Mesto (i) nasleđa u prostoru pamćenja

Abstract

Činjenica da je mesto i „misaona kategorija“ i „konstruisana realnost“ važan je faktor razmišljanja o baštini, koji utiče na njene vrednosti i smisao. Iako fizički aspekt nasleđa čini da ga na prvu loptu vidimo kao nepromenljivo, njegovo značenje, zapravo, nikad nije fiksno, već se dogovara i podložno je promeni. Kao takva, mesta sećanja ne opstaju zbog svoje materijalne predmetnosti, niti samo zbog vlastite estetike ili simbolizma, već, pre svega, zbog aktivne uloge koji imaju u procesu izgradnje kolektivnih identiteta. Nasleđe je povezano sa semiotičkim pristupom mestima na tri različita načina. Spomenici, objekti, te događaji i ličnosti iz prošlosti, zajedno sa njihovim načinima tumačenja, često su osnovno sredstvo kroz koje mesta kreiraju odvojeni karakterističan identitet. Iz tog ugla posmatrano, novim gradovima nedostaje identitet baš zato što su nemušti u ovom kontekstu. Drugo, čuvajući materijalne predmete prošlosti neizbežno čuvamo i njihove akumulirane poruke. Konačno, kako je nasleđe namerna kreacija vladajuće elite, onda je njegova produkcija efektivni medijum za prenošenje poruka između vladara i onih kojima se vlada. Iz te perspektive posmatra se i pristup čuvanju i upravljanju disonantnim nasleđem na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije.

When the end of the 20th century brought ethnically motivated conflicts in Europe, as well as hostilities within the borders of repressive regimes in other parts of the world, it was clear that no existing form of remembrance and didactics aimed at preventing the recurrence of crimes had succeeded. A new, dissonant heritage cast a shadow over the slogan never again, and thus a valid question has been raised - if this legacy is to be protected, what would be the most appropriate model for that? The answer to the aforementioned dilemma has taken shape through reflection on ways to connect memory, as an element of intangible heritage, to physical space, and through research on ways to interpret this relationship as a subject of museology/ heritology. The fact that some place is both “category of thought” and “constructed reality” is an important factor in thinking about heritage that affects its value and meaning. Although the physical aspect of the heritage makes it to be seen as unchangeable, its meaning, in fact, is never fixed, but is agreed and is subject to change. As such, memory places do not survive because of their material objectivity, or just for their own aesthetics and symbolism, but primarily because of the active role they have in the process of building collective identities. Heritage is linked to the semiotic approach of the space in three different ways. Monuments, objects, and events and persons from the past, along with their methods of interpretation, are often the primary means through which some city creates a separate distinctive identity. From this point of speaking, new cities are lacking identity just because they are mute in this context. Second, with keeping the material objects of the past we inevitably keep and their accumulated messages. Finally, since legacy is product of deliberate creation of the ruling elite, then its production is effective medium for conveying messages between the rulers and the ruled. In this context, we are interpreting both conservation and management of the dissonant heritage that was created as a result of the civil wars in the former Yugoslavia. There is no manual, rule or prescription as to how the memorials should look like, nor is there a guarantee that they will fulfil their purpose. What is the aim of its creating? Regret? Learning? To remember the past and confront its contemporary legacy? There is not a single correct answer, as there is not a single obstacle. It takes a lot of will and courage to tackle the difficult histories in sensitive political circumstances. If we add the insufficient government support to the considerations, the work appears to be in vain. Nevertheless, things can change systemically; but if the actors and the victims themselves lack the power to reconcile, it becomes a Sisyphean task. Still, as the guardians of heritage and museum professionals, we all have the obligation to decide on our roles in this issue.