Professor James
Young is supportive of the new-age memorials termed “counter-monuments”.
Counter-monuments by definition and practice are often abstract and are controversial
in nature; counter-monuments challenge the visitor to become the memorial itself
by provoking thought and reflection. Young, like many younger generations of German
artists who also support the counter-monument movement, believes that the
greatest way to honor the victims of the Holocaust and to ensure that such
events are never repeated, is to imprint the memory of remembrance on peoples’
minds. Counter-monuments frequently create controversy, and because controversy
almost guarantees that the public will take note of the story, Young and others
who think like him, see the incitement of the public through new and often
contentious means as the only way to create successful memorials. In response
to one such counter-monument installed in Hamburg, one reporter wrote that it
was the “fingerprint of the conscience of Germany” which was reflected in the
response that many had to the “disappearing” memorial, in essence the memorial
was successful because it caused the public to examine its feelings regarding
German participation in the Holocaust.
The idea of the
preservation of such concentration camps as Auschwitz, is not one which is
entirely supported by Young. Professor Young believes that it is impossible to
accurately convey to the visitor what life was like at the camps by maintaining
the buildings and preserving the layouts. He notes that it is important to mark
the passage of time, by perhaps allowing weeds to grow up, while at the same
time performing enough maintenance on the buildings to make sure that they will
continue to stand. His is idea behind such thinking is to show that while the
past is ever present, Germany has made attempts to move on and no longer wishes
to be identified solely by its actions during the Holocaust. Auschwitz because
it has been preserved almost in its entirety, does not elicit a response simply
because of its appearance, but rather because most visitors are already aware
of its reputation. The online virtual tour does not reflect the camp’s grim
past and the sunny appearance of the photographs make it difficult to see
anything other than rows of brick buildings; it is worthy to note that the preservation of the
camp as it was constructed by the Nazis could be interpreted as symbolic of the
rigorous and fanatic nature of order during the Nazi regime.
The Topf and
Sons Place of Remembrance memorial is an interesting memorial because in its
initial stages the idea for the memorial was supported by a great-grandson of a
founder of the company. This type of memorial is more in line with Young’s
belief that it is important to show the past while also demonstrating the
evolving nature of the future in memorials. This particular memorial, opened in
2011 and located in the administrative building of the former company, uses
educational initiatives and also economic activities to reflect the past and
future; it also demonstrates cooperation between private individuals and also
the government. I am more apt to call this type of memorial effective because
it does not seek to lose the memory of the company’s involvement in the extermination
of thousands to the pages of history but rather presents it in such a way that
both acknowledges and seeks reconciliation with the events. Memorials which do
not provoke deep thinking and reflection are not effective because they are
forgotten by the visitor almost as soon as he or she leaves them behind. I
believe that an important part of remembrance is an acknowledgment by the
perpetrators, as well as an honoring of the victims.
No comments:
Post a Comment