Lisa
Suarez-del Campo_ Fall 2002
Research
Prof. Marta Canavés
Formative Studio
“The experience and memory of humankind are laid down in layers in the physical environment, concretely and graphically. Every new part exploits ancient forms, materials, and way of making. Building is, at base, a sign of hope, a sign of society’s belief in future, a gesture forward in time.”
These words by Aldo Rossi, illustrate the focus of this writing. Memory, defined by history and personal experiences, which then create identity, is exemplified through architecture, whether through memorials, historical monuments, or everyday buildings. This, in turn, provides a channel for further communication and meaningful insight. The research will contrast historic monuments with contemporary memorials, discuss the effect that commemoration has on defining identity and character and how it affects design, and how one transitions through spaces, experiencing and therefore creating a cycle of commemoration, from one moment in history to the present, and back again through time.
Historic heritage, often viewed as a mentality, calls for a process of questioning of perspective as to the layers of meaning, reasoning, and ambiguity behind events and places in time. It is concerned with the daily environment that affects us most directly. A historical monument, once considered synonymous to the heritage, refers more closely to chronological framework and the geographical territory of what is being commemorated. Historical monuments have been created to preserve a part of history, to then be able to discuss and perhaps reveal a sense of newness in the conception of what was truly witnessed at the time the monument was created. Long ago, monuments were dedicated to the remembrance of God, not necessarily focusing on the beauty of the establishment, while a more contemporary approach lies in the invoking of identities within cultures, religions, and tribes, through the use of design (Choay, 2001).
Identity, which can either be group and/or individual, is something that every person either consciously or subconsciously questions. It is the quality of belonging, whether to specific political, ethnic, religious, or other group. Commemoration, on the other hand, being closely related to memory, is a calling to remembrance. In an effort to discover a person’s true identity, a commemoration, an observation of past experiences takes place. In that process, the desire to preserve those memories shapes the identity. Accordingly, as there is a need for establishing an identity, there is a need for commemoration. The formation of the identity is based on an analysis of history, yet it is oriented towards the future. As identity and commemoration are closely related, so is the remembering of history with both concepts. Death is also of great significance in this process of establishing identity. Within societies, places that commemorate the dead are very important. In preserving history, the commemoration of the dead establishes and maintains the identity of an individual, society, or nation (Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2001). But issues lie in the design of the very place of commemoration. It is necessary to examine how the design of the memorial, cemetery, or monument should be manipulated. Is it necessary to capture a character, or a moment in history? Both are valid, and will be further discussed.
In designing a place of commemoration, gardens and landscapes quite significant. Studies have shown that gardens and landscapes play commemorative roles in identity formation (Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2001). Gardens and landscapes not only provide a pathway by the way they are formed and positioned, but offer a place for reflection. Depending on how the gardens and landscapes are perceived is the effect they will have on those are experiencing them. The garden itself can be the narrative that tells about the character, or individual, behind the commemorative site. In the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, gardens as they are linked together, tell about his life as a significant figure. This final design of Roosevelt’s memorial being a series of gardens was not the first. The purpose of this memorial was to commemorate Roosevelt in a way that his persona, his character would be revealed as one journeys through the site. Many designs failed to capture his identity, such as the designs of William F. Pederson and Marcel Breuer. But, the final design, by Lawrence Halprin captured the essence of Roosevelt (Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2001).
The Roosevelt memorial is an exemplary way of defining transition and highlighting
its significance. From the beginning of architecture, space conceptions have
developed. One era is not distinctly defined in its architecture; rather,
it penetrates the next. Although there are three separate space conceptions,
each developed in different moments, they work together to create a complete
architectural design. The first space conception is that of volume, which
is clearly evident in the first civilizations of Mesopotamia and
Transition, from once spatial concept to the next, as seen from the beginnings of architecture, is very similar to the transition and flow of movement with in an actual building, no matter what the type. In the Roosevelt memorial, gardens and pathways lead the procession from the entrance to each room throughout the memorial. Between rooms, there is a gardenesque breathing space. These spaces, whenever they occur between rooms clearly identify meaningful transitions, moments of reflectivity and rest (Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2001). In the Holocaust Memorial, which was not meant to be a narrative itself, but capture a moment in history, the enormous structure of the green hand reaching the sky marks the entrance of the space, from which a landscaped pathway leads one to a hallway that slopes downward, which is then followed by the climax point of the memorial. The slope downward is as if the significant point is physically drawing the visitor to it. It is evident that gardens, landscapes, and sloping techniques set out to guide procession, not only in commemorative sites, but any form of architecture.
Throughout this research, it has been clear that memory influences the establishing of the identity, which influences how history is perceived, which then influences the way it is commemorated. So, it is not far-fetched to conclude that memory to the highest degree influences architecture, whether for the living or the dead. Carlos Scarpa is an exemplary architect who indicates that the life cycle of buildings is based on memories, therefore initiating the concept of built memories. History, geography, and architects from previous generations have influenced him immensely. Commemorative architecture, therefore, whether in the form of monuments, buildings, or exhibitions, is also developed from the very essence of the memory. As Umberto Eco once said,
“Remembering is like constructing and then traveling gain through a space. We are already talking about architecture, from its beginnings, has been one way of fixing memories” (Birksted, 2000).
Bibliography
Birksted, Jan. Landscapes of Memory and Experience. New York: Spon Press, 2000.
Choay, Francoise. The Invention of the Historic Monument. Cambridge: University Press, 2001.
Giedion, Sigfried. Architecture and the Phenomena of Transition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Wolschke-Bulmahn, Joachin. Places of Commemoration: Search for Identity and Landscape Design. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 2001