A public space to debate and discuss how to memorialize past human rights abuse so that it will never again occur.

Create a log-in (Existing members log-in)

Memory and Justice: www.memoryandjustice.org

Discussion for Villa Grimaldi

Should a site's original elements be preserved at all costs?

How important is it for memorials to preserve the physical remains of the events they commemorate? Within this question lies another: if it is beneficial to preserve the original elements of a site, should they be preserved as they are, in varying states of decay or ruin, or reconstructed to their original form? Indeed, in the field of historic preservation there has long been debate over the relative merits of preservation and restoration.

Villa Grimaldi, in Chile, serves as a useful example of how these issues apply specifically to memorial sites that commemorate state violence and mass atrocity. By the time it was decided that Villa Grimaldi should be converted into a site of memory, there was little left to preserve; in an effort to erase the evidence of torture, the government had demolished much of the site by the end of 1988. Ultimately, designers at the site chose to reconstruct the central torture site, but as a bare, oren area, omitting the actual tools of torture.

Designers at other sites have faced similar challenges. In Morocco, for instance, the question of reconstruction is currently being discussed, as the state Equity and Reconciliation Commission has recommended that several former torture sites be converted into sites of memory.

There is no single answer to these questions, and differing contexts undoubtedly present different demands. But how should we begin to think about the relationship between preservation and restoration as it applies to public memorialization, especially as former sites of torture are increasingly being converted into sites of memory?

Comment on this article