Executive Summary

This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of post-1945 public monuments and their intricate relationship with decolonial memory across four distinct global cities: Berlin, Cape Town, Seoul, and Richmond. Moving beyond static interpretations, the research posits public monuments as dynamic sites where contested histories are continuously negotiated, reflecting ongoing struggles over social power, identity, and values. The selection of these cities is deliberate, offering diverse yet interconnected historical trajectories concerning war, colonialism, and systemic injustice, providing rich ground for cross-cultural comparison on how societies grapple with difficult pasts and challenge hegemonic narratives through public art.

The core inquiry centers on how specific aesthetic elements—form, inscription, and siting—mediate these contested histories, and how these aesthetic choices connect to “civic reception,” understood as a dynamic process of public engagement, interpretation, contestation, and meaning-making, rather than mere public opinion. The study aims to avoid a reductive, “legal brief” approach by fostering a nuanced, interpretive understanding of complex human experiences and artistic expressions, acknowledging inherent ambiguities and contradictions in public memory. A focused corpus of 2-3 monuments per city will be examined, integrating detailed field notes with extensive archival research.

The conceptual framework rigorously defines “aesthetics” beyond visual appeal to encompass multi-sensory, material, and performative dimensions, recognizing how monuments are experienced through the body and senses and how aesthetic choices embody power structures or resistances in decolonial contexts. “Civic reception” is delineated as an evolving process of active interpretation and refashioning by diverse publics, including formal and informal interactions, protests, and artistic interventions. Theoretical links are established between aesthetic choices (e.g., material, scale, iconography, siting) and their influence on public memory and decolonial discourse, drawing upon multidisciplinary theories from art history (reception theory, public art theory, monument studies), memory studies (collective, traumatic, counter-memory), urban studies (public space, semiotics), and decolonial studies (subaltern studies, postcolonial critique).

Methodologically, the study employs a multi-faceted approach. Aesthetic analysis will systematically deconstruct form, inscription, and siting through semiotic analysis (decoding symbols and iconography), formal analysis (composition, scale, proportion, texture, color), material analysis (type, provenance, fabrication, durability), and spatial analysis (placement, visibility, accessibility, urban integration). Each analytical component will explicitly consider its impact on civic reception. For data collection on civic reception, the study will primarily use qualitative and interpretive methods. This includes extensive qualitative fieldwork (structured observations of public interaction, informal interviews with diverse publics, analysis of public rituals/protests), expanded archival research (local newspapers, community newsletters, social media discussions, online forums, oral histories), and selective digital humanities approaches (sentiment analysis, mapping public engagement data). Participatory and experiential methods like public ethnography and in-depth oral history interviews with diverse stakeholders (artists, policymakers, activists) will capture lived experiences. Ethical considerations, including informed consent, anonymity, respect for diverse perspectives, and researcher reflexivity, are paramount given the sensitive nature of contested histories.

The comparative analysis will utilize a thematic cross-case method, systematically contrasting the four cities across four analytical lenses: historical trajectory and thematic focus, aesthetic strategies and meaning generation, dynamics of civic reception and public engagement, and decolonial interventions and diverse outcomes. This framework aims to identify commonalities, divergences, and unique manifestations of contested memory, contributing to a broader understanding of global decolonial processes without homogenizing local experiences. Hypothetical examples, such as Berlin’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, Cape Town’s former Cecil Rhodes statue, Seoul’s Admiral Yi Sun-sin statue, and Richmond’s former Robert E. Lee Monument, illustrate how these methods will be applied to link aesthetic analysis to civic reception in diverse contexts.

Finally, the study explicitly addresses the concern of avoiding a “legal brief” trajectory by cultivating nuance and interpretive depth. This involves emphasizing interpretation over prescription, embracing ambiguity and contradiction as intrinsic to contested histories, employing sophisticated narrative and rhetorical strategies to weave together analysis and data, and focusing on process and dialogue rather than definitive outcomes. The research will highlight the iterative nature of memory-making, showcasing monuments as catalysts for ongoing public discourse and demonstrating their role in shaping collective identity and future trajectories, ensuring the study remains deeply interpretive and human-centered.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Research Contextualization: Mediating Decolonial Memory Through Contested Public Monuments
2. Conceptual Framework: Defining Aesthetics and Civic Reception in Decolonial Contexts
   • Aesthetics as Multi-Sensory and Performative
   • Civic Reception as Dynamic Meaning-Making
   • Theoretical Links and Multidisciplinary Armature
3. Methodological Strategies for Bridging Aesthetics and Civic Reception
   • Aesthetic Analysis: Deconstructing Form, Inscription, and Siting
     • Semiotic Analysis of Symbols and Iconography
     • Formal Analysis of Composition and Scale
     • Material Analysis of Chosen Media
     • Spatial Analysis of the Monument’s Relationship to its Urban Context and Surrounding Architecture
   • Civic Reception Data Collection and Analysis (Qualitative and Interpretive Methods)
     • Qualitative Fieldwork
     • Archival Research Expansion
     • Digital Humanities Approaches
     • Participatory and Experiential Methods
     • Ethical Considerations
4. Comparative Analysis Framework: Integrating Multi-City Data for Cross-Contextual Insights
   • Thematic Cross-Case Comparison Method
   • Core Analytical Lenses for Comparison
   • Hypothetical Applications in Case Cities
5. Strategies for Avoiding a “Legal Brief” Trajectory: Cultivating Nuance and Interpretive Depth
   • Emphasizing Interpretation over Prescription
   • Incorporating Ambiguity and Contradiction
   • Narrative and Rhetorical Strategies
   • Focus on Process and Dialogue