Tuesday, October 4, 2011

negotiation. monumental. forgotten.

Monuments bring with them a certain sense of bridging a gap - making sure future generations do not forget events of the present, which will become their past. These structures have a need to negotiate between generations, commemorating events, remembering those who have fallen and attempting to comfort those left living. In doing this, they tend to have a symbolic authority other forms of architecture don't. The story seems more believable when told in hulking concrete.  In the case of these monuments, erected to commemorate war atrocities from Yugoslavia's WWII involvement. Monuments  of this nature from a communist regime were also seen by many as propaganda, built to remind a loosely allied group what they were able to stand against in the past, with hopes for continued unification in the future. Since the break up of Yugoslavia and its ensuing wars, most of these monuments have been abandoned. Not deemed important enough to care for,  but not offensive enough to destroy, they represent a strange form of diplomacy with regard to sites of memory.

Top: Grmec, Bosnia-Herzegoina
Bottom: Korencia, Croatia 

1 comment:

  1. Can monuments be as oppressive as they are comforting? Monuments, along with statues and other symbols of power are among the first points of attack by publics combating the powers that govern them. While, overall, monuments serve the greater whole in remembrance of events of history, they also serve to drive the political agenda of a select few. Which monuments have more significance? Do they Watts Towers serve a greater purpose than the Arc de Triumph?