Making Memory Space: Recollection and Reconciliation in Post ...

performative aspects of the memorial have imbued the site and memory space with a degree of
significance usually attributed to sites that have witnessed events of the past. Instead, this site has
garnered meaning entirely through the fabricated production of events, intentionally conceived to
reiterate the meaning attributed to the memorial. Since the symbolism inherent in the structure so
clear, is it possible to re-evaluate the context in which the memorial is understood?
Contested meanings
Robert Musil’s famous claim of 1927 that ‘there is nothing so invisible in the world as a monument’ is
readily contested in the Voortrekker Monument. 136 Here, rather than becoming meaningless as the
regime that conceived of the monument crumbles, the retention of the memorial and the constant
dialogue over its meaning ensure that it remains significant within the national psyche. Nevertheless, it
is worth examining Musil’s argument to ascertain whether ultimately the memorial may lose its potency
over time. Musil’s position is based on three primary points: one, that familiarity breeds banality; two,
that competition with media advertising undermines potency of monuments; and three, that the
disjunction between everyday settings and heroic narratives renders the monuments ridiculous. He
argues that the function of monuments, to facilitate the cohesion of social groups through the
construction of collective memory, has remained relatively unchanged over time even through the
messages have differed immensely. Musil firmly situates the monumental impulse of architecture
within a European tradition. He aligns the mythic and human icons of sepulchre art from the Middle
Ages, with decorative sculpture of the Renaissance and the Baroque, and in turn with nineteenth-
century national memorials and war memorials of the twentieth century. 137 In a South African context
his argument is undermined for, arguably, the assertion of the European tradition presents a
continuance of colonialist notions of what constitutes memorial. Perhaps one of the most problematic
aspects of the attempts to use the Voortrekker Memorial as an emblem of a common history stems
from the fact that the memorial is grounded in a very specific European tradition, one which by its very
nature denies commonality. David Bunn suggests that the naturalising of monuments amidst the
landscape is made difficult in South Africa, because of their inability to convey collective meaning. This
is due to their ‘reluctance to imagine the idea of citizenship outside the boundaries of race.’ 138 His
position, that monuments struggle to be seen when they rely on the memorial practices of a minority
group, adds weight to the argument that it is only through the re-characterision of the memorial -
attempting to situate it in a more common place - that the continued significance of the memorial is
ensured.
Returning to the broader questions of the invisibility of monuments, Andreas Huyssen proffers a
fascinating evaluation of Christo’s ‘Wrapped Reichstag’ as a means of examining how monuments
136
Robert Musil as quoted in Peter Carrier, Op cit, p.15.
137
Ibid, p.17.
138
David Bunn, Op cit, p.93.
46