Monuments are Lazy: An Anxious Jeffersonian Memorial

MONUMENTS ARE LAZY An Anxious Jeffersonian memorial

Gabriel Boyajian

Monument:

(Noun)

1. A statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a

famous or notable person or event.

Synonyms: memorial, statue, pillar, column, obelisk, cross;

cenotaph, tomb, mausoleum, shrine, stele

“A stone monument�

Lazy:

(Adjective)

1. Unwilling to work or use energy.

Synonyms: idle, indolent, slothful, work-shy, shiftless,

inactive, sluggish, lethargic; remiss, negligent,

slack, lax, lackadaisical

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

Situation Contention

EXPANDING THE EXPANDED THE FIELD

Rosalind Krauss

Temporality in the Expanded Field

RISE OF THE COUNTER MONUMENT

James E. Young Berlin Memorial Vietnam Memorial 9/11 Memorial

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT

Figural Sculptural Architectural

Architectural Elements Scape

DESIGN PHASE

Site Selection Through Design

3

“Gates of Hell” (Detail) Auguste Rodin Cast Bronze 1925 4

ABSTRACT Situation

In the discourse of architecture monuments have been utilized as a method to remember past events, important individuals, and religious figures for millennia. While monuments represent the gravity of the past, they are also made to propagate, educate, inform, and encourage understanding. But there is a present crisis in the discourse of remembering. The monument has become displaced, almost removed from the field, leaving us with lazy, disassociated, and deceptively a-tectonic objects. This current situation is epitomized in the segregated capital city of Washington D.C.. With the pasts static figures looming in the skyline their stories are lost enigmatic myths that fail to engage the individual or the collective. Their lessons are obscured with impervious materials preventing investigation and allowing historical fictions to persist rather than promoting revision. This situation creates and awkward position for future monuments to either, revert back to the lazy techniques of the past, or progress in unchartered territory of tectonic articulation as a tool for memorialization.

The argument begins with art critic Rosalind Krauss’ important essay entitled, “Sculpture in the Expanded Field”, which set out to define sculptures relationship to architecture and landscape. Central to Krauss’ essay is understanding the clear connection of “monument” or “independent object” in relation to all sculpture produced before the dawn of Modernism. Krauss claims that the field of sculpture -- and in turn architecture – started to loosen its prescribed identity of monumentality at the turn of the 20th century. Citing the works of Auguste Rodin’s “Gates of Hell” and Constantin Brancusi’s “Endless Column” she describes their work as both accidentally and purposefully assuming a “loss of place” or “sitelessness”. Krauss speculates that the negation of the tectonic association between object and plinth produced a monumental shift in thinking that led to postmodernist sculpture.

The theoretically autonomous objects of modernism were in danger of defaulting on their emancipatory promises, pedaling illusions of freedom veiled in bodily and social restraint.

The 60’s were a turbulent time in American politics and life stemming from years of overlooked racial oppression and inequality. By 1968 the events of this time period marked a hopeful 5

“The Endless Column” Constantin Brancusi Cast Iron, Carbon steel 1938 6

new beginning of race relations in the United States and in turn greatly affected many aspects of American culture. A cleansing of past social grievances commenced including the waning ideals of modernism. Sculptures maneuvering into the expanded field in the late 60’s castrated the monument from the discourse of sculpture and architecture creating a serious problem of identity. The works of Robert Smithson, Richard Serra, Michael Heizer, etc. tested the boundaries and solutions of what sculpture can become. Although the work produced in this time period is very different from others each sculptor engages a key contemplative question. How does the artwork meet and communicate with the ground? This simple introspection presents a loftier tectonic question; how does one reimagine the way to connect the myth (the sculpture) to the Earth?

The previous expulsion of the monument led to a series of influential public artworks produced in Germany as reparations for the atrocities of World War II. Thus was the dawn of the countermonument, an understanding coined by James E. Young. Young describes counter-monuments, (and similarly negative form monuments, i.e. the 9/11 Memorial), as memorials operating as critiques of their past inert identities in an attempt to communicate more dynamically and thoroughly with the admirer. This attempt at interaction, (which is also required in Post-Modernist sculpture), entices the viewer to participate in the act of remembrance.

Unfortunately more often than not the original hopes fall short of reality and the banal abstractions adversely reinforce the autonomous identities. This is readily apparent in Peter Eisenman’s “Holocaust Memorial for the Murder Jews of Europe” (2005). The project attempts to use lessons from Post-Modernist abstraction, but falls short on delivering the powerful reality that was the Holocaust.

7

8

ABSTRACT Contention

By reexamining and implementing techniques from counter-monuments this thesis project aims to question Krauss’s theory of “sitelessness” in relation to “independent objects” through the method of tectonic articulation. Speculatively, the tectonics will act as layers of information that can correspondingly convey, and engage the siteless issues of institutional-racism and ideological oppression prevalent in American Culture.

“I am a Monument” Robert Venturi Pencil on Paper 1972 9

10

Expanding the Expanded Field

11

the Introduction of

“HYPER-REALITY” 12

EXPANDING THE EXPANDED FIELD Rosalind Krauss

“The logic of sculpture, it would seem, is inseparable from the logic of the monument. By virtue of this logic a sculpture is a commemorative representation. It sits in a particular place and speaks in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place” Explains Rosalind Krauss early on in her essay, “Sculpture in the Expanded field”. She continues to deconstruct this antiquated logic of monument, “Late in the nineteenth century we witnessed the fading of the logic of the monument... cross(ing) the threshold of the logic of the monument, entering the space of what could be called its negative condition-a kind of sitelessness, or homelessness, an absolute loss of place.”

For Krauss the dawn of modernism unknowingly ignited its own undoing by sculptures flirtation with identity. She describes monuments absolute loss of place through the pivotal works, “The Gates of Hell” by Aguste Rodin and “The Endless Column”

by Constantin Brancusi, which negated the established tectonic relationship between “monument” and “plinth”. Fast forward to the era of consumerism, American life in the 1960’s began to transform itself. “The spectacle and Image” conquered the homes of the American people with uncensored footage from the Vietnam War and disturbing images from the Civil rights movement. This mass display of sensationalist media provided a stark contrast to the comfortable lives white American families’ had grown accustomed to. This introduction of “hyper-reality” stripped away the black and white picture frame and allowing the shades of grey pour out. This time period provided American artists an opportunity to examine a changing culture that was finally being provoked by dormant issues of segregation, violence, and civil rights. With the identity of the American people changing so did the art; Krauss illustrates this change.

Krauss describes the evolving situation of “monument” in her essay describing sculpture as stemming from the field of “not landscape and not architecture” (as exhibited in her expanded field diagram). Even though Krauss’ initial diagram from the 70’s is not current with contemporary practices of sculpture, architecture, 13

“Perimeters/Pavilions/Decoys” Mary Miss Wood, Dirt 1977-1978 14

EXPANDING THE EXPANDED FIELD Rosalind Krauss

and landscape design, it begins to tackle the important issues relating to current issues of monument and memorial making.

In the image to the left is an earthwork by the artist Mary Miss entitled, “Perimeters/Pavilions/Decoys” from 1977-1978. . Rosalind Krauss was inspired by Miss’ exhibition while she was searching for sculptures new definition in the postmodern era. The artwork generates questions for Krauss because of the plurality of disciplines it engages. The project can be interpreted as a sculpture imbedded in the ground, or a landscape design supported by a timber frame, or an unconventional architectural exploration of early American vernacular encased by layers of dirt? “half atrium, half tunnel, the boundary between outside and in, a delicate structure of wooden posts and beams. The work,… is of course a sculpture, or, more precisely, an earthwork.” Krauss writes.

The buried wooden structure exhibits characteristics of architectural form but does not incorporate other tectonic elements of doors, windows, systems, etc. The structure has a unique relationship with the ground by occupying rather than connecting. The site has become excavated and removed leaving the piece to lodge ambiguous distinction. The list of conflicting characteristics make the art work a sculpture, a pavilion, and an architecture. This referencing of disciplines, operating on the seams of multiple professions, questions the master narratives that were being embraced by the modern period. Placing it in Krauss’ terms, challenging the logic of the monument. The work embraces the local, the contingent, and the temporary testing and proding the canonical mode of thinking. Unfortunately becoming utterly exhausting with the amount of abstraction implied. The viewer was allowed for the first time the opportunity to interact with art in a different way, by getting to determine the meaning. The artist forfeits agency and rejects the values of elitist modernism. The post-modernist sculptures from this time become so comprehensively ambiguous, that identity evaporated. Without identity the work enters the space of “sitlessness”.

Krauss’s expanded field allowed for the first time a way to define the blurred lines between these disciplines, harnessing a parallelism for further readings. These extra readings however 15

Aolis Riegl Monument Types

Intentional Monument:

Intentional commemorative value aims to preserve a moment in the consciousness of later generations.

Unintentional Monuments:

(historical monuments): The historical value of a monument arises from the particular, individual stage it represents in the development of human activity in a certain field.:

Age-Value Monuments:

Age-value in a monument betrays itself at once in the monument’s dated appearance. Age-value makes explicit a sense of the life cycle of the artifact, and of culture as a whole.

16

EXPANDING THE EXPANDED FIELD Temporality in the Expanded Field

induce exhausting amounts of ambivalence, ambiguity, and anxiety.

People need sculpture and architecture to also, “sit in a particular place and speak in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place”. But can Krauss “sitlessness” be reinvestigated to operate as a new monument? To speculate on this question a firm understanding of the theoretical basis of monument must be examined.

“In the oldest and most original sense a monument is a work of man erected for the specific purpose of keeping particular human deeds or desires (or a complex accumulation thereof) alive and present in the consciousness of future generations.” - Aolis Riegl

Aolis Riegl’s “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and its Development” is the definitive text on the theoretical basis of monuments and their relationship to collective memory and temporality. Riegl breaks down monuments into two categorical types, Intentional and Unintentional monuments. As seen in the diagram located on the left the same triumphal arch is expressed in 3 different life cycles. Riegl postulated that the value of monuments is directly judged by contemporary culture.

When an intentional monument is first constructed the object engages a new value instilling a sense of preservation in the publics eye. This preservation is cultivated through establishing memory for future generations. The monument however cannot withstand times eventual entropy and fall to ruin or even rubble.

This allows for the monument to hold an age value or historic value. Tectonic implications of patina and weathering play a role in the memorialization of the past, even if the original meaning of the monument may be lost. The contemporary culture is always changing while the monuments permanence is resistant. Riegl describes this as the “Kuntswollen”, which loosely translates to a “collective will-to-art”. Kurt Forster describes it as a continual refraction of the absent in the memory of the present. The memory of the contemporary culture acts as an ever shifting lens for which monuments, art, and politics are viewed. Monuments become direct links to a cultures past, present, and future values and belief systems, becoming the material embodiments and contexts of human thought.

17

KUNSTWOLLEN: loosely translates to “collective will-to-art”. Is a forever shifting lense of our immediate cultural belief system. Kurt Forster describes as a continual refraction of the absent in the memory of the present.

RELATIVE ART VALUE NEWNESS VALUE

AGE VALUE PATINA

NEWNESS

RUINS

USE VALUE

RUBBLE NO VALUE

HISTORICAL VALUE

ENTROPY

18

Gradual decline into disorder

Rosalind Krauss’ expanded field diagram does not include predictions of time but rather creates a generative model which allows for expansion overtime. Viewing her example of Robert Smithson’s earthwork “Spiral Jetty” now it easy to see how completely contingent its relationship with time and natural forces is. The sculpture is between “Landscape and not Landscape” defined as “Marked Site” but does the work, as Krauss describes, reject monumentality? Could the spiral jetty instead be read as an intentional monument or an age-value monument? Smithson’s jetty appears to retain the logic of the monument, “It sits in a particular place and speaks in a symbolical tongue about the meaning or use of that place.” The works symbolic tongue is the acceptance of its eventual ruin. “A bare shapeless pile of stones will not prevail over an organized heap of stones which once was.” (Riegl) Smithson allows the original memory to wash away overtime and return to the earth. The homeless nature of the work continues persist even as it resonates as a monument.

Analyzing Smithson’s work with an understanding of Riegl’s “original sense” of a monument asks the question, should Krauss’ expanded field diagram include temporality? Weathering or Entropy cannot be avoided and is inherent to the earthwork category which she investigates. “The standpoint of age-value arises from signs of decay and the disintegration of the works completeness through the mechanical and chemical forces of nature.” Riegl describes. Krauss argues that the postmodern generation of artists monumentality is void, but in the case of much of Smithson’s works contain a sense of age-value monumentality. Smithson’s essay on Prosaic New Jersey continues to investigate Riegl’s definitions of monuments, exploring unintentional monuments.

Smithson captures in film the postindustrial follies scattered in the landscape naming them the unintentional monuments that they are.

This appropriation grasps the logic of the readymade but speaks further giving a banal city a sense of worth. The photos create an opportunity for Prosaic in the 1970’s to be monumentalized.

19

“Spiral Jetty” Robert Smithson Photograph of Earthwork 1970 20

“Film gives the viewer an illusion of control over eternity.”

- Robert Smithson.

“Fountain Monument” Robert Smithson Photograph 1967 21

Figural

22

Sculptural

Architectural

Architectural elements

scape

Typologies of monument

23

Built to Remember / Built to Signify

The Triumphal Arch has a long lineage of monumentality for over 2000 years and are common figures around the world.

These structures or sculptures were erected for a specific purpose and utilized/activated by specific events, ie. The commemoration of victory. Built to last the test of time in an attempt to convey the same meaning as the empire that erected them, morph as a typology but use the same cannon. They all represent the same thing but have their own individual story (collective and the individual memory). They create an invisible network of memories which have altered over time.

The Monument creates a National Memory and becomes a signifier of entrance back to the city. They become recognizable landmarks reinstating the prowess of government.

Triumphal Arch

Sculpture Architecture 24

Built to Signify / Built to Remember

The Lighthouse, much like a windmill, a water tower, or a bridge has a long lineage of “ordinary”. Ordinary in the sense that they were built not necessarily to become monuments but due to their sheer size and necessity to certain societal or cultural functions became symbols of cultures. Bernd and Hilla Becher the German conceptual artists captured many of these “ordinary” structures and laid them out in gridded sets to start deciphering a type of architectural language found in the industrial landscape.

By comparing a triumphal arch with a lighthouse is an interesting exercise when historical connotations are excluded from one another. Both Objects stand tall and convey theei own meanings, but you cannot argue that one is more iconic or more monuments over the other.

Light House

Architecture Sculpture 25

Great Sphinx of Giza Location: Giza, Egypt Designer: Unknown Materials: Limestone Date: 2558–2532 BC

Limestone

26

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Figural

27

Moai (Easter Island Monuments) Location: Easter Island Designer: Unknown Materials: Volcanic Stone Date: 1250 and 1500 CE

Volcanic Stone

28

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Figural

29

Christ the Redeemer

Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Designer: Paul Landowski, Heitor da Silva Costa Materials: Reinforced Concrete, Soapstone Date: 1931

Reinforced Concrete

Soapstone

30

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Figural

31

Statue of Liberty

Location: New York City, United States Designers: Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi, Gustave Eiffel Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, Richard Morris Hunt Materials: Copper, Wrought iron, Steel, Stony Creek Granite Date: October 28, 1886

Copper

Wrought Iron

Steel

Stony Creek Granite

32

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Figural

33

Monument to the Revolution of the People of Moslavina Location: Podgarić, Croatia Designers: Dušan Džamonja Materials: Concrete, Aluminum Date: 1967

Concrete

Aluminum

34

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Sculptural

35

Monument to Kosmaj Partisan Division Location: Kosmaj Mountain, Serbia Designers: Vojin Stojic Materials: Reinforced Concrete Date: 1970

Concrete

36

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Sculptural

37

Al-Shaheed Monument (Martyr’s Memorial) Location: Baghdad, Iraq Designer: Ismail Fatah Al Turk Materials: Glazed Turquoise Ceramic Tile , Galvanized Steel Frame, Carbon Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Water Date: October 28, 1886

Glazed Turquoise Ceramic Tile

Galvanized Steel Frame

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Water

38

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Sculptural

39

Parthenon

Location: Athens, Greece + Nashville, United States Designers: Phidias, Ictinus, Callicrates + William Bell Dinsmoor Materials: Pentelic Marble, Timber, Lead + Plaster, Wood, Brick, Limestone Date: 447-438 BCE + 1931 CE

Pentelic Marble

Timber

Lead

Plaster

Brick

Limestone

40

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural

41

Al Khazneh (The Treasury of Petra) Location: Petra, Jordan Designer: Unknown Materials: Sandstone Date: 1-100 CE

Sandstone

42

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural

43

Taj Mahal

Location: Agra, India Designers: Ustad Ahmad Lahouri, Ustad Isa Materials: White Marble, Jasper, Jade, Crystal Date: 1648

White Marble

Jasper

Jade

Crystal

44

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural

45

Lincoln Memorial

Location: Washington D.C., United States Designers: Henry Bacon Materials: Massachusetts Granite, Colorado Marble, Indiana Limestone, Pink Tennessee Marble, Alabama Marble, Georgia Marble Date: May 30, 1922

Massachusetts Granite

Colorado Marble

Indiana Limestone

Pink Tennessee Marble

Alabama/Georgia Marble

46

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural

47

Temple Entrance at Luxor Location: Luxor, Egypt Designers: Unkown Materials: Sandstone Date: 1400 BCE

Sandstone

48

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural Elements

49

Nelson’s Pillar - Dublin’s Spire Location: Dublin, Ireland Designers: Francis Johnson Materials: Granite Date: 1843 - 1966

Granite

50

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural Elements

51

Arc de Triomphe

Location: Paris, France Designers: Jean Chalgrin, Guillaume-Abel Blouet, Jean-Nicolas Huyot, Jean-Arnaud Raymond, Louis-Robert Goust Materials: Limestone Date: 1836

Limestone

52

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural Elements

53

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park (Gates of Peace) Location: Hiroshima, Japan Designers: Clara Halter, Jean-Michel Wilmotte Materials: Structural Steel, Stainless Steel, Frosted Glass, light Date: 1954

Structural Steel

Stainless Steel

Frosted Glass

Light

54

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural Elements

55

Gateway Arch

Location: St. Louis, Missouri Designers: Eero Saarinen, Hannskarl Bandel Materials: Stainless Steel, Structural Steel, Reinforced Concrete Date: October 28, 1965

Stainless Steel

Structural Steel

Reinforced Concrete

56

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Architectural Elements

57

Stone Henge

Location: Amesbury, United Kingdom Designers: Unknown Materials: Sandstone, and Bluestone Date: 2600 BCE

Sandstone

Bluestone

58

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Scape

59

Vietnam War Memorial

Location: Washington D.C., United States Designers: Maya Lin Materials: Polished Black Granite, Concrete, Bronze (Statues) Date: November 13, 1982

Polished Black Granite

Concrete

Bronze

60

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Scape

61

National World War II Memorial Location: Washington D.C., United States Designers: Friedrich St. Florian Materials: Granite, Bronze, Water Date: May 29, 2004

Granite

Bronze

Water

62

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Scape

63

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe Location: Berlin, Germany Designers: Peter Esienman, Richard Serra Materials: Concrete Slabs, Cobble Stone Date: May 12, 2005

Concrete Slabs

Cobble Stones

64

TYPOLOGIES OF MONUMENT Scape

65

“Negative form Monument �

Horst Hoheisel Sketch 1986 66

Rise of the counter monument

67

“Tilted Arc” Richard Serra Steel 1981

“Black Form” Sol Lewitt Stone 1987-1989 68

RISE OF THE COUNTER MONUMENT James E. Young

Art and Architectural critics in the 60’s and 70’s, like Lewis Mumford and Rosalind Krauss, believed they witnessed “the death of the monument”, producing a crisis of commemoration if you will. “The Counter-Monument: Memory against itself in Germany Today”, is a fascinating essay written by James E. Young, which challenges these claims through the term, “counter-monument”.

Germany in the 1980’s began to sponsor contemporary artists as symbolic reparations for the atrocities committed during World War II. Postmodern sculpture emerged as the vessel for memorialization during this crisis of commemoration and rejected precedents from the past. Young believed that the traditional memorial, especially figurative forms, are hopelessly inappropriate for remembering the countless, nameless victims who were industrially murdered.

The subject matter is so incredibly overwhelming that the solution needed to be immaterial, to memorialize such an unfathomable tragedy. The abstract nature of postmodernism began to represent loss in positive form. Postmodernism unknowingly created a paradigm shift in monument making. Sculpture searching for its misplaced identity reignited the discussion between monument and memory through events of the Holocaust.

“The aim of the counter monument is not to console but provoke, not to remain fixed but to change, not to be everlasting but to disappear, not to be ignored by the passerby but to demand interaction, not to remain pristine but to invite its own violation.” - James E. Young Traditional monuments are born resisting the very possibility of their birth, claims Young. A monument which attempts to remain one thing for eternity will constantly be re-labeled as Aolis Riegl theorized. Thus counter-monuments began to experiment and test ideas of transience and ephemerality through active and passive engagement with the viewer. The development of a dynamic interplay with the viewer was never considered before in the past’s monument making. Monuments have always been lazy autonomous objects which demand attention through scale and material permanence. This new understanding that a monument can physically represent a fleeting memory through performance becomes a compelling and interesting argument for the developing identity. Young continues to define counter-monuments as falling into “three types of poetics”.

69

“Monument Against Facism�

Jochen and Esther Gerz Aluminum and Lead 1986 70

RISE OF THE COUNTER MONUMENT James E. Young

The first is the abstract or negatively sublime artwork. Second, artworks that self-reflexively thematize the transience and difficulties inherent in public commemoration as such. Third, “Limit-case” artworks that tend toward their own self-abnegation in favor of historical documentation. Young provides a plethora of examples such as, Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc” 1981, Horst Hoheisel’s “Negative Form Monument” 1986, and Sol Lewitt’s “Black Form” 1987-1989. These works all received much criticism because they didn’t physically recall a historical event through their abstract metaphors. Lewitt’s and Sera’s memorials were both torn down soon after their erection because they produced a challenge to the surrounding context of architecture and the ideologies which sustain inside that architecture. Postmodernist abstract forms continued to draw anger and uncertainty, their history was unrecognizable, the public did not have the education to understand the works thoughts and ideas.

Young’s culmination of these ideas is most apparent in his analysis of the “Monument Against Fascism, War and Violence – and for Peace and Human Rights” (left) in Hamburg Germany by the artists Jochen and Esther Gerz. The artists first concern was how would their monument emplace such memory without usurping the community’s will to remember? Their second reservation was how to build an antifascist monument without resorting to what they regarded as the fascist tendencies in all monuments.

“We did not want an enormous pedestal with something on it presuming to tell people what they out to thing.” –Jochen Gerz.

The didactic logic of monuments contain a demagogical rigidity, thus the monument would have to become a monument against itself, a counter-monument. The monument first stood as a twelve meters high cladded in plated with a thin layer of soft dark lead. An inscription at the base signified what the monument represented and invited the citizens of Hamburg to inscribe their own markings onto the object. By asking for participation the monument turn into a contributor to the memory itself. The plinth which the pillar stands allows for periodical lowering of the object into the ground. After 71

“Negative Form Monument�

Horst Hoheisel Concrete, Water 1986

72

RISE OF THE COUNTER MONUMENT James E. Young

8 years of commemorative lowerings the monument disappeared representing the disappearance of the Jewish lives which once filled the streets of Hamburg.

“From the Beginning, the artists had intended this monument to torment - not reassure - its neighbors. They have likened it, for example, to a great black knife in the back of Germany, slowly being plunged in, each thrust solemnly commemorated by the community, a self-mutilation, a kind of topographical hara-kiri.” - James E. Young referencing Jochen Gerz By defining itself in opposition to the traditional autonomous monuments, the counter-monument illustrates the potentials and boundaries of memorials everywhere. The “Monument Against Fascism” represents how time, memory, and current history intersect at a memorial site. The artists provide the screen or backdrop for which the public infills with memory. From these ideas I present my theory entitled the tectonics of memory.

73

“We are in an age of mass memory consumption and production...”

“We assign monumental form to memory, we have to some degree divested ourselves of the obligation to remember.”

- James E. Young

“Memorial to the murdered Jews of Europe”

Peter Eisenman & Richard Serra Concrete Slabs 2005

74

RISE OF THE COUNTER MONUMENT Eisenman and Lin Case Study

James E. Young writes in, “The Counter-Monument: Memory against itself in Germany Today”, about an interesting movement starting in the late 80’s that began to reignite the discussion between monuments and memory. Traditional monuments which must be understood as memory works try every possible way of pushing back against time and change. “Monuments are born resisting the very possibility of their birth”(Young) This is more than a futile approach because nothing will remain the same in a perfect condition. This is true both physically and philosophically.

A monument which attempts to remain one thing for eternity with constantly be re-labeled.

Counter Monuments usually take abstract form and play with ideas of the temporality of the event which the piece of work is memorializing. This can lead to intense ambiguity because the form may fail to address any historic value. Rather counter monuments accept the publics and individuals fleeting memory allowing for the monument itself to be forgotten but always have some trace that it was there. Young develops these ideas from the artists Jochen and Esther Gerz work such the “Monument Against Facism” (left) in Harburg Germany.

75

Memorial to the Murder Case study Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe Case study

Reichstag

Brandenburg Gate

Reichstag

Brandenburg Gate

Soviet War Memorial in the Tiergarten

Soviet War Memorial in the Tiergarten

Berlin location

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

N

Berlin location

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

Section 4

N

Section 3

Section 2 1

2

3

Section 1

Section 4

Section 3

76

4

Jews of Europe

N

Section44 Section

Section 3

Section 3

Section 2

Section 2

1

2

1

3

4

2

3

Section 1

Section 1

77

tnam war memorial

study

vietnam war memorial Case study

morial

National W

morial Vietnam War Memorial

erans

National WWII Memorial

Washingto

Washington Monument

Lincoln Memorial

Korean War Veterans Memorial

Martin Luth Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial

N

Self Inflicted Wound

Self Inflicted Wound

Depression

Depression

Scar Tissue

Scar Tissue

The Memorial Althou historical situation. D loss of space and foc Lincoln Memorial an black granite counte and asks the visitor t nexus in history.

78

WWII Memorial PFC PAUL VINCENZO QUAGLIERI SP4 DANNY JOE QUAITE SP5 ARTHUR GERALD QUALLS PFC DAVID WAYNE QUALLS LCPL TED WAYNE QUALLS PFC JOHN ELLSWORTH QUAM MAJ GEORGE QUAMO PFC KENNETH RAYMOND QUAN PFC ROBERT FREDRICK QUANDT PFC FLOYD ELMER QUARLES LCPL WAYNE ROBERT QUARLES PVT EARL QUINNON QUARTERMAN SSG WILLY VASCILLE QUAST SFC FERDINAND JOSEPH QUATRONE PVT JOHN FRANKLIN QUATTLEBAUM CPT MICHAEL JOSEPH QUEALY PFC WILLIAM C QUEBODEAUX Jr SGT CARY PAUL QUEEN SP4 CECIL WAYNE QUEEN SP4 DONALD WAYNE QUEEN CPL WALTER LOUIS QUEEN SSG ULYSSES GRANT QUEENER Jr PSGT JOHNNY CRUZ QUENGA SGT HOWARD EMERSON QUERRY PFC ROBERT PETER QUERY PFC JESUS QUESADA PFC BOBBY RAY QUESENBERRY PFC JOHN QUINCY QUESENBERRY CPL JOSE MANUEL QUESNEY PFC ANGEL ALARID QUEVEDO SGT DAVID MICHAEL QUEY 1LT ARTHUR QUEZADA SFC ADRIAN ALLEN QUICK Jr PFC GEORGE DEWEY QUICK Jr SFC ISHAM IKE QUICK CPL JOHN JAMES QUICK SSG MICHAEL EDWARD QUICK PFC PAUL WAYNE QUICK III WO RALPH RICHARD QUICK Jr SGT ROBERT EUGENE QUICK SP4 ROBERT GLYNN QUICK

ton Monument

PFC ROBERT LEE QUICK SP4 JESUS AQUININGO QUIDACHAY SP4 HENRY LEROY QUIGLEY CPL JAMES MICHAEL QUIGLEY SSGT JOHN MARTIN QUIGLEY PFC RONALD LEEROY QUIGLEY LCPL TERRY LYNN QUIGLEY SP4 TIMOTHY ERNEST QUIGLEY PFC ANASTACIO DE JESUS QUILALANG Jr SP4 ANTONIO QUILES-HERNANDEZ LCPL PETER QUILICI Jr MAJ EDWARD BEEDING QUILL Jr LCPL PAUL FRANCIS QUILL PFC EARL THOMAS QUILLEN PFC JOHN EDWARD QUILLEN Jr SGT LLOYD DANIEL QUILLEN PFC ROGER DELL QUILLEN SP4 WILLIAM THOMAS QUILLIN LCPL DANIEL LEE QUIMBY CPL CULLEN WOOD QUIN LCPL DAVID PATRICK QUINLAN SP5 FRANK JOSEPH QUINLAN Jr PFC ANTHONY LOUIS QUINN PFC BOBBY JOE QUINN SSG DANIEL QUINN PFC DOUGLAS FRANK QUINN PFC GREGORY CORNELIUS QUINN CPL JAMES ANTHONY QUINN PFC JAMES JOSEPH QUINN III MAJ JOHN ARNOLD QUINN PFC JOHN FRANCIS QUINN SGT JOHN MICHAEL QUINN SGT JOHN PHILIP QUINN Jr 1LT MELVIN DARYL QUINN SN MICHAEL COURTNEY QUINN LCDR MICHAEL EDWARD QUINN 2LT MICHAEL PATRICK QUINN LCPL PATRICK OWEN QUINN PFC PATRICK THOMAS QUINN SGT RAYMOND FRANCIS QUINN

SGT RICHARD FLOYD QUINN PFC RICHARD JAMES QUINN SP4 ROBERT FRANK QUINN SGT ROBERT JOSEPH QUINN PFC ROBERT LEE QUINN MAJ ROGER ALLAN QUINN SP4 RONALD GENE QUINN CPL STEPHEN WAYNE QUINN PFC TERRY LEE QUINN SP4 THOMAS WAYNE QUINN PFC WILLIAM DANIEL QUINN III PFC DAVID QUINONES CPL EDWARD QUINONES SGT JOSE LUIS QUINONES CPL JUAN MANUEL QUINONES PFC JULIO QUINONES Jr MAJ NICHOLAS QUINONES-BORRAS PVT LUIS A QUINONES-RODRIQUEZ CPT ANTHONY PETER QUINT SGT JOHN VINCENT QUINTAL PFC FRANKLIN HARRY ALBERT QUINTANA SP4 JUAN CARLOS QUINTANA PFC SANTIAGO V E QUINTANA PFC LUIS E QUINTANA-SOTO CPL FRANCISCO QUINTANILLA Jr SGT JEFFERY IGLESIAS QUINTANILLA SFC FERNANDO MENDOZA QUINTERO SP4 JOSE HERNANDEZ QUINTERO CPL JOSEPH G L QUIRION SP4 JEFFERY MICHAEL QUIRK PO2 ALEX LEON QUIROGA SP4 CARLOS MANUEL QUIROS SP4 ALEXANDER QUIROZ CPL ALFRED MAURO QUIROZ PFC JOSEPH ALBERT QUIROZ SP4 TONY JOHN QUITMEYER

vietnam war memorial Case study

uther King Jr. Memorial

1970

Vietnam War Memorial

National WWII Memorial

Washington Monument

Lincoln Memorial

Korean War Veterans Memorial

Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial

N

Self Inflicted Wound

Depression

The Memorial Although abstract creates a clear historical situation. Descending with the wall creates a loss of space and focuses the visitors vision with the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. The black granite counters the surrounding white stone and asks the visitor to understand this memorials nexus in history.

PFC PAUL VINCENZO QUAGLIERI SP4 DANNY JOE QUAITE SP5 ARTHUR GERALD QUALLS PFC DAVID WAYNE QUALLS LCPL TED WAYNE QUALLS PFC JOHN ELLSWORTH QUAM MAJ GEORGE QUAMO PFC KENNETH RAYMOND QUAN PFC ROBERT FREDRICK QUANDT PFC FLOYD ELMER QUARLES LCPL WAYNE ROBERT QUARLES PVT EARL QUINNON QUARTERMAN SSG WILLY VASCILLE QUAST SFC FERDINAND JOSEPH QUATRONE PVT JOHN FRANKLIN QUATTLEBAUM CPT MICHAEL JOSEPH QUEALY PFC WILLIAM C QUEBODEAUX Jr SGT CARY PAUL QUEEN SP4 CECIL WAYNE QUEEN SP4 DONALD WAYNE QUEEN CPL WALTER LOUIS QUEEN SSG ULYSSES GRANT QUEENER Jr PSGT JOHNNY CRUZ QUENGA SGT HOWARD EMERSON QUERRY PFC ROBERT PETER QUERY PFC JESUS QUESADA PFC BOBBY RAY QUESENBERRY PFC JOHN QUINCY QUESENBERRY CPL JOSE MANUEL QUESNEY PFC ANGEL ALARID QUEVEDO SGT DAVID MICHAEL QUEY 1LT ARTHUR QUEZADA SFC ADRIAN ALLEN QUICK Jr PFC GEORGE DEWEY QUICK Jr SFC ISHAM IKE QUICK CPL JOHN JAMES QUICK SSG MICHAEL EDWARD QUICK PFC PAUL WAYNE QUICK III WO RALPH RICHARD QUICK Jr SGT ROBERT EUGENE QUICK SP4 ROBERT GLYNN QUICK

PFC ROBERT LEE QUICK SP4 JESUS AQUININGO QUIDACHAY SP4 HENRY LEROY QUIGLEY CPL JAMES MICHAEL QUIGLEY SSGT JOHN MARTIN QUIGLEY PFC RONALD LEEROY QUIGLEY LCPL TERRY LYNN QUIGLEY SP4 TIMOTHY ERNEST QUIGLEY PFC ANASTACIO DE JESUS QUILALANG Jr SP4 ANTONIO QUILES-HERNANDEZ LCPL PETER QUILICI Jr MAJ EDWARD BEEDING QUILL Jr LCPL PAUL FRANCIS QUILL PFC EARL THOMAS QUILLEN PFC JOHN EDWARD QUILLEN Jr SGT LLOYD DANIEL QUILLEN PFC ROGER DELL QUILLEN SP4 WILLIAM THOMAS QUILLIN LCPL DANIEL LEE QUIMBY CPL CULLEN WOOD QUIN LCPL DAVID PATRICK QUINLAN SP5 FRANK JOSEPH QUINLAN Jr PFC ANTHONY LOUIS QUINN PFC BOBBY JOE QUINN SSG DANIEL QUINN PFC DOUGLAS FRANK QUINN PFC GREGORY CORNELIUS QUINN CPL JAMES ANTHONY QUINN PFC JAMES JOSEPH QUINN III MAJ JOHN ARNOLD QUINN PFC JOHN FRANCIS QUINN SGT JOHN MICHAEL QUINN SGT JOHN PHILIP QUINN Jr 1LT MELVIN DARYL QUINN SN MICHAEL COURTNEY QUINN LCDR MICHAEL EDWARD QUINN 2LT MICHAEL PATRICK QUINN LCPL PATRICK OWEN QUINN PFC PATRICK THOMAS QUINN SGT RAYMOND FRANCIS QUINN

SGT RICHARD FLOYD QUINN PFC RICHARD JAMES QUINN SP4 ROBERT FRANK QUINN SGT ROBERT JOSEPH QUINN PFC ROBERT LEE QUINN MAJ ROGER ALLAN QUINN SP4 RONALD GENE QUINN CPL STEPHEN WAYNE QUINN PFC TERRY LEE QUINN SP4 THOMAS WAYNE QUINN PFC WILLIAM DANIEL QUINN III PFC DAVID QUINONES CPL EDWARD QUINONES SGT JOSE LUIS QUINONES CPL JUAN MANUEL QUINONES PFC JULIO QUINONES Jr MAJ NICHOLAS QUINONES-BORRAS PVT LUIS A QUINONES-RODRIQUEZ CPT ANTHONY PETER QUINT SGT JOHN VINCENT QUINTAL PFC FRANKLIN HARRY ALBERT QUINTANA SP4 JUAN CARLOS QUINTANA PFC SANTIAGO V E QUINTANA PFC LUIS E QUINTANA-SOTO CPL FRANCISCO QUINTANILLA Jr SGT JEFFERY IGLESIAS QUINTANILLA SFC FERNANDO MENDOZA QUINTERO SP4 JOSE HERNANDEZ QUINTERO CPL JOSEPH G L QUIRION SP4 JEFFERY MICHAEL QUIRK PO2 ALEX LEON QUIROGA SP4 CARLOS MANUEL QUIROS SP4 ALEXANDER QUIROZ CPL ALFRED MAURO QUIROZ PFC JOSEPH ALBERT QUIROZ SP4 TONY JOHN QUITMEYER

1970

Scar Tissue

The Memorial Although abstract creates a clear historical situation. Descending with the wall creates a loss of space and focuses the visitors vision with the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. The black granite counters the surrounding white stone and asks the visitor to understand this memorials nexus in history.

79

80

Tectonics of Memory

81

82

TECTONICS OF MEMORY Utilizing the Detail

The topic of memory is a complex and daunting topic which has encapsulated more and more researchers to unlock the mysteries of how our brains process and recall memories. Scientific research on memory function has progressed drastically in the past 40 years and presents interesting data on how human memories are becoming altered with our high image based realities. In the past memory has been described as a tangible object such as a filing cabinet which stores information that we acquired through our lives. This idea which is tempting to accept, because of its familiar representation, has its faults. Memory is not a tangible “thing” that we possess, like good teeth or smooth skin, but rather it’s a concept that simplifies the processes of remembering. Our individual memory is a far more intricate group of systems that play different roles in encoding, storing, and recalling various bits of information and compiling them into composite thoughts.

“What seems to be a single memory is actually a complex construction – say, a pen – your brain retrieves the object’s name, its shape, its function, the sound when it scratches across the page. Each part of the memory of what a ‘pen’ is comes from a different region of the brain. The entire image of ‘pen’ is actively reconstructed by the brain from many different areas.”

– Richard C. Mohs, PhD

This act of recall which Dr. Mohs describes is our brains using a form of spatial memory to create a textured and elaborate representation of the pen. This system appears to be architecturally tectonic and fit in Kenneth Frampton’s definition of Representational Tectonics – allowing for a constructional element to be hidden, but present. Harnessing spatial memory as a tool for memorialization has roots in ancient oratory techniques conceived in Greece and Rome. Orators of this time developed a system of spatial recall which we define now as “Mnemotechnics”, or the art of memory. Rodney Douglas Parker writes about this history in a little known essay entitled, “The Architectonics of Memory”. He uncovers for us the history of an ancient orator and rhetoric theorist Auctor ad Herennium. Auctor outlined a twofold strategy for orators to remember complex and long speeches without the need to read from a script. He describes this through the creation of a mental “loci” and in which to place vivid mnemonic symbols. The “loci” is a background or stage set of, “small, complete, and distinct” 83

Moment From the Event Literal Abstract simplification Simplification

“The Three Soldiers” Frederick Hart Bronze 1984 84

“Vietnam War Memorial” Maya Lin Black Granite 1982

TECTONICS OF MEMORY Utilizing the Detail

architectural examples like “a house, an inter-columnar space, a recess, an arch, or the like.” Embedded in these mental backdrops are a number of effective images, the more extraordinary, bizarre, or grotesque the image the easier it is to recall and remember.

Auctor claimed ,”if we see or hear something exceptionally base, dishonorable, extraordinary, great, unbelievable, or laughable, that we are likely to remember a long time.”

Auctor suggests that our surrounding loci or constructed world serve as places that we use to store memories. By recalling an image of the backdrop we then connect the image and feeling associated with it. Parker illustrates these ideas with how newscasters mention the “White House’’ much more often than the “US Presidency”, and refer to “Washington’” in place of the “federal government”. The Concrete, visual, architectural thought makes abstract concepts more vivid and graspable.

“When we stop to consider it, architectural monuments are essentially memory pieces. Physically constructed mnemonic loci in the external world… We routinely look to the order of our physical premises for suggestions about how to order our mental premises.” – Rodney Douglas Parker The monuments of DC become commodified as well and speak a similar language becoming interchangeable with overarching themes of control though the national state. Monuments become important moral signifiers for the populous and can be used not only to control but to educate a population.

“When the human mind organizes a body of thought, it does so almost inevitably in terms of spatial imagery… any organization of thought assumes the form of an architectural structure.” - Rudolf Arnheim

Monuments and memorials can be understood as physical memories, yet are constantly represented as monolithic (lazy) solids. If an event or individual is worth memorializing why simplify?

The simplification of monuments results in two dialectically opposed vectors on the same spectrum, the literal versus the abstract. Literal translation has been the method of choice for thousands of years but it does not remotely fulfill the complexities 85

86

TECTONICS OF MEMORY Utilizing the Detail

associated with a person or place. The converse translation of abstraction attempts to break past the physical boundaries of likeness to describe the feeling of the event, but constantly falls into the trap illegibility. These two methods and their corresponding construction techniques are dishonest representations and force monuments to become propagandistic rather than revealing hidden facets that must be discovered through different mediums. Lazy monuments are essentially complex memories described through simple constructions. For example the Lincoln Memorial idolizes Lincoln as the savior of the Union and the champion of racial equality, instead of presenting Lincoln as the president that wished to avoid issues of slavery and was forced to beat the south into submission through the bloodiest conflict fought on United States soil. The tectonic engagement of traditional monuments contradict a holistic understanding the events complexities.

Architectural theorist Marco Frascari writes “the precise study and good execution of details are which we confirm architectural greatness. The detail tells the tale.�

Utilizing architectural detailing as a sublime method to instill the complexities of events can create a transformational performance in monumental identity. The physical construct becomes both a container for memory and a means for narrative to operate, in both literal and abstract terms. This continual layering aims to achieve a poignant yet open ended artifact, allowing the complex memory to be commemorated through complex construction. Representational tectonics in architecture permit ideas of clarity while exhibiting thoughtfulness which is required with the sensitive subject matter of memorials. The possibilities of embedding an object with a series of readings at multiple scales creates a dialogue unseen in previous monuments. A part to whole relationship can develop by incorporating tectonic possibilities of movement in monuments conflicting with ideas of Rosalind Krauss’s ideas of sitelessness.

Monuments would no longer have to rely on their imposing sizes to ignite curiosity. Through a more intimate scale a monument can become transportable.

87

88

TECTONICS OF MEMORY Utilizing the Detail

“The idea of the monument in many ways is fundamentally opposed to questions of time, space, and viewer. A typical monument has a space reserved for it, its function is predetermined, and it offers a limited number of interpretations by those who view it.” Josiah McElheny

Lazy monuments become powerless when larger bodies encroach on their territory limiting possible growth for other urban actions to occur. Architects and artists began to discover these issues and examined the relevancy in the 1960s Pop Art phenomenon. Manufacturing and mass production were seen as a ways to disseminate contemporary ideas of American culture, but monuments laid dormant and sedentary. The possibility of manufacturing siteless monuments was never seriously envisioned and the work fed off of the mundane and the commercial. What if the viewer could take a piece of the monument with them? Would the retaining of the piece of a memory make the object have more power? What if the viewer could leave a piece of themselves behind? These ideas must be considered and experimented with.

Mark Rakatansky theorizes in his collection of essays entitled, “Tectonic Acts of Desire and Doubt”, about “A framework for architecture to enact the complex tectonic dramas of social and cultural space.” This becomes intrinsic to the formulations of monuments due to their innate nature of relying on a chronicle of important events to formulate their social and cultural space. Thus prompting the creation of a tectonic matrix which can challenge the physical and temporal qualities of lazy a-tectonic monuments. The following tectonic methods of, moving parts, material properties, inscription, anamorphic projection, and ritual aggregation will be investigated as techniques that allow for a more engaging “tectonic drama”.

“Memorials being fixed in concrete and stone have an inherent problem because memories are not fixed. Perceptions change, minimalist abstraction, with its allegorical pliancy turns out to function in a memorial context as the best available mirror for a modern world aware of its own constantly changing sense of history… We need good memorials to remember what we used to forget.” – Michael Kimmelman 89

90

Tectonic Matrix

91

Monument to the Third International Location: Neverbuilt (proposed St. Petersberg) Designers: Vladimir Tatlin Materials: Structural steel, Glass, Concrete Date: 1919-1920

Granite

Bronze

Water

The Triumphal Arch has a long lineage of monumentality for over 2000 years and are common figures around the world. These structures or sculptures were erected for a specific purpose

92

TECTONIC MATRIX Moving Parts

93

Monument to the Third International Location: Neverbuilt (proposed St. Petersberg) Designers: Vladimir Tatlin Materials: Structural steel, Glass, Concrete Date: 1919-1920

Granite

Bronze

Water

New Panel

94

1/2 Month

2 Month

6 Month

2 Years

5 Years

40 Years

TECTONIC MATRIX Material Properties

95

Monument to the Third International Location: Neverbuilt Designers: Vladimir Tatlin Materials: Structural steel, Glass, Concrete Date: 1919-1920

Granite

Bronze

Water

96

TECTONIC MATRIX Surface Relief + Inscription

97

Monument to the Third International Location: Neverbuilt Designers: Vladimir Tatlin Materials: Structural steel, Glass, Concrete Date: 1919-1920

PFC PAUL VINCENZO QUAGLIERI SP4 DANNY JOE QUAITE SP5 ARTHUR GERALD QUALLS PFC DAVID WAYNE QUALLS LCPL TED WAYNE QUALLS PFC JOHN ELLSWORTH QUAM MAJ GEORGE QUAMO PFC KENNETH RAYMOND QUAN PFC ROBERT FREDRICK QUANDT PFC FLOYD ELMER QUARLES LCPL WAYNE ROBERT QUARLES PVT EARL QUINNON QUARTERMAN SSG WILLY VASCILLE QUAST SFC FERDINAND JOSEPH QUATRONE PVT JOHN FRANKLIN QUATTLEBAUM CPT MICHAEL JOSEPH QUEALY PFC WILLIAM C QUEBODEAUX Jr SGT CARY PAUL QUEEN SP4 CECIL WAYNE QUEEN SP4 DONALD WAYNE QUEEN CPL WALTER LOUIS QUEEN SSG ULYSSES GRANT QUEENER Jr PSGT JOHNNY CRUZ QUENGA SGT HOWARD EMERSON QUERRY PFC ROBERT PETER QUERY PFC JESUS QUESADA PFC BOBBY RAY QUESENBERRY PFC JOHN QUINCY QUESENBERRY CPL JOSE MANUEL QUESNEY PFC ANGEL ALARID QUEVEDO SGT DAVID MICHAEL QUEY 1LT ARTHUR QUEZADA SFC ADRIAN ALLEN QUICK Jr PFC GEORGE DEWEY QUICK Jr SFC ISHAM IKE QUICK CPL JOHN JAMES QUICK SSG MICHAEL EDWARD QUICK PFC PAUL WAYNE QUICK III WO RALPH RICHARD QUICK Jr SGT ROBERT EUGENE QUICK SP4 ROBERT GLYNN QUICK

PFC ROBERT LEE QUICK SP4 JESUS AQUININGO QUIDACHAY SP4 HENRY LEROY QUIGLEY CPL JAMES MICHAEL QUIGLEY SSGT JOHN MARTIN QUIGLEY PFC RONALD LEEROY QUIGLEY LCPL TERRY LYNN QUIGLEY SP4 TIMOTHY ERNEST QUIGLEY PFC ANASTACIO DE JESUS QUILALANG Jr SP4 ANTONIO QUILES-HERNANDEZ LCPL PETER QUILICI Jr MAJ EDWARD BEEDING QUILL Jr LCPL PAUL FRANCIS QUILL PFC EARL THOMAS QUILLEN PFC JOHN EDWARD QUILLEN Jr SGT LLOYD DANIEL QUILLEN PFC ROGER DELL QUILLEN SP4 WILLIAM THOMAS QUILLIN LCPL DANIEL LEE QUIMBY CPL CULLEN WOOD QUIN LCPL DAVID PATRICK QUINLAN SP5 FRANK JOSEPH QUINLAN Jr PFC ANTHONY LOUIS QUINN PFC BOBBY JOE QUINN SSG DANIEL QUINN PFC DOUGLAS FRANK QUINN PFC GREGORY CORNELIUS QUINN CPL JAMES ANTHONY QUINN PFC JAMES JOSEPH QUINN III MAJ JOHN ARNOLD QUINN PFC JOHN FRANCIS QUINN SGT JOHN MICHAEL QUINN SGT JOHN PHILIP QUINN Jr 1LT MELVIN DARYL QUINN SN MICHAEL COURTNEY QUINN LCDR MICHAEL EDWARD QUINN 2LT MICHAEL PATRICK QUINN LCPL PATRICK OWEN QUINN PFC PATRICK THOMAS QUINN SGT RAYMOND FRANCIS QUINN

SGT RICHARD FLOYD QUINN PFC RICHARD JAMES QUINN SP4 ROBERT FRANK QUINN SGT ROBERT JOSEPH QUINN PFC ROBERT LEE QUINN MAJ ROGER ALLAN QUINN SP4 RONALD GENE QUINN CPL STEPHEN WAYNE QUINN PFC TERRY LEE QUINN SP4 THOMAS WAYNE QUINN PFC WILLIAM DANIEL QUINN III PFC DAVID QUINONES CPL EDWARD QUINONES SGT JOSE LUIS QUINONES CPL JUAN MANUEL QUINONES PFC JULIO QUINONES Jr MAJ NICHOLAS QUINONES-BORRAS PVT LUIS A QUINONES-RODRIQUEZ CPT ANTHONY PETER QUINT SGT JOHN VINCENT QUINTAL PFC FRANKLIN HARRY ALBERT QUINTANA SP4 JUAN CARLOS QUINTANA PFC SANTIAGO V E QUINTANA PFC LUIS E QUINTANA-SOTO CPL FRANCISCO QUINTANILLA Jr SGT JEFFERY IGLESIAS QUINTANILLA SFC FERNANDO MENDOZA QUINTERO SP4 JOSE HERNANDEZ QUINTERO CPL JOSEPH G L QUIRION SP4 JEFFERY MICHAEL QUIRK PO2 ALEX LEON QUIROGA SP4 CARLOS MANUEL QUIROS SP4 ALEXANDER QUIROZ CPL ALFRED MAURO QUIROZ PFC JOSEPH ALBERT QUIROZ SP4 TONY JOHN QUITMEYER

Granite

1970

Bronze

Water

98

TECTONIC MATRIX Surface Relief + Inscription

99

Monument to the Third International Location: Neverbuilt Designers: Vladimir Tatlin Materials: Structural steel, Glass, Concrete Date: 1919-1920

Granite

Bronze

Water

100

TECTONIC MATRIX Tectonic Anamorphic Projection

101

Hill of Crosses

Location: Lithuania Designers: Vladimir Tatlin Materials: Structural steel, Glass, Concrete Date: 1919-1920

Granite

Bronze

Water

102

TECTONIC MATRIX Tectonic Aggregation

103

Limestone

Glazed Turquoise Ceramic Tile

White Marble

Volcanic Stone

Galvanized Steel Frame

Jasper

Reinforced Concrete

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Soapstone

Water

Copper

Pentelic Marble

Structural Steel

Wrought Iron

Timber

Stainless Steel

Lead

Frosted Glass

Plaster

Light

Brick

Polished Black Granite

Limestone

Concrete

Steel

Stony Creek Granite

Concrete

Aluminum

Jade

Crystal

Bronze 104

TECTONICS OF MEMORY Tectonic Matrix

105

106

Design Phase Washington D.C.

107

108

Design Phase Washington DC Race Relations

This projects main context is the segregated capital city of Washington D.C. Through monument the populous of the United States is forced and subscribes to a national identity or collective memory of racial stereotypes and propaganda. This national identity forms the publics “Kuntswollen” (a cultural lens), which judges and assess the value of surrounding cultural and political objects. With three precise interventions in the fabric of Washington D.C. a realm between architecture and art can be harnessed to create meaningful social conversations on the topics of institutional racism, segregation, and violence. The United States was built on the back of slavery and although laws and practices have been altered the issues of race continue to persist.

These three experimental structures will address the United States past and current conflicts with the “black experience” along with current developing issues. These speculative proposals will serve as a commentary on the current national identity while allowing for individuals to generate their own personal thoughts and introspections pertaining to freedom in America.

“Do not say that nothing’s changed when it comes to race in America — unless you’ve lived through being a black man in the 1950s, or ‘60s, or ‘70s.

It is incontrovertible that race relations have improved significantly during my lifetime and yours, and that opportunities have opened up, and that attitudes have changed. That is a fact.

What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives — you know, that casts a long shadow.

And that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. We’re not cured of it.” – President Barak Obama

109

MARYLAND

MARYLAND

N.W.

N.E.

S.W.

S.E.

VIRGINIA

Diagrammatic map of DC highlighting major government property (dark grey), national monument (red dots), major thorough fares (black lines).

110

MARYLAND

Design Phase Washington DC Issues of Race

Why address issues of institutional-racism? Firstly it has been an issue since the colonies were established in early American history.

The United States government constantly tries to establish the defeat of racism but new issues continue to arise. Although most racist laws have been struck from law America still perpetuates a culture of racism. Secondly Racism has underpinned a plethora of dreadful events, the African diaspora, the Civil War, the Civil Rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the current violence continually being committed against our black communities. America is suffering from anti-intellectualism. The events of the Charleston tragedy to the murder of Trayvon Martin exemplify racisms continue clutch on American Culture. The proposed monuments will attempt to address not the specific events or individuals but rather the themes of racism, segregation, and violence.

These two maps showcase Washington DC’s own segregation. The census data from 2012 visually expresses the clear divide in DC where surprisingly both the white and black population are similar in population size, around 46% each. I have selected three distinctly different urban locations for possible proposals. A Government controlled property near the entrance of Arlington National Cemetery, a densely black urban location near Anacostia Park, and a white suburban setting near Rock Creek Park. The three sites form a new triangular layer mimicking DC’s L’Enfant plan in an attempt to symbolically enclose the national mall.

At the Center of this triangular field is the new Smithsonian African American Museum designed by David Adjaye’s studio.

Currently under construction is sits adjacent to the Washington Memorial and becomes the centerpiece of my new proposal. To visually express my intentions I created this initial design inspired by the narrative of Frederick Douglass which I attempted to symbolically capture his story though my initial research in the tectonics of memory. The Enclosure is supported by pointed tension embodying the path which one is forced to follow. The oppressive manmade concrete walls do not fully connect allowing the viewer to perceive the structural ideas which support these walls. The corten steel columns weather litterally accumulating rust on their surface which protects the material from decay, but also 111

BLACK AREAS 2014 Census Data

112

0.1%

23.4%

46.7%

69.9%

93.2%

WHITE AREAS 2014 Census Data

0.1%

23.4%

46.7%

69.9%

93.2%

113

Waterfront Crescent

Waterfront Crescent Monumental Corridors White House and Congress

Prime Site Locations Waterfront Crescent Monumental Corridors

Waterfront Crescent Monumental Corridors White House and Congress Prime Site Locations

Government Controlled Parks

Government Controlled Parks

Government Controlled Parks

Possible Sites

Possible Sites Monumental Corridors White House and Congress

114

115

Architectural monuments have been utilized as a method to remember events, individuals, and religious figures for millennia.

While monuments represent the gravity of the past, they are also made to educate, inform, and propagate political ideologies.

However, there’s a present crisis in the discourse of remembering.

The monument has become displaced, almost removed from the expanded field, leaving us with lazy, disassociated, and deceptively a-tectonic architectural objects. They allow historical fictions to persist rather than promote critical reflection. Thus it creates an awkward position for the design of future monuments: they can either revert back to worn out techniques, or progress by embracing the passage of time, shifting meanings, and tectonic articulation as tools for memorialization Up until the dawn of 19th century monuments have held one common thread, infallibility through materiality. The permanence of the material used cements the object in time but entropy inevitably wears and distorts not only the surfaces but also the initial memory. In my research I looked into Aolis Riegl’s writings about monuments and the temporality of their propagation. In his book “The Modern Cult of Monuments” Riegl uses the term “Kuntswollen” which loosely translates to “a collective will to art”.

The Kuntswollen is the lens of a contemporary culture that values monuments between newness and rubble. This simple scale recognizes the passage of time and the entropic effect it has on the significance or value of a monument. Entropy as a design tool is not common place in contemporary discourse and more often manifests itself in materially driven projects.

Learning from Riegl I then focused on a very interesting art movement in Germany during the 1980’s. Germany commissioned numerous public artworks to commemorate, and memorialize the atrocities committed during WWII. This group of post-modern monuments/memorials would be later categorized by James E. Young as “Counter Monuments”. For the aim of the counter monument is not to console but provoke, not to remain fixed but to change, not to be everlasting but to disappear, not to be ignored by the passerby but to demand interaction, not to remain pristine but to invite its own violation. Peter Eisenman and Maya Lin’s memorials both draw from this counter-monument 116

discussion with the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin and the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC. Although my main critique for both of these works is the continuation of an a-tectonic method.

Materiality is used for context in both of these memorials, but ultimately denies the passage of time as do most of their predecessors. The future life of these memorials is to allow for multiple readings only through simple form, which contradicts their intended inception, of remembering the lives of the forgotten.

The situation of Lazy Monuments is epitomized in the capital city of Washington, DC. With static figures of the past looming in the skyline, their stories are lost enigmatic myths that fail to engage individuals, collectives, and landscapes they inhabit. Their lessons are obscured by the pretense of permanence, and rigid the geometries which prevent further investigation.

The United States has transformed many men into architectural symbols, but few in the manner which Thomas Jefferson has. He has been idealized as a symbol of liberty and equality, revered for his agrarian expansionism, and forgiven for the “minor yet necessary” slight as a benevolent slave owner. But what is often forgotten is that Jefferson’s implementation of planning ideologies have led to the extermination of natives, harsh plantation practices, and creation of American sprawl. In Jefferson’s Monticello, we can begin to comprehend the built manifestation of his Agrarian Utopia. Pulling directly from Palladio’s villa rotunda the servant space becomes integrated into the earth while divorcing the aristocracy from the ground.

Jefferson’s contradictory character is as unstable as the soil his memorial is built upon. Situated in a marshy area adjacent to Washington, DC’s Tidal Basin, the Jefferson Memorial is slowly sinking into the earth due to rising sea levels caused by climate change. Currently, the Neoclassical monument imposes propagandistic notions of Jeffersonian planning precepts which have created issues related to America’s relationship with the natural environment and sprawl stemming from the Land Ordinance of 1785. The memorial itself a borrowed form extending to the Pantheon is a temple to honor this man and his ideologies.

The 3 times 117

larger than life statue situated inside the domed volume commands the attention from visitors as an attempt to beckon respect, and cement his infallible importance. Thus this project envisions a Memorial Park for the near future, that counters the assumptions of traditional monuments and founding architectural principles this country was built upon.

This thesis investigates these issues by proposing a speculative landscape that creates spaces for revealing and reflecting upon Jefferson and the effects of his planning ideals. By subverting the permanence of the Memorial through conscious acts of neglect, the proposed park will eventually reclaim the site as a memorial of a different kind. The area is reimagined as space of encounter interrogating the geomorphic and political ground. The contested meanings of the country’s past and future can be debated, leaving the sobering effects of Jefferson’s legacy to be fully contemplated.

I see this project as contributing to the discourse of counter monuments, and building upon its initial understanding by creating more of an Anxious memorial. A memorial with a not so certain future, a memorial which is given the ability to react and engage a public as time progresses. By countering the presumed direct meaning and suppression of history the park denies selective readings of not only Thomas Jefferson as an individual but also his planning ideologies. The Park is open to historical and environmental contingencies and subverts the pre-established autonomous identity allowing for historical flaws to be consumed as a sort of poetic justice.

This new landscape invites native species such as the mokingbird, the blue Heron, and American Beaver, along with the public to cohabitate the area. A series of winding bridges allow for public to have removed perspectives of the memorial and create a juxtaposition between landscapes and built environment. The L’Enfant plan which relentlessly exhibits power over the pedestrian in DC is consumed by the artificial landscape symbolizing the future that will come to the DC. Over time the footbridges bridges and stepped landscape record the rising water level in increments allowing real time data to be collected. As the water level increases, the foot bridges transform into acting boat docks 118

inviting future generations to coalesce and continue discussing future obstacles man creates with his environment. The park embodies a transitory space and is only one node in an itinerant network for future tourist boats. Eventually all of the landmarks of DC’s mall will be engulfed by water, and be left on display, exhibiting the decaying remnants of a not so distant past. The landscape will erode and over grow, materials will oxidize, and stone will chip. The monument in ruin will become a ghostly sanctuary, and only then will the American kuntswollen decide its future importance.

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

S 13 E 5°

SW 5° 22

E 90°

W 270°

NE ° 45

N 31 W 5°

N 360°

S 180°

128

0’

1’

3’

5’

7’

9’

15’

20’

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

BIBLIOGRAPHY JOURNAL SOURCES Krauss, Rosalind. “Sculpture in the Expanded Field.” October 8 (1979): 30-44.

Young, James E. “The Counter-Monument: Memory Againsts Itself in Germany Today.” Critical Inquiry 18, no. 2 (1992): 267-96.

Parker, Rodney Douglass. “The Architectonics of Memory: On Built Form and Built Thought.” Leonardo, 1997, 14752. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/1576426?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.

Smithson, Robert, and Jack D. Flam. Robert Smithson, the Collected Writings. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

Gillis, John R. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.

Forster, Kurt. “Monument Memory and the Mortality of Architecture.”Oppositions, no. 25 (1982): 2-19.

Allen, Stan. Practice: Architecture, Technique Representation.

Expanded 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009.

Moore, Charles Willard, and Kevin P. Keim. You Have to Pay for the Public Life Selected Essays of Charles W. Moore. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2001.

Schwarzer, Mitchell. “Ontology and Representation in Karl Botticher’s Theory of Tectonics.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians52, no. 3 (1993): 267-80.

Tschumi, Bernard. “These from the Manhattan Transcripts.” AA Files, no. 4 (1983): 65-74.

Frascari, Marco. “The Body and Architecture in the Drawings of Carlo Scarpa.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 14 (1987): 123-42.

Sante, Luc. “Robert Smithson: ‘The Monuments of Passaic, 1967.’ (Art Photographer; Passaic River in New Jersey).” Artforum International, June 22, 1998.

Bloomer, Kent C., and Charles Willard Moore. Body, Memory, and Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977.

140

BIBLIOGRAPHY SECONDARY SOURCES Pickford, Henry W. “Dialectical Reflections on Peter Eisenman’s Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe.” Architectural Theory Review: 419-39. Accessed December 19, 2015. Dialectical Reflections on Peter Eisenman’s “Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe” Rényi, András. “Monuments and Memorials: Aspects of Constructing National Identity and Public Memory through the Visual Arts in 20th Century Central and Eastern-Europe.” CEU Learning. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://ceulearning.ceu.edu/ course/info.php?id=3769.

Carpo, Mario. “The Postmodern Cult of Monuments.” Future Anterior 4, no. 2 (2007). Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www. arch.columbia.edu/files/gsapp/imceshared/gjb2011/v4n2_carpo. pdf.

Mohs PhD., Richard C., and Carol Turkington. “How Human Memory Works.” How Stuff Works Science. 2015. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/ human-brain/human-memory.htm.

Cooper, Zoe. “Crisis of Commemoration: Designing the Modern Jewish Museum.” Architizer. August 27, 2015. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://architizer.com/blog/modern-jewish-museums-1/.

Lucarelli, Fosco. “Mary Miss’s 1977–1978 Perimeters/Pavilions/ Decoys – – SOCKS.” SOCKS. June 22, 2014. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://socks-studio.com/2014/06/22/mary-misss-1977-1978perimeterspavilionsdecoys/.

Demand, Thomas, and Sylvia Lavin. “Thomas Demand In Conversation With Sylvia Lavin.” SCIArc Media Archive. April 1, 2013.

Accessed December 19, 2015. http://sma.sciarc.edu/video/thomasdemand-in-conversation-with-sylvia-lavin/.

“Richard Wilson: Turning the Place Over | Liverpool Biennial: Festival of Contemporary Art.” Liverpool Biennial. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www.biennial.com/collaborations/ turning-the-place-over.

De Bondt, Sara, and Lucy Skaer. “BLDGBLOG: Tatlin’s Tower.”

BLDGBLOG. March 19, 2006. Accessed December 19, 2015. http:// bldgblog.blogspot.com/2006/03/tatlins-tower.html.

141

BIBLIOGRAPHY SECONDARY SOURCES Acin, Alejandro. “Typologies, Memories and Preservation.”

Visualising China Blog. May 13, 2014. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://visualisingchina.net/blog/2014/05/13/typologies-memoriesand-preservation/.

Two, Crack. “25 Abandoned Yugoslavia Monuments That Look like They’re from the Future ~ Crack Two.” 25 Abandoned Yugoslavia Monuments That Look like They’re from the Future ~ Crack Two. April 15, 2011. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www.cracktwo. com/2011/04/25-abandoned-soviet-monuments-that-look.html.

Kimmelman, Michael. “Out of Minimalism, Monuments to Memory.”

The New York Times. January 12, 2002. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/arts/art-architectureout-of-minimalism-monuments-to-memory.html?pagewanted=3.

“The Monuments That Were Never Built.” Smithsonian. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/ history/the-monuments-that-were-never-built-778640/.

Miklos, Vincze. “Designs for Great Architectural Landmarks That Were Never Built.” Io9. September 18, 2013. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://io9.gizmodo.com/designs-for-great-architecturallandmarks-that-were-nev-1339821619.

“Lost Paris: The Elephant on the Place De La Bastille.”

Culture&Stuff. May 24, 2011. Accessed December 19, 2015. http:// cultureandstuff.com/2011/05/24/lost-paris-the-elephant-on-theplace-de-la-bastille/.

Lucarelli, Fosco. “Monument for Every Situation, Lygia Clark (1964) – – SOCKS.” SOCKS. March 10, 2015. Accessed December 19, 2015. http://socks-studio.com/2015/03/10/monument-for-everysituation-lygia-clark-1964/. “”How Long Does One Feel Guilty?” SPIEGEL ONLINE. 2005.

Accessed December 19, 2015. http://www.spiegel.de/international/ spiegel-interview-with-holocaust-monument-architect-petereisenman-how-long-does-one-feel-guilty-a-355252.html.

142

143

Remember ME

144