7 ms·
Concrete clickbait: next time you share a spomenik photo (2016)
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago> But now, argues Owen Hatherley, it is vital that we make the effort to understand what they truly represent Maybe this speaks of the weaknesses of abstract art when used for this. No one thinks of the Lincoln Memorial or Mount Rushmore or Taj Mahal or Arc de Triumph like this. In some sense, their memorial status comes out in the form itself. This is not the case with abstract art like the spomeniks.
- jitl 2y agoWhen I first saw an image of the Taj Mahal, I had no idea it is a memorial, I thought/assumed it was a classical temple akin to the Parthenon. At least as a kid growing up in California it seemed classic but also abstract and alien compared to the strict right angles, rectangular platforms and formulaic columns of similarly revered but much older European/Mediterranean structures.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y ago> I thought/assumed it was a classical temple akin to the Parthenon Despite not knowing the details, you knew it was designed to revere or commemorate something even if you did not know the details.
- jitl 2y agoSure, and I took the same from photos of obelisks, the Washington monument, and these Yugoslavian monuments. i thought you’re arguing it’s apparent from the form what is being commemorated/revered, versus the Yugoslavian monuments that are harder to read, and I am disagreeing with that. I think the only monuments that are actually obvious are literal selections like statues, or Lincoln Memorial which is labeled in large capital letters exactly what is commemorated and why. Otherwise all I can tell is “this building is special because its purpose is not easily apparent (and people don’t seem to fit inside it?)”
- anamexis 2y agoI don’t think it’s evident what the Taj Mahal or Arc du Triomphe commemorate from their form, either.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 2y agoIt may not be clear what they commemorate, but it is evident that they commemorate.
- anamexis 2y agoI don’t think that’s evident, either. There’s plenty of ornate architecture that doesn’t commemorate anything.
- croes 2y agoI doubt that is true at least for the Taj Mahal and even the Arc de Triomphe.
- seanhunter 2y agoIf that's true about the Taj Mahal, it's true about the Spomenik also. So now what? You origintally made the point to try to distingish between the power of representative art vs abstract art (although I'm struggling to understand what is more representative about the Taj Mahal and the Arc de Triomphe than these also).
- peoplefromibiza 2y agoto me as Italian it is evident that Arc du Triomphe it's a replica and that's all I can say for sure about it Otoh it is quite evident to me that Spomenik monuments are there to commemorate something or they would be very different
- failuser 2y agoKind of true, but those are bad examples. Wait, is Taj Mahal a monument, not a palace? Also Mount Rushmore relies on knowing the faces on it, otherwise one might assume it’s some local car dealers. Arc de Triumph is actually abstract, how would you know its purpose if you don’t know the context?
- miunau 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pvg 2y agoYou can just as easily interpret this as the power of non-representational art to express and deal with the incomprehensible. In this case it distinguishes these from simply monuments to great leaders or the dead of some glorious battle.
- seanhunter 2y agoAn obvious counterexample to this which speaks to the power of abstract art as a memorial is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial by Maya Lin which is an incredibly powerful piece of abstract public memorial art, and very near the Lincoln memorial so well worth a visit for anyone who finds themselves in that part of Washington DC. I personally admire Lincoln greatly but of the two I found visiting the Vietnam Veterans memorial a far more moving experience. Secondly I would say the fact that they provoke thought about what they represent (rather than say Mount Rushmore in particular which is a profoundly superficial public monument) is precisely part of the value of abstract art. The Lincoln Memorial says Lincoln was a great man. OK cool. Anyone who has studied American history knows that.
- mikrl 2y agoPerhaps that was intentional, or came from a collective subconscious desire to commemorate, yet also to forget and move on. Interwar abstract art such as cubism had twisted and distorted figures, some was a reaction to the twisted and broken bodies of the veterans of WW1. Hitler hated that style of art because he saw it as disparaging veterans, war-glorifier as he was. It would make sense that a ‘progressive’ regime would want to break with traditionalism and create its own novel style of monument. You see this trend in a lot of postwar aesthetic movements, like the failed housing projects of modernism. They don’t glorify anything; they exist imposingly and have a strong bias to function. Yet this itself is dehumanizing in its own way. Tl;dr: traditional aesthetics glorify the nation and the state, including its human flaws. Abstract art tends to dehumanize itself as a way to avoid these flaws, especially in the wake of major human catastrophes. The Soviet and Fascist styles of art which glorified the party and its base straddles both sides.
- jameshart 2y agoI don’t know about that - do you know which triumph the Arc de Triomphe commemorates? Isn’t it just as much seen in a meme form as an example of just ‘grand classical European architecture’, divorced from its Napoleonic imperialistic origins and not considered in terms of the fact that the French defeat of Russia and Austria at Austerlitz, at the cost of thousands of lives, and leading to the fall of Vienna, which it was commissioned for, was not a politically neutral event. Does the fact that the French tomb of the unknown soldier from World War I was created beneath it change the meaning of the arch? It seems to me it’s a pretty complex, abstract object whose story isn’t easily reduced to a simple meme either.
- def_true_false 2y agoThe guy refers to himself in the third person? Lmao.
- polypodiopsi 2y agoTo me the authors accusatory tone seems misguided and, indeed, clickbaity (people love to hate)- which is a shame, since the information about the architectural sculptures called spomenik the article offers is pretty interesting. I believe that the interest in the purely formal qualities of thise "spomeniks" is a proper appreciation. Getting people interested by these offers an entrypoint into a deeper engagement with their historical background and the representational purpose. "its great that pictures of spomeniks are circulating, you might wonder what the meaning of those seemingly alien structures in the nowhere actually is" would be the proper cause for propagating these information imho. Its actually remarka le about these memorials that they manage to get their image circulating.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Oarch 2y agoI agree. If you're familiar with the author this is quite typical of his output.
- peterstjohn 2y agoIf you think that of Owen's output, for heaven's sake I fear for you if you ever read a Jonathan Meades article…
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- izacus 2y agoIt bothers me more than it should that he calls them "spomeniks", because that's literally just a word meaning "monument" in the local languages. It's like someone going "did you know American monuments are known as monuments locally?"
- grujicd 2y agoWhile that's true that we use word spomenik for all monuments, I think outside of Balkans it's now recognized as a word describing specific abstract and grandiose type of monument. So world (or Internet community at least) took our word and appropriated it to mean something else. Anyway, if someone visit one of Balkan countries and ask to see spomenik, expect locals to be confused and would not know what exactly you mean.
- jitl 2y agoI’m grateful to learn a more detailed and contextual history of these monuments; I’ve only appreciated them through the “clickbait” lens as “Tito’s monuments” as the article says.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago[dead]
- jepix 2y agoWe took the chance to dig and reveal the backgrounds of spomenik while enjoying their extreme skateability on our skateboard magazine here: https://fotta.it/vol-2/num-7/novo-spomen-a-new-memory https://fotta.it/vol-2/num-7/novo-spomen-a-new-memory
- qup 2y agoNice website, nice article, kudos.
- jepix 2y agoThanks! We also shot a short movie of the Novo Spomen tour if you are interested here: https://fotta.it/vol-2/num-7/watch https://fotta.it/vol-2/num-7/watch
- alfanick 2y agoThanks for sharing, very nice insight into the culture :) Tried to subscribe, my Stripe doesn't seem to work well with Apple Pay
- nkko 2y agotrivializing their purpose and the suffering they represent is selfish, the act of skateboarding on these monuments is deeply troubling
- krupan 2y agoI lived in and have returned to visit former Yugoslavian countries over the past 25 years and until just now had not come across these spomeniks. I'm glad I was able to learn the true stories about some of them at the same time. Overall I'm pretty disappointed in the weird vibe of the article. This statement was particularly confusing: "Yet not only in Croatia, but in France, the USA, Britain, real, open fascism – fences, walls, racial laws, deportations, camps – is once again mainstream." Deportation camps are once again mainstream in these countries?? Are they? And "once again" as if they ever were mainstream? Did I miss something? That kind of makes me doubt everything else said in the article. Overall the article seemed to be very anti fascist (great!) and pro post WWII communist (not great) even seemingly celebrating Yugoslavia's defeat of the Allies? Anyway, I would love to see more simple explanation of each spomenik like this article gives for some of them (artist, purpose of the monument, dates, etc.). Anyone know where to find that?
- krupan 2y agoAnd yes, I am aware that in Croatia there was actual Fascism complete with camps and everything around WWII times. And yes those other countries in the list also rounded up groups of people into camps at the same time period, but I would not have called what the US, Britain, and France did Fascist or mainstream back then, and I'm not aware of anything like it today.
- davedx 2y agoDeportation operations and camps in the UK: https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/rwanda-plan-explained-why-uk-government-should-rethink-scheme https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/rwanda-plan-explained-why-... https://www.gov.uk/immigration-removal-centre https://www.gov.uk/immigration-removal-centre
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hungie 2y agoThe U.S. is absolutely creating deportation camps, and there's a national zeal for evicting people here. It's, unfortunately, bipartisan. The conditions in U.S. camps are dire, children sleeping on bloody straw, smeared with feces. Families separated. Food, water, and shelter inadequate to sustain life in the deserts where these camps are. In Britain, the attitude is similar pro deportation, but the refugees aren't put into camps as far as I know. However, the buildings that they are in have been subject to attacks and arson. The "once again" probably refers to both the historical mainstream opinion that Japanese migrants should be moved to concentration camps within the U.S., and of course the mainstream beliefs in Nazi Germany. (Note, I'm not trying to draw any parallels between any of these camps. Please don't infer that I'm calling anyone nazis except the nazis. These examples can all exist and be over the threshold of "cruel" without needing to be compared to one another.)
- JoeDaDude 2y agoThe Spomenik Database for those inclined to learn a bit more: https://www.spomenikdatabase.org/ https://www.spomenikdatabase.org/ Casual trivia: The film Last and First Men consists primarily of slow pans of Spomeniks. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8015444/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8015444/
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoI am glad to learn this. From what I understand, the Ustaše (I think they were Croatian), were so brutal, they sickened the Gestapo. Tito held Yugoslavia together, but that unity couldn't survive his passing. They've been fighting each other for so long, that I suspect the original reasons are lost in antiquity.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pvg 2y ago"ancient hatreds" is a readily-reachable trope in such contexts but it obscures far more than it clarifies. Plus in most such cases, it's usually oversimplifying and inaccurate to the point where it's best avoided. Ancient hatreds didn't cause, say, the Ustaše.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoI personally think they are meaningless, but they are used to justify current hatred. Tribalism is very human, and results in the worst fights. I grew up in Africa, and saw what tribal hatred looks like. Not pretty, but Africa doesn't have the monopoly on it. We have tribes all over Europe, and America. The behavior is exactly the same, everywhere.
- samastur 2y agoI'll bite, how long?
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoI dunno. You'd probably have a better idea.
- samastur 2y agoSorry, I came off antagonistic in my first reply. I'm always open to be corrected, but as far as I know nations that formed Yugoslavia haven't actually fought each other meaningfully before WWI and even in that war Slovenians, Croats and Bosniaks were not involved independently, but as subjects of Austro Hungarian empire. There certainly wasn't the kind of animosity displayed as for centuries between France and England or France and Germany (as just two examples). It was really WW2 where one can observe the viciousness beyond fighting one's enemy. I have my own views why things went south so badly and I agree with you that it was inevitable for YU to fall apart, but I find the often expressed argument that people living in our parts always did this very unpersuasive.
- samth 2y agoHistory is of course valuable to learn, but as a criticism of the work this is almost precisely the "turn to the camera and say that he's the same kind of communist I am" tweet made flesh.
- jonathrg 2y agoThe referenced tweet: https://x.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/965640850578575362 https://x.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/965640850578575362 > Black Panther was a fine movie but its politics were a bit iffy. wouldve been way better if at the end the Black Panther turned to the camera & said "i am communist now" & then specified hes the exact kind of communist i am
- refulgentis 2y agoI really appreciate you were able to recognize the tweet and give some context. I'm a bit slow, especially on Sunday mornings :) -- I still don't understand what OP means. Do you have any ideas? Maybe its commie talk to say these aren't related to WWII? Or maybe they find the article political? Seems pretty straightforward to me, guy from country says people from other countries turned something complex into something simple for clickbait, documents it.
- jonathrg 2y agoI actually have no idea, I was hoping someone else could fill us in.
- RandomThoughts3 2y agoThat’s a political article masquerading as being about architecture and art. > Monuments built by the Nazis stand alongside those built by and for their victims. It is comparable to placing a photo of Yad Vashem alongside images of Albert Speer’s Zeppelinfeld, as if they were the same thing. Because they are the same thing. It’s grandiose architecture commissioned by 20th century autocrats. > a major problem is also the depoliticised framing of the monuments. Left without any indication of what they commemorate, or even of who designed them, the results are “deliberately oblivious” to the anti-fascist struggle that they commemorate As it should be. Don’t get fooled by the article author tentative to rehabilitate and separate socialist art from the rest. Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian even when they are communist.
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago> socialist art from the rest. Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian even when they are communist. Setting aside the fact that socialism and communism are not exactly the same thing, this simplification of yours is wrong. Would you say that the Colosseum, the Altare della Patria, and the obelisk with the inscription 'Dux' referring to Mussolini, all monuments that can still be visited in Rome today, are the same thing because they were all built long before Italy was a democratic Republic?
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago> Setting aside the fact that socialism and communism are not exactly the same thing, this simplification of yours is wrong. Nothing to set aside and nothing wrong here. Socialist realism was the official art doctrine of the USSR - guess what the second S is for - and it’s usual to call all art commissioned by the socialist states as socialist art. Tito and his regime were definitely communist however. But let’s brush aside this part of your comment. Would do you good to actually be right when you want to take this kind of tone, just saying. > Would you say that the Colosseum, the Altare della Patria, and the obelisk with the inscription 'Dux' referring to Mussolini, all monuments that can still be visited in Rome today, are the same thing because they were all built long before Italy was a democratic Republic? But certainly, yes, in more way than one. Obviously, contrary to the structures mentioned in the article and which are the object of my comment, they were not built at the same time so they share different architecture characteristics but they do share some common purpose. So yes, despite your argument being completely unrelated to what’s being discussed, I wouldn’t be shocked to see them juxtaposed in an architectural book for sure.
- pacija 2y agoОвене Србине, нека си им рекао истину свака част! Сви су ови споменици у сећање на жртве фашистичког терора, а не за лајкове и кликове. Победили смо фашисте ономад, и победићемо их поново!
- 082349872349872 2y agoI'm guessing that's the sr., not the hr. version? (certainly not the en.) PS. looking at the girl who accompanies Mme Dion from taxi to stage at the start of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CwpCNThO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CwpCNThO4 : was her outfit a yugoslav school uniform?
- pacija 2y agoWell, I was thaught in my primary school in then Yugoslavia, now Croatia, quite some time ago, that majority of members of all Yugoslavian nations - Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians and Muslims (nowadays called Bosnians or Bosniaks), rose against traitorous, collaborationist official local regimes (both Croatian Ustaše and Serbian Četnici) which sided with fascists and nazis after king Peter II of Yugoslavia cowardly ran away to London. With help of our allies, UK, USA, France, Russia and others, we managed to liberate our country not only from temporary foreign nazi and fascist occupiers, but also from local parasites who lived on the back of working people - royalty, nobility, bankers, industrialists, capitalists etc. Current mainstream global narative, along the lines of "Eurasia is in war with Eastasia. Eurasia has always been in war with Eastasia" is trying to convince me that the history I had been thought was a lie. So far I'm not convinced. About PS: indeed, outfit looks similar (but not identical) to uniform of Yugoslav Pionir https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Pioneers_of_Yugoslavia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Pioneers_of_Yugosla...
- 082349872349872 2y ago> Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Macedonians and Muslims "Sve ljude koji žele slobodu i mir!" Now you've reminded me to try to rewatch Underground (1995), if only because it contained a lovely three(?) word compliment for our fascist brothers, repeated often enough during those 160 minutes that even though I was watching with english subtitles I had still learned the serbian original — but now my aging neurons no longer recall what those words may have been.
- literallycancer 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]