Key Pages:

Home

Discussion Questions

Brittany:

I am very interested in Papalexandrou's connection of walls and buildings that use spolia as "virtual museum" (59). In a way spoliation puts particular objects on display with a purpose much like a museum. Can we therefore analyze the decision process or choosing of certain fragments as a mimicry of curatorial decisions? If so does this transformation of a building or wall into a museum limit or enable the sites ability to depict memory? Are there specific circumstances that this method of remembering is not effective?

Alex:

The question of authenticity often comes up during class discussion and, for me, this week’s readings really brought into the focus the importance of authenticity. This idea was particularly central to Elsner’s article “From the Culture of Spoliai to the cult of Relics: The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of later Antique Forms” which explores Cosntantine’s desire for originals, not copies of the objects he inserted into his own structures. Elsner states “In effect, the Arch of Constantine collects around the Emperor the images of his distinguished predecessors into whose very forms he has been merged by replacing their features with his own”(158). Constantine was literally replacing his predecessors with himself as a tool to show his authentic connection to their powerful rule. There is a long history of rulers incorporating other cultures and past Ruler’s objects, however when the object is moved from its original location, often ripped from the actually structure that it was meant to adorn or support, does it remain authentic in its new context? In the case of Constantine, when the object was altered to fit its new function, did it remain authentic? Is this use of objects to authenticate legitimacy of power and rule successful?

One often finds temple, statues, fragments, etc. separated from their original structures and placed in museums. Is this the modern equivalence of Spolia? Is this placement of objects authentic? Power groups in many modern day countries seem to often associate themselves with past civilizations. Can one hypothesize that museums are the new “Arch of Constantine” in the sense that they provide a space to display the connection of the current civilization to ancient power and rule?

Posted at Nov 09/2011 11:39PM:

Lia:

1. With examples of Arch of Constantine and his Mausoleum, Elsner discussed two of Constantine's methods of reusing spolia: conflating (recutting his own head into the bodies of other good emperors), and supplementing (burying himself besides the twelve apostles, as the thirteenth). At the very end of the article, Elsner concluded that the former method has "given way to" the later. I think this word choice was based on two assumptions/facts: a. the construction of the Mausoleum took place long after that of the Arch of Constantine, implying the change in the emperor's aesthetic over time. b. the emperor was more fond of his Christian lineage than his Roman lineage in his later days. But does it also have something to do with the different natures of the spolia? At the same time that they legitimize their rule with honorific lineage and pay respect for ancestors, it was not uncommon for ancient emperors to project themselves as the greatest emperor ever, surpassing their ancestors. Therefore recutting was used for imperial propaganda. But when it comes to truthful religious or spiritual belief (not just for political purposes), we rarely see believers place themselves above the venerated religious figures, or in the place of them.

2. The story of selling fragments of Berlin Wall in clip-cards was really interesting. According to Van der Hoorn, people purchase fragments to become active performers in destructing the Wall, to make the past history personal and tangible. If the state of New York authorizes selling clip-cards with ashes/fragments of the World Trade Center, would there also be a successful business? If not and people oppose to the idea, what's the difference between the Berlin Wall and the World Trade Center? Is it because fragments of WTC could only make owners a witness at most, instead of performers? Or is it because the different meaning of the two historical events associated?

If people like the idea and are willing to purchase clip-cards of WTC, what about the three-day 911 trip that we talked about in class before? Family of victims reacted to these tours because they capitalize on the loss of others. Are clip-cards of the same nature? Or is it more acceptable because it is more like commemoration on a personal level?

Posted at Nov 10/2011 12:53AM:
katerina:

Re-contextualizing an architectural fragment obviously adds a new episode to its cultural biography. But this act can be destructive as well as constructive. Too many moves, too many alterations, and we start to lose evidence of the original thing. Striking the proper balance between salutary neglect and loving a thing to death can be tricky. Still, display incites contemplation, keeps memory fresh and dialogue going. For this reason I would usually support use and display over complete hands-off preservation.

Our readings presented different approaches to spolia, what intents can we discern in use and reuse? In re-appropriating a thing you are privileging your use and interpretation of it over the state you found it in. There must be a purpose. Focusing on one example: I find the notion that Van der Hoorn sets forth fascinating. With the Berlin Wall and with Prora, are people interested in the material fragments because they give them a sense of power over past events in which they had felt minuscule, possibly threatened, passive?

I am thrilled that tectonics has been brought up. Do you agree that spolia and the appreciation of the old has a lot to do with the aura, the atmosphere of place that these things create? Sensation, the immediate impression of materials and scale; I feel that (art) historians don’t dwell enough on these factors as considerations in the design process and in our pedestrian interactions with built structures, that they overemphasize the ideas, ideals, and representative potential of objects. Thoughts?

_________

Kirah Nelson:

This week I became most interested in the inherent power oftext in Byzantine architecture as discussed by Papalexandrou. The slow erasureof understanding between text and what Papalexandrou terms the “averagebeholder” contrasts the cultural importance of inscribed text; it becomes analmost deliberate ignorance which refuses to acknowledge content, such as paganinscriptions or art, while embracing the antique nature of the text and viewingspoila as a connection to one’s ancestors. It made me consider modern practicesof commemoration which recognize one version of the past over another. Forexample, Christian humanitarian organizations which give freely of aid andrelief in the face of natural and human disaster fulfill Christian ideals by helpingthe poor and downtrodden, so to speak, but fail to recognize this sameChristian code of ethics as the former justification of imperialism. Colonizationfor many now free nations prompted political and cultural subjugation as wellas a series of social structures which can be considered partially responsible forthe current political atmosphere in which disasters such as genocide andpoverty must be reversed. Developing a public discourse to discuss thesehistorical contradictions or even an exploration of the nuances of various importantcultural institutions remains rare.  Whatother modern examples can you think of in which the understanding of something culturallyimportant becomes vague in favor of erasing certain aspects of its past?