Please send letters for the website, clearly marked FORUM, to Julia Dawson at: julia.dawson@emap.com or The Architectural Review, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London NW1 7EJ, England. MONUMENTAL BANALITY SIR: It is true to say that much of modern architectural theory is derived from literary theory and post-structuralism of the late ’90s. In Peter Davey’s article (AR July 2005), we have another attempt to give meaning to and so justification for the monumental memorial in the heart of Berlin, which is approached here and there by both ‘theory’ on the part of Eisenman and by interpretation and use of a string of similes on the part of the reviewer. Indeed, the whole of the massive investment in the manifestation of concrete used in this manner is both highly derivative and singularly unimaginative. It is indeed more literal than the interpretations allow. What is clear is that massiveness and the building over such a large area is instructive, more pertinent and significant than any ‘pseudo-theory’ that seeks to cloak its ‘meaning’ and so give it the weight of intrinsic value. The art was removed when the creative source Richard Serra left in the early development of the site. In this respect, the history of its development is also telling. Why was it built for Jews only? (For originally each ‘pillar’ was to have names on it.) But to include others that were affected lessened its presence as yet another Jewish memorial, of which Berlin has several. Why was there a need for an information centre to give context and information on its ‘purpose’? Previously it was to stand without names and information. What the ‘clever’ language is in effect doing is trying to conceal the real purpose of the ‘memorial’. For what it is about is that it is the biggest monument to Jewish presence at the heart of Germany. It sits opposite the Reichstag, the seat of German government and German history. It is about uncompromising scale and so relies purely on shock value. It challenges and dominates all that is around it. Here in this there is an attempt to ‘do something that has never been done before’. But even that is derivative. The reviewer speaks of Eisenman speaking of ‘conjuring up the enormity of banality’. What does this mean when one considers on a general scale the modern banalities that populate the Western world? But such inexplicable massiveness seems to work in such a place even as it bludgeons that place with its banal weight. The problem is that these pillars look like headstones in traditional graves, they look like figures standing like soldiers, they stand for ‘people who are dead’. We are told that they are like Greek stelaes that mark graves. The earliest Greek graves were entirely different from this. Eisenman ‘thought of silence’, yet he ‘didn’t know what this would be’. To ‘speak without speaking’. Here again the terms are taken from basic post structuralism. The notion of silence at the heart of the structure perhaps speaks of death for that is what it really represents or tries to embody and death can be banal and nothing else. The making of silence and stillness has been articulated through concrete by more creative architects with more meaning to the human individual. Here is my interpretation. It is another embodiment of mediocrity in architectural form. Mediocrity that is given monumental proportion and is endemic across the globe and so in the nature of the world we live in makes it intrinsically ‘good’ and of value. It is an act of domination and confrontation. It seeks to place the Jewish presence at the heart of Germany and justify it on a massive scale more normally associated with monuments dedicated to German notaries and heroes. Here then is yet another bigger, brash, violent and confrontational if not arrogant monument to ingenious banality of death and the memorialisation of a race. Yours etc JED CHAPMAN Email address supplied