Plans for a Monument for the MurderedJews of Europe or Holocaust Monu-

ment 1 in central Berlin (Fig. 1) have givenrise to one of the most intense and prolongeddebates over the memorial legacy and repre-sentations of the Second World War in thehistory of the Federal Republic of Germany.Following the renaming of streets and theremoval or modification of monuments in theeastern sector of the city since 1989, andparallel to negotiations over the possiblereconstruction of architectural symbols of theWilhelmine empire, the debate over theplanned Holocaust Monument exemplifiesthe problematical cultural and symbolictransformation of this city in connection withits reinstatement as the seat of governmentin 1999.

This monument is essentially a site ofhistorical and political significance, a pretextfor the expression and exchange of publicattitudes towards the genocide. Yet the fas-cination it arouses also derives from its artis-tic dimension, for the unimaginable sufferingof victims and survivors of the genocide ofthe 1940s defies “aesthetic” forms of com-memoration fixed in stone and symbolic ritu-al. The unique combination of political andaesthetic dimensions of historical monu-ments challenged artists and architects toproduce objects which do not merely conveythe political or historical visions of their mak-ers, but which are meaningful and accept-able for a broad section of society. However,there are at present no collectively acceptedconventions determining the forms, motifs,themes or messages of public monuments.“The future of the public monument,”according to Sergiusz Michalski, “is nowmore open than ever.”2 At most, one mayidentify tendencies, ranging from ‘ephermer-al’ monuments, ‘unwanted’ monuments oreven the renunciation of monuments alto-gether (as in Britain following the SecondWorld War). More common is the trendtowards the restoration of historical forms,such as the pompous figurative effigies inMoscow adopted since 1991. A frequentsolution to this explosion of accepted stylesis the use of conceptual techniques in“counter-monuments”. These are designednot to commemorate the past but to provokespectators to reflect on the process and tra-dition of commemoration itself.

In practice, however, the large number ofover 500 monumental projects submitted incompetitions for the Berlin Holocaust Monu-ment, and the determined but inconclusiveefforts of experts to select a design, suggeststhat experts continue to consider monumentsa viable form of commemoration. And the

Planovi za Spomenik ubijenim europ-skim Æidovima ili Spomenik holokaus-

tu1 u srediπtu Berlina (sl. 1) potaknuli sujednu od najæeπÊih i najduljih rasprava ospomeniËkom nasljeu i predstavljanjuDrugoga svjetskoga rata u povijesti SavezneRepublike NjemaËke. Nakon preimenovan-ja ulica i uklanjanja ili modificiranja spo-menika u istoËnom dijelu grada od 1989. iuporedo s pregovorima o moguÊoj rekon-strukciji arhitektonskih simbola Wilhelmin-skog carstva, rasprava o planiranom Spo-meniku holokaustu pokazuje problematiËnukulturnu i simboliËku transformaciju ovogagrada vezanu uz njegovo ponovno usto-liËenje kao sjediπta vlade 1999. godine.

Ovaj je spomenik u osnovi mjesto odpovijesnog i politiËkog znaËaja, izlika zaizraæavanje i razmjenu javnog miπljenja ogenocidu. No pozornost koju pobuuje ta-koer proizlazi iz njegove umjetniËke di-menzije, jer nezamislive patnje ærtava geno-cida i preæivjelih od 1940. definiraju “estet-ski” oblik komemoracije fiksiran u kamenui u simboliËkom ritualu. Jedinstvena kombi-nacija politiËke i estetske dimenzije historij-skog spomenika bila je izazov umjetnicimai arhitektima da stvore objekt koji ne samoda Êe izraziti politiËku ili historijsku vizijusvojih kreatora, nego koji Êe biti znakovit iprihvatljiv πirokom dijelu druπtva. Meutim,trenutno ne postoje kolektivno prihvatljivekonvencije koje bi odredile oblik, motive,teme ili poruke javnih spomenika. “BuduÊ-nost javnog spomenika”, prema SergiuszuMichalskom, “danas je upitnija no ikada.”2

U najboljem sluËaju, tendencije se kreÊu od“prolaznih” spomenika, “neæeljenih” spo-menika, do posvemaπnjeg odustajanja odspomenika (kao πto je to bio sluËaj u VelikojBritaniji nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata). Uo-biËajeniji je trend restauracije historijskihoblika poput pompoznih figurativnih reljefakoji se uobiËajio u Moskvi od 1991. godine.»esto se rjeπenje ove eksplozije prihvaÊenihstilova traæi u upotrebi konceptualnih tehni-ka u “protu -spomenicima”. Oni su obliko-vani ne da bi komemorirali proπlost, negoda bi isprovocirali promatraËa na razmi-πljanje o procesu i tradiciji same komemo-racije.

U praksi, meutim, veliki broj od preko500 spomeniËkih projekata prijavljenih nanatjeËaj za berlinski Spomenik holokaustu,te odluËno, ali nedosljedno nastojanjestruËnjaka da odaberu oblik, pokazuju kakostruËnjaci i dalje na spomenike gledaju kaona odræivi oblik komemoracije.

»injenica da spomenici Drugom svjet-skom ratu u NjemaËkoj pobuuju znaËajne

peter carrier

fiksiranje sjeÊanjamemorial fixationspomenik ubijenim europskim æidovima u berlinuthe monument for the murdered jews of europe in berlin

118

t l

1 Ovaj spomenik ima dva imena. Usporedna upotrebasluæbenog naslova i mnogo kraÊeg i uobiËajenijeg ter-mina Spomenik holokaustu ukazuje na diskrepancijuizmeu organizatorovih namjera i popularnog razumije-vanja spomenika. Vidi: Salomon Korn, Mit falschemEtikett, Frankfurtrer Rundschau, 4. 9. 97. , s. 6.2 Sergiusz Michalski, Public Monuments, Art in PoliticalBondage 1870 -1997, London: Reaktion Books, 1998., s. 10.1 This monument has two names. The parallel usage ofthe official title and the shorter and more common term“Holocaust Denkmal” demonstrates the discrepancybetween the organisers’ intentions and the popularunderstanding of the monument. Cf. Salomon Korn, Mitfalschem Etikett, Frankfurter Rundschau, 4.9.97, p. 6.2 Sergiusz Michalski, Public Monuments. Art in PoliticalBondage 1870-1997, London: Reaktion Books, 1998, p. 10.

tl

1

3

5

2

4

6

fact that monuments in Germany relating tothe Second World War attract intense pub-lic speculation in both the private and pub-lic spheres is evidence that this type of com-memoration is still viable. Given the factthat monuments are today taken seriously,while it is impossible to agree upon a singlecollectively acceptable form, how do artistsapproach the problem of designing a monu-ment? Do they select one technique fromamong the contemporary repertoire, resortto historical figurative representations, irony,or even renounce creating a monument alto-gether? All of these methods were proposedfor the Holocaust Monument and none woncollective approval.

In this essay, I will briefly trace the his-tory of the Berlin monument, arguing thatmonumental public art cannot be interpretedby examining forms, motifs and genresalone. One must also take into account allpublic actors involved in the process of pro-duction, selection and implementation. Inthe words of the historian Jacques Le Goff,“one has to ‘destructure’ documents in orderto reveal the conditions of their production”.3

Monuments - as aesthetic documents - aresocial phenomena that can be understoodessentially as focal points of dialogue servingthe expression and rearticulation of privateand public memory. As such, their functionis both to act upon individual and collectivememory and to be acted upon by memory asit takes shape during interpersonal commu-nication in the public sphere (Fig. 2).

Institutionalising memory. A history of the project

The long duration and emotional natureof the debate over the Holocaust Monumentoffers a characteristic example of the processby which national memory has been institu-tionalized in Germany since 1989. The ulti-mate solution to the debate was implement-ed by members of parliament in June 1999.However, the debate itself illustrates the wayin which art as an institution in its own right,in similar fashion to other forms of historicaltransmission such as documentary film, jour-nalism, historical writings and the law,became a central issue and a legitimate yetill-defined medium of commemoration. Theinteraction of politicians, artists and archi-tects on the basis of public monumentsreflects a process of institutionalization com-prising (first) the formation of organizationsor social groups representing specific inter-ests and (second) the more diffuse, but noless significant “typification of habitualizedactions”4 with respect to public art.

javne spekulacije, kako u privatnoj, tako i ujavnoj sferi, dokaz je kako je ovaj tipkomemoracije joπ uvijek odræiv. Uzmemo liu obzir Ëinjenicu da se spomenici danas tre-tiraju ozbiljno, ali i da je nemoguÊe dogo-voriti se o jednom kolektivno prihvatljivomobliku, postavlja se pitanje kako umjetnicipristupaju ovom problemu pri oblikovanjuspomenika? Odabiru li jednu tehniku izsuvremenog repertoara, polazeÊi od historij-sko figurativne prezentacije, ironije, ili se,pak, opÊenito odriËu oblikovanja spomeni-ka? Sve su ove metode primijenjene zaSpomenik holokaustu, premda nijedna nijekolektivno prihvatljiva.

U ovom Êu eseju ukratko iznijeti povi-jest berlinskog spomenika, raspravljajuÊi otome kako javna umjetnost ne moæe bitiinterpretirana tek istraæivanjem oblika,motiva i samoga æanra. Dakle, u obzirmoramo uzeti sve javne sudionike uklju-Ëene u proces stvaranja, odabiranja i prim-jene. Prema rijeËima povjesniËara JacquesaLe Goffa, “moramo “destruktuirati” doku-mente kako bismo otkrili uvjete njihovanastanka”3. Spomenici - kao estetski doku-menti - druπtveni su fenomen koji se esen-cijalno moæe shvatiti kao æariπna toËkadijaloga koja sluæi za izraæavanje i reartikuli-ranje privatnoga i javnoga sjeÊanja. Njihovaje funkcija kao takvih da djeluju na indivi-dualno i kolektivno sjeÊanje te da na njihdjeluje sjeÊanje oblikovano tijekom meu-sobne komunikacije u javnoj sferi (sl. 2).

Institucionaliziranje sjeÊanja. Povijest projekta

Dugotrajnost i emotivnost rasprave oSpomenku holokaustu karakteristiËan jeprimjer procesa kojim je nacionalno sjeÊa-nje u NjemaËkoj institucionalizirano od1989. godine. KonaËno rjeπenje ovogaspora donijeli su parlamentarni zastupnici ulipnju 1999. Meutim, sama raspravapokazuje naËin kojim je umjetnost, kaoinstitucija sa svojim pravima, sliËno kao idrugi oblici povijesne transmisije poputdokumentarnog filma, novinarstva, povijes-nih eseja i prava, postala glavni problem iusto je legitimno proglaπena pogreπnim me-dijem komemoracije. Interakcija politiËara,umjetnika i arhitekata na temu javnih spo-menika odraæava proces institucionalizacijekoji sadræava (prvo) oblike organizacija ilidruπtvenih grupa koje predstavljaju speci-fiËne interese i (drugo) raznolikiju, ali nemanje znaËajnu “tipizaciju uobiËajenihakcija”4 s obzirom na javnu umjetnost.

120

sl.1: Mjesto pokraj rastuÊeg Trga Potsdamer usrediπtu Berlina 1999.The site next to the rising Potsdamer Platz in centralBerlin, 1999.

sl.2: Mjesto javnog dijaloga: knjiga posjetitelja naizloæbi modela odabranih za Muzej holokausta.A site of public dialogue: the visitors’ book at exhibi-tion of models selected for the Holocaust Monument.

sl.3: Eisenmanov prvonagraeni dizajn.The winning design by Peter Eisenman.

sl.4: Dizajn Jochena Gerza prikazuje posjetiteljskicentar, postavlja pitanje “zaπto?” i prikazuje betonskitemelj na kojem bi trebale stajati rijeËi posjetitelja.Design by Jochen Gerz, showing a visitor’s centre,posts bearing the word “why?”, and a concrete base tobe inscribed by words written by successive visitors.

sl.5: Dizajn Daniel Libeskinda: pozitivna uloga“praznina” njegova Æidovskog muzeja u blizini.Design by Daniel Libeskind: a positive cast of the“voids” of his Jewish Museum nearby.

sl.6: Dizajn Gesine Weinmiller prikazuje razlomljenuDavidovu zvijezdu u betonu.Design by Gesine Weinmiller showing a fragmentedDavid star in concrete.

Projekt izgradnje srediπnjeg Spomenikaholokaustu iniciralo je 1988. godine udru-æenje Perspektive Berlin. Stvoren je πirokinstitucionalni okvir kako bi se rijeπilisporovi i uspostavio dogovor: razne udrugesu prikupljale peticije, potpise i donacije, auslijedila je i serija umjetniËkih natjeËaja,parlamentarnih rasprava, diskusija u anket-noj komisiji te intervencija predsjednikaHelmuta Kohla i Gerta Schrödera. Poniπta-vanje prvog natjeËaja iz 1995. zbog ne-dostatka konsenzusa o radovima koji su uπliu uæi izbor dovelo je do uvoenja novihinstitucionalnih mjera kako bi se stvoriodruπtveni konsenzus: tri konferencije s pre-ko devedeset struËnjaka i politiËara 1997.,drugi natjeËaj 1998., izloæba crteæa i mo-dela spomenika, serija od πest javnih razgo-vora s umjetnicima i arhitektima poËetkom1998., susreti koje su organizirali crkva ipolitiËke udruge, kao i niz sjednica parla-mentarnog Odbora za kulturu posveÊenihspomeniku 1999. godine.

Umjetnici koji su 1995. pozvani dasudjeluju na natjeËaju su Christian Boltan-ski i Gerhard Merz, a na drugom natjeËaju1997. bili su Jochen Gerz, Rachel White-read i arhitekti Daniel Libeskind i Peter Ei-senman. Godine 1995. predloæeno je 528modela, a 1997. godine 28 modela (samopozvani) pa su 1995. odabrana dva pob-jednika, a 1997. Ëetiri.

Ipak, suglasnosti nije bilo ni za jedanmodel. Proglaπavanje viπe pobjednika, Ëimese javnosti ponudila moguÊnost sudjelova-nja u procesu odabira i pregovora na πirokozasnovanom druπtvenom konsenzusu, za-pravo je potaklo konflikt, a ne konsenzus.Nakon nerijeπenog rezultata drugog natje-Ëaja iz 1998., kada se ni prosudbeni odborni kritiËari nisu mogli usuglasiti oko Ëetirimodela iz uæeg izbora, predloæena je izradamodificirane verzije Serrinog i Eisenmano-vog modela, polja stupaca visine izmeu0.5 i 7.5 metara, reduciranog s 4000 na2700 (slika 3). Nadalje, sve predloæenepreinake prekrπile su inicijalni principapstraktnoga i Ëisto skulpturalnog spomeni-ka dodajuÊi mu institucionalnu organizaci-ju: Spielbergovu zbirku video zapisa svjedo-ka poznatu kao “Survivors of the ShoahVisual History Foundation” (predloæio Mic-hael Naumanna), Muzej holokausta (LeaRosh), SveuËiliπte æidovskih studija(Andreas Nachama) ili zgradu koja sadræiknjiænicu, ogranak Leo Baeck Instituta iistraæivaËki centar (Naumann/Eisenman).KonaËna odluka iz lipnja 1999. da seEisenmanov apstraktni model upotpuniinformativnim centrom nastavak je trendastvaranja umjetniËkog spomenika kao mjes-

The project to build a central HolocaustMonument was initiated in 1988 by theassociation Perspektive Berlin. Elaborate in-stitutional measures were designed to re-solve dispute and establish consensus: peti-tions, signatures and donations were col-lected by associations, followed by a seriesof artistic competitions, parliamentarydebates, discussion at the Enquete-Com-mission and the intervention of chancellorsHelmut Kohl and Gert Schröder. The can-cellation of the first competition in 1995due to a lack of consensus over the short-listed models led to the introduction of addi-tional institutional measures to build socialconsensus: three conferences involving overninety experts and politicians in 1997, asecond competition in 1998, exhibitions ofblueprints and models of monuments, aseries of six public hearings with the artistsand architects early in 1998, meetingsorganized by church and political associa-tions, as well as a series of sittings of theparliamentary cultural committee devoted tothe monument in 1999.

Artists invited to submit proposalsincluded Christian Boltanski, Gerhard Merz,Richard Serra in 1995; followed by JochenGerz, Rachel Whiteread and the architectsDaniel Libeskind and Peter Eisenman in thesecond competition of 1997. 528 modelswere submitted in 1995 and 28 models (byinvitation only) in 1997, which led to theselection of two winners in 1995 and four in1997. Nevertheless, no agreement wasreached over a single model. The shortlist-ing of multiple prizewinners, which offeredthe public an opportunity to becomeinvolved in the selection process and negoti-ate a more broadly based social consensus,in fact promoted conflict rather than con-sensus. Following the inconclusive outcomeof the second competition in 1998, whenneither the jury nor critics could agree onone of the four short-listed models, propos-als were made to retain a modified versionof Richard Serra’s and Peter Eisenman’smodel, a field of columns between 0.5 and7.5 metres in height, reduced from a total of4000 to 2700 (Fig. 3). Moreover, all of theproposed modifications transgressed the ini-tial principle of an abstract, purely sculptur-al monument by adding an institutionalorganization: Steven Spielberg’s collection ofwitness accounts on video, known as the“Survivors of the Shoah Visual HistoryFoundation” (proposed by MichaelNaumann), a Holocaust museum (LeaRosh), a University for Jewish Studies(Andreas Nachama), or a building contain-

121

3 “Il faut destructurer le document pour déceler ses con-ditions de production”. Jacques Le Goff, La Nouvelle his-toire (1978), u Le Goff (izdanje) La Nouvelle Histoire,Brussels: Editions Complexe, 1988. , s. 35-75, s. 63. 4 Peter Berger & Thomas Luckmann, The Social Con-struction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Kno-wledge (1966), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991., s. 72.3 “Il faut destructurer le document pour déceler ses conditions de production”. Jacques Le Goff, La Nouvellehistoire (1978), in Le Goff (ed.), La Nouvelle Histoire,Brussels: Editions Complexe, 1988, pp. 35-75, p. 63.4 Peter Berger & Thomas Luckmann, The Social Con-struction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Kno-wledge (1966), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1991, p. 72

tl

ing a library, a branch of the Leo BaeckInstitute and a research centre (Naumann/Eisenman). The final decision in June 1999to complement Eisenman’s abstract modelwith an information centre continued thistrend towards the renunciation of an artisticmonument in favour of a site linked to infor-mation and to research facilities includingoral and scientific documentation. The puremonument, an aesthetic medium of history,was thus complemented with pedagogicalinformation about history and about othermemorials situated on authentic historicalsites in and around Berlin. The addition ofan information centre also ensured institu-tional control over the artistic element of themonument. Its meaning could no longer begoverned by aesthetic laws alone. Under thecontrol of the foundation Stiftung Denkmalfur die ermordeten Juden Europas, repre-sented by members of parliament, associa-tions, the Berlin Senate, the Jewish com-munity and directors of existing historicalmemorial museums, the monument’s mean-ing could be explained by “topping up” artwith scientific knowledge. If necessary, suchexplanations could also be modified overtime with respect to changing circum-stances and contemporary historical under-standing.

There are several purely structural polit-ical reasons why no satisfactory decisionwas reached without political interventionbetween the start (1988) and approximateend (June 1999) of the debate. First, themultiple institutions involved in the deci-sion-making process, including the threecommissioning bodies and sponsors —Berlin Senate, Bundestag committee andassociation — made it difficult to reach aunanimous agreement. Second, the largenumber of competition entries. Third, theinconclusive and open nature of the compe-titions, both leading to joint first prizes andexhibitions which provoked irreconcilableopinions in conferences and in the media.Fourth, the controversial intervention ofChancellor Kohl in the cancellation of thefirst competition and in the selection of themodel by Eisenman and Serra in the secondcompetition, which recalled the controversyover the chancellor’s intervention in theredesign and reinauguration of the NeueWache monument in 1993.5 Fifth, althoughopinions towards the monument amongboth local and national politicians weredivided regardless of their party allegiance,the approaching parliamentary elections ofSeptember 1998 increasingly polarised themonument into an issue of party politics.

ta koje je povezano s informacijama i istraæi-vaËkim moguÊnostima, ukljuËujuÊi usmenui znanstvenu dokumentaciju. »isti spo-menik, kao estetski medij povijesti, tako jenadopunjen pedagoπkim informacijama opovijesti i o drugim spomenicima smjeπte-nim na autentiËnim lokacijama u Berlinu ioko njega. Dodavanje informativnog centratakoer bi osiguralo institucionalni nadzornad umjetniËkim elementom spomenika. Ti-me njegovo znaËenje viπe ne bi moglo bitivoeno Ëistim estetskim zakonima. S obzi-rom na to da bi bio pod nadzorom zakladeStiftung Denkmal für die ermordeten JudenEuropas koju predstavljaju parlamentarnizastupnici, udruge, berlinski senat, æidovskazajednica i ravnatelji postojeÊih povijesnihmemorijalnih muzeja, znaËenje spomenikamoglo bi se objasniti kao “dodavanje” znan-stvenih spoznaja umjetnosti. Ako bi bilopotrebno, ovakvo objaπnjenje takoer bi se svremenom moglo modificirati u skladu spromijenjenom situacijom i suvremenimpovijesnim shvaÊanjem.

Postoji nekoliko Ëisto strukturalno poli-tiËkih razloga zaπto zadovoljavajuÊa odlukanije donesena bez politiËke intervencije prijepoËetka (1988.) i pribliænog kraja rasprave(lipanj 1999.). Prvo, viπe ukljuËenih institu-cija u proces odluËivanja, tri odborna tijela isponzori - berlinski senat, parlamentarni od-bor i udruge - oteæali su postizanje jedin-stvenog dogovora. Drugo, veliki broj prijav-ljenih natjecatelja. TreÊe, nejasna i otvorenapriroda natjeËaja, koja je dovela do zajed-niËkih prvih nagrada te izloæbi koje suisprovocirale nepomirljiva stajaliπta na kon-ferencijama i u medijima. »etvrto, kontro-verzna intervencija predsjednika Kohla kojije poniπtio prvi natjeËaj, kao i intervencijapri odabiru Eisenmanova i Serrina modela udrugom natjeËaju, πto je iznova potaklo kon-troverze o predsjednikovoj intervenciji uredizajniranju i reinauguraciji spomenikaNeue Wache 19935. Peto, iako su miπljenjalokalnih i nacionalnih politiËara o spo-meniku bila podijeljena i mimo njihovestranaËke pripadnosti, nadolazeÊi parlamen-tarni izbori u rujnu 1998. godine pretvorilisu spomenik u problem stranaËke politike.

Odaziv umjetnika i arhitekata na sluæbeno natjecanje 1997. godine

Raspravu su karakterizirala dva srediπ-nja problema. Koji je najadekvatniji oblikspomenika? I je li spomenik kao “æanr” (zarazliku od drugih oblika ritualne komemo-racije kao πto su, primjerice, polaganje vije-

122

5 Sluæbeni naziv “Srediπnji spomenik Savezne RepublikeNjemaËke” posveÊen “Ærtvama rata i tiranije”5 Official title: “Central Memorial of the FederalRepublic of Germany”, dedicated “To the Victims ofWar and Tyranny”.

tl

naca, demonstracije, javni govori ili dræavnipraznici) uËinkovit medij kolektivne kome-moracije?6 U svjetlu visokopolitiziranihokolnosti u kojima je nastao projekt Spome-nika holokaustu, modele koji su odabranitijekom natjeËaja 1995. i 1997. godine mo-ramo promotriti s obzirom na njihov sa-dræaj i funkciju. Kako su umjetnici i arhi-tekti obrazloæili svoj dizajn? I kako su kri-tiËari odgovorili na dizajn i argumentacijustvaralaca u svjetlu zahtjeva za konsenzu-som i brzim okonËanjem spora?7 PolitiËkiuvjeti ustanovljeni u peticijama i u sluæbe-nim instrukcijama za umjetnike tijekomdesetogodiπnje rasprave upuÊuju na to daizvor kontroverze nije u predloæenim spo-menicima, nego u nepomirljivim odnosimaizmeu uvjeta i medija koji je izabran da ihispuni. U praksi, neke dosljednosti u motivi-ma koji su zajedniËki razliËitim spomenici-ma iz uæeg izbora sugeriraju da su umjet-niËki prijedlozi sadræavali potencijalni kon-senzus o naËinima komemoracije genocidau kamenu. Odbijanje æirija, politiËkih pred-stavnika, kritiËara i πire javnosti da zajed-niËki podræe bilo koji od motiva koje dijelenagraeni modeli moæe se pripisati teπkojzadaÊi “iskazivanja svih dimenzija masov-nog ubojstva jednim spomenikom” 8, iskazi-vanja onoga Ëija tematska opÊenitost zahti-jeva apstraktni spomenik i neodreeni obliksjeÊanja.

Nakon drugog natjeËaja proglaπena suËetiri pobjednika u studenom 1997.: pri-jedlog arhitekta Petera Eisenmanna i umjet-nika Richarda Serre, prijedlozi umjetnikaJochena Gerza (slika 4) i arhitekata DanielaLibeskinda (slika 5) i Gesine Weinmiller(slika 6). Trebalo je izabrati samo jedanmodel. PolitiËka funkcija predloæenih mo-dela spomenika odraæavala se s obzirom nato kako pojedinci i dræava namjeravaju ko-ristiti spomenik i kakav Êe biti njihov odnosprema njemu kao prema temelju simbo-liËnog ugovora izmeu dræave, umjetnika ipojedinaca. U praksi je velika raznolikostprijedloga sprijeËila druπtveni konsenzuszbog toga πto su propisivali viπestruke iËesto proturjeËne naËine javne i dræavneupotrebe: razliËite naËine kojima sjeÊanjepojedinca moæe biti integrirano u druπtvenosjeÊanje putem medija kolektivne komemo-racije.

Primjerice, namjera Eisenmanova iSerrina polja kamenih ploËa jest da izoliraposjetitelja kako bi u njemu probudioosjeÊaj dezorijentacije i straha, dok prijed-log Libeskinda i Weinmillerove nudiotvoreni prostor za odmor, razmiπljanje irazgovor. PozivajuÊi posjetitelje da odgo-

Responses of Artists and Archi-tects in the Official Competitionof 1997

The debate was characterised by twocentral problems. What is the most adequateform of monument? And is the monument asa “genre” (in contrast to other forms of ritualcommemoration such as wreath-laying,demonstrations, public speeches or nationalholidays, for example) an effective mediumof collective commemoration?6 In light of thehighly politicised context in which the Holo-caust Monument project evolved, we shouldtherefore examine the models selected dur-ing the competitions of 1995 and 1997 inrelation to both their form and function. Howdid the artists and architects justify theirdesigns? And how did critics respond to thedesigns and to their creators’ arguments inlight of the insistent demands for consensusand a rapid end to the debate?7 The politicalconditions established in petitions and offi-cial instructions to artists during the ten-yearlong debate suggest that the source of con-troversy lay not in the proposed monumentsthemselves but in the incommensurable rela-tion between the conditions and the mediumchosen to fulfil them. In practice, some con-sistencies in the motifs shared by differentshortlisted monuments suggest that theartistic proposals provided a potential formalconsensus over the means of commemorat-ing the genocide in stone. The reluctance ofthe jury, political representatives, critics andthe wider public to collectively support any ofthe common motifs of the prizewinning mod-els, however, may be imputed to the difficulttask of “doing justice to all dimensions of themass murder with a single monument”8, onewhose thematic generality called for anabstract monument and a vague form ofremembrance.

Following the second competition, fourjoint prize-winners were announced inNovember 1997: for the proposal by thearchitect Peter Eisenman and artist RichardSerra, and proposals by the artist JochenGerz (Fig. 4) and the architects DanielLibeskind (Fig. 5) and Gesine Weinmiller(Fig. 6) respectively. One single model hadto be selected. The political function of theproposed monumental forms was reflected inthe ways in which individuals and the statewere intended to use the monument, andhow each related to it as the basis of a sym-bolic contract between the state, artist andindividuals. In practice, the large variety ofproposals hindered social consensusbecause they prescribed multiple and oftenincongruous types of public and state usage:

123

6 Robert Kudielka, Das falsche Gewicht derBetroffenheit, Freitag 37, 5. 9. 97. , s. 13. 7 Simpatizeri spomenika su upozoravali na politiËko“gubljenje obraza” kada je odgoen projekt nakonustanovljene natjeËajne procedure. Vidi: Christian Meier,Stachel im Fleisch, Der Tagesspiegel 23.1.98, s. 23.8 Klaus Hartung, Gedenken — aber wie?, Die Zeit24.3.95.6 Robert Kudielka, Das falsche Gewicht derBetroffenheit, Freitag 37, 5.9.97, p. 13.7 Supporters of the monument warned of a political“loss of face” in the event of a cancellation of the proj-ect after the elaborate competition procedure. Cf.Christian Meier, Stachel im Fleisch, Der Tagesspiegel23.1.98, p. 23.8 Klaus Hartung, Gedenken — aber wie?, Die Zeit24.3.95.

tl

different ways in which the memories ofindividuals may be integrated into socialmemory via the medium of collective com-memoration.

The field of steles by Eisenman andSerra, for example, is intended to isolate vis-itors in order to arouse in them a sense ofdisorientation or fear, whereas the proposalsof Libeskind and Weinmiller offer an openspace in which to rest, reflect and talk. Byinviting visitors to compose an answer to thequestion “why?”, Gerz’s model involves thepublic in the active construction of a neces-sarily incomplete monument. Each of thesethree models prescribes a specific type ofsociability: radical isolation, casual publiccommunication, and formal written testimo-ny. Moreover, in theoretical statements ofthe artists and architects, the public to whichthe monument appeals is indeterminate,described variously as supranational, nation-al or local. According to Gerz, the monumentshould appeal to “a community beyond thenation”9, although he describes it as “a placeof German identity”.10 Michel Friedman ofthe Central Council of Jews in Germanydefined the monument more precisely as anexpression of local culture, “for my capitalcity”.11 The local appeal of the monumentwas reinforced by the dominance of localover national media in the treatment of thistopic, and by the key role played by theBerlin Senate in postponing the decision fol-lowing conflicts of opinion between local andnational governments in 1998. Indecisionwas a consequence not only of the sensitivehistorical issue of monumentalisation assuch, therefore, but also of the complex fed-eral structure of political decision-making inGermany.

The shortlisted models likewise projectvery different assumptions about the state.Libeskind describes his model as a “gatewayto the governmental zone”, a monumentwhich is “supportive of the state” (“staatstra-gend”).12 In contrast, Eisenman claims thathis model resists state appropriation.13

According to Eduard Beaucamp, it should“prevent inappropriate collective mourningrituals, public demonstrations, representativestate occasions”.14 Finally, Gerz attemptedto displace responsibility for the creation ofthe monument from the artist and the stateto the public. He brought into question thetraditionally distinct roles of the commission-ing authority and the commissioned work ofart carried out by an artist for a specific audi-ence. The invitation to answer the question“why?” not only delegates creative activity tothe audience by requesting it to compose acollective text inscribed onto the concrete

vore na pitanje “zaπto”, Gerzov modelukljuËuje javnost u aktivnu konstrukciju nu-æno nedovrπenoga spomenika. Svaki od ovatri modela propisuje specifiËan tip druπtve-nosti: radikalnu izolaciju, neobaveznu javnukomunikaciju, i formalno pismeno prizna-nje. Nadalje, teoretsko je stajaliπte umjetni-ka i arhitekata da je javnost kojoj se spome-nik obraÊa neodreena, razliËito opisanakao nadnacionalna, nacionalna, i lokalna.Prema Gerzu spomenik bi se trebao obra-Êati “zajednici iznad nacije”9, premda gaopisuje “kao mjesto njemaËkog identite-ta”10. Michael Friedman iz Srediπnjeg æi-dovskog vijeÊa NjemaËke preciznije definiraspomenik kao izraz lokalne kulture “za mojglavni grad”11. Lokalni odaziv na raspravu ospomeniku bio je pojaËan dominacijomlokalnih nad dræavnim medijima u tretiranjuove teme i kljuËnom ulogom koju je odigraoberlinski senat odgaajuÊi odluku nakonËega su uslijedila proturjeËna miπljenjalokalnih predstavnika vlasti i dræavne vlade1998. godine. NeodluËnost je bila posljed-ica ne samo osjetljivog povijesnoga proble-ma spomeniËkoga predstavljanja kao ta-kvog, nego i kompleksne federalne struktu-re donoπenja politiËkih odluka u NjemaËkoj.

Modeli koji su uπli u uæi izbor takoerprojiciraju veoma razliËita razmiπljanja odræavi. Libeskind opisuje svoj model kao“vrata u vladinu zonu”, spomenik koji“podræava dræavu” (“staatstragend”)12. Zarazliku od njega, Eisenman tvrdi kako nje-gov model odolijeva dræavnom odreenju13.Prema Eduardu Beaucampu, spomenik bitrebao “sprijeËiti neprikladne kolektivne ri-tuale æalovanja, javne demonstracije, pred-stavljaËke dræavne priredbe”.14 KonaËno,Gerz je namjeravao prebaciti odgovornostza stvaranje spomenika s umjetnika idræave na javnost. Doveo je u pitanje tradi-cionalne razlikovne uloge povjerenstava inaruËenoga umjetniËkog djela koji je umjet-nik izradio za specifiËnu publiku. Poziv dase odgovori na pitanje “zaπto” ne samo dapokreÊe kreativnu aktivnost publike zahti-jevajuÊi od nje da sastavi kolektivni tekstkoji Êe biti uklesan u temelje spomenika,nego takoer demonstrira i slobodu suvre-menih umjetnika koji, radeÊi prema na-rudæbi, nisu previπe odreeni sadræajem ilioblikom djela; to je ugovorni odnos kojiGerz definira kao “ne-naruËeni”15. Njegovo,u osnovi politiËko razumijevanje ulogeumjetnika, takoer ga je navelo da povuËesvoj model s natjeËaja u srpnju 1998.navodeÊi kako nastavljanje kontroverzi okoprojekta dokazuje nesposobnost dræave idruπtva da ispune uvjete narudæbe16.

124

9 Gerz, Materialien für die erste Berurteilungssitzung(preneseno iz novina, studeni 1997.)10 Gerz, na javnom predstavljanju predloæenogspomenika u Marstall Gallery, Berlin, 16.1.98. 11 Michael Friedman, citirano iz Furcht vor abstraktenPfiffigkeiten, Berliner Zeitung 21/22.3.98, s. 912 Libeskind, na javnom predstavljanju predloæenogspomenika u Marstall Gallery, Berlin, 19.1.98.13 Eisenman, na javnom predstavljanju predloæenogspomenika u Marstall Gallery, Berlin, 13.1.98.14 Eduard Beaucamp, Baut Serra!, FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung 3. 2. 98. , s. 35.15 Gerz (intervju), Das dekorative Gemeinwesen, DieTageszeitung 11. 4. 95.9 Gerz, Materialien für die erste Berurteilungssitzung(press release, November 1997).10 Gerz, at public presentation of proposed monument,Marstall Gallery, Berlin, 16.1.98.11 Michel Friedman, quoted in Furcht vor abstraktenPfiffigkeiten, Berliner Zeitung 21/22.3.98, p. 9.12 Libeskind, at public presentation of proposed monu-ment at Marstall Gallery, Berlin, 19.1.98.13 Eisenman, at public presentation of proposed monu-ment at Marstall Gallery, Berlin, 13.1.98.14 Eduard Beaucamp, Baut Serra!, FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung 3.2.98, p. 35.15 Gerz, interview, Das dekorative Gemeinwesen, DieTageszeitung 11.4.95.

tl

Usprkos razlikama izmeu predloæenihnaËina koriπtenja tih spomenika od stranejavnosti i dræave, oni ipak otkrivaju nekekonzistentne formalne i semantiËke motivekoji sadræavaju potencijalnu osnovu za kon-senzus o Spomeniku holokaustu. VeÊinaotisaka predlaæe plitku stukturu (Libes-kindov prijedlog je iznimka). Gotovo svimodeli pokazuju razliËite stupnjeve apstrak-cije izbjegavajuÊi predstavljanje ljudske iliprirodne figure, a nijedan ne pridaje ozbilj-niju pozornost inskripciji.17 (Moæda je zna-kovito za konsenzualnu prirodu apstrakcijeda se za najapstraktniji odabrani model,Eisenmanovo i Serrino polje kamenih ploËa,odluËilo posebno povjerenstvo i predsjed-nik). Za veÊinu su modela reference posto-jeÊih simbola i spomenika koje GertMattenklott naziva “spomenik nad spo-menicima”18 takoer znakovite. Libes-kindov model, primjerice, sluæi kao sim-boliËno æariπte citata s najmanje pet veÊ po-stojeÊih simbola u Berlinu: Æidovskog mu-zeja, Reichstaga, Goetheova spomenika,Vile Wannsee i fasada gradskih kuÊa. Wei-nmillerin model prikazuje Davidovu zvijez-du, klasiËne hodoËasnike ili Ëak Zid plaËa.Jackob-Marksov prijedlog imenovanja svihærtava preuzima tehniku vijetnamskog vete-ranskog spomenika dok Gerzov princip, kojizahtijeva od graana da sami sastave tekstza spomenik, oponaπa tehnike koje su veÊkoriπtene za protu-spomenike u Bironu,Harburgu i Saarbrückenu19. Nadalje, mod-eli Eisenmana i Serrae, Gerza i Weinmille-rove, sadræe elemente monolitskog oblikakao ironijsku reprodukciju i svi multiplicira-ju temeljne oblike tradicionalnoga skulp-turalnoga spomenika.

Svim temama navednih modela zajed-niËki je problem predstavljanja. U treÊojseriji konferencija 1997. godine na temuTipologija i ikonografija spomenika raspravase fokusirala na motiv praznine. “U sræi nje-maËkog spomenika”, rekao je JamesYoung, “trebala bi biti praznina koju umjet-nik treba predstaviti kao inspiraciju ili kaokoncept.”20 Robert Kudielka je upozoravaona “laæni patos koji se javlja iz naklonostispram praznine”21 i umjesto toga zagovaraoje primjer protu-spomenika koji komemori-ra proπlost istraæujuÊi sam proces komemo-racije: “Naravno, to je pitanje “nepred-stavljivoga”, no to ne znaËi da moramoteatralno popustiti pred nemjerljivim, nego… precizno artikulirati odnose izmeukapaciteta predstavljaËkih sredstava iograniËenja njihovih moguÊnosti.”22

U praksi, jedino Gertz usvaja elementeæanra protu-spomenika, gdje uliËna svjetilj-

base of the monument, but also demon-strates the freedom of contemporary artiststo work for commissions which do not pre-determine the content or form of the work, acontractual relationship which Gerz definesas a “non-commission”.15 His essentiallypolitical understanding of the role of theartist also led him to withdraw his modelfrom the competition in July 1998 on thegrounds that the continuing controversy overthe project proved the failure of state andsociety to fulfil the conditions of a commis-sion.16

In spite of the disparities between theproposed usages of these monuments by thepublic and the state, they reveal some con-sistent formal and semantic motifs whichconstitute a potential basis for consensusover the Holocaust Monument. Most blue-prints propose a low-lying structure (Libes-kind’s is an exception). Almost all modelsdemonstrate varying degrees of abstractionby avoiding the representation of human ornatural figures, and none gave serious priorattention to an inscription.17 (It is perhapssignificant of the consensual nature ofabstraction that the most abstract of theshortlisted models, the field of steles byEisenman and Serra, was favoured by thespecialist commission and by the chancel-lor.) Also consistent to most models were thecomposite references to existent symbolsand monuments in what Gert Mattenklottcalls “monuments of monuments”.18 Libes-kind’s model, for example, serves as a sym-bolic focal point for quotations of at least 5existent symbols in Berlin: the Jewish Mu-seum, the Reichstag, the Goethe memorial,the Wannsee villa and the facades of cityhouses. Weinmiller’s model cites the Star ofDavid, classical pillars or even the WailingWall. Jackob-Marks’ proposal to name allvictims adopts the technique of the VietnamVeterans Memorial, while Gerz’s principle ofasking citizens to compose a script for themonument repeated a technique alreadyused for counter-monuments in Biron,Harburg and Saarbrücken.19 Moreover, themodels of Eisenman and Serra, Gerz andWeinmiller all employ elemental monolithicforms as an ironic reproduction and multipli-cation of the basic form of traditional sculp-tural monuments.

The most consistent theme of thesemodels is the problem of representationitself. In the third of a series of conferencesin 1997, on the “Typology and Iconographyof the Monument”, discussion focused onthe motif of emptiness. “At the core of aGerman monument,” claimed James Young,“there should be an emptiness, which the

125

16 Vidi: Gerz zieht Entwurf zum Mahnmal zurück,Berliner Zeitung 28. 7. 98. , s. 11.17 Samo su Ungers i Hans Hollein ugradili posvetu usvoje prijedloge. Nedostatak historijskog objaπnjenja uobliku verbalnog komentara, teksta ili posvete dovodi doproizvoljnog znaËenja. Vidi: Jens Jessen, Das undeut-liche Mahnmal, Berliner Zeitung 20. 1. 98.18 Gert Mattenklott, “Denk ich an Deutschland…,Deutsche Denkmäler 1709 bis 1990”, Sekretariat fürkulturelle Zusammenarbeit Nordhein-Westfalen, Deut-sche Nationaldenkmale 1790-1990, Bielefeld: Verlag fürRegionalgeschichte 1993. s. 17-47.19 Vidi: James Young, The Counter-Monument: Memoryagainst Itself in Germany Today, Critical Inquiry 2, 1992. , s. 267-296. 20 Vidi: James Youngov komentar na treÊem kongresu1997. Erinnerung, Gegenerinnerung und das Ende desMonuments, u: Senatsverwaltung für Wissenschaft,Forschung und Kultur, Colloquium: Denkmal für dieermordeten Juden Europas, Berlin: Copy-world 1997., s.124-125. 21 Vidi Kudielkov komentar na treÊem kongresu 1997. s.140-141.22 Kudielka, Das falsche Gewicht der Betroffenheit,Freitag 37, 5. 9. 97. s. 13.16 Cf. Gerz zieht Entwurf zum Mahnmal zurück,Berliner Zeitung 28.7.98, p. 11.17 Only Ungers and Hans Hollein incorporated inscrip-tions into their proposals. The absence of historicalexplanation in the form of verbal commentary, a text orinscription, would foster an arbitrary meaning. Cf. JensJessen, Das undeutliche Mahnmal, Berliner Zeitung20.1.98, p. 4.18 Gert Mattenklott, Denk ich an Deutschland ...,Deutsche Denkmäler 1790 bis 1990”, Sekretariat fürkulturelle Zusammenarbeit Nordrhein-Westfalen (ed.),Deutsche Nationaldenkmale 1790-1990, Bielefeld:Verlag für Regionalgeschichte 1993, pp. 17-47, p. 46.19 Cf. James Young, The Counter-Monument: Memoryagainst Itself in Germany Today, Critical Inquiry 2, 1992,pp. 267-296.20 See James Young’s commentary at the third congress1997, Erinnerung, Gegenerinnerung und das Ende desMonuments, in Senatsverwaltung für Wissenschaft,Forschung und Kultur (ed.), Colloquium: Denkmal für dieermordeten Juden Europas, Berlin: Copy-world 1997,pp. 124-125, p. 125.21 See Kudielka’s commentary at the third congress1997, ibid., pp. 140-141, p. 141.22 Kudielka, Das falsche Gewicht der Betroffenheit,Freitag 37, 5.9.97, p. 13.

tl

artist somehow has to represent as inspira-tion or as a concept”.20 Robert Kudielka war-ned against the “false pathos aroused by rev-erence towards emptiness”,21 however, andappealed instead to the example of counter-monuments which commemorate the pastby exploring the very process of commemo-ration: “Of course, it’s a question of the‘unrepresentable’, but this does not meanthat we have to theatrically give in to immea-surability, but to [...] articulate precisely therelation between the capacity of the meansof representation and the limits of its ade-quacy.”22

In practice, only Gerz incorporates ele-ments of the counter-monument genre,where the lampposts and concrete basefunction as a mere support for questioningvisitors and recording their responses. Bydispensing almost entirely with sculpturalform, this proposal provides an alternative(non-symbolic) rhetorical basis for consensusin the perpetual questioning of the process ofcommemoration as such. Other modelsdirectly echo the previous theoretical discus-sions on emptiness. Libeskind attempts tomake emptiness visible and a spur to reflec-tion by casting the empty spaces or “voids”of the Jewish Museum in concrete, with theaim (according to one critic) of “makingemptiness intelligible”.23 Moreover, all thesemodels, in particular the arrangements ofconcrete panels and steles by Weinmiller,Eisenman and Serra, correspond closely tothe definition of a cenotaph — a monumentin the form of an empty grave, or one inmemory of lost dead people or those buriedelsewhere.24 Some critics argue that evencounter-monuments are grounded in an aes-thetics of the sublime, due to the renuncia-tion of sensible effects in favour of the con-ceptualisation of representation,25 althoughthe direct appeal to the spectator’s activeparticipation in the continuous rhetoricalconstruction of the monument in fact dis-places its effect from the realm of aestheticexperience to the rational conceptualisationof its function. One could even argue that theHolocaust Monument conforms to the defini-tion of a cenotaph regardless of its particularform, insofar as it marks a geographical sitein memory of dead people not buried on thesite of the monument. A monument of thissort — empty, abstract, in memory of absentdead, dedicated to all Jewish victims of theSecond World War genocide, a representa-tion dedicated to something unrepresentable— is perhaps an architectural translation ofthe sublime, which Dieter Hoffmann-Axthelm defines in terms of hollowness, alack of (human) scale, abstraction, enormity,and inaccessibility.26 The motif of the ceno-

ka i betonski temelj funkcioniraju kao pukapodrπka za ispitivanje posjetitelja, Ëiji seodgovori snimaju. Oslobodivπi se u cijelostiskulpturalnog oblika, ovaj prijedlog pruæaalternativu, (ne-simboliËku) retoriËku bazuza konsenzus u neprekidnom propitivanjuprocesa komemoracije kao takvoga. Drugimodeli izravno predstavljaju odjeke pret-hodnih teorijskih diskusija o praznini.Libeskind æeli uËiniti prazninu vidljivom ipobuuje razmiπljanje odlijevajuÊi u betonprazni prostor ili “niπtavilo” Æidovskogmuzeja s ciljem da “uËini prazninu razum-ljivom”23, kako kaæe jedan kritiËar. Nadalje,svi ovi modeli betonskih panela i kamenihploËa Weinmillerove, Eisenmana i Serraeusko korespondiraju s definicijom spomeni-ka palima - spomenik u obliku praznogagroba ili spomenik u sjeÊanje na izgubljenemrtve ili one koji su pokopani negdje drug-dje.24 Neki kritiËari tvrde da Ëak iako suprotu-spomenici utemeljeni na esteticiuzviπenoga, primjereno sjedinjenim senzi-bilnim efektima u skladu s konceptualizaci-jom predstavljanja,25 ipak izravni poziv zaaktivnim sudjelovanjem promatraËa u ne-prekidnoj retoriËkoj konstrukciji spomenikazapravo premjeπta svoj uËinak s podruËjaestetskog iskustva u racionalni konceptuali-zam njegove funkcije. Moæemo takoer za-kljuËiti da Spomenik holokaustu sadræidefiniciju spomenika palima bez obzira nanjegov odreeni oblik sve dok obiljeæavazemljopisno mjesto sjeÊanja na mrtve ljudekoji nisu pokopani na mjestu ovoga spo-menika. Spomenik te vrste - prazan, ap-straktan, u sjeÊanje na umrle, posveÊen svimæidovskim ærtvama genocida Drugoga svjet-skoga rata, posveÊen neËemu nepredstav-ljivom - jest moæda arhitekturalni prijevoduzviπenoga koji Dieter Hoffmann-Axthelmdefinira terminima laænosti, nedostatka(ljudskog) razmjera, apstrakcije, golemoπ-Êu, i nepristupaËnoπÊu.26 Motiv spomenikapalima i, kao posljedica toga uzviπenoga in-herentnog nekolicini projekata spomenika isamom projektu bez obzira na individualnemodele, implicira da konsenzus o spomenikupretpostavlja konsenzus o principima spo-menika palima, bez obzira na njegov pose-ban oblik.

“Nacionalni” spomenik?Kada su se Ëlanovi udruæenja Perspek-

tive Berlin posebno zaloæili za Spomenikholokaustu, pozvali su se ne samo na prim-jere drugih nacija, posebice Yad Vashem uJeruzalemu i ameriËki Memorijalni muzejholokaustu u Washingtonu, nego na sredst-va izraæavanja karakteristiËna za nacionalne

23 Vidi. Harald Fricke, Tote Monumente, lebendige Leere,Die Tageszeitung (Magazin) 17/18. 1. 98. 24 Vidi: Alan Borg, War Memorials from Antiquity to thePresent, London: Leo Cooper 1991. , s. 75. 25 Vidi: Mariam Niroumand, Darsteller und Denklöcher,Die Tageszeitung 14. 4. 97. 26 Hoffmann-Axthelm utemeljuje svoju analizu naarhitektonskim teroijama Etiennea-Lousia Boulléea, DieÄsthetik der Nichtzuständigkeit, Neue Gesellschaft fürbildende Kunst, Der Wettbewerb für das Denkmal für dieermordeten Juden Europas, Berlin: Verlag der Kunst1995., s. 74-83.; Vidi: Konrad Liessmann, Auschwitz alsKunstgenuss, Freitag 28. 2. 97. s. 9.23 Cf. Harald Fricke, Tote Monumente, lebendige Leere,Die Tageszeitung (Magazin) 17/18.1.98, p. iv.24 Cf. Alan Borg, War Memorials from Antiquity to thePresent, London: Leo Cooper 1991, p. 75.25 Cf. Mariam Niroumand, Darsteller und Denklöcher,Die Tageszeitung 14.4.97, p. 15.26 Hoffmann-Axthelm bases his analysis on the archi-tectural theories of Etienne-Louis Boullée, Die Ästhetikder Nichtzuständigkeit, Neue Gesellschaft für bildendeKunst (ed.), Der Wettbewerb für das ‘Denkmal für dieermordeten Juden Europas, Berlin: Verlag der Kunst1995, pp. 74-83, p.79; cf. Konrad Liessmann,Auschwitz als Kunstgenuß, Freitag 28.2.97, p. 9.

tl

126

pokrete XIX. stoljeÊa, na oblik komemoraci-je koji je bio moderan nakon Francuske re-volucije, Napoleonskih ratova ili ujedinje-nja NjemaËke 1871. Anakronizam obojega- izabrana oblika (spomenik) i njegove sim-boliËke moguÊnosti (predstavnik nacije) -bili su primarni uzroci ponovljenog odgaa-nja ovoga projekta. Zaπto su organizatoriinzistirali na spomeniku radije nego na broj-nim alternativnim oblicima historijske ko-memoracije: dræavnim govorima, ritualima,polaganju vijenaca, demonstracijama, go-diπnjim komemorativnim danima, ili prim-jerice, preimenovanju ulica? I zaπto se po-zivi za drugim oblicima komemoracija nisuozbiljnije razmatrali? Nekoliko je kritiËarazahtijevalo manji spomenik, æeleÊi osnovatifond za preæivjele, transferirati sredstva zane-financirane, postojeÊe spomenike namjestima koncentracijskih logora27. Orga-nizatori Lea Rosh i Eberhard Jäckel pronaπlisu opravdanje za spomenik utemeljeno naËinjenici da Êe NjemaËka tako dugo trpjetisramotu sve dok ne bude imala srediπnjispomenik koji se moæe usporediti s YadVashemom ili ameriËkim Memorijalnimmuzejem holokausta28 Ëime sugeriraju kakonjihova iskljuËiva usredotoËenost na potre-bu za spomenikom nije utemeljena na poli-tiËkoj ili kulturnoj nuænosti, nego na dogov-oru koji je potkrijepljen uvjerenjem kakonacije zahtijevaju kamene spomenike i kakorazliËite nacije trebaju imati iste naËine kul-turne reprezentacije. Odbijanje organizatorada osluhnu javna traæenja alternativnih obli-ka komemoracije koherentno je njihovomiskljuËivom odbijanju pojedinaËne odgov-ornosti u podruËju umjetnosti29; oni su sesloæili da je prenesena odgovornost za diza-jn spomenika na umjetnicima i arhitektimautemeljena na striktnoj razlici izmeuumjetnosti i politike.

Uvjet prema kojem bi spomenik trebaoimati “srediπnji” simboliËki znaËaj zaNjemaËku utjecao je na to da su dizajn,autorova obrana i kritiËki odjek bili po-praÊeni ne samo kontroverzama oko oblikaspomenika, nego i zbog samog spomenika ipolitiËkih sredstava kojima se postizalaodluka. Poniπtavanje prvoga natjeËaja usrpnju 1995., potom izvjeπtaji kojima jepredsjednik Kohl izrazio svoje negodovanjespram pobjedniËkog modela opravdani suËinjenicom da je nedostajao druπtveni kon-senzus. Otad je konsenzus postao uvjetrjeπenja rasprave o spomeniku. “Diskusije oobliku srediπnjeg njemaËkog Spomenikaholokaustu u glavnom gradu” trebale bi sli-jediti, prema predsjednikovu glasnogov-orniku, “cilj postizanja πirokog konsenzusameu svim sudionicima”30. Poziv sudio-

taph and, by implication, the sublime, whichis inherent to several of the monumentalprojects and to the project itself regardless ofindividual models, suggests that consensusover the monument presupposes consensusover the principle of a cenotaph, regardlessof its particular form.

A “National” Monument?When members of the association

Perspektive Berlin campaigned specificallyfor a Holocaust monument, they conformednot only to the example of other nations, inparticular Yad Vashem in Jerusalem and theUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museumin Washington, but to a means of expressioncharacteristic of national movements of thenineteenth century, a form of commemora-tion favoured following the FrenchRevolution, the Napoleonic Wars, or the uni-fication of Germany in 1871. The anachro-nism of both the chosen form (a monument)and its symbolic potency (representative ofthe nation) were the prime causes of therepeated postponement of this project. Whydid organisers insist on a monument ratherthan on numerous alternative forms of his-torical commemoration: state speeches, ritu-al wreath-laying ceremonies, demonstra-tions, annual commemorative days, or therenaming of streets, for example? And whywere appeals for other forms of commemo-ration not given serious consideration?Several critics called for a smaller monu-ment, the setting up of a charity foundationfor survivors, the transfer of funds to under-funded existing memorials on the sites ofconcentration camps.27 The justification ofthe monument by its organisers Lea Roshand Eberhard Jäckel on the grounds thatGermany would suffer “disgrace” so long asit did not possess a central monument com-parable to Yad Vashem or the United StatesHolocaust Memorial Museum28 suggeststhat their exclusive focus on the need for amonument was not based on political or cul-tural necessity, but on convention, sustainedby the conviction that nations require stonemonuments, and that different nationsshould possess the same modes of culturalrepresentation. The refusal of organisers toyield to public demands for an alternativeform of commemoration is coherent withtheir explicit denial of personal competencein the field of art;29 their conventionality con-sisted in the delegation of responsibility forthe design of the monument to artists andarchitects, based on the strict division oflabour between art and politics.

The condition of a monument whichshould have “central” symbolic significance

127

27 Vidi: Peter Michalzik, Das Gedenken ist frei,Süddeutsche Zeitung 9. 12. 97. , s. 16.28 To je “temeljna ideja” koja stoji iza spomenika, premaJäckelu. Vidi: E. Jäckel, An alle und jeden erinnern, DieZeit, 7. 4. 89. 29 Rosh na panel-diskusiji o predloæenim modelima uMarstall Gallery, Berlin 20. 1. 98.; Jäckel u telefonskojdebati na radio-postaji Deutschlandfunk, 3. 8. 98.27 Cf. Peter Michalzik, Das Gedenken ist frei,Süddeutsche Zeitung 9.12.97, p. 16.28 This is the “basic idea” behind the monument,according to Jäckel. See E. Jäckel, An alle und jedenerinnern, Die Zeit, 7.4.89.29 Rosh in a panel discussion of proposed models in theMarstall Gallery, Berlin, 20.1.98; Jäckel in a telephonedebate on Deutschlandfunk radio, 3.8.98.

tl

for Germany ensured that the designs, theirauthors’ justifications and critical responseswere accompanied by controversy not onlyover the form of the monument, but over thevery necessity of a monument as such, andover the political means of reaching a deci-sion. The annulment of the first competitionin July 1995, following reports thatChancellor Kohl had expressed disapprovalof the prizewinning model, was justified onthe grounds that social consensus was lack-ing. From this moment, consensus becamethe sole condition for a conclusion to thedebate over the monument. “The discussionover the form of the central GermanHolocaust Monument in the capital cityshould,” according to the chancellor’sspokesman, be “‘pursued with the aim ofachieving broad consensus among all partic-ipants’”.30 The invitation to participants inthe second official competition of 1997 wasconsequently formulated in almost oppressi-vely consensual, national terms: “The monu-ments of each country embody the experien-ces of this nation, its self-idealisation, thepolitical necessities and aesthetic traditions.For this reason, there are remarkable differ-ences between forms given to monuments inAmerica, Poland, Israel or Holland. [...] Ger-many’s national monument for the MurderedJews of Europe will necessarily define Ger-many’s own present memory of the Holo-caust, a complex and difficult memory.”31

The competition of 1997 was thereforehandicapped from the start by an ideologicalburden: the demand that a single monumentembody the whole nation’s memory of geno-cide against Jews, and the insistence on theneed for consensus. In both cases, the scopeof the group of people presumed to identifywith the monument and therefore engage incommunal “consent” was described not interms of members of the commissioningbody, the jury of specialists, the local com-munity or a specific generation, for example,but as the nation. This project highlightedthe indeterminate social appeal of politicalsymbols: can a nation be conceived as acoherent community which “identifies” withor engages in a sense of emotional allegiancewith a single central symbol? Are monu-ments and even monumentality still political-ly legitimate forms of cultural expression inthe 1990s?

Dialogue Beyond MemorialFixation

The search for an appropriate artisticarchitectural form of memorial and the ensu-ing debate have raised questions about thesignificance of the Second World War geno-

nicima na drugi sluæbeni natjeËaj 1997. bioje, kao posljedica toga, formuliran u gotovonapadno suglasnim nacionalnim termini-ma: Spomenici svake dræave utjelovljujuiskustvo te nacije, njezinu samoidealizaciju,politiËke prilike i estetske tradicije. Zbog tograzloga postoje znaËajne razlike izmeuoblika spomenika u Americi, Poljskoj, Izrae-lu ili Nizozemskoj. … NjemaËki spomenikubijenim europskim Æidovima nuæno Êedefinirati vlastito, sadaπnje, njemaËko pam-Êenje holokausta kao kompleksno i teπkosjeÊanje.”31

NatjeËaj iz 1997. godine je stoga odpoËetka bio optereÊen ideoloπkim teretom:zahtjevom da jedan spomenik utjelovicjelokupno nacionalno sjeÊanje na genocidnad Æidovima i inzistiranjem na potrebi zakonsenzusom. U oba sluËaja, ljudi koji bi setrebala idenitificirati sa spomenikom i stogaangaæirati u dobivanju komunalnog pristan-ka nisu opisani kao prosudbeno tijelo, æiristruËnjaka, mjesna zajednica ili specifiËnageneracija, nego kao nacija. Taj projekt jeosvijetlio neodreenost druπtvenog prih-vaÊanja politiËkih simbola: moæe li nacijabiti ustanovljena kao koherentna zajednicakoja se “identificira sa ili se veæe, u smisluemotivne privræenosti, uz pojedinaËnisrediπnji simbol? Jesu li spomenici, pa Ëaki monumentalnost, joπ uvijek politiËki legi-timni oblici kulturnog izraza u 1990.?”

Dijalog onkraj fiksiranja spomenika

Potraga za prikladnim umjetniËkim iarhitektonskim oblicima spomenika terasprava o tome potakli su pitanje o znaËe-nju genocida Drugoga svjetskog rata zasuvremeno nacionalno samorazumijevanjeili “identitet” u NjemaËkoj. Kao rezultat togproturjeËja, projekt ovoga spomenika imasvoju vlastitu povijest. MoguÊe je Ëak da Êemanje predstavljati svjedoËanstvo ærtvamagenocida, a viπe svjedoËanstvo teπkoÊe oda-bira i usuglaπavanja oko odgovarajuÊih obli-ka komemoracije. NemoguÊnost postizanjakonsenzusa o Spomeniku holokaustu, una-toË zajedniËkim motivima prijedloga iz1995. i 1997., moæe se pripisati kompleks-nosti institucionaliziranog procesa odluËi-vanja, razliËitim pojedincima i propisanomnaËinu na koji Êe dræava koristiti modele, alii naËelu srediπnjeg nacionalnog simbola.Uvjeti kampanje i problemi debate pokazu-ju da je neuspjeh u postizanju socijalnogkonsenzusa o Spomeniku holokaustudjelomiËno posljedica prisilne prirode zaht-jeva za konsenzusom. Poziv za

128

30 Kanzler Kohl lehnt Berliner Entwurf ab, FrankfurterRundschau, 1. 7. 95. , s. 1.31 Vidi: Senatsverwaltung für Wissenschaft, Forschungund Kultur, Künstlerische Wettbewerb Denkmal für dieermordeten Juden Europas (instrukcije za sudionike nat-jeËaja iz 1997. godine), Berlin 1997.30 Kanzler Kohl lehnt Berliner Entwurf ab, FrankfurterRundschau, 1.7.95, p. 1.31 Cf. Senatsverwaltung für Wissenschaft, Forschungund Kultur (ed.), Künstlerischer Wettbewerb Denkmalfür die ermordeten Juden Europas (instructions for par-ticipants in the competition of 1997), Berlin 1997.

tl

“srediπnjim”, nacionalnim spomenikom uinicijalnim peticijama, uputstvima natjeËajai u diskusijama koje su uslijedile nakonponiπtenja prvog natjeËaja 1995. stvorio jenepomirljivu razliku izmeu oËekivanihpolitiËkih uvjeta i estetskog medija koji jenuæan za realizaciju tih uvjeta. Moæe li apelza “srediπnjim” “nacionalnim” spomenikombiti zadovoljen na samo jednom mjestu?Iako su arhitekti na natjeËaju fokusiralijavnu pozornost na specifiËna pitanja obli-ka, korijen proturjeËja zapravo leæi udruπtvenim, politiËkim i moralnim pret-postavkama spomenika. Otpor projektupotaknut je ne samo neadekvatnoπÊu medi-ja s obzirom na temu (ne zato πto nijeovladano tehniËkim sredstvima kojima bi semoglo realistiËno prikazati genocid) nego:1. zato πto redukcija historijskih dogaaja(Ëime se nadilazi maπta) na pojedinaËni,uglavnom apstraktni oblik (bez dokumen-taristiËkih dokaza) ruπi historiografski tabu,imajuÊi za posljedicu nepoπtivanje objek-tivnosti, Ëime se potiËe relativizam32, kakou interpretaciji, tako i u ideoloπkoj upotrebispomenika; 2. zato πto uvjet srediπnjeg inacionalnog nadilazi kapacitet pojedinogsimbola koji opÊenito treba komemoriratiholokaust; peticije udruæenja PerspektiveBerlin iz 1998. nazivaju nacionalnispomenik “duænoπÊu svih Nijemaca, naIstoku kao i na Zapadu”33 i to optereÊujepojedinaËni objekt ogromnim politiËkimzadatkom; 3. zato πto dvojbeno srediπnjemjesto proturjeËi dugotrajnoj politici decen-traliziranja historijskih spomenika uNjemaËkoj. Taj projekt je uguπen ne samozbog problema njegova oblikovanja, nego izbog dvojbene potrebe za centralnim sim-bolom.

Zahtjev za srediπnjim, nacionalnimspomenikom, takoer budi pitanje: “Srediπ-nje prema Ëemu?” i “Tko pripada naciji?”Termini kojima je voena rasprava o ovomspomeniku izazivaju nas da definiramo ka-ko “identitet” ili samorazumijevanje moæebiti utemeljeno u sjeÊanju na genocid (kojese smjenom generacija uglavnom odræavaverbalnim oblicima, vizualnim i auditivnimmedijima). Moæe li druπtvo konstruiratiidentitet na temelju osjeÊaja naslijeenesramote? Ili bi se umjesto toga trebalofokusirati na simbole koji potiËu historijskorazumijevanje implementacije kriminala(izloæba Topografija terora) ili na viπestrukeoblike otpora kriminalu (kao spomenik nje-maËkom otporu u Berlinu)? I ne potiËe lipokuπaj simbolizacije nacionalnog identite-ta, na temelju emotivnih veza koje proizlaze

cide for contemporary national self-under-standing or “identity” in Germany. As a resultof the controversy, the project for this monu-ment has a history of its own. It is even pos-sible that it will stand less as testimony tothe victims of genocide than as testimony tothe difficulty of selecting and agreeing uponan adequate form with which to commemo-rate them. The failure to achieve consensusover the Holocaust Monument in spite of thecommon motifs of proposals submitted in1995 and 1997 may be imputed to thecomplexity of the institutional decision-mak-ing process, to the differing individual andstate usages prescribed by the models, butalso to the principle of a central, nationalsymbol. The conditions of the campaign andissues of debate suggest that the failure toreach social consensus over the HolocaustMonument was partly due to the coercivenature of the very demand for consensus.The call for a “central”, “national” monumentin the initial petitions, competition instruc-tions, and in discussions following the annul-ment of the first competition in 1995 creat-ed an irreconcilable discrepancy between theexpected political conditions and the aes-thetic medium required to realise these con-ditions. Can the appeal for a “central” and“national” monument be fulfilled in a singlesite? Even though the architectural competi-tions focused public attention on the specificquestion of form, the root of the controversyin fact lay in the social, political and moralpresuppositions of the monument. Resis-tance to the project was triggered not only bythe inadequacy of the aesthetic medium tothe subject matter (not because the technicalmeans to “represent” genocide realisticallyhad not been mastered, therefore), but (1)because the reduction of a historical event(which exceeds our imagination) to a single,largely abstract, form (without documentaryevidence) breaks a historiographical taboo,entailing a disregard for objectivity whichcould foster relativism,32 both in the inter-pretation and ideological usage of the monu-ment; (2) because the conditions of centrali-ty and nationality surpass the capacity of asingle symbol to commemorate the Holo-caust in general; petitions of the associationPerspektive Berlin from 1988 called for anational monument as a “duty for allGermans in East and West,”33 and thus bur-dened a single object with an incommensu-rable political task; (3) because the conspic-uous central site contradicted a longstandingpolicy of constructing decentral historicalmemorials in Germany. This project washampered not only by the problem of form,therefore, but by the doubtable necessity ofa central symbol.

129

32 Vidi: Saul Friedländer, Probing the Limits ofRepresentation. Nazism and the “Final Solution”,Cambridge Mass & London: Harvard University Press,1992. , s. 6. 33 Perspektive Berlin, “Aufruf”, Frankfurter Rundschau,30. 1. 89.32 Cf. Saul Friedländer (ed.), Probing the Limits of Re-presentation. Nazism and the ‘Final Solution’, Cam-bridge Mass. & London: Harvard University Press, 1992,p. 6ff.33 Perspektive Berlin, “Aufruf”, Frankfurter Rundschau,30.1.89, p. 4.

tl

The call for a central, national monu-ment also raises the questions: “central towhat?” and “who belongs to the nation?”The terms in which the debate over thismonument were conducted challenge us todefine how “identity” or self-understandingmay be founded on the memory of genocide(which, with the passing of generations, isnow increasingly sustained by forms of ver-bal, visual and auditive media). Can a socie-ty construct an identity on the basis of asense of inherited shame? Or should it focusinstead on symbols which also foster a his-torical understanding of the implementationof the crimes (as in the exhibition Topo-graphie des Terrors) or of the multiple formsof resistance to the crimes (as in the GermanResistance Memorial in Berlin)? And doesnot the attempt to symbolise national identi-ty on the basis of emotional bonds derivedfrom a sense of collective guilt foster adegree of complacency by the mere fact thatit subsumes this emotional (albeit problem-atical) attachment to the past to the con-struction of a national common bond in thepresent? Several critics expressed doubtsabout the Holocaust Monument in theseterms. Eike Geisel’s deliberately provocativeclaim that “even dead Jews may serve tobind the national collective”34 echoes wide-spread critiques of the Holocaust Monumentas a form of “alibi” which “delegates”35

memory to objects, such that the signifi-cance of the remembered events is subordi-nate to the contemporary expediency of com-memoration. Monuments are a form of socialconvention which inevitably historiciseevents by rendering them in a mode com-mon to all other monumentalised events ofdifferent historical periods.

Beyond the debate over the form of themonument, there remains no solution to themore fundamental conflict between thosewho are “for” and those “against” the veryidea and realisation of a central HolocaustMonument. On the one hand, one may wel-come the project to build the monument forpedagogical reasons because it provokesenlightening public debate. On the otherhand, sceptics suggest that, once realised,such debate will cease. James Young, amember of the jury during the competitionprocedure, who is widely considered to be anexpert on this question, claims that thedebate over forms and means of commemo-ration is in itself not an adequate means toimplement an enlightening commemorationbecause it detracts from the historical facts.Moreover, he claims that the monument (ifopen and abstract) will continue to provokediscussion after its erection.36 But Young

iz kolektivnog osjeÊaja krivice, stupanjsamodopadnosti zahvaljujuÊi jednostavnojËinjenici da sublimira emocionalnu (iakoproblematiËnu) vezu uz proπlu konstrukcijunacionalne zajednice u sadaπnjosti? Neko-licina kritiËara je izrazila sumnje o Spome-niku holokaustu u tom kontekstu. HotimiË-no provokativna optuæba Eike Gesielna da”Ëak i mrtvi Æidovi mogu posluæiti za pove-zivanje nacije”34 zapravo ponavlja πirokorasprostranjenu kritiku Spomenika holo-kaustu kao oblika “alibija” koji “delegira”35

sjeÊanje kao objekt, tako da je znaËaj onihdogaaja kojih se sjeÊa podreen suvre-menoj sebiËnosti komemoracije. Spomenicisu oblici socijalnih konvencija koje neizb-jeæno historiziraju dogaaje reizgraujuÊi ihna naËin zajedniËki svim drugim monumen-taliziranim dogaajima razliËitih historijskihrazdoblja. Osim rasprave o obliku spomeni-ka, nema rjeπenja fundamentalnog konflik-ta izmeu oni koji su “za” i onih “protiv”same ideje i realizacije srediπnjeg Spome-nika hokaustu. S druge strane, netko Êemoæda pozdraviti projekt izgradnje spome-nika iz pedagoπkih razloga jer provociraprosvjetljeniju javnu raspravu. Ipak, skepti-ci smatraju da Êe jednom kad se izgradispomenik, prestati i rasprave. James Yung,Ëlan natjeËajnog æirija kojega se smatrastruËnjakom za to pitanje tvrdi kako raspra-va o obliku i naËinima komemoracije samapo sebi nije odgovarajuÊe sredstvo komem-oracije jer je preuzeta iz historijskih Ëinjeni-ca. Nadalje, on tvrdi da Êe spomenik (akoje otvoren i apstraktan) provocirati diskusijei nakon podizanja36. No Young precjenjujepolitiËki utjecaj ovoga pojedinaËnog spome-nika. Javna diskusija o genocidu je etiËkiimperativ koji je Ëest kada su posrijedi javnispomenici, ali nije ovisan o njihovom pri-sustvu. Berlinski spomenik, jednom sagra-en, stajat Êe i djelovati zajedno s drugimjavnim forumima, ukljuËujuÊi originalnahistorijska mjesta u gradu, izloæbe, muzeje,obrazovne institucije, knjige, novine, film,knjiæevnost, kao i usmene oblike historijskei privatne transmisije sjeÊanja.

Opetovano otkazivanje projekta 1995.pa 1998. i nemoguÊnost postizanja druπ-tvenog konsenzusa o obliku spomenika go-vore o neprimjerenosti pojedinaËnog spo-menika kao izraza kolektivne nacionalnesvijesti. Rasprave izmeu politiËara, umjet-nika, arhitekata, novinara i intelektualaca unovinama i na javnim susretima nisu kul-minirale u prilog pojedinom dizajnu. Samo

130

34 Eike Geisel, Lebenshilfe von toten Juden, Junge Welt14. 5. 94.35 Stefanie Endlich, Gedenkstätten und Gedenkorte inBerlin u: S. Endlich & Thomas Lutz, Gedenken undLernen an historischen Orten, Edition Hentrich, Berlin1995. , s. 9 - 15.36 James Young, At Memorys Edge. After - Images of theHolocaust in Contemporary Art and Arhitecture, NewHaven & London, Yale University Press, 2000. , s. 195.34 Eike Geisel, Lebenshilfe von toten Juden, Junge Welt14.5.94.35 Stefanie Endlich, Gedenkstätten und Gedenkorte inBerlin, in S. Endlich & Thomas Lutz, Gedenken undLernen an historischen Orten, Berlin: Edition Hentrich1995, pp. 9-15, p. 14.36 James Young, At Memory’s Edge. After-Images of theHolocaust in Contemporary Art and Architecture, NewHaven & London, Yale University Press, 2000, p. 195.

tl

je intervencija parlamenta uËinila odlukupraktiËnom. Spomenik holkaustu u Berlinustoga je politiËki spomenik samorazumije-vanju parlamenta Savezne Republike Nje-maËke u lipnju 1999., a ne trajni izraz “nje-maËkog” priznavanja patnji koje su prou-zroËili æidovskim ærtvama genocida uDrugom svjetskom ratu. To je socijalni spo-menik samo ukoliko djeluje kao katalizatorjavnog dijaloga o sredstvima sjeÊanja ipredstavljanja ovoga dogaaja.

No moæemo zahvaliti dijalogu i sum-njama koje su pratile ovaj spomenik πtoprojekt nije uspio kulminirati Ëistom odlu-kom o tome kakav oblik bi trebao imati ikako izgraditi spomenik koji bi naglasioneusporedivost historijske reprezentacije ihistorijskih Ëinjenica. Projekt je prevelik -fiziËki (kao da se veliki kriminal moæe kom-penzirati velikim spomenikom) i emotivno(na granici patosa). Tijekom rasprave,nacionalni spomenik je trebao steÊi statusapsolutnog, ako ne i nacionalnog spomeni-ka za sva vremena. On odraæava idelanuholistiËku tvrdnju o naciji koja ne moæe pri-grliti kompleksnost te teme, koju pak moæesvladati samo detaljna dokumentacija.

Kada se Walter Jens javno usprotivioprojektu u veljaËi 1998. govoreÊi: “Lako jegovoriti o smrti milijuna - no kako je SelmaKohn otiπla u plinsku komoru?”37 on je timeosvijetlio esencijalnu proturjeËnost izmeuhistorije i njezina medija, izmeu Ëinjenicehistorijskog iskustva i ideala, ideoloπke funk-cije nametnute pojedinaËnom, navodno na-cionalnom spomeniku.

oæujak 2001.

prijevod / translation: Suzana JukiÊ

overestimates the political impact of this sin-gle monument. Public discussion over geno-cide is an ethical imperative that frequentlytakes place in relation to public monuments,but which is by no means dependent on theirpresence. The Berlin monument, once built,will stand alongside and operate in conjunc-tion with many other public forums includingoriginal historic sites in the city, exhibitions,museums, educational institutions, books,journalism, films, literature as well as oralforms of historical transmission and private(family) remembrance.

The repeated cancellations of the projectin 1995 and 1998, and the unfeasibility ofbuilding social consensus over the form ofthe monument, testify to the unsuitability ofa single monument as an expression of col-lective national sentiment. Debate betweenpoliticians, artists, architects, journalists andintellectuals in the press and at public meet-ings failed to culminate in a clear preferencefor a single design. Only the intervention ofparliament made a decision practicable. TheHolocaust Monument in Berlin is therefore apolitical monument to the self-understandingof the parliament of the Federal Republic ofGermany in June 1999, not an enduringexpression of “German” acknowledgement ofthe suffering caused to Jewish victims of thegenocide of the Second World War. It is asocial monument only insofar as it acted as acatalyst of public dialogue about the meansof remembering and representing this event.

Yet we may welcome the dialogue anddoubts surrounding this monument, for thefailure of the project to culminate in a cleardecision over what form and whether tobuild the monument underlines the incom-mensurability of historical representation andhistorical facts. The project is too big — bothphysically (as if a big crime is compensatedby a big monument) and emotionally (bor-dering on pathos). During the debate, thisnational monument acquired a status as anabsolute, if not as the national monument forall time. It reflects an ideal holistic notion ofnationhood which cannot accommodate thehistorical complexity of its theme, which onlydetailed documentation can convey. WhenWalter Jens publicly opposed the project inFebruary 1998 by asking the question “It iseasy to talk about the death of millions —but how did Selma Kohn go into the gas?”,37

he highlighted an essential incongruitybetween history and its medium, betweenthe facts of historical experience and theideal, ideological function imposed on thissingle, allegedly national monument. March 2001

131

≥ Peter Carrier - predaje kulturne i rodnestudije na Srednjoeuropskom sveuËiliπtu uBudimpeπti. Njegovo istraæivanje usredo-toËuje se na spomenike i kulture pamÊenjau Francuskoj i NjemaËkoj. Objavio je neko-liko Ëlanaka o kolektivnom pamÊenju iumjetnostima.

Peter Carrier - teaches Culture and GenderStudies at the Central European UniversityBudapest. His research focuses on monu-ments and memory cultures in France andGermany. He has published several arti-cles on collective memory and the arts.

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure true /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /LeaveUntagged /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice