Totalitarian heritage

Abstract

“Difficult heritage” often becomes a crucial point of current political and public debate in countries with totalitarian past (Vyazemtseva, 2020). This term refers mainly to architectural and sculptural monuments that were erected during the rule of totalitarian regimes, and it was first used relatively recently, in 2008 (Macdonald, 2008). At that time the question of the protective status of these monuments as cultural heritage arose due to the physical aging of buildings and structures. Often, when monuments of «difficult heritage» are markers of identity for many generations, the question of the legitimacy of their existence in a modern city does not arise. However, the values expressed by «difficult heritage» cease to be relevant, and functional and economic requirements change. Then there is a need to reconstruct architecture in accordance with the reaction of historical memory to the changing times.
This situation leads to a critical reflection on the «difficult heritage» and sometimes to the complete neutralization of its negative meaning. Often the initiator of the reconstruction of such sites is the state, and the authors are prominent architects who offer their solutions in projects connected with historical memory. This paper analyzes recent examples of interaction between architects and architectural objects from the heritage of the German and Soviet dictatorships - the Haus der Kunst reconstruction project in Munich (David Chipperfield Architects, 2016) and the Space Pavilion of the V.D.N.H. reconstruction project in Moscow (MS Architects, 2016). The paper aims to identify the basic principles of modern German and Russian architects' work with «difficult heritage» and to find similarities and differences between them. The architectural reconstruction projects of the Haus der Kunst in Munich (2016) and the Space Pavilion at the V.D.N.H. (Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy) in Moscow (2016) are compared, as well as the exhibitions presented in these museums, the statements of the authors of the projects and public discussions around them. This work draws attention to the problem of ways to rethink «difficult heritage» and enriches the discussion of it with detailed research of contemporary architectural projects.