What are the ethics of skateboarding in a death camp or over graves of people that died fighting fascists? What's the skateability of Dachau? Does Treblinka need a half pipe so it's not forgotten?

trivializing their purpose and the suffering they represent is selfish, the act of skateboarding on these monuments is deeply troubling

Nice website, nice article, kudos.

When I first saw an image of the Taj Mahal, I had no idea it is a memorial, I thought/assumed it was a classical temple akin to the Parthenon. At least as a kid growing up in California it seemed classic but also abstract and alien compared to the strict right angles, rectangular platforms and formulaic columns of similarly revered but much older European/Mediterranean structures.

I don’t think it’s evident what the Taj Mahal or Arc du Triomphe commemorate from their form, either.

An obvious counterexample to this which speaks to the power of abstract art as a memorial is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial by Maya Lin which is an incredibly powerful piece of abstract public memorial art, and very near the Lincoln memorial so well worth a visit for anyone who finds themselves in that part of Washington DC. I personally admire Lincoln greatly but of the two I found visiting the Vietnam Veterans memorial a far more moving experience.

Secondly I would say the fact that they provoke thought about what they represent (rather than say Mount Rushmore in particular which is a profoundly superficial public monument) is precisely part of the value of abstract art. The Lincoln Memorial says Lincoln was a great man. OK cool. Anyone who has studied American history knows that.

I don’t know about that - do you know which triumph the Arc de Triomphe commemorates? Isn’t it just as much seen in a meme form as an example of just ‘grand classical European architecture’, divorced from its Napoleonic imperialistic origins and not considered in terms of the fact that the French defeat of Russia and Austria at Austerlitz, at the cost of thousands of lives, and leading to the fall of Vienna, which it was commissioned for, was not a politically neutral event.

Does the fact that the French tomb of the unknown soldier from World War I was created beneath it change the meaning of the arch?

It seems to me it’s a pretty complex, abstract object whose story isn’t easily reduced to a simple meme either.

Kind of true, but those are bad examples. Wait, is Taj Mahal a monument, not a palace? Also Mount Rushmore relies on knowing the faces on it, otherwise one might assume it’s some local car dealers. Arc de Triumph is actually abstract, how would you know its purpose if you don’t know the context?

You can just as easily interpret this as the power of non-representational art to express and deal with the incomprehensible. In this case it distinguishes these from simply monuments to great leaders or the dead of some glorious battle.

Perhaps that was intentional, or came from a collective subconscious desire to commemorate, yet also to forget and move on.

Interwar abstract art such as cubism had twisted and distorted figures, some was a reaction to the twisted and broken bodies of the veterans of WW1. Hitler hated that style of art because he saw it as disparaging veterans, war-glorifier as he was.

It would make sense that a ‘progressive’ regime would want to break with traditionalism and create its own novel style of monument. You see this trend in a lot of postwar aesthetic movements, like the failed housing projects of modernism. They don’t glorify anything; they exist imposingly and have a strong bias to function. Yet this itself is dehumanizing in its own way.

Tl;dr: traditional aesthetics glorify the nation and the state, including its human flaws. Abstract art tends to dehumanize itself as a way to avoid these flaws, especially in the wake of major human catastrophes.

The Soviet and Fascist styles of art which glorified the party and its base straddles both sides.

The guy refers to himself in the third person? Lmao.

[flagged]

This all depends on what is meant by “fascism” and “mainstream.” The author seems to have viewed immigration restrictions as fascist.

It seems like it would be better to discuss immigration policy and enforcement directly (when someone wants to do that) rather than having meta-discussions about what category it belongs in.

And yes, I am aware that in Croatia there was actual Fascism complete with camps and everything around WWII times. And yes those other countries in the list also rounded up groups of people into camps at the same time period, but I would not have called what the US, Britain, and France did Fascist or mainstream back then, and I'm not aware of anything like it today.

Deportation operations and camps in the UK:

https://www.rescue.org/uk/article/rwanda-plan-explained-why-...

https://www.gov.uk/immigration-removal-centre

The way I interpreted that sentence is not that fascism was established and flourishing back in 2016 when this was written, but rather that the fascist ideals and concepts were being openly pushed without (enough) sanction by the mainstream.

The reason why I interpret it that way is simple: when fascists are actually in power, there's no such thing as "mainstream" anymore. Authoritarian rule means that there's only one correct way of thinking and behaving, and everything else is a crime or heresy or "evil", depending on the specific flavor of authoritarianism. "Mainstream", on the other hand, implies that there are other views and that they can be discussed.

In Croatia there arent any camps and the country is very peaceful. However there are plenty of neo-Nazis, especially amongst football supporters and even some political groups (part of the government). There are also some people that the government is too affraid to touch, given their war veteran status and public popularity. In the article bellow is a photo of one such person, called Marko Skejo. The picture tells a thousand words

https://www.index.hr/mobile/vijesti/clanak/video-skejo-i-hos...

The U.S. is absolutely creating deportation camps, and there's a national zeal for evicting people here. It's, unfortunately, bipartisan.

The conditions in U.S. camps are dire, children sleeping on bloody straw, smeared with feces. Families separated. Food, water, and shelter inadequate to sustain life in the deserts where these camps are.

In Britain, the attitude is similar pro deportation, but the refugees aren't put into camps as far as I know. However, the buildings that they are in have been subject to attacks and arson.

The "once again" probably refers to both the historical mainstream opinion that Japanese migrants should be moved to concentration camps within the U.S., and of course the mainstream beliefs in Nazi Germany.

(Note, I'm not trying to draw any parallels between any of these camps. Please don't infer that I'm calling anyone nazis except the nazis. These examples can all exist and be over the threshold of "cruel" without needing to be compared to one another.)

It bothers me more than it should that he calls them "spomeniks", because that's literally just a word meaning "monument" in the local languages.

It's like someone going "did you know American monuments are known as monuments locally?"

I agree. If you're familiar with the author this is quite typical of his output.

Yeah what’s the name for this accusatory tone highbrow clickbait? There’s a companion article on the shame you should feel about “ruin porn” because surely you feel “desire to gloat over the decomposing corpse of the West’s former Communist enemy.”

I can say I’ve never felt that but have enjoyed the sort of x-ray view you get of the structure sometimes + imagining what it was like at full splendor. To me it’s a combined feeling of wonder and loss.

"ancient hatreds" is a readily-reachable trope in such contexts but it obscures far more than it clarifies. Plus in most such cases, it's usually oversimplifying and inaccurate to the point where it's best avoided. Ancient hatreds didn't cause, say, the Ustaše.

Chris Marshall from New York Oblast :)

I'll bite, how long?

> socialist art from the rest. Totalitarian regimes are totalitarian even when they are communist.

Setting aside the fact that socialism and communism are not exactly the same thing, this simplification of yours is wrong.

Would you say that the Colosseum, the Altare della Patria, and the obelisk with the inscription 'Dux' referring to Mussolini, all monuments that can still be visited in Rome today, are the same thing because they were all built long before Italy was a democratic Republic?

The referenced tweet: https://x.com/Tormny_Pickeals/status/965640850578575362

> Black Panther was a fine movie but its politics were a bit iffy. wouldve been way better if at the end the Black Panther turned to the camera & said "i am communist now" & then specified hes the exact kind of communist i am

I'm guessing that's the sr., not the hr. version? (certainly not the en.)

PS. looking at the girl who accompanies Mme Dion from taxi to stage at the start of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1CwpCNThO4 : was her outfit a yugoslav school uniform?