Holocaust Memorial Analysis

Pierre Nora defines site of memory (lieu de memoire) ‘any significant entity, […] which by dint of human will or the work of time has become a symbolic element of the memorial heritage of any community’. By this understanding it is apparent that Carinthia has attempted to commemorate the victims of national socialism by creating such memorials. All memorials have a utility and are not merely ‘something by which the memory of a person, thing, or event is preserved’, they are also representative of the perception of the event at the time the memorial was built. Over the passing of time, then, a memorial may also reveal societal understandings of the past: is the memorial cared for, does it become overlooked or desecrated? James M. Mayo argues that there has been a rise in demand for memorials that provide both a community service as well as symbolic and aesthetic meaning. …show more content…
The counter-memorial refuses ‘to turn the memory of something so grave to exhibitions of public craftsmanship or cheap pathos.’ In Carinthia, however, the majority of Holocaust memorials remain shrines (‘traditional memorials’) and not counter-memorials. These ‘traditional memorials’ are rejected by artists of counter-memorials for sealing the memory off for contemporaries as they merely ‘console viewers, redeem tragic events, attempt a Wiedergutmachung or purport to mend the memory of a murdered people.’ These memorials in Carinthia, therefore, primarily emphasize a sacredness and redemption – there is a lack of utility, which may render the memorial