| dc.description.abstract | This thesis explores the future Norwegian government quarters, looking at suggested architecture and memorials through the academic discourse of monumentality, memorial theory and field rhetorics. After being severely damaged in the terror attacks of July 22. 2011, the government quarters became the future site for a huge collocation/reconstruction, and both a temporary and permanent national memorial. By highlighting the different schools of monumentality-thinking expressed in the existing architecture, and comparing it to the new plans, the thesis offers a reading of the monumental architecture, being shaped today. Studies of the processes and plans show the excluding of 40 years of architectural history, while one period is left dominant. It shows the continuation of an adaption trend from the nineties, however this time taking from modernist architecture rather than older additions, while at the same time shaping the urban plan closer to classical ideals. Also, the reports of competition jurors and presentations of the project is affected by somewhat contradictory statements, trying to console qualities that seem to be mutually exclusive. Still, the final buildings seem strong in terms of monumentality – communicating a unifying national image of a homogenous population with Scandinavian design preferences, utilizing both classical and modernist monumental principals. The memorial process sparked huge conflicts and lead to the discarding of the competition winner and a temporary memorial being designed on a new department commission. Using contemporary memorial theory and a comparison of the discarded and erected memorial, this thesis shows them to be conceptually and aesthetically very different. The discarded memorials resemble Foucault and Young’s counter-memorials, while the erected memorial looks towards traditional memorial aesthetics – explicitly to achieve lower levels of conflicts. Regarding the general use of terms, «verdighet» (dignity) emerges as a favourite ideal quality by different stakeholders, independent of views. There is implicit disagreement on the meaning of the term, and the content seem to vary with context and stakeholder. The meaning that wins through seem to be “subdued and recognizable” – that which calms down conflicts. However, the lack of a common understanding seems to make communication less than optimal. The leaning towards a consensus-oriented rhetoric seem to match findings by Norwegian architectural historian Elisabeth Tostrup – who argues that consensus may reduce the quality of complex architectural tasks. The debating Norwegian public seem to want an open, inviting monumental architecture, more colourful than today’s standard, and they want more transparency during the processes to avoid shocks and disappointments. Whether the government quarter’s architecture and its memorials will appease these wishes is unclear. | en_US |
