Suchergebnisse

A good number of authors and theorists dealing with heritage and memory claim that organized oblivion is largely present in the society, so one might conclude accordingly that every society consciously forgets. The carriers or executors of this project of oblivion often seek to erase the entire memory of an "enemy" by destroying heritage, thus seeking to force those who have inherited and preserved it to forget it. In this article, I have sought to point out that historical artefacts are part of the process of social oblivion, which also raises the following question or topic: can history be constructed and reconstructed from the history of amnesia, rather than the history of memory? The process of "facing loss, that is destruction" is still in its infancy as a heritage practice and policy, and often limited to acknowledging the problem rather than responding to it. The salvage paradigm that permeates the heritage discourse is fundamentally based on a system that implies, at the same time, the sacrifice and loss of less valuable cultural achievements in order to protect and conserve the more valued ones. These questions and dilemmas are fundamentally political and boil down to the decision which stories/objects to preserve, celebrate and remember, and which to forget. Illustrating the concepts of destruction and oblivion on the examples of devastated Zadar, Split's Peristyle, the Old Bridge in Mostar, and finally the anti-fascist monuments, I have sought to indicate and establish that places of absence can also be places of memory, and that heritage is performative in its nature. Historical buildings are not meaningful and significant inherently, in themselves, but become significant only when they are socially construed through a performative act. ; Dobar dio autora i teoretičara koji se bave baštinom i memorijom tvrdi da je organizirani zaborav u velikoj mjeri prisutan u društvu, pa bismo, shodno tomu, mogli zaključiti da svako društvo svjesno zaboravlja. Nositelji ili izvršitelji projekta zaborava često nastoje izbrisati čitavo sjećanje "neprijatelja" destrukcijom baštine čime se želi prisiliti one koji ih baštine i čuvaju da ih zaborave. U ovom članku nastojat ću uputiti na to da povijesni artefakti sačinjavaju dio procesa društvenog zaborava što ujedno otvara i sljedeće pitanje-temu: može li se povijest konstruirati i rekonstruirati iz povijesti amnezije, a ne povijesti memorije? Proces "suočavanja s gubitkom, tj. destrukcijom" u baštinskoj je praksi i politici još uvijek u povojima i češće se odnosi na priznavanje problema nego na sam odgovor na problem. Paradigma spasitelja koja prožima baštinski diskurs je fundamentalno utemeljena na sustavu koji podjednako implicira žrtvovanje i gubitak manje vrijednih kulturnih ostvarenja nasuprot zaštiti i konzervaciji više vrijednih ostvarenja. Ova pitanja i dileme su fundamentalno politički i svode se na odluku: koje priče/objekte očuvati, slaviti i zapamtiti, a koje zaboraviti? Objašnjavajući pojmove destrukcije i zaborava na primjerima porušenog Zadra, splitskog Peristila, Starog mosta u Mostaru i, naposljetku, antifašističkih spomenika, pokušala sam uputiti i utvrditi da i mjesta odsutnosti mogu biti mjestima memorije, te da je baština po svojoj prirodi performativna. Povijesne građevine, naime, nisu same po sebi inherentno smislene i bitne, već postaju važne samo onda kad su društveno konstruirane kroz performativni čin.