The The Sense of Loss in Memorial Spaces: 'Absence' vs. 'Presence'
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2024.25.13Keywords:
Memorial parks, Presence, Absence, Sensory Perception, MemoryAbstract
In recent years, memorial parks have garnered increased attention as spaces for public commemoration and individual reflection. However, despite their growing significance, many contemporary memorials have been criticised for over-reliance on abstraction and a lack of tangible connections to memory, limiting their ability to engage visitors’ perspectives effectively. This research explores the interplay of presence and absence in the design of memorial parks, focusing on their role in engaging visitors’ sensory perceptions and fostering emotional connections to memory. Through an analysis of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the 9/11 Memorial, this research identifies and
categorises four standard design methods that utilise presence and absence to evoke reflection and remembrance. In this context, presence refers to visual or audible elements, such as reflections and repetition. At the same time, absence encompasses inaudible and invisible features like negative space and cut-outs. These methods operate not as isolated elements but within a dynamic continuum where presence and absence blend and transition, creating spaces that resonate with individual and collective memories of loss. By examining the application of these design methods in both case studies, this paper elucidates how memorial landscapes can evoke a profound sense of loss, providing visitors with a space to confront and reflect upon historical trauma. This analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of the fluid boundaries between presence and absence in commemorative design, offering insights into how these concepts can be employed to enhance the emotional and sensory engagement of memorial spaces.
References
1. Allen, M., & Brown, S. (2011). Embodiment and living memorials: The affective labour of remembering the 2005 London bombings. Memory Studies, 4, 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698011402574
2. Baptist, K. (2013). Reenchanting memorial landscapes. Landscape Journal, 32, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.32.1.35
3. Broudehoux, A., & Cheli, G. (2021). Beyond starchitecture: The shared architectural language of urban memorial spaces. European Planning Studies, 30, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1931665
4. Casey, E. S. (1996). The fate of place: A philosophical history. University of California Press, 214.
5. Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambridge University Press, 88-95.
6. Davey, P. (1989). The Grand Louvre. Architectural Review, 186, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0033.1994.tb01185.x
7. Dimitropoulos, H. . (2009). The character of contemporary memorials. Places Forum of Design for the Public Realm, 21(1), 52-55.
8. Dwyer, O., & Alderman, D. (2008). Memorial landscapes: analytic questions and metaphors. GeoJournal, 73, 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10708-008-9201-5.
9. Hobbs, R. (2014). A place to mourn: Why the Vietnam Veterans
Memorial is crucial to American healing. DLR, 1, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.33043/dlr.1.0.60-67
10. Korzilius, L. (2022). The Vietnam Veterans Memorial – Presenting the Unpresentable. Proceedings of the International Conference of Contemporary Affairs in Architecture and Urbanism-ICCAUA, 5(1), 523–541. https://doi.org/10.38027/ICCAUA2022EN0014
11. Lojan, R., & Kremarik, F. (2022). Merleau-Ponty’s Relational Responsibility in the Work of Leading Ethicists Lisa S. Cahill and Eva F. Kittay. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Reformata Transylvanica, 67(2), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbtref.67.2.04
12. Mccarter, R. , & Pallasmaa, J. . (2012). Understanding architecture : a primer on architecture as experience. Phaidon Press, 143.
13. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (C. Smith, Trans.). Routledge, 123. (Original work published 1945)
14. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1974). Existence, space and architecture. New York: Praeger, 120.
15. Pallasmaa, J. (2012). The eyes of the skin. Chichester:Wiley, 35.
16. Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Empathic imagination: Formal and experiential projection. Architectural Design, 84, 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1812
17. Pallasmaa, J. (2014). Space, place and atmosphere: Emotion and peripherical perception in architectural experience. Lebenswelt: Aesthetics and Philosophy of Experience, Lebenswelt, 4.1, 230-245. https://doi.org/10.13130/2240-9599/4202
18. Park, S., Kim, H., Han, S., & Kwon, Y. (2020). Landscape design methodology as perceived through memory schema with user experience. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 24, 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2019.1651668
19. Smith, C. J. , & Relph, E. . (1976). Place and placelessness. Geographical Review, 68(1), 116.
20. Stevens, Q., & Franck, K. (2015). Memorials as spaces of engagement, London: Routledge, 38. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747002
21. Till, K. (2008). Artistic and activist memory-work: Approaching place-based practice. Memory Studies, 1, 113 - 99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698007083893.
22. Wagoner, B., Brescó, I., & Awad, S. (2019). Experiencing memorials: The materiality of memory. Springer Briefs in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32641-8_7
23. Watkins, N., Cole, F., & Weidemann, S. (2010). The war memorial as healing environment: The psychological effect of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Vietnam War combat veterans’ posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Environment and Behavior, 42, 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510361873
24. Young, J. E. (1993). The Texture of Memory: Holocaust Memorials and Meaning. Yale University Press, 27-52.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
