ArgumentNo. 2/2010

Contemporary typology of the memory dedicated spaces. Heritage vs contemporary interventions.


In the current conditions of contemporary societies beeing in full process of “globalization, democratization, massification and media”, we find mutations in the historical past as memory. So it apears in a institutionalized form, surpassing its previous form of memory existence, individual or collective one.

Under a institutionalized form, called generic heritage, are assigned a number of items considered relevant for the past of a society, nation, community, etc. So it appears a new dimension of memory, as duty-memory, together with the notion of heritage introduction. Under this notion, historicist Pierra Nora says that almost any artifact related to the past could be introduced. At the same time, exposure in public space ensures social contact of the present to the past, but also we should remark, the fragmented and individual perception of the heritage, according to personal cultural background.

Peter Eisenman talks about history as a memory generator factor:

“History is not continuous. It consists of beginnings and endings, the presence and ansence. These are the moments when history is vital, when its flow feeds from its own sap and generates itself the necessary energy. The absence is represented by the moments in which the organism that propels it is dead, by the holes between the two successive events of the history. These holes are to be filled with memory. When history ends, memory is installing.” (in introduction to Aldo Rossi, „The Architecture of the City”).