Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of

Geography

ISSN: 0029-1951 (Print) 1502-5292 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sgeo20

Monuments and their functions in urban public

space

Waldemar Cudny & Håkan Appelblad

To cite this article: Waldemar Cudny & Håkan Appelblad (2019) Monuments and their functions in
urban public space, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 73:5, 273-289,
DOI: 10.1080/00291951.2019.1694976

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2019.1694976

Published online: 03 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 648

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=sgeo20
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography
2019, VOL. 73, NO. 5, 273–289
https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2019.1694976

Monuments and their functions in urban public space

Waldemar Cudny & Håkan Appelblad

Institute of Geography, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, ul. Świętokrzyska 15, PL 25-406,
Kielce, Poland; Department of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, SE-901 87 Umeå, Sweden

ABSTRACT
The aim of the article is to present and discuss functions of public monuments in relation to
different dimensions of geographical space. The authors discuss public spaces, monuments,
public art, based on a mixed-method approach and an analysis of scientific literature as the main
research method. The theoretical discussion is supplemented with the results of Internet
searches and an analysis of media supplements, and specific examples are given, including some ARTICLE HISTORY
from Poland. An additional method was autoethnography, which involved an analysis of cultural Received 22 October 2017
phenomena based on the authors’ experience. The analysis revealed that monuments were part Accepted 14 November 2019
of public art and thus enriched public spaces in cities. They fulfilled different important
functions: artistic, symbolic, commemorative, political, social, religious, marketing, and mixed. EDITORS
Additionally, the monuments reflected the contemporary transformation of ideas and social Per Gunnar Roe, Catriona
Turner
orders and therefore also reflected contemporary urban debates. They were products of social
relations, powers, ideas, identities, and the collective memory reflected in the urban spatial KEYWORDS
structure of cities. The authors conclude that the examples presented in the demonstrate that monument, Poland, public
monuments perform various functions in urban public spaces. From a spatial perspective, the art, public space, urban space
role of monuments depends on their different impacts on people’s perceptions and
interpretations of space.

Cudny, W. & Appelblad, H. 2019. Monuments and their functions in urban public space. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–
Norwegian Journal of Geography Vol. 73, 273–289. ISSN 0029-1951.

Introduction The debate on the functions of monuments within the

This article analyses the roles fulfilled by monuments in
contemporary urban spaces. The article focus on two
research themes. The first theme is the links between
monuments and public art, and the second theme deals
with urban public space, where monuments usually are
placed. The discussion concerns two aspects of urban
space: tangible physically visible elements and intangible
components such as socio-economic relations or the city
image (Thrift 2003).
Monuments are a vital element of urban space cre-
ation (Johnson 2002). Their importance results from
the multiplicity of roles they play in contemporary cities.
The discussion presented in this article, on the impacts of
monuments that are also referred to as functions of
monuments (i.e. the roles they perform in urban
space), is current in many disciplines, including soci-
ology (Cartiere 2016; Krzyżanowska 2016), anthropology
(Verdery 1999), political science (Crampton 2001),
geography (Forest & Johnson 2002; DeLyser 2008), and
architecture (Stevens et al. 2012; Stevens 2015).
literature encompasses many different research
approaches, which include an analysis of monuments’
spatial structure, their architectural form and their
impacts on urban landscapes (Stevens & Sumartojo
2015; Stevens & Franck 2016). The discussion regards
intangible impacts, including monuments’ impacts on
the social and cultural sphere (Centre de Cultura Con-
temporània de Barcelona 2006; Krzyżanowska 2016),
representations of collective memory (Winberry 1983),
and ongoing sociocultural changes (Mitchell 2003;
Sharp et al. 2005; Zebracki 2017). Researchers have ana-
lysed connections between monuments and politics,
including the formation of national identity and inter-
national geopolitical processes (Auster 1997; Agnew
1998; Atkinson & Cosgrove 1998; Crampton 2001; For-
est & Johnson 2002). An important research theme is
monuments’ influence on city image and brand, which
affects tourism and the economic development of
urban space. The above-mentioned economic and man-
agement issues are linked to the neoliberal paradigm in

CONTACT Waldemar Cudny algernon1@op.pl

© 2019 Norwegian Geographical Society
274 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
urban management, which is city marketing (Ashworth
& Voogd 1988; Kavaratzis 2004). The issues are also
reflected in popular theories on creative cities and the
creative class (Bianchini & Landry 1995; Florida 2002;
2003).
In addition, monuments are related to public art (Hall
& Robertson 2001). Public art is a sociocultural phenom-
enon, which in recent decades has acquired significance
(Hein 1996). The impacts of public art to a large extent
converge with the relations between monuments and
urban public space. They exert an aesthetic influence
on the tangible aspect of urban space, as well as on its
intangible aspects, such as the cultural symbolic, social
and economic spheres of cities (Zebracki et al. 2010; Car-
tiere & Zebracki 2016). Since monuments are shaping
the tangible aesthetics of urban space, they are part of
urban design that influences perceptions of cities and
thus shapes their image and other spheres (Carmona
et al. 2010).
Due to the growing importance of and intensive scho-
larly discussion on public art and monuments, as well as
their impacts on cities and urban environments, we
decided to investigate the topic. The aim of this article
is to present and discuss important functions of public
monuments in relation to geographical space and public
art. A further aim is to provide a possible theoretical fra-
mework for further research on monuments and their
functions in urban public spaces. Geography is a spatial
science, but the analysis of the monuments in relation to
the theory of geographical space (Thrift 2003) has not
been studied comprehensively. Moreover, multidimen-
sional and systematic reviews of monuments’ impacts
on space and their various dimensions are rarely found
in geographical literature. Therefore, these two types of
reviews are presented as two novel approaches in this
article. The article focuses on monuments, but not
monumental buildings such as castles, museums and
palaces. We present a theoretical elaboration, illustrated
with several case studies drawn from the literature, per-
sonal observations and an analysis of Internet resources.
Our discussion focuses on the intersection of public art,
memorialization and social engagement.
Methodology
This article is based on a mixed-method approach, with
an analysis of scientific literature performed as the main
research method in the period January–June 2017. We
included the following online literature databases: Web
of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Google Books.
The literature analysis included published books and
research articles that presented a definition of a monu-
ment, and what socio-economic and spatial roles
monuments fulfil in relation to geographical spaces.
The databases were searched using the following terms:
‘monument’, ‘public space’, and ‘public art’. Moreover,
we supplemented our theoretical discussion with specific
examples from an Internet search. We used the search
engine Google to find the most recent examples of and
discussions on modern types of monuments and monu-
ments’ functions (marketing, social, symbolic, and com-
memorative). In this article we discuss urban public
space, monuments, and public art, and their main
socio-economic and spatial impacts.
The search was supplemented with information found
in press articles and television programmes on the recent
debate in the Western world concerning different types
and functions of monuments. From the Internet and
press resources, we were able to choose interesting
examples of modern counter-monuments, social, cul-
tural and political discussions, and the outcomes of
those discussions (e.g. the case of ‘The Rainbow’ monu-
ment in Warsaw and the heated discussion regarding the
post-Soviet monuments in Europe, or Confederate
monuments in the USA).
Additionally, we used autoethnography as a research
method. Autoethnography involves the analysis of cul-
tural phenomena based on the researcher’s personal
experience and such phenomena have barely been dis-
cussed in studies of public art and monuments (Zebracki
2017). Autoethnography allows personal experience
gained through life and during interactions with people
to have an influence on the way research is conducted
and the data analysed. It is often based on the research-
er’s personal involvement in the studied phenomenon,
and their own direct observation and perception of it.
The method involves the use of previous experiences,
and draws on contemporary social debates (Butz &
Besio 2009; Adams et al. 2015).
Monuments, public art and urban space
Monuments
According to Yi-Fu Tuan (1978), a monument can be
recognized as both a symbol and a sign: as a symbol, a
monument relates to thinking, whereas as a visible land-
mark, it is a useful sign for orientation, and thus it relates
to both behaviour and action. Winberry (1983, 107)
states:
A monument is a structure, usually of durable material,
that has a symbolic or memorial value. It is the creation
of people, and as a symbol it ‘encapsulates and nurtures
an idea or a set of ideas’ that incorporate certain values
and ideals of that society. (2) Monuments also work to
‘organize individual and group memories of the
immediate and distant past [so as to] … arouse the

emotions of individuals and the sentiments of the
group.’ (3) The meaning of the monument is defined
by the act of interpretation, a complex process of public
and private interactions between those who erected the
monument and those who view it through time. This
interaction can result in a multiplicity of meanings as
various individuals participate in the act of interpret-
ation. The meaning of monuments can change also
over time as they are viewed anew by each generation.
Public art
Scholars have treated monuments as an important part
of public art (Hall & Robertson 2001; Senie & Webster
2014). Hall & Robertson (2001) list a number of claims
for the benefits of public art in urban regeneration: pub-
lic works or art are expected to help the development of a
sense of community, a sense of place, and civic identity,
to address community needs, tackling social exclusion,
and promote educational benefits. Similar advocacies
for public art can be found in a recent report on a Swed-
ish public inquiry (SOU 2015:88). With reference to the
expected challenges in society, it is anticipated that
‘architecture, form and design provide powerful tools
and methods, which, through deliberate and inclusive
usage, can contribute to a sustainable development of
society and to bridging the growing economic, social
and geographical divides in society’ (SOU 2015:88, 28).1
The understanding of public art has changed over
time (Hein 1996). The concept of public art was pre-
ceded by the concept of public sculpture. Prior to the
1980s, public sculptures were seen as either installations
or sculptures placed in public spaces and funded by pub-
lic institutions (Cartiere & Zebracki 2016). Later, in the
1980s, a more complex idea of public art emerged,
defining it as a form of art exhibited beyond museum
walls (Zebracki et al. 2010). According to Cartiere
(2016, 14), public art is now a very diverse field encom-
passing ‘sculpture, performance, activism, social engage-
ment, place-making, monuments and memorials, and a
range of other artistic practices that are difficult to cat-
egorize but share the common ground of existing in
and for the public realm’.
A comprehensive definition of public art does not
exist and therefore it can be understood in different
ways in different contexts (Hein 1996; Sharp et al.
2005; Knight 2011). However, several basic elements
that distinguish public art can be identified. The idea
encapsulates the public element within. Hence, public
art, including monuments, must be displayed in a pub-
licly accessible or visible space (Cartiere & Zebracki
2016). The public is a contradiction to the private,
where art is placed in private collections, often accessible
only to its owners and a limited number of other users.
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 275
Therefore, many authors discuss public art as artworks
that are placed in sites with open public access (e.g.
city squares, parks, public buildings, and infrastructural
sites such as railway stations and airports) (Miles 1997).
According to Cartiere & Zebracki, public art should
be ‘concerned with, or affecting the community or indi-
viduals: public interest; maintained for or used by the
community or individuals: public place; paid for the pub-
lic: publicly funded’ (Cartiere & Zebracki 2016, 2–3).
However, some authors (e.g. Hein 1996) claim that
also art funded from private resources may serve as pub-
lic art. The complex and diverse forms of public art
encapsulate different types of artworks, such as free-
standing memorials and sculptures, but also street art
such as murals, temporary installations, performances,
and acts of political activism (Cartiere & Zebracki 2016).
Public art fulfils different functions in urban spaces,
which in turn influence the physical aesthetic aspect of
the city, its economic activity, social interactions and cul-
tural symbolic sphere. The physical space of cities is
altered by public art because such art is a visible and tan-
gible part of an urban space. Moreover, it has a dual
impact on urban economy. On the one hand, public
art attracts and increases investment in the arts in gen-
eral, thereby creating employment for artists, crafts per-
sons and others (Zebracki et al. 2010), and therefore the
creation of public art develops the art sector in cities
(Zebracki et al. 2010; Zebracki 2012). On the other
hand, public art is an important element in the develop-
ment of creative cities (Bianchini & Landry 1995; Comu-
nian 2011). The idea of a creative city encapsulates the
use of heritage, public art, media, and functional cre-
ations for urban growth. Moreover, the idea includes
the rise of knowledge economy based on the creative
class. Hence, the vital challenge for any city that wants
to be creative is to attract and keep the creative class
(Florida 2003). Other impacts of public art include the
influence it has on the social sphere, well as the cultural
and symbolic sphere of cities (Zebracki et al. 2010). In
this case, the impact of urban space includes the creation
of social inclusivity (Sharp 2007; Stevens et al. 2012; Zeb-
racki 2012; 2017; Krzyżanowska 2016) and a symbolic
landscape representing history and identity, and values
related to them (Zebracki et al. 2010).
Urban space
An important issue that needs to be addressed is the con-
cept of urban space. In this regard, we restrict our analy-
sis to sites in urban public spaces, for which the concept
of space is crucial. Massey (1992) argues that space
should not be understood as an absolute or independent
dimension, but rather the opposite: space is a
276 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
construction of social relations. Consequently, there can
never be only one fixed and static space. In line with this
argument, Massey (1999) proposes the relational space
view. The one-dimensional view of space as a container
is rejected in favour of the notion of ‘multiplex’, socially
constructed conceptions of space. According to Lis-
zewski (2008, 189), urban space ‘is a part (subspace, par-
tial space) of geographical space, which is characterized
by a particular organization and landscape, with domi-
nant non-agricultural human activity, and this area has
a formally defined legal status (of a city)’. Convention-
ally, public spaces consist of streets, squares, parks, and
buildings that house public facilities. Thus, residential
areas, offices and other private enterprises are excluded
from what is recognized as a public space. The difference
between private and public can then be seen from a legal
perspective (i.e. whether or not it is private or public
property). From the point of view of urban design, the
public spaces in cities may be related more to function
and use than to ownership. We may treat spaces as pub-
lic if they are accessible to everybody, without any
restrictions (Markowski 2001). Public spaces can then
be seen as elements in the city that are physically and
functionally included in the urban armature. Erickson
(2001, 29–30) observes that ‘The armature distinguishes
and privileges those parts of the city in collective use. The
principal elements are buildings, spaces and institutions
… , but it may also include privately owned buildings,
such as shopping centres.’
In our analysis, space is a fundamental concept due to
its link with monuments and their impacts. Thrift (2003,
95) states:
space is not a commonsense external background to
human and social action. Rather, it is the outcome of
a series of highly problematic temporary settlements
that divide and connect things up into different kinds
of collectives which are slowly provided with the
means which render them durable and sustainable.
According to Thrift (2003), four dimensions of space are
distinguished in geography. These can be summarized as
follows:
1. the first space – empirical constructions, which are
visible, measurable and physically present
2. the second (unblocking) space: connections (social
and economic) through which we come to know
how the world interacts2
3. the third space – image space, which refers to pictures
or images that are an exemplification of space (e.g.
pictures, photos, satellite images, and films)
4. the fourth space – place space, which is understood as
a place that ‘consists of particular rhythms of being
that confirm and naturalize the existence of certain
spaces … places not only offer resources of many
different kinds … but they also provide cues to mem-
ory and behavior’ (Thrift 2003, 102–103).
Thrift’s four types of space form the conceptual frame-
work for our following analysis of monuments as
elements of urban public space.
Main spatial functions of monuments
Artistic function
Since monuments are treated as a part of public art (Hall
& Robertson 2001; Senie & Webster 2014) and public
space (Johnson 2002), any discussion of their functions
should be combined with an analysis of the impact of
public art on space. Hall & Robertson (2001, 5) state
that public art influences art, economy, and social,
environmental and psychological relations in cities. On
the basis of intensive literature research, Zebracki et al.
(2010, 787–788) distinguish several contributions to
urban space made by public art. For example, public
art influences the physical aesthetic aspect of urban
space. Hence, it enhances the aesthetic quality of space,
improves its attractiveness, and draws peoples’ attention
to a given space. Another contribution of public art to
urban space is increasing economic activity due to
investment in arts, which attract tourists, and lead to
place marketing and promotion opportunities for cities.
Public art fulfils different social roles, including
enhancement of social interactions at different levels,
social inclusion, the fight against prejudice and intoler-
ance, and change in the social meanings of urban spaces.
Another valuable contribution in this respect encom-
passes the cultural symbolic sphere: public art creates
symbolic values by presenting the history and identity
of localities. It contributes to national and civic identity,
as well as local distinctiveness, and leads to the creation
of ideas, as well as pedagogical values and benefits.
Monuments are a tangible element of the cultural
landscape and reflect the development of a given com-
munity. At the same time, a monument and its sur-
roundings create a symbolic material landscape in an
urban context, which is reflected in the urban mor-
phology (Dwyer 2002; Savage 2009). Monuments are
part of urban design and therefore influence the mor-
phology and perception of urban space, as well as its
visual, functional and social dimensions (Carmona
et al. 2010). Further, art is a phenomenon that plays an
increasing role in the contemporary world. The space
around us is enriched with various forms of artistic
expression, including monuments. Thus, monuments
are an element of popularizing art and they make a
space more accessible and turn it into a public space

(Sharp et al. 2005). Public art is an element of physical
urban space development, and adds to its aesthetic
expression and defines it meaning. It also performs
many very important functions related to the develop-
ment of local image and unblocking space (Spayde
2012; du Cros & Jolliffe 2016).
Symbolic function
Monuments in the classical style versus modern monu-
ments. When physical or empirical aspects of space (i.e.
the first dimension of space identified by Thrift (2003))
are discussed, it is important not to forget that an
urban space is shaped by social relations and forces
that play a crucial role in its creation and management
(Lefebvre 1974). Monuments are tangible symbols and
products of social relations, ideas, social powers, and
identities, as well as of the collective memory reflected
in the urban spatial structure (Mitchell 2003; Centre de
Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona 2006; Antonova
et al. 2017). The spatial organization of monuments
has changed over time, and hence their impact on the
dimensions of space identified as by Thrift (2003) has
changed too. Thrift’s first space (empirical construc-
tions) is affected by the existence of monuments. Monu-
ments in the classical style are spatial symbols and
mainly designed as free-standing figures, usually in the
form of statues dominating urban space (Savage 2009;
Stevens & Franck 2016). The figures were placed on a
pedestal or an elevated platform, sometimes sup-
plemented with seating. Monuments were an integral
part of an important public space (a square, market-
place). A good example of a monument in classical
style is Nelson’s Column in London, completed in
1843 and located in the large public space of Trafalgar
Square. It is a free-standing elevated statue of a national
hero, Admiral Horatio Nelson, who died in the Battle of
Trafalgar in 1805.
In the 20th century, modern art became popular and
could be seen in the form of monuments. Instead of
figurative sculptures presenting real persons or objects,
more abstract monuments were created. Moreover,
many artists started to experiment with new materials
(e.g. glass and iron), surface finishes and construction
techniques, which added to the aesthetic aspect of
urban spaces (Zebracki et al. 2010). In our opinion, a
good example of such a modernist monument is Richard
Serra’s Tilted Arc, which was constructed from weath-
ered steel and erected in 1979 in downtown Manhattan
but removed five years later after a heated public debate.
Serra argued that modern public art must oppose main-
stream tastes, express marginal and innovative points of
view, and set new trends in art (Levine 2002).
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 277
Therefore, he rejected the mainstream criticism that his
artwork was disturbing, not in keeping with the environ-
ment, and anti-democratic, thus opposing the majority
of opinions (Levine 2002; Zebracki 2012).
Another example of a monument in the modernist
style is Grön eld (Fig. 1) in the city of Umeå, Sweden.
To some extent, it is the result of a combination of
monuments in the classical style and the modernist
approach. The monument is distinctively spatial and cul-
turally dominant, placed in the middle of an open public
space, Järnvägstorget Square. It is a tangible morphologi-
cal element, visible from a distance and a symbol of the
local community. However, it resembles the modernist
approach as it is has been placed on a low base and con-
structed of sheets of green glass, which have been glued
together and cut in the shape of flames (Skrubbe 2007).
Experiencing monuments
The most significant change in the spatial organization
and functions of monuments occurred in the 1980s
(Savage 2009; Stevens & Franck 2016). Since then, aware-
ness of the role of public memory in Western societies
has increased, at the same time as the number and var-
iety of public monuments, and the culture of memory
has developed (Bonder 2009). Stevens & Sumartojo
(2015) describe the process as the memory boom.
Instead of monuments in the classical style, greater num-
bers of spatial monuments were erected. The latter
differed from the former in terms of spatial organization,
theme, visualization, interpretation, and the emotions
they evoked in people (Stevens & Franck 2016). Modern
monuments tend to establish a kind of dialogical relation
and mutual understanding between the artist and the
people who look at and use the space around and some-
times also within monuments. They represent a type of a
roadmap, with their spatial topography presents the
mainframe for experiencing monuments (Bonder
2009). Tragic events and traumas started to be comme-
morated by means of monuments. One of the first of
such monuments was Maya Lin’s Vietnam Veterans
Memorial, completed in 1982, in Washington. Other
examples of modern spatial monuments include the
Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain in London
and the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in
Berlin. Such monuments are not as clear and obvious
as monuments in the classical style. The latter usually
conveyed clear and unequivocal messages, such as the
commemoration of a hero or a heroic event, whereas
modern spatial monuments are subject to individual
interpretation, relation and experience.
Moreover, the perception of monuments has evolved
from seeing to experiencing (Stevens & Franck 2016).
Therefore, modern monuments have tended to become
278 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
Fig. 1. Grön eld in Umea, Sweden; designed by Vicke Lindstrand (Photo: H. Appelblad, 2018)
a type of experience space. They are often combined with
recreational elements such as green spaces or water.
People can, for example, walk on the monument, learn
about the person or story it represents, and they can
touch and sit on it (Stevens 2012; Stevens & Sumartojo
2015; Stevens & Franck 2016).
The idea of experiencing monuments may be linked
to the rise of experience societies in the 20th century.
As presented by Schulze (2005), contemporary societies
search for experiences by participating in extraordinary,
interesting, and unusual situations. The idea of experi-
ence societies influenced social relations and economy
(experience economy), marketing and management,
including city marketing (experiential marketing). It
also left a significant mark on the management of
urban memorial landscapes (Graham & Healey 1999).
Interpreting monuments
The shift from the unambiguous appearance and simple
meanings of monuments resulted from the growth of
post-structuralism in the second half of the 20th century.
Post-structuralism involves criticizing the structural
ideas of rational knowledge of reality, objectivity, and
universality. The movement was connected with, for
example, the rise of critical theory, feminism, anti-
racism, multiculturalism, and gender equality (Geuss
1999; Williams 2014). Hence, it influenced social
relations and art, including public art and monuments,
in which the common clichés of understanding and
interpreting monuments were replaced with in-depth
discourses and abrasion of interpretations. The develop-
ment of modern monuments led to the distinguishing of
a new type of monument, called a counter-monument
(or anti-monument) (Stevens et al. 2012; Krzyżanowska
2016). According to Stevens et al. (2012, 952), counter-
monuments are ‘those which reject and renegotiate the
traditional forms and reasons for public memorial art,
such as prominence and durability, figurative represen-
tation and the glorification of past deeds’. Counter-
monuments can be considered with respect to several
aspects, namely the subject, form, site, visitors’ experi-
ence, and meaning (Stevens et al. 2012). As already men-
tioned (in the section headed ‘Experiencing monuments’),
traditional monuments convey clear and most often
didactic messages, whereas counter-monuments require
individual multidimensional interpretations, based on visi-
tors’ perception and engagement. Counter-monuments
often have multiple meanings and sometimes they are
tools for questioning and criticising the social order
and values (Stevens et al. 2012; Krzyżanowska 2016), as

exemplified by the Stonewall National Monument in
New York.
Traditional monuments affirm heroic events or per-
sons, whereas anti-monuments often recognize dark
events and warn against sinister ideologies. They recog-
nize victims and admonish the perpetrators instead of
glorifying heroes, as in the case of the Monument against
Fascism in Hamburg.
Furthermore, counter-monuments differ in their
form. As mentioned above (in the section ‘Experiencing
monuments’), traditional monuments have central and
prominent locations, whereas counter-monuments are
often situated in everyday places, such as in streets, on
pavements or in parks. A good example of this tendency
is Gunter Demning’s Stolpersteine, which comprises
horizontal tablets commemorating the Holocaust.
Monuments in the classical style are distinctive symbols
designed to be looked upon and admired from a dis-
tance, whereas counter-monuments are designed to
allow close encounters (visitor experiences), as in the
case of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe
in Berlin (Stevens 2012). According to Stevens & Franck
(2016), it is good to allow people to use contemporary
spatial monuments, such as the aforementioned one in
Fig. 2. Tunnel of the Deported, part of the Radegast Railway Station memorial in Łódź, Poland: designed by Czesław Bielecki (Photo:
W. Cudny, 2017)
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 279
Berlin, because public use is an integral part of their
design and intended purpose.
According to Carmona et al. (2012), just as urban
designs have their temporal dimensions, so, too, do
monuments. Recently, other types of monuments have
appeared in public spaces. They may be described as
informal in that they are made without the official
approval of the state or city. They are temporary symbols
made of flowers, cards, candles, and banners. Sometimes,
they are more durable, such as crosses erected at the sites
of road accidents. Such installations are mainly con-
structed at places where tragic events and sudden death
have occurred, and thus transform public spaces into
temporary places of commemoration (Stevens & Franck
2016). Such informal monuments allow for an immedi-
ate social response to tragedies, including great national
tragedies, such as the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11
September 2001 and the death of Princess Diana in Paris
in 1997 (Laliberte n.d.).
A good example of a modern, spatial monument that
is also a counter-monument is the Radegast Memorial
designed by Czesław Bielecki and unveiled in 2005
(Fig. 2). It is located in Łódź (Poland), where during
World War II Germans created the second largest
280 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
Jewish ghetto in occupied Poland. In order to commem-
orate the ghetto’s victims, Łódź City Council erected the
memorial on the premises of the former Radegast Rail-
way Station, which was used for the deportation of Jews
during World War II. The memorial has several main
elements: the original wooden station building, concrete
matzevahs (tombstones) with the names of concen-
tration camps, the Tunnel of the Deported, and the
Hall of Cities and the Column of Memory. People can
visit the wooden station building and learn from the
museum exposition. They can walk through the Tunnel
of the Deported (Fig. 2), a monument that symbolizes
the journey from the railway station to the concen-
tration camps. The tunnel contains a very emotional
exhibition dedicated to the Holocaust. The whole expo-
sition is constructed in such a way that walking around
the memorial is a moving interactive experience and
intended to make the visitors think deeply about the
fate of Jews during World War II.
Commemorative function
An important function of monuments is the creation of
visible symbols that build ‘collective memory’ (Johnson
1995) or ‘social memory’ (Johnson 2002; DeLyser
2008). The function is interconnected with the cultural
symbolic contribution of public art. Public art shapes
symbolic values by commemorating and presenting the
history and identity of localities in an urban space (Zeb-
racki et al. 2010). The commemorative function of
monuments influences several dimensions of geographi-
cal space, namely image space, unblocking space and
place space. However, of the three types, unblocking
space is most affected by commemorative monuments.
People interact with monuments and the memories
they evoke in the social sphere:
Memory is not simply a recollection of times past; it is
also anchored in places past and visualized in masonry
and bronze. The ordering of memory around sites of
collective remembrance provides a focus for the per-
formance of rituals of communal remembrance and
sometimes forgetfulness. (Johnson 2002, 294)
Monuments perform the commemorative function
(Johnson 1995; DeLyser 2008). Commemorating is a
part of the politics of memory, as in remembering
great leaders (Savage 2009), wars, soldiers, and impor-
tant battles (Johnson 1995), as well as national tragedies.
In the case of counter-monuments, the commemorative
function focuses on victims, such as those who were
oppressed and killed by totalitarian regimes (Stevens
et al. 2012; Krzyżanowska 2016). Commemoration may
also concern outstanding artists, physicians, engineers,
inventors, sports persons, or distinguished people who
were important for a given community (DeLyser 2008).
There are many examples of the commemorative func-
tion of monuments, and objects that perform this func-
tion include the Washington Monument, which
commemorates the first president of the USA, and is
situated in the National Mall Park in Washington D.C.
A similar function is performed by modern counter-
monuments, such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,
which commemorates American soldiers who fought in
the Vietnam War.
An example of a person often represented in com-
memorative monuments in order to maintain national
identity and strengthen social memory is Marshal Józef
Piłsudski, who ruled Poland before World War II. He
was a very important political and military leader, and
was responsible for the reunification of the country
after the period of partitions, which ended in 1918.
Today, numerous public monuments erected in memory
of Marshal Józef Piłsudski can be found throughout
Poland (Fig. 3). The Saint Wenceslas monument in Pra-
gue is of similar importance. It represents the patron of
the country, Saint Wenceslas, the Duke of Bohemia,
who lived in the 10th century. The monument is situated
at a popular meeting place in Prague, in the upper part of
Wenceslas Square, where Prague citizens often gathered
during dramatic events in the past (e.g. during the Velvet
Revolution in 1989) or for celebrations (such as after the
Czech Republic’s victory in the 2010 IIHF World Cham-
pionship organized by the International Ice Hockey
Federation).
Political function
The areas surrounding monuments often become the
venues for various political events, such as rallies, meet-
ings with voters, or demonstrations organized on anni-
versary days or national holidays. Such meetings are at
the same time an opportunity to promote certain ideas,
political parties or politicians (Forest & Johnson 2002).
Besides connections with the unblocking space, it is
appropriate to discuss a monument’s influence on the
place space, which according to Thrift (2003) is con-
structed of interactions, memories and behaviours
associated with a specific place.
Sometimes, the character of a monument has been
imposed by its creator or those who commissioned it
in cases when it expresses the political or military dom-
ination of one nation over another. Such a situation often
occurred in former colonial countries and in the Eastern
European state dominated by the USSR. The symbols
were imposed and socially rejected. One such example
was the Stalin Monument in Prague, in former Czecho-
slovakia. Two years after Stalin’s death, in 1955, the

Fig. 3. Marshal Józef Piłsudski monument in Warsaw, Poland; designed by Stanisław Ostrowski (Photo: W. Cudny, 2014)
monument was unveiled by Czechoslovakia’s Commu-
nist Regime, and it depicted the Soviet leader in front
of the people. The monument was destroyed in 1962,
during the de-Stalinization period. Later, after the fall
of communist regimes in Central Europe, the majority
of similar communist monuments in the affected
countries were demolished (Verdery 1999; Clements
2018). The situation was similar after the retreat of the
French from Algeria, and in the Republic of Ireland,
when the country became self-governing (Murphy
1994; Sharp et al. 2005).
Due to their cultural and symbolic values, monuments
have important political functions, which influence the
unblocking space. Thus, politics is a part of the social
relationships and, to some extent, the economic relation-
ships in geographical space. In addition, monuments are
places where meetings, demonstrations and official cele-
brations of state holidays are organized (Johnson 1995).
Such monuments have certain symbolic capital.
Elements of their symbolic capital may be pieces of art
that have some representative social value. Other
elements of monuments’ symbolic capital are often
taken advantage of by politicians (Agnew 1998). This,
too, concerns the political function of monuments,
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 281
which have several purposes. Monuments serve the pur-
pose of building the political identity of, for example, the
nation, around certain common, historically significant
events or persons, which contribute to forming national
identity (Crampton 2001). They unite the country and
the nation around certain symbols, which may be people
(such as political and military leaders or famous artists)
or events (wars and battles) that have played an impor-
tant role in the history of a particular city or region, or
the country as a whole.
Many of the monuments mentioned earlier in this
article (in the section ‘Symbolic function’) are examples
of public involvement in the process of monument cre-
ation, often with a positive effect. However, in some
cases, public involvement in the creation of monuments
represents the state’s hegemony over memory and public
space. Some powerful social and political forces and
sponsors often portray dominant narratives in the
form of public monuments. This phenomenon may
lead to the marginalization and underrepresentation of
some important social groups in their struggle for mem-
ory (Mitchell 2003).
In some cases, public engagement in monuments may be
highly controversial, such as in the case of the Neue Wahe
282 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
memorial building in Berlin (Mitchell 2003) and the
memorial to Wehrmacht deserters killed by the Nazis,
which was built in Ballhausplatz in Vienna. These state
memorials have often been criticized for their equal
treatment of the victims and the representatives of the
Nazi regime (DW [Deutsche Welle] 2014). In the USA,
the recent case of removing statues in honour of the
Confederate politicians and commanders from public
spaces led to a heated debate (Dawid 2017), as they
were (and are) seen by many as spatial symbols of
white supremacy and slavery. However, some authorities
in the USA have tried to protect the monuments from
removal (Burling 2005).
After the fall of the USSR, the transformation of pub-
lic monuments started in Russia and many post-Soviet
countries in Europe. As individual countries wanted to
take control of their politics of memory, Soviet monu-
ments became sites of great conflict (Clements 2018).
Some groups wanted to keep them, while others wanted
their removal. Sometimes, the removal of Soviet monu-
ments has even caused diplomatic conflict. This was
the case in the recent action taken in Poland, regarding
the removal of Soviet Army monuments from public spaces
(Sieradzka 2016). The action planned in 2016 finally started
in 2017 with the change of the de-communization
legislation and it caused serious diplomatic tensions
between Poland and the Russian Federation, where the
action was perceived as akin to rewriting the history
(BBC 2017).
Social function
Social inclusion is a very important element of monu-
ment creation and is connected with the influence of
monuments on the unblocking space of urban socio-
economic relationships and the place space of cities. It
is also connected with the social functions of public art
(Zebracki et al. 2010). According to Sharp et al. (2005,
1001),
The key to the creation of social cohesion is the belief
that public art, or the processes through which it is pro-
duced, is able to create a sense of inclusion. By this
token, public art should be able to generate a sense of
ownership forging the connection between citizens,
city spaces and their meaning as places through which
subjectivity is constructed.
Social inclusion encompasses the democratization of the
economic and social life of cities. It focuses on reducing
economic inequalities, democratic decision-making,
addressing community needs, eradicating exclusion
and enhancing public discourse with regard to the beliefs
and points of view of underrepresented social groups
(Zebracki et al. 2010; Lees & Melhuish 2015; Cartiere
& Zebracki 2016).
One way to create social inclusivity is through tourism
development, based on the economic and branding func-
tions of public art. In this case, the growth of tourism
makes it possible to increase the number of jobs and
the local community’s income, which contributes to
the decrease in economic inequalities. This is described
by Plaza (2000) as the Guggenheim effect, which consists
of the influence of urban architectural flagships on tour-
ism development and urban regeneration (Sharp et al.
2005; Andersson 2014). However, the most important
part of monument-related tourism seems to be the social
aspect of inclusion, as it has important and diverse
impacts on the unblocking space in cities.
Monuments draw attention to the role of people and
groups whose stories, needs and views, which so far have
been omitted from the mainstream media and political
discourse. It should be emphasized that the creation of
monuments is a result of the struggle for social power
(Krzyżanowska 2016). Public space and public art form
a battlefield where different narratives fight for domi-
nance, also from the cultural aspect. Space is often domi-
nated by the strongest social groups, stereotypes and
dominant social powers (Mitchell 2003), which often
leads to cultural injustice in the public space. Hence, in
some cases, monuments may be seen as a sign of the
spatial hegemony of dominant social powers (Gramsci
1973; Krzyżanowska 2016).
However, with the development of post-modernism
shaping of contemporary Western civilization, a new
critical approach to the role of culture and art in social
inclusion has emerged. The approach is based on criti-
cism of mainstream dogmas; it raises the rank of indivi-
dualism and strengthens the democratization of public
life by increasing the admittance and multiplicity of nar-
ratives and pluralism of views and public discourse
(Seidman 1994; Derrida 1997; Foucault 2005). This
new approach to philosophy, culture and art has been
reflected in the form and functions of modern monu-
ments. Modern counter-monuments are now character-
ized by an ambiguous, often enigmatic, artistic vision
that requires viewers’ own interpretation. This new inter-
pretative meaning has replaced the previously dominant,
homogenous mainstream narratives of monuments in
the classical style. Simultaneously, people and whole
social groups that had not had a place in the memorial
landscape have started to be represented in monuments
(Stevens et al. 2012; Krzyżanowska 2016). Such monu-
ments are often a source of intensive public discussion
or even social conflicts. However, as stated by Sharp
(2007, 288), ‘Public art needs to be something that gen-
erates debate, something active rather than something

fitting so seamlessly with what is there already that it
becomes invisible.’
There are several examples of modern monuments
representing important social groups (such as women, les-
bian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGTB) groups, ordin-
ary people, and disabled persons) which have often been
marginalized in the public space. Examples of such monu-
ments include Barbara Paterson’s statue Women are Per-
sons! on Parliament Hill, Ottawa (comprising five
suffragettes fighting for women’s election rights) (Stevens
2015) and the works of Marc Quinn, who presents dis-
abled persons (e.g. the temporary monument titled Alison
Lapper, displayed in Trafalgar Square, London, in the
years 2005–2007) (Stevens et al. 2012). Contrary to
famous politicians, war heroes and other notable persons,
counter-monuments present ordinary people (e.g. the
Building Worker memorial on the north side of the
Tower of London) (Stevens & Sumartojo 2015). A vast
number of monuments present victims instead of winners
of wars (as seen in the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,
Washington DC and the many modern Holocaust mem-
orials) (Krzyżanowska 2016).
A very interesting debate on the role of monuments in
the struggle for the rights of underrepresented social
groups and gender inclusivity is presented in articles
by Zebracki (2012; 2017). The first article concerns the
role of Paul McCarthy’s statue titled Santa (also know
as the ‘butt plug gnome’), a public art sculpture located
in the centre of Rotterdam. The location of the monu-
ment evoked many controversies and a heated public
discussion about its aesthetic and moral context, as
well as gender equality and the statue’s functions in
urban space. The final shape of the sculpture raised
important questions regarding the predominant social
and spatial powers and their role in the society. Zeb-
racki’s second article concerns the Homomonument in
Amsterdam. It commemorates LGTB people who,
‘based on their “atypica” sexuality, were (and still are)
discriminated, subject to prejudice, persecuted and mur-
dered through history and space’ (Zebracki 2017, 346).
Zebracki states that the Homomonument is a place
where sexual identities and feelings, as well as differences
can be safely expressed. The monument space became
the venue of many LGBT events and a public space for
homosexuals, reflecting the community’s life and history,
where the battles for LGTB rights could be fought.
An interesting example of contemporary processes and
discourses connected with the creation of monuments
dedicated to tolerance and LGTB rights is the art installa-
tion titled The Rainbow, which was created by Julita Wój-
cik and located in Warsaw in the period 2012–2015. The
Rainbow was a symbol of a covenant, peace, and hope, but
it also represented LGTB movements and their fight for
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 283
gender equality. The art installation was vandalized and
set on fire seven times by anti-LGBT groups. ‘The Rain-
bow’ evoked a strong public debate regarding gender
equality in Poland and was removed from the site in
2015. However, after a long struggle, The Rainbow was
restored in the form of a temporary water hologram
(Newsweek 2018; Wprost 2018).
Religious function
A part of social inclusivity, as well as an element of social
relations and their reflection in the unblocking aspect of
urban space, is the representation of religious beliefs.
Monuments perform a significant religious function in
representing spiritual beliefs (Hilal 2014). The monument
has been an element of religious cult since ancient times
(Debono-Roberts 2003; Gaifman 2006). In this case, the
monument or religious statue is an object of admiration,
prayer, and sometimes even a pilgrimage destination. A
sanctified monument often becomes a pull factor in attract-
ing religious tourists (Wang et al. 2015, 4). Such monu-
ments also commemorate historical characters connected
with a given religion, such as saints or church leaders.
The religious function of monuments means that the
monuments influence Thrift’s second unblocking space
of social relations (Thrift 2003). This process is even
referred to as landscape sacralization (Przybylska &
Czepczyński 2016). The landscape is an element of
place space and it influences the image of individual
locations. Therefore, religious monuments also influence
the place space and the image space distinguished by
Thrift (2003). A part of human culture is religion and
therefore religious monuments emphasize this element
in the cultural landscape. They are a symbol of the dom-
ination of a given religion in a given space and place, and
an element of cultural heritage. In religiously active
societies, religious monuments are an element of living
cultural heritage. By contrast, in atheist societies they
are a historical relic of the old religious cult, which is a
part of the cultural heritage linking these societies with
their past (Badone 2015). A perfect example of this
type of monument is the statue titled Jesus Christ the
Redeemer, erected on the Corcovado Mountain in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil. Other examples of holy figures well-
known for the miracles they performed are depicted in
the statues of Mary, the mother of Jesus in the sanctuary
in Lourdes (France), Fatima (Portugal) and Częstochowa
(Poland) (Fig. 4).
Marketing function
The modern management approach to urban develop-
ment is often based on marketing assumptions rising
284 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
Fig. 4. Virgin Mary monument in Jasna Gora Monastery in Częstochowa, Poland (Photo: W. Cudny, 2016)
from neoliberalism (Ashworth & Voogd 1988; Kavarat-
zis 2004). Cities are currently treated as marketable pro-
ducts for sale. The city product is a compound offer to
fulfil the needs of different groups of customers, such
as inhabitants, investors and tourists. A part of city mar-
keting is the creation of landmarks that could be tourist
attractions and used in branding and promotional cam-
paigns (Kavaratzis 2004). As presented by Zebracki et al.
(2010), public art influences the physical aesthetic aspect
of urban space because it is a type of landmark that draws
people’s attention to a certain space. Hence, monuments
are spatial landmarks that influence the image space of
cities as defined by Thrift (2003) and become flagship
elements used in city marketing (Kent 2009). Due to
their promotional function, monuments also contribute
to the development of tourism and to the economic
development of cities. Thus, monuments may also be
regarded as an example of public art that influences
economic activity (Zebracki et al. 2010).
Lew (1987, 558), in his article on the framework of
tourist attraction research, includes monuments among
man-made tourist attractions connected with culture,
history and art, in addition to museums. Monuments
are of interest to tourists for two different reasons: Either
they constitute viewing spots and symbolic places where
tourists take souvenir photographs or they commemor-
ate famous characters or events and in that way become
a part of tourism for people interested in history or bio-
graphies of famous characters. Moreover, they are com-
ponents of the cultural heritage of a country, region or
city. Therefore, monuments are symbols of a given tour-
ist destination and become tourist magnets for visitors
(A. Smith 2007; Savage 2009; White 2012). Such monu-
ments are frequently presented in the media as impor-
tant tourist attractions and as ‘must see’ flagship places
(M.K. Smith 2003). Thus, monuments become the pur-
pose of travel, as a part of either heritage tourism
(Timothy 1997) or cultural tourism (M.K. Smith 2003).
Examples of ‘must-see’ monuments and urban flagship
works include monuments in the classical style such as
Nelson’s Column in London (rated by TripAdvisor in
2018 as number 306 out of 1853 tourists attractions in
London3) and modern monuments such as the Diana,
Princess of Wales Memorial Fountain in London

(rated by TripAdvisor in 2018 as number 333 out of 1853
tourists attractions in London, see note 3) and the Viet-
nam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC (rated by
TripAdvisor in 2018 as number 4 of 483 tourist attrac-
tions in Washington DC, see note 3) (for further
examples, see Stevens & Sumartojo 2015; Krzyżanowska
2016).
The tourism function of monuments influences differ-
ent dimensions of geographical space. On the one hand,
the monuments serve to form an image of a given space,
which could be defined as the tourist image, and thus,
monuments may be treated as elements that influence
the image space. On the other hand, they generate tourist
traffic, which is a social and economic phenomenon, and
therefore, it is justified to claim that monuments influ-
ence also the unblocking space of socio-economic
relations.
Mixed functions
The functions of many monuments co-occur and are
interconnected. Monuments that have commemorative
functions very often depict famous characters, such as
those with political accomplishments. At the same
time, some of them are well-known structures that rep-
resent the city in which they are located and are therefore
also tourist attractions. Thus, a number of monuments
have mixed functions. A perfect example is the Statue
of Liberty on Liberty Island in New York Harbour. The
statue was a gift from France to the USA, to commemor-
ate the political alliance of both nations during the
American War of Independence. In 1924, it was con-
sidered an American national memorial, and was later
inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list. The Sta-
tue of Liberty functioned to build national identity and
strengthen national pride. In the second half of the
20th century, the monument acquired significant tourist
functions too; it became a symbol of the New York City,
but also a symbol associated with the USA as a whole and
attractive to tourists (Pretes 2003; Tussyadiah & Fesen-
maier 2009).
Discussion
Social transition, art and symbolic meaning
Monuments are public art (Hall & Robertson 2001; Zeb-
racki et al. 2010) and simultaneously they are artefacts in
urban space (Johnson 2002). The analysis presented in
this article includes both aspects. Allison (2018) argues
that because monuments are public art, they are means
of social transition. Some of them (e.g. monuments in
the classical style) affirm existing societal norms and
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 285
ideologies, while others (e.g. modern counter-monuments)
function to push for new understanding of the world. This
argumentation is in line with Stevens et al. (2012) and
Krzyżanowska (2016), who state that modern monu-
ments are aimed at reinforcing societal norms and creat-
ing intensive public discussion. It also overlaps with
Sharp’s argumentation of public art as trigger of public
debate and social change (Sharp 2007).
Stevens & Franck (2016) argue that monuments have
a special role in public space. Monuments are usually
placed in easy accessible public spaces (e.g. parks, streets,
and squares), and are used by people for commemora-
tion, politics and most often for playful everyday prac-
tices. Moreover, unlike streets and squares, monuments
are somewhat loose public entities that are free of com-
mercial activities (e.g. retail and gastronomy), and there-
fore they can be used freely by people.
Monuments are public spaces, but they are also some-
thing more, because unlike most streets and squares they
are designed to be meaningful and to fulfil not only play-
ful everyday practices but also commemorative or politi-
cal functions (Stevens & Franck 2016). Thus, they have
several important impacts (functions) on geographical
space. The following functions of monuments within
geographical space can be distinguished: artistic, sym-
bolic, commemorative, social, political, religious, and
marketing. Furthermore, some monuments fulfil mixed
functions. All of the functions have important impacts
on different dimensions of geographical space in urban
areas (Table 1).
As part of public art, monuments are a form of artistic
expression and therefore have artistic functions (Zeb-
racki et al. 2010; Cartiere 2016). Art influences people
and is therefore an element of unblocking space. Art is
also connected with particular place, as it is derived
from the culture and history of that place. Additionally,
art builds place image, such as images perceived by tour-
ists and triggers tourist movements. This type of impact
by monuments is connected with the cultural symbolic
and economic impacts of public art (Zebracki et al.
2010). Hence, artistic functions influence not only the
unblocking space but also the image space and place
space in urban areas (Thrift 2003).
Monuments are tangible symbols of certain urban
spaces and are often located in nodal points within
urban space (Mitchell 2003; Centre de Cultura Contem-
porània de Barcelona 2006; Savage 2009; Stevens &
Franck 2016). Through this symbolic function, monu-
ments influence the empirical space, as they are tangible
elements of urban morphology (Dwyer 2002; Savage
2009; Carmona et al. 2012). In line with the definition
of a monument (i.e. provided in the section ‘Public art’),
many monuments have commemorative functions
286 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
Table 1. Main functions of monuments and their impact on
different dimensions of urban space based on Thrift’s
classification of urban space
Monuments’ functions Influence of monuments’ functions on
urban space (identified by Thrift 2003)
Artistic Unblocking space
Image space
Place space
Symbolic Empirical space
Commemorative Unblocking space
Image space
Place space
Social Unblocking space
Place space
Political Unblocking space
Place space
Religious Unblocking space
Image space
Place space
Marketing Unblocking space
Image space
(Johnson 1995; 2002; DeLyser 2008). The commemora-
tive functions relate to another function of important
public art, namely shaping symbolic values by commem-
orating history, identities and localities (Zebracki et al.
2010).
Commemoration, interpretation and marketing
Monuments are tributes to famous persons (Savage
2009) or important events (Johnson 1995), and this func-
tion influences different dimensions of urban space. Col-
lective or social memory is co-created by monuments
(Winberry 1983; Mitchell, 2003; Centre de Cultura Con-
temporània de Barcelona 2006) and therefore the
unblocking space is influenced by monuments. Social
memory is a key element in the creation of such relations
and monuments are important components of this pro-
cess. Monuments create images of particular urban
spaces and thus represent famous people and history
attached to specific areas. Since they create images of
such areas, they also influence place space.
Monuments in the classical style were created as dis-
tinguished spatial symbols that dominated the surround-
ing space, whereas modern counter-monuments differ
from in terms of their spatial organization and visualiza-
tion, as well as visitors’ experiences of them (Savage
2009; Stevens & Franck 2016). Today, when creating
monuments, the focus is on visitors’ perceptions and
interpretations, as well as on characterizing underrepre-
sented social groups (Stevens et al. 2012; Krzyżanowska
2016). The focus is in line with the social functions of
the public art traditions to which the monuments adhere.
Public art and monuments should help to ensure the
social inclusion of minorities and less powerful groups,
and thereby create connections between citizens, urban
spaces and spatial objects such as monuments
(Sharp et al. 2005). Modern monuments may express
values such as feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism,
and gender equality (Zebracki et al. 2010; Zebracki
2012; 2017; Williams 2014; Cartiere & Zebracki 2016),
and thus they reinforce the unblocking and place dimen-
sions of geographical space.
The political functions of monuments include their
commemorative functions, namely the commemoration
of famous politicians or other persons of importance in a
given state or nation (Savage 2009), as well as the com-
memoration of victims and warning against sinister
ideologies (Stevens et al. 2012; Krzyżanowska 2016).
Additionally, monuments reflect the role of public art
in presenting and commemorating both history and
the identity of localities (Zebracki et al. 2010). Political
functions may also be exemplified in the use of monu-
ments and their surroundings as spaces for political
events and state celebrations (Forest & Johnson 2002).
This function of monuments influences both unblocking
space and place space (i.e. types of space identified by
Thrift 2003). Thus, politics is a social process and monu-
ments, as gathering spaces, are attached to certain places.
Religious monuments are factors influence unblock-
ing space because religion is a social phenomenon.
They also exemplify the religious beliefs of people who
inhabit certain spaces (Gaifman 2006; Debono-Roberts
2003) that are related to the cultural symbolic and social
roles of public art (Hall & Robertson 2001). Monuments
may be objects of religious cult and sometimes they are
pilgrimage destinations. Some places are distinguished
by their religious function, which is reflected in, for
example, their monuments. Thus, they influence place
space and form image space in certain areas.
Monuments have marketing functions that have
different representational and socio-economic impli-
cations for space. Zebracki et al. (2010) identify improve-
ment in a place’s attractiveness, drawing people’s
awareness to a place, providing place marketing, and
opportunities for cities’ promotion as important func-
tions of public art. Stevens & Franck (2016) argue that
monuments create distinctive settings and encourage
people to visit them. Similarly, Cartiere (2016) states
that monuments are part of the process of place-making.
Thus, monuments contribute to the production of
images of tourism sites, and becoming tourism assets
or ‘must see’ places generate tourism in urban desti-
nations (M.K. Smith 2003; A. Smith 2007; Savage 2009;
White 2012; Stevens & Sumartojo 2015).
Tourism is a socio-economic phenomenon. Hence,
monuments that attract tourists also create and change
the unblocking space of socio-economic connections
and flows. They change tourists’ behaviour and place
perception, and have an influence on their attitude to

places. Moreover, monuments have educational function
with regard to tourists, in that tourists can learn about
local and national history, heritage, and social issues.
Conclusions
As illustrated by the examples provided throughout this
article, monuments in urban public spaces perform var-
ious functions. From a spatial perspective, the role
monuments may play may depend on their different
impacts on people’s perceptions and interpretations of
space. In this article we have provided both a geographi-
cal approach to different dimensions of geographical
space and an in-depth discussion of monument’s func-
tions (i.e. their impacts) in relation to the dimensions
of geographical space suggested by Thrift (2003): empiri-
cal space, unblocking space, image space, and place
space, which Thrift respectively presents as the first-,
second-, third-, and fourth space. We consider the use
of these different aspects of space in our analysis of
monuments is the contribution of this article.
Notes
1. The translation from Swedish to English was done by
co-author Håkan Appelblad.
2. Thrift (2003, 98) states: ‘Trying to think about a world
based on these flows of goods and people and infor-
mation and money has occupied the attention of geogra-
phers to an increasing extent.’
3. The TripAdvisor ratings were sourced from https://
www.tripadvisor.com/ on 20 July 2018.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their
valuable, critical comments which helped to improve the
article. Additionally, Professor Lee Jolliffe, University of New
Brunswick, Canada, and the journal’s editors are thanked for
their comments.
References
Adams, T.E., Jones, S.H. & Ellis, C. 2015. Autoethnography:
Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Agnew, J. 1998. The impossible capital: Monumental Rome
under liberal and fascist Regimes, 1870–1943. Geografiska
Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 80, 229–240.
Allison, D.B. 2018. Introduction: Charlottesville, memory, and
how to read this book. Allison, D.B. (ed.) Controversial
Monuments and Memorials: A Guide for Community
Leaders, 1–16. Laham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 287
Andersson, I. 2014. Beyond ‘Guggenheiming’: From
flagship buildings to flagship space in Sweden. Norsk
Geografisk Tidssktrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 68,
228–237.
Antonova, N., Grunt, E. & Merenkov, A. 2017. Monuments in
the structure of an urban environment: The source of social
memory and the marker of the urban space. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering 245. http://
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/245/6/06202
9/meta (accessed June 2018).
Ashworth, G.J. & Voogd, H. 1988. Marketing the city:
Concepts, processes and Dutch applications. Town
Planning Review 59, 65–80.
Atkinson, D. & Cosgrove, D. 1998. Urban rhetoric and embo-
died identities: City, nation, and empire at the Vittorio
Emanuele II monument in Rome, 1870–1945. Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 88, 28–49.
Auster, M. 1997. Monument in a landscape: The question of
‘meaning’. Australian Geographer 28, 219–227.
Badone, E. 2015. Religious heritage and the re-enchantment of
the world in Brittany. Material Religion 11, 4–24.
BBC. 2017. Russia Warns Poland not to Touch Soviet WW2
Memorials. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-4077
5355 (accessed June 2018).
Bianchini, F. & Landry, C. 1995. The Creative City. London:
Demos.
Bonder, J. 2009. On memory, trauma, public space, monu-
ments, and memorials. Places 21, 62–69.
Burling, E.J. 2005. Policy Strategies for Monuments and
Memorials. Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1021&context=hp_theses (accessed June 2018).
Butz, D. & Besio, K. 2009. Autoethnography. Geography
Compass 3, 1660–1674.
Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. 2010. Public
Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design.
2nd ed. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.
Cartiere, C. 2016. Through the lence of social practice:
Considerations on a public art history and progress. Cartiere,
C. & Zebracki, M. (eds.) The Everyday Practice of Public Art:
Art, Space, and Social Inclusion, 13–26. London: Routledge.
Cartiere, C. & Zebracki, M. 2016. Introduction. Cartiere, C. &
Zebracki, M. (eds.) The Everyday Practice of Public Art: Art,
Space, and Social Inclusion, 1–10. London: Routledge.
Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona. 2006. On
Collective Memory, Central Place and National Identity.
https://www.publicspace.org/multimedia/-/post/on-collecti
ve-memory-central-space-and-national-identity (accessed
June 2018).
Clements, P. 2018. The construction of post-communist ideol-
ogies and re-branding of Budapest. Zebracki, M. & Palmer,
J.M. (eds.) Public Art Encounters: Art, Space and Identity,
51–69. London: Routledge.
Crampton, A. 2001. The Voortrekker monument, the birth of
apartheid, and beyond. Political Geography 20, 221–246.
Comunian, R. 2011. Rethinking the creative city: The role of
complexity, networks and interactions in the urban creative
economy. Urban Studies 48, 1157–1179.
Dawid, I. 2017. Do Confederate Statues Belong in
Public Spaces? https://www.planetizen.com/node/94379/
do-confederate-statues-belong-public-spaces (accessed
June 2018).
288 W. Cudny & H. Appelblad
Debono-Roberts, R. 2003. Festa-Catholicism and media reli-
gion: The reproduction and transformation of the festa in
Malta. History and Anthropology 14, 383–405.
DeLyser, D. 2008. ‘Thus I salute the Kentucky Daisey’s claim’:
Gender, social memory, and the mythic West at a proposed
Oklahoma monument. Cultural Geographies 15, 63–94.
Derrida, J. 1997. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation
with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.
du Cros, H. & Jolliffe, L. 2016. Sculpture trails: Investigating
success factors. Journal of Heritage Tourism 12, 536–545.
DW [Deutsche Welle]. 2014. Austria Inaugurates Memorial to
Wehrmacht Deserters Killed by the Nazis. http://www.dw.
com/en/austria-inaugurates-memorial-to-wehrmacht-dese
rters-killed-by-the-nazis/a-18019168 (accessed June 2018).
Dwyer, O.J. 2002. Location, politics and the production of civil
rights memorial landscapes. Urban Geography 23, 31–56.
Erickson, B. 2001. The ‘armature’ and ‘fabric’ as a model for
understanding spatial organization. Roberts, M. & Greed,
C. (eds.) Approaching Urban Design: The Design Process,
21–38. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class. New York:
Basic Books.
Florida, R. 2003. Cities and the creative class. City &
Community 2(1), 3–19.
Foucault, M. 2005. The Order of Things. London: Routledge.
Forest, B. & Johnson, J. 2002. Unraveling the threads of his-
tory: Soviet-era monuments and post-Soviet national iden-
tity in Moscow. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 92, 524–547.
Gaifman, M. 2006. Statue, cult and reproduction. Art History
29, 258–279.
Geuss, R. 1999. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and
the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Graham, S. & Healey, P. 1999. Relational concepts of space and
place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European
Planning Studies 7, 623–646.
Gramsci, A. 1973 Letters from Prison. New York: Harper &
Row.
Hall, T. & Robertson, I. 2001. Public art and urban regener-
ation: Advocacy, claims and critical debates. Landscape
Research 26, 5–26.
Hein, H. 1996. What is public art? Time, place, and meaning.
The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 54, 1–7.
Hilal, A. 2014. Muslim Political Discourse in Postcolonial India:
Monuments, Memory, Contestation. Abingdon: Routledge.
Johnson, N. 1995. Cast in stone: Monuments, geography, and
nationalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space 13, 51–65.
Johnson, N. 2002. Mapping monuments: The shaping of pub-
lic space and cultural identities. Visual Communication 1,
293–298.
Kavaratzis, M. 2004. From city marketing to city branding:
Towards a theoretical framework for developing city
brands. Place Branding 1, 58–73.
Kent, T. 2009. Concepts of flagships. Kent, T. & Brown, R.
(eds.) Flagship Marketing 24–35. London: Routledge.
Knight, C.K. 2011. Public Art: Theory, Practice and Populism.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Krzyżanowska, N. 2016. The discourse of counter-monuments:
Semiotics of material commemoration in contemporary
urban spaces. Social Semiotics 26, 465–485.
Laliberte, M. n.d. This Is What Kensington Looked Like Right
after Princess Diana’s Death. Readers Digest. https://www.
rd.com/culture/kensington-palace-princess-dianas-death-
tributes/ (accessed November 2019).
Lees, L. & Melhuish, C. 2015. Arts-led regeneration in the
UK: The rhetoric and the evidence on urban social
inclusion. European Urban and Regional Studies 22, 242–
260.
Lefebvre, H. 1974. La production de l’espace. Paris: Anthropos.
Lew, A. 1987. A framework of tourist attraction research.
Annals of Tourism Research 14, 553–575.
Levine, C. 2002. The paradox of public art: Democratic space,
the avant-garde, and Richard Serra’s ‘Tilted Arc’. Philosophy
& Geography 5, 51–68.
Liszewski, S. 2008. Formy i struktury przestrzenne wielkich sku-
pisk miejskich. Liszewski, S. (ed.) Geografia urbanistyczna,
187–294. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Markowski, T. 2001. Przestrzeń publiczna w ekonomice roz-
woju miast. Biuletyn KPZK PAN 194, 9–18.
Massey, D. 1992. Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Massey, D. 1999. Space-time, ‘science’ and the relationship
between physical geography and human geography.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24(3),
261–276.
Miles, M. 1997. Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban
Features. London: Routledge.
Mitchell, K. 2003. Monuments, memorials, and the politics of
memory. Urban Geography 24, 442–459.
Murphy, P. 1994. The politics of the street monument. Irish
Arts Review Yearbook 10, 202–208.
Newsweek. 2018. Tęcza wraca na Plac Zbawiciela: Będzie jed-
nak inna niż ta, którą znaliśmy. http://www.newsweek.pl/
kultura/wydarzenia/tecza-wraca-na-plac-zbawiciela-ma-po
moc-organizacjom-lgbt-i-promocji-marki-spozywczej,artyk
uly,428383,1.html (accessed June 2018).
Plaza, B. 2000. Evaluating the influence of a large cultural arti-
fact in the attraction of tourism: The Guggenheim Museum
Bilbao case. Urban Affairs Review 36(2), 264–274.
Pretes, M. 2003. Tourism and nationalism. Annals of Tourism
Research 30, 125–142.
Przybylska, L. & Czepczyński, M. 2016. Landscape sacralisa-
tion in post-communist Poland. Scottish Geographical
Journal 133, 21–41.
Savage, K. 2009. Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the
National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial
Landscape. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schulze, G. 2005. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft: Kultursoziologie der
Gegenwart. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Seidman, S. 1994. Introduction. Seidman, S. (ed.) The
Postmodern Turn: New Perspectives on Social Theory, 1–
23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Senie, H.F. & Webster, S. 2014. Introduction. Senie, H.F. &
Webster, S. (eds.) Critical Issues in Public Art: Content,
Context, and Controversy, xi–xvi. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Sharp, J. 2007. The life and death of five spaces: Public art and
community regeneration in Glasgow. Cultural Geographies
14, 274–292.
Sharp, J., Pollock, V. & Paddison, R. 2005. Just art for a just
city: Public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration.
Urban Studies 42, 1001–1023.

Sieradzka, M. 2016. Poland Plans to Tear down Hundreds of
Soviet Memorials. https://www.dw.com/en/poland-plans-
to-tear-down-hundreds-of-soviet-memorials/a-19185159
(accessed June 2018).
Skrubbe, J.S. 2007. The ambiguity of modern sculpture. Nordlit
11, 263–274.
Smith, M.K. 2003. Issues in Cultural Tourism Studies. London:
Routledge.
Smith, A. 2007. Monumentality in capital cities and its impli-
cations for tourism marketing: The case of Barcelona.
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 22, 79–93.
SOU 2015:88. Gestaltad livsmiljö – en ny politik för arkitektur,
form och design. Stockholm: Kulturdepartementet,
Regeringskansliet.
Spayde, J. 2012. Public art and placemaking: The role of art in
making meaningful places. Public Art Review 47, 23–25.
Stevens, Q. 2012. Visitor responses at Berlin’s Holocaust
Memorial: Contrary to conventions, expectations and
rules. Public Art Dialogue 2(1), 34–59.
Stevens, Q. 2015. Masterplanning public memorials: An his-
torical comparison of Washington, Ottawa and Canberra.
Planning Perspectives 30, 39–66.
Stevens, Q. & Sumartojo, S. 2015. Memorial planning in
London. Journal of Urban Design 20, 615–635.
Stevens, Q. & Franck, K.A. 2016. Memorials as Spaces
of Engagement: Design, Use and Meaning. London:
Routledge.
Stevens, Q., Franck, K.A. & Fazakerley, R. 2012. Counter-
monuments: The anti-monumental and the dialogic. The
Journal of Architecture 17, 951–972.
Thrift, N. 2003. Space: The fundamental stuff of geography.
Holloway, S.L., Rice, S. & Valentine, G. (eds.) Key Concepts
in Geography, 95–108, London: SAGE.
Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Journal of Geography 289
Timothy, D.J. 1997. Tourism and the personal heritage experi-
ence. Annals of Tourism Research 24, 751–754.
Tuan, Y.-F. 1978. Sign and metaphor. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 68, 363–372.
Tussyadiah, L.P. & Fesenmaier, D.R. 2009. Mediating tourist
experiences, access to places via shared videos. Annals of
Tourism Research 36, 24–40.
Verdery, K. 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and
Postsocialist Change. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wang, W., Chen, J.S. & Huang, K. 2015. Religious tourist
motivation in Buddhist Mountain: The case from China.
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 21, 57–72.
White, L. 2012. Imagining the nation: Signifiers of national
capital status in Washington, DC and Canberra. Current
Issues in Tourism 15, 121–135.
Williams, J. 2014. Understanding Poststructuralism. London:
Routledge.
Wprost. 2018. Tęcza chwilowo wróciła na Plac Zbawiciela.
„Nie da się spalić”. https://www.wprost.pl/kraj/10130975/
tecza-chwilowo-wrocila-na-plac-zbawiciela-nie-da-sie-spali
c.html (accessed June 2018).
Winberry, J.J. 1983. ‘Lest we forget’: The confederate monu-
ment and the southern townscape. Southeastern
Geographer 23, 107–121.
Zebracki, M. 2012. Engaging geographies of public art:
Indwellers, the ‘Butt Plug Gnome’ and their locale. Social
& Cultural Geography 13, 735–758.
Zebracki, M. 2017. Homomonument as queer micropublic: An
emotional geography of sexual citizenship. Tijdschrift voor
economische en sociale geografie 108, 345–355.
Zebracki, M., van der Vaart, R. & van Aalst, I. 2010.
Deconstructing public artopia: Situating public-art claims
within practice. Geoforum 41, 786–795.