According to Bruno Zevi, the Italian Memorial housed at Block 21 of the Auschwitz concentration camp is among the most significant works of contemporary architecture. Recently, it has become the focus of a political and cultural conflict that is itself worthy of study. The memorial was designed as a post-war symbol of the anti-Fascist movement. It is thus heavily influenced by the politics of the Resistance, which characterized the First Republic and influenced the Italian Constitution. However, this sort of politics is incompatible with the post-Berlin-Wall narrative that the Museum of Auschwitz on the international level, along with various Italian governments on the national level, have decided to promote in the twenty-first century. Yet the Italian Memorial is an integral part of the World Heritage UNESCO site at Auschwitz, and its removal or transfer elsewhere, besides constituting a loss for Italian cultural identity, would also vitiate and downgrade the history of Auschwitz. This study looks at the memorial in terms of the discipline of conservation, applying principles elaborated by the Vienna School (Alois Riegl and Max Dvořák) to show how new exhibitions for the pavilions threaten to transform Auschwitz from a monument and historical document into a museum-style fairground, and to reveal the political motivation behind claims of the Memorial’s contemporary irrelevance.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Elisabetta Ruffini, “La questione,” in Studi e ricerche di storia contemporanea, 17–19. See also Cesare de Seta, “Salviamo la nostra memoria di Auschwitz,” L’Espresso, March 10, 2011, and Serena Maffioletti, “Il memoriale dimenticato: A rischio in Polonia l’opera di Lodovico Belgiojoso nella baracca 21,” Il Giornale dell’Architettura 97 (August–September 2011): 9.
Alois Riegl, Moderne Denkmalkultus: sein Wesen und seine Entstehung (Vienna and Leipzig: Braumüller, 1903), 1–2; translated as “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin” (1903), trans. Kurt W. Forster and Diane Ghirardo, Oppositions 25 (1982): 21–23. See also Sandro Scarrocchia, ed., Il culto moderno dei monumenti (Milan: Abscondita, 2011).
See J. Krawczyk, “Przedmiot i podmiot działalności konserwatorskiej w świetle poglądów Aloisa Riegla,” Studia dedykowane pamięci prof. Jerzego Remera (Torún: UMK, 2010) 111–13.
See Sandro Scarrocchia, “Il Memoriale italiano e le ragioni della conservazione in 10 tesi,” in Il Memoriale italiano di Auschwitz, ed. Ingarao, 41–50; Sandro Scarrocchia, “ ‘Block 21’ in Auschwitz. Wie die Kunst der Gegenwart den Denkmalbegriff fördert und neue Denkmalwerte postuliert,” in DENKmalWERTE. Beitrage zur Theorie und Aktualität der Denkmalpflege. Georg Mörsch zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Hans-Rudolph Meier and Ingrid Scheurmann (Berlin, Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2010), 135–148; and Sandro Scarrocchia, “Il Memoriale italiano nel Blocco 21 di Auschwitz: Come l’arte contemporanea amplia il concetto di monumento e postula nuovi valori per la conservazione,” in Memoria identità luogo. Il progetto della memoria, ed. Davide Borsa (Maggioli Editore, 2012), 239–68.
Luca Zevi, Conservazione dell’avvenire (Macerata: Quodlibet, 2011).
Primo Levi, “To the Visitor” in The Black Hole of Auschwitz, ed. by Marco Belpoliti (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005), 71–72.
Elena Pirazzoli, “Le memorie dei luoghi,” Il Memoriale italiano di Auschwitz e il Cantiere Blocco 21, Quaderni di ‘Ananke 1 (2009): 82–85.
Pirazzoli, “Il trauma e la cura. Guerra, deportazione e sterminio per alcuni artisti ‘sopravissuti,’ ” in La vicenda del Memoriale italiano di Auschwitz, 64–73.
See, for example, Cesare Brandi, Teoria del Restauro (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letterature, 1963).
David Bidussa, “I conflitti tra memorie e il disagio di scrivere la storia,” in La vicenda del Memoriale italiano di Auschwitz, 44–60.
Marzia Lupi, “La riflessione della Fondazione dell’ex Campo di Fossoli,” in La vicenda del Memoriale italiano di Auschwitz, 77–80.
Pietro Violante, “Ricorda cosa ti hanno fatto ad Auschwitz,” in Il Memoriale italiano di Auschwitz, ed. Ingarao, 35–40.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 327 | 55 | 7 |
Full Text Views | 96 | 3 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 7 | 0 |
According to Bruno Zevi, the Italian Memorial housed at Block 21 of the Auschwitz concentration camp is among the most significant works of contemporary architecture. Recently, it has become the focus of a political and cultural conflict that is itself worthy of study. The memorial was designed as a post-war symbol of the anti-Fascist movement. It is thus heavily influenced by the politics of the Resistance, which characterized the First Republic and influenced the Italian Constitution. However, this sort of politics is incompatible with the post-Berlin-Wall narrative that the Museum of Auschwitz on the international level, along with various Italian governments on the national level, have decided to promote in the twenty-first century. Yet the Italian Memorial is an integral part of the World Heritage UNESCO site at Auschwitz, and its removal or transfer elsewhere, besides constituting a loss for Italian cultural identity, would also vitiate and downgrade the history of Auschwitz. This study looks at the memorial in terms of the discipline of conservation, applying principles elaborated by the Vienna School (Alois Riegl and Max Dvořák) to show how new exhibitions for the pavilions threaten to transform Auschwitz from a monument and historical document into a museum-style fairground, and to reveal the political motivation behind claims of the Memorial’s contemporary irrelevance.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 327 | 55 | 7 |
Full Text Views | 96 | 3 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 39 | 7 | 0 |