In the last century, architectural theorists have questioned whether the notion of monumentality is outdated. Indeed, Mumford asserts that it is both the monumental cause and its expression that are at an impasse, writing “monuments have lost their aesthetic and social legitimacy [and] are the polar opposite of modern architecture and progressive city.” (1989) (Avermaete, Havik, Teerds, 2009). Giedion further expresses that the aesthetic associated with monumentality is outdated and the tactless copy-pasting of classical motifs is no longer capable of vesting a building with the same meaning and importance as it used to.
In short, monumentality is in crisis.
In short, monumentality is in crisis.
However, there is still a need for buildings who express shared values; communities still need places to remember, understand, mourn, feel empathy or connect. As such, Giedion calls for the “reconquest of the monumental expression”. (1944) In an attempt to forecast the future of monumentality, this essay looks at infrastructure, specifically the Oosterscheldekering. It provides an interesting case study as it is conventionally viewed as beyond the scope of architectural discourse. Furthermore, the perception of these indispensable functional structures is raw and un-curated, as the significant performative requirements leave little opportunity for styling.
However, there is still a need for buildings who express shared values; communities still need places to remember, understand, mourn, feel empathy or connect. As such, Giedion calls for the “reconquest of the monumental expression”. (1944) In an attempt to forecast the future of monumentality, this essay looks at infrastructure, specifically the Oosterscheldekering. It provides an interesting case study as it is conventionally viewed as beyond the scope of architectural discourse. Furthermore, the perception of these indispensable functional structures is raw and un-curated, as the significant performative requirements leave little opportunity for styling.
Location of the Oosterscheldekering
The Oosterscheldekering is a 9km long storm-surge barrier located between the Eastern Scheldt internal sea and the North Sea. Built in 1986 within the masterplan of the Delta Works following a deadly flood, it drastically improved safety in the delta zone. The Oosterscheldekering was born out of necessity and was not intended to be a monument. Nevertheless, it is awe-worthy. The immensely precise work on the dam took more than a decade to complete and was intended to last more than 200 years. The defence barrier cost 5.5 billion guilders (Delta Project, 2019) and nothing of such a scale has since been built in the Netherlands. It has been heralded as the eighth Wonder of the World. (Voorde, 2003) The design of the barrier was enabled by the accumulated knowledge of centuries of battling the sea. It is the figurehead of Dutch engineering and ever since its construction, no major floods have occurred in the area. Its role and the resources required for its completion, whether technical, financial, human or material confer it monumentality. The Oosterscheldekering materialises a new relationship between humans and the landscape, where Dutch engineering becomes a force of nature.
This map, which is very different from the current landscape, demonstrates the far-reaching impacts on the Delta Works.
How can the expression of modern monumentality be forecasted through the case study of the Oosterscheldekering?
To ground this paper in contemporary architectural theory, each chapter explores a given definition of monumentality concerning the Oosterscheldekering. This has provided a theoretical standpoint from which to explore the many facets of monumentality and encouraged critical reflection on the nature of monumentality and what its future might be. As the technical prowess of the Oosterscheldekering is already heralded in investigative readings, this is not a subject this essay will further explore.
“Monuments are the expression of man’s highest cultural needs. They have to satisfy the eternal demand of the people for translation of their collective force into symbols. The most vital monuments are those which express the feeling and thinking of this collective force - the people.” (Sert, Léger, Giedion, 1943)
The 'Cultural Perception' chapter investigates the history of Dutch water management and the cultural heritage of coastal infrastructure. It places the Oosterscheldekering in its socio-historical context, presenting it as a counterpoint in the endless fight against the sea. The notion of monumentality is analysed from the perspective of culture, living memory, and the expression of soft power. Throughout the chapter, monumentality is described as a symbol rather than a physical expression. In the case of the Oosterscheldekering, this notion of monumentality is dependent on collective memory.
Locations of Monuments or Memorials related to the North Sea flood in red and flooded area during the North Sea flood of 1953 in blue.
“A monument in its oldest and most original sense is a human creation, erected for the specific purpose of keeping single human deeds or events (or a combination thereof) alive in the minds of future generations.” (Riegl, 1903)
The chapter 'Monumentality & Memory' examines the relationship between the Oosterscheldekering and the flood which lead to its construction. By delving into the stories and personal experiences of the North Sea flood of 1953, it explores how collective perception is impacted by individual experiences. This chapter queries whether the Oosterscheldekering belongs to architectural typologies of memory such as the monument, memorial and lieu de mémoire. Finally, this chapter critiques the failings of the Oosterscheldekering in safekeeping collective memory.
The ruin of the Oosterscheldekering , conforming to Reigl’s understanding of monuments, who have become witnesses of their time of origin and where weathering and decay conveys a sense of historical distance.
“Monuments […] are intended to outlive the period, which originated them, and constitute a heritage for future generations. As such, they form a link between the past and the future.” (Sert et al., 1943)
This chapter evaluates the spatiotemporal context of the Oosterscheldekering to identify the interdependence of monumentality, temporality and spatial contrast. Presently, the Oosterscheldekering is indispensable. However, its climatic context is changing rapidly, leading it to manifest a contradiction between permanence and ephemerality. This chapter anticipates future outcomes of the structure in the Anthropocene, where climate change causes the barrier’s context to change and forces a re-evaluation of its role. Understanding the spatial context illustrates how monumentality is informed by architecture’s contrast -or its lack thereof- with the surrounding landscape.
Future scenarios for the Oosterschelde vis-a-vis a changing climatic context.
“All of us are perfectly aware of the fact that monumentality is a dangerous affair in a time when most of the people do not even grasp the elementary requirements for a functional building. But we cannot close our eyes; whether we want it or not, the problem of monumentality is lying ahead in the immediate future” (Gideon, 1944)
The chapter 'Aesthetics of Monumentality' compares engineering and architectural aesthetics to understand the impact of functionality based designs on modern monumentality aestetics. The Oosterscheldekering is analysed according to different aspects by comparing it to sanctioned monumental architecture. This part aims to understand if an object created based on pure functionality and without any concern of monumental expression could be associated with contemporary monumental value in regards to aesthetics.
Formal diagrams of Memorial of the Murdered Jews of Europe (on the left) & the Oosterscheldekering (on the right)
Directions in elevation and plan of New Holmenkollen Beacon (on the left) & the Oosterscheldekering (on the right)
The future of monumentality
Monumentality is enabled by both the physical and intangible context, whether it is social, historical, temporal, aesthetic, or spatial. It is the understanding of this context which emotionally connects people to an object. The perception of monumentality is therefore completely subjective and cannot be applied to a standalone object if detached from its context.
The Oosterscheldekering can be perceived as monumental in relation to its technical innovation in water management industry, its symbolic importance in Dutch culture and a few aesthetic qualities. However, the Oosterscheldekering’s monumentality remains widely inaccessible to those who lack the background knowledge of the local culture and history. By becoming more legible and informative, the Oosterscheldekering could surpass its role of flood defense and explicitly become valued built heritage. One may conject that monumental expression and architectural language should enable the viewer to understand the wider background nurturing its monumentality.
The future of monumental expression is plural, and there is no universally applicable expression for monumental buildings. The case suited of the Oosterscheldekering has highlighted that it is the ability of a structure to materialise and project stories, memories, events and emotions that enable it to be perceived as monumental. Architectural structures should be able to communicate their monumentality by expressing their otherwise intangible context. This requires an entirely tailored appearance. In order to enable the understanding of context, buildings must become legible to everyone and tell the stories that give buildings meaning, beyond their primary functioning role.
Content by Saskia Tideman