What’s in a Name? Questions for a New Monument

Margrethe Troensegaard
{"title":"What’s in a Name? Questions for a New Monument","authors":"Margrethe Troensegaard","doi":"10.54533/stedstud.vol004.art10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is the contemporary condition of the monument? In relation to the current issue’s discussion of immersive and discursive exhibition practices, this essay places itself at a slight remove; rather than to analyse and evaluate specific curatorial strategies it seeks to raise questions of relevance to such practices and begins by moving the discourse out of the museum and into the public space. The point of interrogation here is the monument, a form with a particular capacity to tease and expose the triad we find at the core of any curatorial discourse: the relation between institution, artwork and audience. Following an introductory reflection on how to describe and define a ‘monument’, a term so broadly used it all but loses its value, the text proceeds to examine three cases, Monument de la Renaissance Africaine, Dakar (2010), Danh Vo’s WE THE PEOPLE (DETAIL), various locations (2010-13), and Thomas Hirschhorn’s Gramsci Monument, New York (2013). The sequencing of these geographically and culturally diverse works makes way for an interrogatory piece of writing that addresses the question of permanence versus temporariness of the artwork as exhibition (and the exhibition as artwork), and that of the political agency of the artistic form. Probing the social agency of the monument, the text draws lines between the symbolising capacity once held by modern sculpture and the oscillation between immersion and discursiveness as two complimentary modes of communication. The discursive content or function of the monument (i.e. what it commemorates) is activated through the viewer’s personal, immersive encounter with its form, a form that potentially places its viewer as a participant to the construction of its message rather than as a mere receiver.","PeriodicalId":143043,"journal":{"name":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stedelijk Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54533/stedstud.vol004.art10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is the contemporary condition of the monument? In relation to the current issue’s discussion of immersive and discursive exhibition practices, this essay places itself at a slight remove; rather than to analyse and evaluate specific curatorial strategies it seeks to raise questions of relevance to such practices and begins by moving the discourse out of the museum and into the public space. The point of interrogation here is the monument, a form with a particular capacity to tease and expose the triad we find at the core of any curatorial discourse: the relation between institution, artwork and audience. Following an introductory reflection on how to describe and define a ‘monument’, a term so broadly used it all but loses its value, the text proceeds to examine three cases, Monument de la Renaissance Africaine, Dakar (2010), Danh Vo’s WE THE PEOPLE (DETAIL), various locations (2010-13), and Thomas Hirschhorn’s Gramsci Monument, New York (2013). The sequencing of these geographically and culturally diverse works makes way for an interrogatory piece of writing that addresses the question of permanence versus temporariness of the artwork as exhibition (and the exhibition as artwork), and that of the political agency of the artistic form. Probing the social agency of the monument, the text draws lines between the symbolising capacity once held by modern sculpture and the oscillation between immersion and discursiveness as two complimentary modes of communication. The discursive content or function of the monument (i.e. what it commemorates) is activated through the viewer’s personal, immersive encounter with its form, a form that potentially places its viewer as a participant to the construction of its message rather than as a mere receiver.
名字里有什么?新纪念碑的问题
纪念碑的当代状况如何?在当前关于沉浸式和话语式展览实践的讨论中,本文将自己置于一个稍微偏离的位置;它不是分析和评估具体的策展策略,而是试图提出与此类实践相关的问题,并从将话语从博物馆转移到公共空间开始。这里的审问点是纪念碑,它是一种特殊的形式,可以戏弄和揭露我们在任何策展话语的核心中发现的三位一体:机构、艺术品和观众之间的关系。在对如何描述和定义“纪念碑”(一个如此广泛使用但失去其价值的术语)的介绍反思之后,本文继续研究三个案例,达喀尔(2010)的非洲文艺复兴纪念碑,Danh Vo的WE the PEOPLE (DETAIL),不同地点(2010-13),以及Thomas Hirschhorn的葛兰西纪念碑,纽约(2013)。这些具有地理和文化多样性的作品的顺序为一篇质疑性的文章铺平了道路,该文章解决了作为展览的艺术作品(以及作为艺术作品的展览)的永久性与临时性的问题,以及艺术形式的政治代理的问题。探索纪念碑的社会代理,文本在现代雕塑曾经拥有的象征能力和沉浸和话语作为两种互补的交流模式之间的振荡之间画了线。纪念碑的话语内容或功能(即它纪念的是什么)是通过观众个人的、沉浸式的与它的形式的接触而激活的,这种形式潜在地将观众作为信息构建的参与者,而不仅仅是接受者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信