is a problem for contemporary memorials because the event didn't "happened in the abstract, it was real" and the survivors become offended. While I agree with this, I think that every monument or memorial has to have some abstraction in it, in order to create a shared memory, because everyone's memory of an event is different. And if the memorial is too real it also becomes offending to the viewers, like Richard Serra's Tilted Arc, and has to be removed or destroyed.