We don’t need another hero

My impression of the excursion was paradoxically less a visual than an auditory one, which is also the primary reason why I decided not to upload a photo and instead leave the space free with a 'placeholder'. The catchy Tina Turner song 'We don't need another hero' accompanied me throughout the day, and now it's coming to the fore again as soon as I start working on the assignment. The title alone already suggests an anti-heroic attitude and does not really need to be explained any further. The question of who should be considered a hero from a historical point of view and who should not was a central theme in the preparatory materials for the excursion as well as during the trip. Controversies about monuments became clear, but above all the vulnerability of (under)represented groups. It is a more than sensitive topic and it seems that no matter who or what is depicted or represented, a monument can never do justice to all. It is often emotional debates instead of constructive disputes that the artist Steve Locke describes as follows:

„The problem is that these discussions are almost never about art or even memory. They are about communities that feel unrepresented. That’s not a problem a memorial can fix and artists get vilified for not answering the community.“

For the future, a new question for monuments could be derived from this: Do we truly need another hero? Or are there other forms of representation that can extend a commemoration to a wider group of people by allowing abstract representations? The debate is not a novelty in this sense, but the answer to the question on the other hand remains timeless.

The more exciting I thought were the questions on the sheet concerning a different way of dealing with already existing monuments. The questions encouraged not to abolish monuments per se, but rather to ask for a different way of interacting with them. If we now consider the Henry Ward Beecher monument in Columbus Park, the observed intuitive reaction of passers-by makes it clear that a negative connotation of representation predominates, although the opposite was intended with the artifact. Accordingly, letting the monument 'speak' for itself does not work. Contextualization is something that could be done in a variety of ways, such as a plaque or QR code, but it is also pointless in the sense that these efforts, like the monument itself, are generally given little attention. Thus, to bring the monument more into the consciousness of a society, written contextualization is not adequate. All the more interesting then, for example, is the approach of Fred Wilson’s Mind Forged Manacles/Manacle Forged Minds. The artist enables an interactive encounter with his installation and consequently an active exchange, even if at first glance I might also have found this work controversial. Another artistic approach is described by the artist Krzystof Wodiczko, who overlays monuments of past times with video productions that allow for other narratives and in this way enables a multi-layered and therewith multi-perspective opening. Perhaps it is precisely through multimedia reappraisal that there is an enriching opportunity to bring monuments that are geographically distant from one another into relation and into conversation with one another. But the basic idea of written contextualization should not be dismissed too hastily either, because this element contributes likewise to a sustainable culture of remembrance and represents an important complement to interactive realizations.

So when Tina Turner postulates that we don't need another hero, there's a lot of truth to that, but above all, this statement is based, in a figurative sense, on the demand that we're moving in a different age and that traditional practices don't gain legitimacy just because they're said to be traditional. With this in mind, there is a need for new, participatory practices that do justice not only to monuments, but also to a society in the here and now.