Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege LXXVIII, Heft 2

The diversity in the monument landscape discussed by experts is a product and motor of a social transformation process that can also be seen in dealing with monuments. On both theoretical and practical levels, social discussions are not only negotiated concerning certain objects, but often taken out on them physically as well. Recently, violent attacks have been directed mostly at monuments to persons whom parts of society consider “inconvenient” and thus no longer worthy of consensus. This article is dedicated to the phenomenon of monument toppling from a theoretical perspective regarding history and historical monuments. It will begin by analyzing iconoclasm as a historical “cultural technique” in its various manifestations—as well as the motivations behind it—to better classify the monument toppling of the present day. Moreover, various possibilities for examination will be discussed through the comparison with inconvenient structural monuments.

Keywords:

We’re living in uncertain, polarizing times. Identities, new facts, and changing perspectives are always challenging-including those concerning racism and discrimination. People are taking another look at historic figures and events. Iconoclasm has always been an expression of the prevailing zeitgeist: Monuments and statues have been attacked over and over during history. Controversial statues are at the center of heated debates between heads of state and military leaders as well as members of the cultural elite today. Should we do away with these contentious monuments, or is it worth adding contextualizing information to further the viewer’s understanding? This is the question. What type of stories would the statues like to tell us? Who is honored today in public spaces and why? And who will be honored tomorrow? And who gets to decide? Such a balancing act requires a flexible and renewed way of thinking above all. As you can see from the three examples from the Netherlands described below, there is no one-size-fits-all-approach. Each situation must be evaluated individually. Extinguishing traces of the past is too simple. Most statues are community property. This means the community should take the initiative to call a round table and include all interested groups in the discussion.

Keywords:

In 2021, a debate raged (in media statements and during an evening town hall discussion) that has persisted to this day and that has only been suspended in an authoritarian manner. The debate was over how to deal with the Viennese mayor Karl Lueger, the founder of the Christian Democratic Party and one of the inventors and chief protagonists of an institutionalized, political antisemitism. Part of the debate concerned (and still concerns) what to do with Lueger’s monument, mainly with its high, enthroned bronze statue on the square in central Vienna that bears his name. Some were in favor of removing the Lueger statue from the square and renaming the square in a public process as part of a positioning against antisemitism. Other voices, such as those representing politics and historical science, spoke against removing the statue and for contextualization, as a part of which it would remain on the square.

Keywords:

This article examines the contexts of monument toppling, diversity, and dialog and discusses the social and political aspects of monument preservation. Preserving historical monuments and buildings means working out conflicts of values and negotiation processes. Hannah Arendt’s thoughts on the dialogue in her comments on “What is Politics?” offer fruitful ideas in this regard. The toppling and altering of historical landmarks resulting from a critical, negative confrontation with problematic heroizations can also be seen as a contribution to a new configuration of knowledge and, as such, can be reflected in approaches that stem from discussions about the responsibility of research. The way in which the Bristol History Commission grappled with the toppling of the Colston Statue is a concrete example of how dialog and responsibility can be practiced.

Keywords:

This article is an invitation to think together about what was long considered irreconcilable: democracy and monuments. It shows that “monuments in democracies” are not to be equated with “democratic monuments.” In today’s democracies, we must deal with monuments that we have inherited and that are often fundamentally opposed to our current democratic values. But what kind of monuments do democratic societies need? Through references both to history and to developments in monument creation during the last 40 years, we can see how much the genre has been revitalized and, yes, democratized.

Keywords:

In recent debates that can be summarized under the keyword “diversity,” both wanted and unwanted monuments have been emotionally contested. According to their detractors, the contested monuments reproduce historical inequality and structural discrimination that are still having an impact. These debates often focus on removing or converting individual objects. This article addresses the criticism of the debates on social diversity in historiography and how this might affect the field of monument preservation. Fundamental to this is an attitude that does not exclude removing or altering monuments in individual cases. The article also discusses the principles historically anchored in monument preservation that oppose an opening for social diversity. It also refers to the great potential for the field that such an opening could provide.

Keywords:

This article examines the toppling of the Sebastián de Belalcázar monument in Cali, Columbia, as part of democratizing dynamics. On April 28, 2021, indigenous groups and young Columbians initiated this monument toppling during a nationwide general strike directed at a contested tax reform, the inadequate response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the noncompliance with peace treaties by the government of Iván Duque. The action became a symbol for resistance against neocolonial structures and injustice and led in return to the erection of the Monumento a la Resistencia. This quick transition to self-historicization and the use of popular visual idioms attest to the dynamics of the protest movements and the relevance of historical monuments to memory politics. The Belalcázar statue was finally rebuilt in November 2022, accompanied by a new plaque that, paradoxically, honored the resistance of the indigenous people against the Spanish conquest. Thus, the dispute over monuments and the occupation of public space by memory politics became a battle for socioeconomic justice.

Keywords: