Complementing Politico's article about museums of sculptures of fallen political systems

 Both fascism and communism (or existing socialism, however we call it as it betrayed communist and socialist ideals) tried to spread their ideology and culture by creating and placing to public spaces sculptures expressing their ideology and idealising their history. After the fall of these systems, the question remained: should these sculptures, of which some had artistic value, be destroyed (as was Stalin's - not out of considerations but out of passion - at the beginning of the 1956 revolution in Hungary)? 

The answer of Germany and Hungary was to place them in a separate museum. Politico wrote an article about this dilemma but forgot about the Hungarian museum. When I sent them a contribution about it, they removed the statement that the German one were the only one but did not write about the Hungarian one, did not even mention it.

So here is about this one - it is unique in that it is on open air which fits the sculptures intended to stand on open air better.

One example of a statue with artistic value is a paraphrase of a modernist mobilising poster from the 1910 "Commune", which stood intentionally on the site of the "Regnum Marianum" chapel, referring to the affiliation of Hungary to Virgin Mary, considered the protector of the country. The post-modern statue of Marx and Engels was almost ironical while the main figure of the liberation monument on Mount Gellért, an obligatory stop for tourist buses, was one of the most-seen symbols of the city of Budapest.

 

The solution decided by the first center-right government after the 1990 change was to assemble the statues in a park outside Budapest, on the road where generations drove to the favourite summer spot of not only Hungarians but also where East- and West-Germans could meet and close to a now defunct restaurant "Panoráma" (http://www.ilyenisvoltbudapest.hu/media/zoo/images/panorama_8e1558b7ed936a87d5bc35545bf82697.jpg), allowing a view over the outskirts of the Hungarian capital.

The park was since complemented with a cinema other exhibitions and attractions and hosting events (https://www.mementopark.hu/en/home/).

 

Moving, removing and reinstating sculptures is not new in Hungary - and is a sport still exercised today.

The "Statue of Hungarian grief" (http://banhegyiferenc.hu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ONLINE-AJ%C3%81NL%C3%93.pdf), donated in 1932 by Lord Rothermere, who sympathised with the feelings of Hungarians due to the truncation of their country in Trianon, was moved in front of the Palatinus open-air bath (as it depicted a naked female figure) in 1945, just to be then finding refuge in the garden of the heart convalescence sanatorium in Sopron, a sub-Alpine resort close to the Austrian border (recreation seems to play a role in the itinerary of our sculptures).

 

Nowadays, the surroundings of the Hungarian Parliament are being "re-sculpted" to their state in the 1940s.

A monument to the prime minister of the 1956 revolution, found his monument (erected already after the 1990 political change) moved in the place of the mentioned Marx and Engels to make place for a Trianon-memorial (no, we do not venerate the Bourbons, we mean the peace treaty after WW I).

The 1848 revolution and war of independence had a monument on Kossuth square, in front of the Parliament since 1927. Mátyás Rákosi, the communist dictator of Hungary in the 50s found the monument "too pessimistic" and had it replaced by another one (sculpted by the creator of the monument on Mount Gellért, by the way). The FIDESZ government found the old monument in Dombóvár, where it was moved by the communists and put it back on Kossuth square (named after the leader of the war of independence and the main figure of the monument).

And so on, and do forth: habent sua fata statui.

National sentiment and European Myth(s)

In a previous post I already talked about national sentiment. In the European Voice Tim King argues that the big disadvantage of Europe to the U.S. is the lack of common myths. His point is that even the rise of Europe from the second World War which he likens to the rise of the U.S. from the Civil War, is interpreted differently by different groups of European people. Nothing illustrates his point more than the debate (or I could rather call it non-debate) about the pre-war years in Hungary. In the Basic Law (replacing the Constitution) the ruling FIDESZ fixed that Hungary was not independent (using a term which suggests the exclusion of all responsibility) from the 19th March 1944 till the first democratic elections in 1990. The time before the German occupation is depicted as the ideal world. I.e. all responsibility for what happened to the Jews, the Roma, the political enemies, is declined. On the other hand, squares and streets are named after Horthy and statues are erected. In the abbey of Pannonhalma a bust of prime minister Teleki, the promoter of the first "Jews' law", the "numerus clausus" in universities, was erected. Horthy and the system is even credited with protecting the Jews and introducing the limitations, their expropriation as necessary to protect their lives. Some simply only talk about the period under the prime ministership of István Bethlen, who consolidated the country by taking a loan from the League of Nations (as the IMF is a specialised organ of the U.N., practically the legal predecessor of IMF), although the scandal of a large-scale French franc forgery also was in this period. The centre operating the schools now, a huge administrative organisation, is named after Kuno Klebelsberg, whose ambition was to overtake the neighbouring nations by educating the people better. He had a concept but this is somewhat antiquated in the 21st century. And these are the softer variations. However, these are the really dangerous ones as it is more difficult to counter their half-truths. In particular as these false myths are set up to feed national pride while it is much more difficult to present the complex reality in a way that it should also be emotionally appealing. A balanced narrative about what happened, how the treaties closing the first World War contributed to the second and how Europe was able to get over its divisions, would already be a big achievement. Maybe this could over time give rise also to a myth...

About memories, again

This time comparison of British and Hungarian memorials, both controversial and still different. It is about memorials to victims of the second World War. OK, British were the winners and Hungarian on the side of losers. And in spite of that, British are more tactful, balanced and consider more the sensitivities of others. The Hungarians have a mythical eagle (originally most probably a lanner). It appears as the bird on the coat of arms of the first royal family descending from the chieftain under whose reign the Hungarians entered the Carpathian Basin where they reside also today in a medieval chronicle and as the forefather of this family in another. In Hungarian, however, the word "turul" (most probably of Turkish origin) was first used by a 19th century poet, János Arany. Immediately before and during the war, it was the symbol of a far-right, nationalist and anti-Semitic movement and thus hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews and Roma were murdered in this sign. In spite of that, a memorial was erected in Budapest to commemorate the victims of the war figuring this symbol. The idea led to vivid protests and the Budapest Municipality did not authorise the erection of the monument which was done in spite of that. The creators wanted to soothe the sensitivities by declaring that the memorial also wants to commemorate the civilian victims, including those deported to concentration camps. They were not, however, to give up that the sculpture should be this ill-reputed symbol. The British recently unveiled a memorial to the Bomber Command which also killed many civilians in Germany, among others during the cruel raid on Dresden. It has aroused strong feelings in Germany but it was not erected until they arrived to an agreement that the civilian victims will also be mentioned. But this is a memorial to the dead, and the form, although somewhat strange, and resembling the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, has no offensive message.