This cycle is currently in the initial evaluation and research phase and a «growing, expanding document». Broadly speaking, it is an investigation into the culture of remembrance and our engagement with it as well as our handling of new challenges that are closely linked to the past but have nowadays a new relevance for us, as  a society and as individuals. The following description represents an exploration,  a probing and an immersion into the subject matter. 

The memorial cultures of the two World Wars and of the Holocaust differ fundamentally in their moral function, narrative structure, and architectural expression. While the World Wars are generally commemorated through frameworks that integrate loss into collective national narratives, Holocaust remembrance resists such integration and instead foregrounds rupture, moral responsibility, and the limits 
of representation.

In the case of the First and Second World Wars, memorialization has historically centered on the figure of the soldier as both agent and victim. Even when emphasizing suffering and tragedy, commemorative practices often situate individual sacrifice within a larger narrative of national purpose, liberation, or defense. This form of remembrance contributes to the stabilization of collective identity by transforming loss into a meaningful component of national history. Architecturally, this is reflected in monumental, symmetrical, and figurative forms that convey permanence, order, and dignity. Such memorials provide symbolic closure by framing death within a coherent and often implicitly legitimizing narrative.

By contrast, Holocaust remembrance is structured around the recognition of radical victimization, moral rupture, and perpetrator responsibility. It does not seek to redeem suffering through narratives of heroism or collective purpose but instead emphasizes the systematic, bureaucratic, and ideologically driven nature of genocide. The Holocaust occupies a distinct position as a “negative founding memory,” particularly in postwar Germany, where commemoration functions not to affirm national continuity but to confront historical guilt and ethical responsibility.

This difference is especially evident in memorial architecture. Holocaust memorials frequently employ abstraction, fragmentation, and spatial disorientation rather than figurative representation. These formal strategies refuse narrative closure and resist aesthetic consolation. Instead of affirming stability and meaning, they produce experiences of absence, dislocation, and unease, thereby reflecting the inadequacy of traditional monumental forms in the face of industrialized mass murder. 

Ultimately, whereas the memorial cultures of the World Wars tend to integrate violence into narratives that stabilize collective identity, Holocaust remembrance operates through disruption and moral self-interrogation. It represents a shift from commemorating sacrifice within a meaningful historical framework to preserving the memory of an event that fundamentally challenges the possibility of meaning itself. At the same time, this form of remembrance exists under conditions of increa-sing fragility. As the last generation of survivors passes away, living memory is gradually replaced by mediated and institutional forms of transmission, which are more vulnerable to distortion, simplification, or instrumentalization. 

This transition coincides with the growing presence of political and ideological actors who seek to relativize, reinterpret, or selectively rewrite the history of the twentieth century in order to serve contemporary agendas. Such efforts often aim to diminish perpetrator responsibility, equate fundamentally different forms of violence, or reintegrate national histories into more affirmative and less self-critical narratives.

In parallel, the resurgence of antisemitism in various social, political, and digital contexts underscores the continuing relevance of Holocaust remembrance. Anti-semitic rhetoric, conspiracy thinking, and acts of violence demonstrate that  the ideological structures which enabled persecution have not disappeared entirely,  but persist in modified forms. Under these conditions, memorialization assumes not only a retrospective function but also a preventive and normative one. It serves as  a critical cultural and ethical practice that resists historical erasure, challenges denial and relativization, and maintains public awareness of the consequences of exclusionary and dehumanizing ideologies. Precisely because memory is neither fixed nor guaranteed, its active preservation remains essential to sustaining historical responsibility and democratic vigilance. 

My research is informed by a range of theoretical and artistic perspectives on memory and commemoration. Key influences include Aleida Assmann’s work on European memory culture, as well as research from the Yad Vashem International Institute for Holocaust Studies. I also draw on the practice of Polish artist Natalia Romik and her collaborators, alongside the writings of Jan Philipp Reemtsma, particularly Why Memorials?. Further references include Georges Didi-Huberman’s Images in Spite of All, Paul Williams’ Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities, and Jennifer B. Barrett’s The Holocaust Museum: Transnational Perspectives on Contemporary Memorials, among others.

---

Bibliography

Assmann, A. (2010) The Long Shadow of the Past: Memorial Culture and Historical Politics.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Barrett, J.B. (2011) The Holocaust Museum: Transnational Perspectives on Contemporary
Memorials. London: Routledge.

Didi-Huberman, G. (2008) Images in Spite of All: Four Photographs from Auschwitz.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reemtsma, J.P. (2010) Why Memorials? Munich: C.H. Beck.

Romik, N. (n.d.) Architectures of Survival. Available at: https://www.nataliaromik.com 

Williams, P. (2007) Memorial Museums: The Global Rush to Commemorate Atrocities.
Oxford: Berg.

Yad Vashem (n.d.) Yad Vashem International Institute for Holocaust Research.
Available at: https://www.yadvashem.org

Both of the great wars in the last century but in particular the First World War was marked by promises to soldiers and citizens that were deeply rooted in a heightened form of nationalism, characteristic of the era. This intensified patriotism portrayed the war as a necessary and noble endeavor, where the defense of the homeland or the conquest of others was seen as both a duty and a glorious opportunity to demonstrate national superiority. Citizens were assured that their sacrifices would secure the nation’s rightful place in the world, fostering a sense of unity and purpose.

However, this fervent nationalism also fueled unrealistic expectations. The glorification of war, with its promises of honor, victory, and national pride, obscured the brutal realities of the conflict. The ensuing disillusionment exposed the dangerous gap between the idealized vision of national destiny and the devastating human cost.

Promises confronts us with thinking about the tragic consequences of nationalist ideologies as seen again nowadays with the current war between Russia and the Ukraine. In doing so, I illuminate places of the first Great War that have become symbols of delusion and mass death - places where young men, often no older than twenty, were drawn into the senseless vortex of war. Today this places serve as silent observers of the past, preserving their stories.