From: gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:29:01 -0500 Subject: Memorial All, NPR just featured a story about the German company Degussa to withdraw a product that would be used to protect a Jewish Holocaust Memorial. A subsidiary company associated with Degussa produced Cyclon-B gas used during the war. I find this story interesting as is raises issues about how far a country or business can move from the past, particulary as that past is concentrated in such things as a Memorial. Although Degussa's product is intended to protect the Memorial from outside elements like acid rain, it would appear that there's a compelling case for even the unseen. Although such a product might be considered a "common noun"--I realize the company copyrights its particular mixture of protection, but one can imagine an American company that produces a like product--it retains the full "proper noun" status. Names adhere even more than a monument that will otherwise melt in the acid rain. There are Germans who work for other companies that, of course, are linked to the horrible events of WWII. One could imagine, for example, that the trains used to move the Memorial in place share a distant culpability with the long lines of cattle cars taking families to the chambers. There is something so close in this product being used as a protective layer no less. There's something real about this skin of a name. (Does anyone know the root for proper name "Degussa"?) This story moved me like the story of the sacking the Baghdad museum months back. There's a pattern here in museum and memorial that maybe warrants closer inspection. Does Lyotard speak to the matter of memorials? Best, Geof P.S. Eric, I'm still interested in hearing more about Lyotard on Duchamp, if that particular line of inquiry is still of interest...
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005