This paper proposes a comparative examination between antiquity and the contemporary of behaviors concerning the destruction of sculpted memory: from the demolition of statues, the cancellation of epigraphs, up to the use of colored paint on monuments as forms of protest. Today, unlike in the past, not everyone has the tools to decode the portrayed imagery and yet we continue both to erect new statues and memorials, and to demolish, condemn and remove others from the past. Is it possible to compare damnatio, the ancient condemnation of memory to oblivion, with the forms of contemporary protests? Statues, plaques and memorials represent a large part of the material heritage created to materialize and celebrate collective memories, symbols and values; the statues should speak in the relative present and be bearers of a message which, once implored, should serve to last over time, to say who we are or, at least, to make people say who we have been but, when they are disowned by decree, when they are removed because they have lost their ability to communicate over time or, like today, are “outraged” for ideological reasons, can these behaviors themselves be considered cultural uses that communities make of their monuments in their relative present?
La damnatio e la contestazione della memoria, il counter-heritage tra antico e contemporaneo.
Michele Scafuro
2023-01-01
Abstract
This paper proposes a comparative examination between antiquity and the contemporary of behaviors concerning the destruction of sculpted memory: from the demolition of statues, the cancellation of epigraphs, up to the use of colored paint on monuments as forms of protest. Today, unlike in the past, not everyone has the tools to decode the portrayed imagery and yet we continue both to erect new statues and memorials, and to demolish, condemn and remove others from the past. Is it possible to compare damnatio, the ancient condemnation of memory to oblivion, with the forms of contemporary protests? Statues, plaques and memorials represent a large part of the material heritage created to materialize and celebrate collective memories, symbols and values; the statues should speak in the relative present and be bearers of a message which, once implored, should serve to last over time, to say who we are or, at least, to make people say who we have been but, when they are disowned by decree, when they are removed because they have lost their ability to communicate over time or, like today, are “outraged” for ideological reasons, can these behaviors themselves be considered cultural uses that communities make of their monuments in their relative present?I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
