Today we watched the movie, "A Jew Among the Germans," in which Marian Marzynski, a Holocaust survivor travels back to Germany. At the time the were searching for a design for a Holocauast Memorial in Berlin, they held contests more than once beofore they could find a winning design that they felt was appropriate.
Why do you think the first winning design, in which the names of the 6 million Jewish people who were killed in the Holocaust would be carved in granite, caused controversy, and was ultimately not used?
This is a quote from a site that presents great pictures of the memorial:
"The 19,000 square-meter Memorial for the murdered Jews of Europe, which was opened to the public on May 12, 2005, consists of 2711 stones placed on sloping, uneven ground in an undulating wave-like pattern, giving visitors the feeling of insecurity as though the stones were on unstable ground.
Visitors can enter from all four sides, day or night, and wander on their own through the maze of stones, as though visiting a graveyard with nameless tombstones. The columns are sunk into the ground to various depths and at some places, they are higher than the heads of the visitors. There are no set paths or sign posts to guide viewers. The memorial was designed by architect Peter Eisenman to deliberately disorient visitors by having all the stones tilted slightly and paths that are not level."
--> What was the point, do you think, of giving the visitors a feeling of insecurity while viewing the memorial?
I was also interesting to know if anyone has been to the memorial in Berlin, and how the experience was.
Link: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Berlin2002/JewishMemorial/index.html
8 comments:
For the first question, I think that like the survivor of the Holocaust in the film stated, the names of the 6 millions Jews who died bring up bad memories, and also place blame on the Germans, labeling them as the killers of these 6 million Jews. There is a sense of guilt that comes with seeing all the names on the memorial. Also, the intention behind building the memorial in such a way as to disorient guests could serve as a memorial for the experiences the Jews went through during the Holocaust. They wandered, waited, and never knew where they were going, instilling an intense fear. Maybe this way he is trying to bring guests into the shoes of the victims of the Holocaust.
I agree with Aaron. I think that they decided to give the memorial an insecure type of feel to respresent the atrocities that the Jews suffered through. While many monuments, including numerous in Washington D.C., are aesthetically pleasing, surrrounded by bodies of water and beautiful architecture, this one gives a different type of feel. This memorial respresents a great time of suffering and it brings it probably makes people think more about the Holocaust. To have one central place for example that lists victims names is very different from being able to literally walk through a monument. I think the interactive component of this monument is what makes it very powerful.
One man mentioned in the movie that we should "never build a monument, but discuss it forever." What does this mean and do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Aileen, I think that that man may have meant that the debate about the monument was keeping discussion about the Holocaust active and bringing important questions to the public, such as how much guilt a population should feel and how the Holocaust should be represented today. I believe that this was the same architect who liked to design the memorials that people would just stumble upon, like the underground library with empty shelves where the first book burning by the Nazis happened. I like this idea, because it forces poeple to think abou tthe causes of genocide int heir daily lives. I do not think I agree with the statement that monuments should never be built: I think that the imminent building of a monument is what has stimulated all of these interesting discussions, and the monument itself allows people not involved in the architectural decision making to have similar discussions and thoughts.
I think this monument brings to reality the book that the German students were writing about focusing on the memory of the Holocaust rather than guilt. As Aaron said, this memorial does not seem to instill a sense of guilt like a list of names would, but a disorientation that can lead more to thoughtful reflection. Is this better than guilt? Will a lack of guilt lead to forgetting?
Something I found interesting about the monument idea that had the list of names in granite is its similarity to our own Vietnam War Memorial. Many consider this memorial to be really powerful and one of the better ones in DC. What makes this monument different than the Holocaust memorial possibility with the names in granite?
I agree with Jordan- one thing i like about this monument is the fact that it sparks reflection and memory as opposed to guilt. Though guilt can help to prevent these actions from recurring, I think that memory and reflection are more important to ensuring that genocides are stopped or prevented altogether.
I also think that the disorientation as well as the placement of some stones above visitors's heads overwhelms people, which I think can be very powerful. It is often difficult to connect such huge numbers of deaths with faces and names, and the power of the immenseness and disorientation brought on by the Berlin memorial helps us to really realize the impact of those numbers.
As for the difference between the Vietnam Memorial, which includes names of those who died, and the Holocaust memorial which does not, I think that it makes the experience different, but neither is necessarily more effective. It depends on the person. Seeing rows and rows of names may make those deaths much more personal for one person because they can see that each death meant a unique individual, and that each death brought a devastating loss to his or her family. But the Holocaust memorial in Berlin may show the impersonality of the crime of genocide- the Jews were persecuted solely for their identity, and regardless of each individual, were meant to be annihilated as a group, because they were a group.
i agree with Jillian that the Holocaust Memorial and the Vietnam War Memorial are very different in purpose. The main difference being that the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin is more about the descendants of perpetrators interacting with it whereas the Vietname War Memorial is more about providing the victims of what happened as a result of the war with a memorial of their loved onees.
I was especially intrigued by the movie during class because it involved the "perpetrators" building a memorial. How do you think perpetrators should memorialize something that they have done? Does this lead to healing? Can it be hurtful to victims in any way?
While it was German citizens who built the memorial, they are definitely not the perpetrators of the Holocaust, even if their grandparents were. However, if they were the direct perpetrators, I still think it would be appropriate for them to build a memorial if it reflects true repentance and accepting of the fact that their deeds were horrible. I think a memorial built by the perpetrators can even be much more powerful than one built by the victims because through it they recognize that what they did was horrible and try to make amends for it. But then this brings up the question of how soon after the event is it appropriate for perpetrators erect a memorial? How soon afterwards can anyone?
Aside from all the previously posed questions, what popped into my mind when I first read this post is the fact that people can enter at night, which makes me curious as to whether there has been any defacing of the property by deniers.
Post a Comment