The memorials built during the last decades share an approach which brings to mind an aesthetics of absence, often leading to an interesting paradox: through a rather abstract structure, they manage to convey a strong symbolic message, often relating to the victims of totalitarian régimes but, at the same time, they allow for this message to be “covered”, meaning, completely assimilated by the public. Even more so, the usage of a slightly abstract architectural vocabulary gives the visitors, watchers and passers-by a crucial role in the transmission of the symbolic message. From this point of view, the new memorials are public spaces, fully integrated in the urban tissue, dynamic and lively, which allow users to explore them and to constantly define new uses for them. To prove this theory, we have chosen two case studies, both of them memorials dedicated to the Jewish victims of World War Two: the former, in Berlin, designed by architect Peter Eisenman, and the latter, in Bucharest, by artist Peter Jacobi, recently inaugurated.
Location and history
After presenting a short history of the Jewish communities in the two cities, I will analyze the location of each memorial trying to see how it relates with the urban context and the impact on people’s perception.
The Berlin memorial was built on the vacant site between the Brandenbug Gate, a symbol of Prussian power and authority, and Potsdammer Platz, one of the main tourist attractions in West Berlin. Out of the two hectares granted to the monument, 3.000 square feet are covered in concrete blocks, the tallest of which reaches up to 4 metres in height. The central situation allows for the open air memorial to be crossed, visited and used, by the people of Berlin and tourists alike, on a daily basis, investing it with an important public function.
The Holocaust Memorial in Bucharest was built within the limits of the former Brezoianu Park, in a central area of the city, which, despite its status, is seldom frequented by passers-by and tourists (although their number has increased greatly during the last few years). Nevertheless, the area has great potential, the memorial being situated near important landmarks, such as the Bucharest City Hall, the Ci[migiu Park, the historical House of Economies (the “CEC” building) and the House of the People, presently the seat of the Romanian Parliament. A future urban design scheme of the entire area (dictated by the necessity of both expanding the City Hall and building a bridge over the river Dambovita) will have to take the new structure into account and try to amplify the project’s public side. The Memorial comprises four elements, each with its own, fairly recognizable, symbolism, namely The Column, The Star of David, The Romany Wheel and the Via Dolorosa (the latter being one of the points that makes the Bucharest memorial even more abstract than the one in Berlin).
The relation with the city. The public life of the monument
Peter Eisenman’s project, remarkable through its very lack of monumentality and situated at the limit between art and architecture, enjoys the full dynamism of public life. Its structure is free, open, the memorial becoming part of the city and the street, through the placing of miniature concrete blocks, only a few milimetres in height, on the nearby sidewalks. This expansion is a symbolic gesture, underlining the necessity of a continuous integration of memory, first of all, but also of any urban intervention.
Open to all, the Memorial was soon “seized” by all types of visitors: tourists and locals resting on the smaller volumes, children and adolesecents exploring new routes and chasing on the adolescents hiding in the higher area to smoke or kiss. Conceived with no particular functions, the Memorial generates so many uses precisely by being so abstracly simple, for it sets free the passers-by’s imagination and creativity.
Despite being clearly defined by an all-around corridor and an ivy-covered lawn, The Holocaust Memorial in Bucharest has several access points that allow people to cross it, integrating it into their daily urban itinerary (the place’s symbolic charge is not overwhelming, allowing passers-by to gradually uncover several messages). Unfortunately, the measures undertaken by the local administration in order to ensure security affect both the ensemble’s open nature and its aesthetic profile.
I will observe directly during several days the public life of these two memorials, i will discuss with the visitors and analyze their opinions about Jewish communities, trying to underline the differences of using the public space in the two cities.
Images: © Peter Eisenman Architects, © HotNews.
No comments:
Post a Comment