4 ms·

That’s a political article masquerading as being about architecture and art. > Monuments built by the Nazis stand alongside those built by and for their victim

That’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.
  - peoplefromibiza 2y ago
    > Would do you good to actually be right As the rule of this web site states Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith As a matter of fact, I don't know about you, but I come from a communist political tradition which is different from the socialist one, the two split in 1921 you can call them both socialists but their stories are not exactly the same thing, notice the emphasis on exactly. USSR was a travesty of communism, it was state capitalism in disguise and some of the leaders of the communist party of my country told that to the Russians you can look up the most notable one, Enrico Berlinguer, his opinions and his acts of political bravery. To put it simply: Erich Honecker, Tito, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev had very different ideas on what socialism was and and how to implement it (and in fact we talk about Stalinism, Maosim, Titoism, all different ways to interpret the Marxism-Leninism which is the more correct definition here). you simply missed the context which is Europe of the past century, not the perceived idea of socialism through the modern media. > I wouldn’t be shocked to see them juxtaposed in an architectural book for sure. You are wrong my friend. They are not the same thing because one represent the grandiose empire that once roamed on the same soil we Italians were born and raised on and its history span over 2 millenia, a lot of things happened to it and around it to the point that it is just a symbol of the city of Rome now and nothing else, the second it's actually named Vittoriano but it has become known as Altare della patria because after world war 1 the Unknown Soldier was buried there as a memorial of the soldiers that died during the war, the last one is a vanity project of one of the worst dictators that ever lived and we kept it because our historians believe that even the history we don't like preserve our shared memories and can lead people to not make the same mistakes of the past. The intent is as important if not more than just the architecture. Most of us Romans care more about the statue of Pasquino and Giordano Bruno than St. Peter's because they mean something to us and represent who we are and why we are the way we are, even though St. Peters is obviously a lot more popular. Another example is The D'Annunzio mausoleum and residence, Vittoriale degli Italiani, despite being a wonderful place to visit, it sparks controversy due to Gabriele D'Annunzio's association with and influence on the early fascist movement in Italy. Again intent and purpose have meaning too in arts.

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.
- peoplefromibiza 2y ago
  > Would do you good to actually be right As the rule of this web site states Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith As a matter of fact, I don't know about you, but I come from a communist political tradition which is different from the socialist one, the two split in 1921 you can call them both socialists but their stories are not exactly the same thing, notice the emphasis on exactly. USSR was a travesty of communism, it was state capitalism in disguise and some of the leaders of the communist party of my country told that to the Russians you can look up the most notable one, Enrico Berlinguer, his opinions and his acts of political bravery. To put it simply: Erich Honecker, Tito, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev had very different ideas on what socialism was and and how to implement it (and in fact we talk about Stalinism, Maosim, Titoism, all different ways to interpret the Marxism-Leninism which is the more correct definition here). you simply missed the context which is Europe of the past century, not the perceived idea of socialism through the modern media. > I wouldn’t be shocked to see them juxtaposed in an architectural book for sure. You are wrong my friend. They are not the same thing because one represent the grandiose empire that once roamed on the same soil we Italians were born and raised on and its history span over 2 millenia, a lot of things happened to it and around it to the point that it is just a symbol of the city of Rome now and nothing else, the second it's actually named Vittoriano but it has become known as Altare della patria because after world war 1 the Unknown Soldier was buried there as a memorial of the soldiers that died during the war, the last one is a vanity project of one of the worst dictators that ever lived and we kept it because our historians believe that even the history we don't like preserve our shared memories and can lead people to not make the same mistakes of the past. The intent is as important if not more than just the architecture. Most of us Romans care more about the statue of Pasquino and Giordano Bruno than St. Peter's because they mean something to us and represent who we are and why we are the way we are, even though St. Peters is obviously a lot more popular. Another example is The D'Annunzio mausoleum and residence, Vittoriale degli Italiani, despite being a wonderful place to visit, it sparks controversy due to Gabriele D'Annunzio's association with and influence on the early fascist movement in Italy. Again intent and purpose have meaning too in arts.