Memory, History and Kitsch
The New York Times ran an interesting article (click here for the full piece) regarding the debate to tear down Berlin's Palace of the Republic (Palast der Republik), situated in former East Berlin. After World War II, the East German Communist Government tore down the badly damaged Stadtschloss, which, as the palace of the Hohenzollern monarchy, stood for 3 Centuries as a symbol of Prussian superiority and might.
In the 1970's the East German government built the Palace of the Republic as a monument to the East German people, and most important, their party.
After the 1989 reunification, it was closed due to Asbestos contamination, and, as reported in the Times, has been at the center of a great city- and nationwide debate. Is it merely an eyesore, or a reminder of the oppressive East German goverment? Should it be demolished, symbolizing the end of that system and a testament to the new, modern Germany?
What I find so interesting is not only the prevalent desire to tear down the building, as the physical structure represents the transmogrification of socialist ideals, but also the appropriation of the space to represent modernity. As in, using the building to exhibit contemporary art Communists would have found repugnant. It's interesting that we are unable to let monuments to bygone political systems stand in their original context, untouched, and let it speak for itself (see also Eastern European countries tearing down Soviet monuments after the Iron Curtain fell). They must be destroyed or redefined as nostalgic or antique, to prove that, in this case, East Germans have moved beyond their past.
As if the reunification of the two countries wasn't enough.

1 Comments:
I think it would a real shame to tear down this building. First of all, the contrast of this hideous angular building and the beautiful, rounded Berlin cathedral that sits right next to it couldn't be more interesting architecturally or historically.
Secondly, I don't ever believe in tearing down buildings or statues that may symbolize opressive regimes UNLESS there is a real danger that those sites may become highly popular gathering sites for potentially dangerous adherents to whatever ideology they might represent. For instance, I know the german govt tore down some famous prison after Speer died there because they were worried it would become a neo-nazi shrine. Fine, but the greater danger is burying that past by removing these monuments, something that is hard to do in Berlin where even in the past decade they've discovered nazi bunkers during routine construction building. And didn't some old war-time bomb go off in the late 80s when the city was setting up a stage for a Pink Floyd concert?
Anyway, the idea of layers of history is fascinating and something that makes the city unique. One of the most interesting things I saw in Berlin was the old Nazi Aviation Ministry, which then became an important ministry of the GDR, where their constitution was adopted in 1949. The Communists erected a big mural celebrating the adoption of the constitution along one wall of the building. Post-reunification, it houses the Ministry of Finance, and there is now a small memorial to the victims of the East German worker's protest of 1953.
Besides, the very idea of a structure of power fading into a monument highlights the very point that such a regime belongs only to the past. People will pass by it every day, barely noticing it, until some have no idea what it even originally stood for. But I do believe in transforming old structures symbolically. I like the idea of the huge glass dome built atop the Reichstag, to symbolize that there must always be light and transparency at the center of government. We could use something like that...
Alright, I'll stop now, but since this is at least partially a music blog, I recall reading that in the late 80s some famous german singer brought the house down at a concert in this very "people's palace" with the line, "When the wind changes direction, it blows down walls."
Post a Comment
<< Home