(CS4.2) Sorting the Tangle of Commemoration; A Heritage Conservation Perspective

Practitioners in the field of heritage conservation have long had to focus on commemoration and how to best communicate to the public values which are associated with specific sites or objects. However, the voices of preservationists have been largely absent from the recent global deliberations on how to best deal with contested and contentious monuments. This illustrated paper attempts to propose solutions that both address injustices and are still aligned with the fundamental principles underlying heritage conservation.

The presentation begins with the analysis of two monuments in Montreal, in order to explain how their present configuration and sculptural elements are at odds with the principles of reconciliation set out in the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Other Canadian examples are also highlighted, including the monument to the Famous Five on Parliament Hill – which remains unaltered- and the statue to the founder of McGill University, which has been removed from the campus.

Seven distinct approaches to interacting with unwelcome or blinkered monuments are explored. These range from the most irrevocable – destruction – through inaction, temporary installations, relocation, purposeful decay, ephemeral additions and finally to ‘recalibration’. In this last scenario, contemporary additions to a monument are installed to broaden its original narrow or inappropriate narrative and recalibrate its purpose. These additions are not plaques, which can be easily overlooked. They are permanent interventions that become part of the enlarged monument.

Through these actions, the monument can continue to exist and yet contribute to the "fostering of …reconciliation, mutual understanding and dialogue", as outlined in the2005 Faro Convention. In the enlargement, the statues are “transformed from celebratory monuments to objective evidence”. [Komska]

The paper concludes with several examples of recalibration. Some are drawn from European precedents. However, the majority are unbuilt proposals that illustrate how the Canadian monuments examined at the outset of the paper can be both maintained in-situ and re-contextualized. They include a proposition developed as part of the recent initiative, Indigenize Montreal, by a group of Indigenous artists, supported by EVOQ Architecture, and several student projects, designed for a commemoration assignment within the Heritage Conservation which I teach in the School of Architecture, McGill University.

These examples show a compelling way forward. It is not an easy one, because it requires work from everyone, including the viewers. And it does not provide a universal template for a way forward. Indeed it demonstrates that the additional layers will succeed best when they are inspired by the specific context of the monument, and the individuals or events which have been commemorated or forgotten until present day. There are no easy solutions, but there can be some pretty interesting, engaging and intellectually challenging ones.