Between Progressivism and Memory: How Can Industrial Heritage Be Commemorated?; [МЕЖДУ ПРОГРЕССИЗМОМ И ПАМЯТЬЮ: КАК ВОЗМОЖНА КОММЕМОРАЦИЯ ИНДУСТРИАЛЬНОГО НАСЛЕДИЯ?]

Abstract

Analyzing the contradiction between the focus on the future of industrial narrative, the idea of progress and the need to preserve the memory of them, the author proposes to consider industrial heritage commemoration as a social practice, and industrial heritage sites as places of memory. Treating industrial heritage sites as places of memory, that is, as a certain tool for rethinking and exploring the past, involves recoding the industrial site in relation to its functional and material aspects. Drawing on U. Eco's works, the author justifies the importance of preserving the secondary functions of the object while changing the primary ones (the case of the Parthenon), which leads to a transformation not only of the symbolic content, but also of the architectural construction itself. Therefore, it seems important, firstly, to translate the language of architecture, referring to pre-existing functions through the preservation of significant architectural elements, and secondly, to preserve elements of ideology important in the construction of the building. The preservation of secondary functions will help to level out the negative aspects of the commercialisation of industrial buildings. Following Simmel, industrial heritage objects are seen as 'a form of expression of the past in the present'; the agency of the material resists the forces of history, so recoding the object should involve rethinking the changes that have already occurred to the building as a material object and preserving the axiological content of this 'new form'. Further, the industrial heritage object as a place of memory is appropriated by participants in commemorative events, thus influencing their process of identification. © 2024 Aquilo. All rights reserved.