Research on meanings of war monumentality differences: By the cases investigated the purpose of monument erection in Kinmen Island and Gettysburg, U.S.A.
Lin, Hui- Wen and Fu, Chao-Ching (2008) Research on meanings of war monumentality differences: By the cases investigated the purpose of monument erection in Kinmen Island and Gettysburg, U.S.A. In: 16th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Finding the spirit of place – between the tangible and the intangible’, 29 sept – 4 oct 2008, Quebec, Canada. [Conference or Workshop Item]
Abstract (in English)
Monumental Architecture signifies the buildings and monuments themselves in situ together with deeper associations which correspond with specific event, and it perpetually and characteristically changes over time and space. This research has started the exploration of the consequences of the two Civil Wars- Battles in Kinmen and the Battle at Gettysburg. They both have shaped two different monumentalities over time and space. War Monumentality holds and shapes in its spirit of place, intangible meanings and associations exposed by actual causes, consequences, and the extent of events to form cultural heritages. Through this paper’s argument it is possible to give rise to a singular hypothesis to memorials/monuments and to add further insight into the public ambitions behind war monumentality. In conclusion, this study asserts that although the war monuments are a consequence of Civil Wars per se, these are nevertheless represent dialectical spirit of places by what they commemorate.
|Item Type:||Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)|
|Keywords:||historic monument; memorial; war; battlefield; spirit of place; intangible heritage|
|Subjects:||O.INTANGIBLE HERITAGE > 01. Generalities
L.PRESENTATION AND TRANSMISSION OF HERITAGE > 10. Other
H.HERITAGE TYPOLOGIES > 09. Historic buildings
|Name of monument, town, site, museum:||Kinmen Island and Gettysburg, USA|
|ICOMOS Special Collection:||Scientific Symposium (ICOMOS General Assemblies)|
|ICOMOS Special Collection Volume:||2008, 16th|
|Depositing User:||Jose Garcia|
|Date Deposited:||02 Sep 2010 12:05|
|Last Modified:||13 Jan 2011 19:11|
|References:||Giedion Siegfried. 1971. The Need for a New Monumentality, in Paul Zucker, New Architecture and City Planning: 549-568, NY, USA.
Giedion Siegfried. et al. 1984 Nine Points on Monumentality1944, Harvard Architecture Review IV: 62-63, The MIT Press, Mass, USA.
Gillis John. ed. 1994. Memory and Identity: The History of a Relationship: 4-9, Princeton University Press, N J, USA.
Harvard University. 1984. Monumentality and the City, The Harvard Architecture Review IV: 9-13, The MIT Press, MA, USA.
ICOMOS. 1964.International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, Venice Charter, Document Centre, UNESCO ICOMOS, Venice, IT.
Petzet Michael. 2003. Place- Memory- Meaning: Preserving Intangible Values in Monuments and Site, ICOMOS14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.
Riegl Aloïs. 1903. The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin, Oppositions, vol.25: 21-35, Kurt Forster ed. Rizzoli, NY, USA.
Winter Jay. 1999. Remembrance and Redemption: A Social Interpretation of War Memorials, Harvard Design Magazine No. 9: 71-77.
Actions (login required)
- HTML Citation
- ASCII Citation
- OpenURL ContextObject
- MPEG-21 DIDL
- EP3 XML
- Dublin Core
- Reference Manager
- Simple Metadata
Downloads per month over past year