Graverson 1 Emilee Graverson Kalema Moses HAVC 143 F 10 June 2013 Destruction of Authenticity: Post-War Sites of Constructed Memory

Memory and authenticity are usually intertwined in historical discourse because memory is so debatably authentic. Authenticity is often a word used to describe art that is important, canon, and valuable, as well as art that has a distinct lineage, therefore not a forgery. However authenticity can be realized in a very different way, and that is simply as the dictionary defines is: real. When thinking about authenticity in architecture, it is interesting to think of this term real because architecture is something that often needs to be restored or reconstructed. The question is: does reconstructing, restoring, or maintaining a site decrease its authenticity? And further, is authenticity necessary for education and remembrance? Memories of war are highly discussed because of the volatile nature of war itself. Because war is such a disturbing, mysterious and inherently human concept, the world holds on to specific narratives that define and compartmentalize this confusing and emotionally raw time. Sites of remembrance, specifically for World War II, serve to reconcile memories, and relive a narrative for those who choose to visit. Because historical architecture is victim to, above all else, the relentless destruction of time, the preservation of buildings and structures needed to take place to ensure that they still serve the visitors needs. Memorials, ruins and renovations to WWII sites seek to convey a narrative of a war that reshaped the world, and although

Graverson 2 rebuilt structures lack an authenticity, the site or physical location on the Earth holds an authenticity and memory inherently that cannot fade. The Berlin Wall was once an authentic site for expression in an oppressive time. The Wall not only symbolized West Berlins freedom of expression, but how important art was to the city, in a time where Germany was struggling to define its identity. Trained and untrained artists alike decorated the Wall, furthering Debuffets idea that authenticity is defined by the artistic intention, not by some arbitrary set of rules. The authenticity of The Wall grew from its ability to symbolize the physical and symbolic division of Germany, the tear through German consciousness that attempted to both shut out and remember the past. It is clear that The Wall, which stood from 1961 until 1989, was a site that debated German identity and memory of the war. What is interesting is that since its demolition, people still visit the site, view the ruins of the once great wall, in hopes of learning about and experiencing a previous time. There is something about the physical place where the wall once stood that gives visitors a sense of the true history of the city of Berlin and the turmoil and struggle that happened there. People buy bits of the wall, hoping that this authentic relic of a now bygone era will help them understand and be a part of the history. The East Side Gallery, a replica of the wall, invites artists and tourists to paint its surface, to bring the concept of free art back into Berlin. These instances of memory and remembrance of the Berlin Wall only prove its authenticity; people are so invested in remembering the Wall, that there doesnt have to be a physical monument there anymore. This only proves the importance and authenticity of a physical site of memory. The Berlin Wall leaves such a memory in its place that people travel to see the space where it once stood. The authenticity is clearly housed in the physical site.

Graverson 3 Nuremburgs Nazi architecture similarly struggles with authenticity and the portrayal of German identity. Out of the many structures in Nuremburg, designed by Nazi architect Albert Speer, the Zeppelinfeld quite boldly embodies the Nazi ideals of power and dominance. The large scale of the rally grounds shows authority and aggression, and specifically the Zepplinfelds large open field gave space for group experiences supporting the regime. The architecture surrounding the field is massive, and in neoclassical style, favored by Hitler. The field was overlooked by a large swastika emblem, referencing a God-like quality in Hitler, and the omnipresence of the regime. After the war, the swastika was ceremoniously destroyed, and Nuremburg toyed with the repurposing of the Zepplinfeld. The attempt to repurpose was unsuccessful in part because of the tainted history of the grounds. The site itself contains a scar, an authentic memory of a Nazi presence that isnt easily washed clean. This attempt to reuse further proves that the modern, post-war world still struggles to define the past, and Germany as a whole is still deciding the best way to represent their identity. The change from concert venue, to exhibition space, etc, symbolizes the struggle Germany has with its identity. The rally grounds changing identity over the years is a manifestation of the German search for authenticity. In a more recent attempt to remember, preserve and rectify the Nazi past, the laissez-faire method mentioned in Jaskots article has been taken into consideration. Perhaps the most authentic way to represent the war is to leave it alone, let the authentic site speak for itself, and allow visitors to interpret the history independently. Sites of memory and remembrance often set out to come to terms or rectify a past transgression or horror. However there is often a side effect to these actions. Sites that focus wholly on remembering a trauma often are unable to detach themselves from

Graverson 4 said trauma and therefore unable to move forward. Oradour is a site that has been disputably preserved in order to better show the visitors the great trauma that happened there. In 1944, Nazi SS Agents killed almost every inhabitant of the small town of Oradour, France, because of a miss-communicated tip that there were weapons stored there. The site of the massacre, the church that was burned to the ground, is today a preserved site of remembrance and education about WWII. Oradours ruins are claimed in Farmers article to be constructed and kept as a tourist site, as well as a site of remembrance for people living in the area. The authenticity or realness of the site does not lie in the buildings themselves, for they have been reconstructed, changed and moved. The church itself got burned down, and remaining ruins were maintained over the years to cater to touring visitors. The true authenticity of Oradour lies in the site, and the memory of those who survived. A city or place that endured a horror doesnt easily forget it, and Oradour, doesnt depend on ruins to tell their story. Farmer claims that people seeking to resolve their own, individual pasts, need only the memory of the Oradour massacre to remember and reconcile their trauma. The physical journey to the place where the atrocity happened provides context for the narrative of Oradour, something that a constructed set of ruins cannot provide. The very preservation and upkeep of the ruins of Oradour decreases its authenticity, and its ability to contain memory. However Oradour is not an inauthentic site, its real-ness lies within the history of its place and memory. When discussing authenticity, it is important to realize that previously mentioned sites all struggled with the task to displaying the memory of WWII from a modern perspective. Sites such as the Zepplinfeld and Oradour tried to preserve or change the

Graverson 5 historic architecture to make some statement, when perhaps the message would have been clearer when left alone. Building upon this, it is possible that there is no definitively right or wrong way to memorialize a war as dramatically traumatizing as WWII. There are, however certain memorials that have a more balanced authenticity, making their portrayal of a war narrative more clear to visitors. The USS Arizona Memorial does this by using the authenticity the location has, the unaltered wreckage of the ship itself. The memorial was not build to look out at the shipwreck, but was build directly on top of the wreckage, giving a jarring, emotional and confronting look at the destruction and trauma that occurred at Pearl Harbor. A visitor to the USS Arizona Memorial would feel the history below their feet, as they experience the content of the photographs, labels and plaques inside the physical building. Furthermore, the building is open to the sky, making the entire space more one with the environment. This memorial is specifically successful at retaining authenticity of both the place and memory. The memory of the bombing of Pearl Harbor is retained in the wreckage of the ship, and the numerous dead that still remain trapped inside. Visitors experience the reality of the site through these experiences, and therefore really encounter the trauma. In Furgesons article on the USS Arizona, he pokes several holes in the methodology behind the memorial, further proving that there is no proper way to memorialize death and destruction when it comes to the delicate topic of war. Similar to Germanys struggle to find an identity after the war, the US seems to equally project an identity of the victim through this memorial, using sites specific authenticity to legitimize that identity. It is clear that authenticity is more palpable when a site of remembrance is at the physical site where a trauma occurred. But it is apparent through the USS Arizona as well

Graverson 6 as Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall that authenticity is also maintained if the physical remnants of said trauma is visible, and left untouched. The Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall was hit by the Atomic Bomb attack in 1945, and since then has been left in the same state of ruin as it was after the bomb. The debate surrounding this monument is that structural maintenance has occurred to retain the authenticity of the monument. Undoubtedly, the emotional effect of the destroyed building is an authentic tool to live and remember WWII, however the authenticity is somewhat false, because at least some part of the building has been rebuilt to avoid collapse. Despite this, the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall still speaks to the authenticity provided by a lack of excessive preservation and rebuilding of sites of war destruction. Similar to the Berlin Wall, the site of the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall utilizes ruins to symbolize the destruction war brought to the city, and uses the site as a physical memory of the bomb. There is no constructed elaborate architecture or highly symbolic monument, only the destruction to speak for the horrors of the war. It is important for the city of Hiroshima to have a remaining part that is in disrepair, to remember the tragedies of the war, and the great rebuilding their city underwent. There is no clear definition of authenticity, and through the consideration of these WWII sites, it is important to also discuss the possibility that there is no correct way to memorialize a war that forever changed the history of humanity. Every monument discussed has attempted to portray the war from a contemporary perspective, and in the process, compromised the authenticity in some way. Because memory is such a individual experience, it is clear that memory of a war cannot simple by generalized to

Graverson 7 appeal to everyone. The authenticity of each site may be the only thing important when preserving the memory of the war, for the place holds the memory even if the architecture no longer does. Through landmarks such as the ruins of the Berlin Wall, Oradour and the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, it is clear that landscape holds a specific memory, an authenticity that doesnt need specific architecture to provide. However clear monuments like the USS Arizona Memorial and the Zeppelinfeld utilize architecture to retain memory. These examples further the notion that authenticity is fluid, and can be judged based on the memory or narrative trying to be conveyed. Authenticity provides for the true representation of memory in an architectural monument. Sites of war attempt to reconcile and remember the effects of the war, sometimes without regard to the authentic integrity of the original site. The sites discussed all point to the fact that education still continues despite varying levels of authenticity. The countries affected by WWII use these memorials to shape their post-war identity, and show to visitors the memory of their war. These sites of memory prove that authenticity might not be the only important thing in a monument, for the main purpose of war monuments is to simply continue the memory of the war.