Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:41:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1. Jochen Gerz and Esther Shalev-Gerzs Monument against Fascism not long after its unveiling in 1986.
Photograph courtesy of Esther Shalev-Gerz.
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:41:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Thomas Stubblefield
Do Disappearing Monuments
Simply Disappear?
The Counter-Monument in Revision
Future Anterior
Volume VIII, Number 2
Winter 2011
The critique of master narratives that has characterized postmodernism has necessarily taken on an exceptional urgency in
Germany. In the shadow of the Final Solution, the power rela
tionships that undergird official narratives of history came to
embody the same Fascistic tendencies that made possible the
horrors of the past. With this abiding link between the means
of articulating history and an abhorrent past, the very notion
of the monument appeared untenable. In response to this
impasse, however, a handful of works attempted to dramatize
this impossibility by way of a refusal or even active negation of
presence. By utilizing strategies of self-sabotage such as dis
appearance, destruction, and sheer invisibility, these interventions sought to deconstruct the notion of a singular narrative of
the past and thereby free the monument from its demagogical rigidity and certainty of history.1 James Young has coined
the term counter-monuments to describe the way that the
self-effacing quality of these works not only places the act of
memory in the hands of the beholder, but also undermines the
basic assumptions of the monument itself in the process.
Of these sites, perhaps none is as active in its own annihi
lation as Jochen Gerz and Esther Shalev-Gerzs Monument
against Fascism (1986), which consisted of a towering but
nondescript stele plated with soft lead (Figure 1). The plaque
accompanying the monument invited visitors to etch their
name into the columns surface in order to contribute to both
the denunciation of Fascism and indeed the monument itself
(Figures 2, 3).2 Once the immediate area of the stele was sufficiently covered with writing, the column was lowered into the
ground, making available a new surface for inscription. This
occurred eight times until in 1993 the monument disappeared,
leaving only a small window into its resting place and a plaque
that lists the chronology of its departure (Figures 4, 5).
By revitalizing the past through a kinetic exchange between viewer and the work, a multivocal and dynamic articulation was to emerge from the experience of the site, one that
would mock . . . the traditional monuments certainty of history.3 However, in the translation of theory into practice, this
productive aspect was deflated and contained by a number
of forces. Even before its formal unveiling, the discourse that
the work produced served to absorb the site into the everyday in such a way that mitigated its initial provocation. This
This content downloaded 1from 128.122.149.154 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:41:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
demagogical rigidity and certainty of history, by returning the burden of memory to its visitors [who will in turn] be
forced to rise to remember for themselves. However, as the
above discussion suggests, in this championing of debate,
Young seems to confuse the productivity of discourse with the
contingency of memory and the prospect of mobilizing the
historical record.13 While discourse may itself be productive,
that which it produces (the rules for what constitutes acceptable statements and the categories that such statements draw
on) need not be. Rather, as Foucaults analysis of power has
confirmed, discourse can just as often function to maintain
the underlying categories and rules, reinforcing the status
quo.14 Youngs assumption that this discourse of memory can
somehow be transferred to the participant from the ossified
discourse of the monument, leads him to believe that this discourse is ipso facto productive, when this is in fact not necessarily the case.
Indeed, in the memorial context, debate has proven to
carry with it both an oppressive bureaucracy and the exclusivity of panels of experts, survivors, and their families. Such
discourse can just as easily stymie the monuments ability
to mobilize the past, and thereby lead us back to the ossification that the counter-monument seeks to escape. In the
case of the Monument against Fascism, this discourse came
from not only newspapers and politicians but also the artists
themselves. Disappointed by a host of swastikas and neo-
Nazi signs that soon appeared on the surface of the stele, the
artists condemned these painful scrawls which, from their
perspective, bore witness not to the displacement of the official narrative of the past by the processes of popular memory,
but rather the seeming impossibility of freeing the monument
from its Fascistic tendencies.15 However, it would seem that it
is precisely this kind of gesture that such a monument would
welcome. Engaging the attraction and even persistence of Fascism as well as provoking the opposition that such statements
elicit would appear to rescue the site from both the top-down
ideology of the traditional monument and the forces of oblivion
that the form often invites. Yet this possibility was quickly
sabotaged by the authority of the artists and the discursive
frame that this position served to maintain.
Disappearance, Participation, and the Iconoclastic Gesture
Aside from the location, the primary way the artists work attempted to undermine the stasis and univocity of the monuments articulation of history is through the activation of the
spectator. In this, Young situates the work within a recurring
trend in postwar art that seeks to replace the autonomous
object with a relational and contingent identity by relying
on the viewer for both the creation of meaning and the very
construction of the work itself. This relational aesthetic is
integrated into the monument on multiple levels. Not only is
the surface presented as a blank slate for the visitors inscription, but so is the lowering of the stele and thereby the specific
visual form of the monument at any given time determined by
the degree of his or her participation. According to Young, it is
through this interactivity that the counter-monument seeks to
challenge its own authority and the historical narrative that it
This content downloaded 5from 128.122.149.154 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:41:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded 7from 128.122.149.154 on Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:41:27 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
20
Brett Ashley Kaplan, Unwanted Beauty: Aesthetic Pleasure in Holocaust Representation (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2007), 162. As Mulholland explains,
It was almost as if the public enjoyed destroying the monument. Power of
Remembrance, 30.
21
Boris Groys, Art Power (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008), 75.
22
With the exception of one poorly played scene (the covering of the statues face
with an American flag by a U.S soldier), this presentation removed the sense of
outside intervention with the hopes of naturalizing the destruction of the statue
(and perhaps in a broader sense the country itself).
23
Saul Friedlander explains, The extermination of the Jews of Europe is as accessible to both representation and interpretation as any other historical event. Similarly, Hayden White has claimed, I do not think that the Holocaust, Final Solution,
Shoah, Churban, or German genocide of the Jews is any more unrepresentable than
any other event in human history. Saul Friedlander. Introduction, in Probing the
Limits of Representation, ed. Saul Friedlander (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 23; Hayden White, Historical Emplotment and the Problem of
Truth, in Friedlander, Probing the Limits of Representation, 52.
24
Citing a pervasive fear of aesthetic pollution that pervades postwar art and
architecture, Brett Ashley Kaplan points out that even the initial connection between monumentality and Fascism was shaky at best. Not only did the conception
of, for example, Speers monumental architecture predate the Nazi regime by at
least a century, but so was there considerable disagreement within the party over
the proper form of Nazi art. In fact, many, including Goebbels, were sympathetic
to modernist designs despite their eventual demonization in the Degenerate Art
exhibition and other venues. Nonetheless, as Kaplan points out, postwar visual
culture continues to operate from the assumption that monumentality is inherently
Fascistic, and for this reason often sabotages its own attempts at history in the
process. Kaplan, Unwanted Beauty, 152.
25
Jacques Derrida, Response to Daniel Libeskind, Research in Phenomenology
22, no. 1 (1992): 92.
26
Leo Bersani, Psychoanalysis and the Aesthetic Subject, Critical Inquiry 32
(Winter 2006): 169. This failure to historicize both the category of the unrepresentable and the conception of monumentality against which it is counterposed leads
to a contradiction concerning the origins of the aesthetic strategy of the Monument
against Fascism. Ironically, the counter-monument owes its inception to none other
than Lenin, whose monumental program from 191822 called for a peoples art
that would utilize ephemeral, disappearing monuments as a means to undermine
existing tsarist works. As Albert Boime summarizes, Lenin employed this strategy to
liberate monuments from their supernatural look of frozen solemnity and activate
them as humanly accessible agencies advancing the progress of the revolution.
Not designed for eternity but for eventual self-destruction. This counterintuitive
historical lineage reinforces the formative relation that discourse maintains to the
monument, as an almost identical aesthetic strategy can serve opposing ends at
different moments in history depending on the way its conceptual underpinnings
are articulated. Albert Boime, Perestroika and the Destabilization of the Soviet
Monuments, ARS: Journal of the Institute for History of Art of Slovak Academy of
Sciences 2/3 (1993): 218.