The Monument Is Invisible, the Sign Visible

Author(s): Werner Fenz and Maria-Regina Kecht

Source: October, Vol. 48 (Spring, 1989), pp. 75-78
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/778951
Accessed: 22-09-2019 06:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October

This content downloaded from 130.70.8.131 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:33:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Monument is Invisible,
the Sign Visible

WERNER FENZ

translated by MARIA-REGINA KECHT

Robert Musil's remark that a monument is immune to public

"invisible," is an old and hackneyed phrase.' But as it bears on th
public space, the remark gets to the core of the matter, even when t
historical context. His remark is even more apt when the iss
within the broader framework of visual cultural production in ge
two decades. Recent "open air exhibitions," such as portions
Skulptur Projekte in MiInster (1987), Century 87 in Amsterdam,
nese events Freizone Dorotheergasse and Querfeld I, have broug
spaces back to the center of attention. Until recently the traditi
or temporary sculpture parks, from Middelheim and Basel to G
tion only European examples), has been overshadowed by the he
galleries and major exhibition spaces. Even events such as the Ris
art in public places, which has been awarded regularly since 198
hardly any attention from journals or the general public. In Au
interest in "public art" has been kept alive, at least in some places
to small groups of cognoscenti, some of whom have even raised
conception of democracy). There are various examples of su
projects; one of the most controversial and provocative was the
Vienna conference center, and, of course, there was the media debate about the
antifascist monument by Alfred Hrdlicka. The discussions about artistic inter-
vention in an already visually polluted urban space are, in fact, political. They are
political, intensely so, because suddenly an area of creative potential that has
traditionally belonged to museums and galleries now escapes their control and
establishes itself in places where different norms have been in effect for a long
time: namely, in the world of urban renovation and restoration, of the postmo-
dern, functional architecture of banks, insurance companies, and government

1. Robert Musil, "Denkmale," in Gesammelte Werke (appearing in volumes classified by prose,

dramas, and letters), Hamburg, 1957, pp. 480-483. Quoted in Hans-Ernst Mittig, "Das Denkmal,"
in Eine Geschichte der Kunst im Wandel ihrer Funktionen, vol. II, Munich, Funkkolleg Kunst series,
1987, p. 532.

This content downloaded from 130.70.8.131 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:33:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
76 OCTOBER

buildings -gov
garde, because
course, the p
After all, the
ing people, ad
objects would
"system" thro
supposedly fu
these things i
repeated. It is
is claimed to h
such conventi
ever, on the l
arena of artis
series of misu
On the one
fiction of a pu
interests, so t
Weibel, buildi
The space lef
of state and
question, for
tent to which
patible with
logo-terror a
over public s
rights which

On the other
occupy public
adhere to con
public space. A
In 1985 Eber
welded toget
gymnasium o
plates form
invisibly scr
impression t

2. Peter Weibel
Skuipturen," in F

This content downloaded from 130.70.8.131 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:33:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Monument is Invisible, the Sign Visible 77

ture constitutes a carefully designed unity with the bas

nizes well with the background of the gym roof, provi
angle for a photograph is chosen correctly. If one looks
ture from the school yard, its signifying function is ab
cause, in that case, the well designed trash cans and ligh
dominate. The symbolic message of the sculpture d
across; it merely refers to itself-as a modern museum p

As this example suggests, there is a difference only

degree between the seahorse fountain and the abstract sculp
mind the function of a "public work of art," and this (mis)p
found in entire exhibitions in open spaces, particularly in u
be a matter of using art to make up for some aspect of the u
as a counterpoint; nor can it be a matter of assigning art so
merely placing it - without roof or walls- in front of or ne
or by forcing it into the remaining free space, which, in fa
by the urban "furniture" mentioned above. And it can sure
purpose of such presentations to turn the perceptual realm
which, even when opened, is ultimately hermetically closed.
in a clearly defined public space must be related to that spac
form and its contents, its appearance and its stance from t
action, must be made accountable there, which is to say th
different perceptual and evaluative criteria. This does not m
adapt itself in the sense of superficial sensationalism, but r
concrete social relations. Only when art confronts the publi
become effective within it. To act effectively means, howev
make and justify decisions concerning the intended sphere
certainly be seen as educating but not necessarily as didact
art in public space only when the work of art is committe
corresponds to its function at that specific location, whether
ily or permanently: namely, to manifest a means of under
tory, and society.4
Points of Reference has committed itself both in artistic aim
to this sort of interpretation of public art. The occasion
Austria by Hitler fifty years ago-and the locations -im
places of propaganda of the Nazi regime -presented the
contexts in which to define their own field of endeavor

3. Veit Loers, "Auch eine Geschichte der modernen Skuiptur," in Skul

catalogue), MOnster, 1987, p. 316.
4. My view of this problem corresponds with the general considera
articulated in his essay "Kunst und Funktion," in Kunst und Funktion
Fragestellung, Munich, Funkkolleg Kunst series, 1987, p. 1.

This content downloaded from 130.70.8.131 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:33:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 78 OCTOBER

assume respo
sponsibility
of social rela
art to this pr
of a gallery.
banishes art
free spaces a
Points of Re
not through
caused some
web of relati
potential con
The specifi
exclusively h
that, under t
cal rules. How
constitute historical, as much as art-historical, facts. The monuments of that
time, whether they still exist or are reconstructed, are certainly not invisible,
especially because our historical consciousness no longer allows complacency
concerning the Nazi era.
From this point of view, the contribution of Points of Reference will, through
the provoked and provocative dialogue with space and time-present, past, and
future - become visible as signs.

This content downloaded from 130.70.8.131 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 06:33:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms