Monument in the space of a modern city: sacred versus profane

Keywords: visualization, monument, sacred, meaning, symbol, modern society, transcendental, cultural-anthropological phenomenon, symbolic practices

Abstract

The problem of the sacred and its place in human life is one of the most important in the humanities. In recent decades, discourse on the sacred has become especially relevant due to scientific debates about the secular and post-secular nature of modern society. In particular, there is a question about what strategy and tactics should be used when working with sacred spaces in a modern city. The article explores current problematization of the concept of sacred in both theoretical and practical terms through monument as a form of symbolic culture. Monuments have played an exceptional role in history, as they embody meaning that represents a group’s highest (sacred) values. However, against the background of understanding and rethinking the role of ‘old’ and ‘new’ sacred chronotopes in the modern city and, more broadly, in the social space as a whole, the question is asked today more and more often: what is the monument’s place in a modern city? The study substantiates the view that one of the characteristics of the current historical period is the coexistence of different forms of the sacred in the world. These forms characterize different paradigms ‒ classical, modern, and postmodern ‒ as well as different types of cultures ‒ monostylistic and polystylistic. Thus, when working with sacred zones, it is impossible not to consider the fact that in the social space of the 21st century live both representatives of the (late) postmodern paradigm, which includes a variety of sacred meanings, and followers of the two other paradigms ‒ classical and modern, for which the sacred can still be associated with religious and / or ideological values expressed in monuments. Using a number of examples, the article examines symbolic social practices that show that no matter what forms the sacred takes nowadays, the sacred meaning is still important, and monument remains one of the cultural and anthropological constants.

Author Biography

E. Yu. Lekus, Saint Petersburg Stieglitz State Academy of Art and Design

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2025-7-1-49-65

Elena Yu. Lekus
Saint Petersburg State Academy of Art and Design named after A. L. Stieglitz,
St. Petersburg, Russia
lekus_elena@mail.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7752-2160

Abstract
The problem of the sacred and its place in human life is one of the most important in the humanities. In recent decades, discourse on the sacred has become especially relevant due to scientific debates about the secular and post-secular nature of modern society. In particular, there is a question about what strategy and tactics should be used when working with sacred spaces in a modern city. The article explores current problematization of the concept of sacred in both theoretical and practical terms through monument as a form of symbolic culture. Monuments have played an exceptional role in history, as they embody meaning that represents a group’s highest (sacred) values. However, against the background of understanding and rethinking the role of ‘old’ and ‘new’ sacred chronotopes in the modern city and, more broadly, in the social space as a whole, the question is asked today more and more often: what is the monument’s place in a modern city? The study substantiates the view that one of the characteristics of the current historical period is the coexistence of different forms of the sacred in the world. These forms characterize different paradigms ‒ classical, modern, and postmodern ‒ as well as different types of cultures ‒ monostylistic and polystylistic. Thus, when working with sacred zones, it is impossible not to consider the fact that in the social space of the 21st century live both representatives of the (late) postmodern paradigm, which includes a variety of sacred meanings, and followers of the two other paradigms ‒ classical and modern, for which the sacred can still be associated with religious and / or ideological values expressed in monuments. Using a number of examples, the article examines symbolic social practices that show that no matter what forms the sacred takes nowadays, the sacred meaning is still important, and monument remains one of the cultural and anthropological constants.

Keywords: visualization, monument, sacred, meaning, symbol, modern society, transcendental, cultural-anthropological phenomenon, symbolic practices

References

Assmann 2014 – Assmann А. Der Lange Schatten der Vergangenheit: Erinnerungskultur und Geschichtspolitik. Transl. into Russian by B. Khlebnikov. Moscow, 2014.

Avanesov 2021 – Avanesov S. S. Philosophy of religion. Veliky Novgorod, 2021. In Russian.

Belyaev et al. 1989 – Aesthetics: dictionary. Ed. by A. A. Belyaev, L. I. Novikova, V. I. Tolstykh. Moscow, 1989. In Russian.

Caillois 2003 – Caillois R. Le mythe et l’homme. L’homme et le Sacré. Transl. into Russian by S. N. Zenkin. Moscow, 2003.

Durkheim 2018 – Durkheim E. Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse: le système totemique en Australie. Transl. into Russian by A. Apollonov and T. Kotelnikova. Moscow, 2018.

Flier 2015 – Flier A. Ya. Culture as a symbolic activity: the stage of formation. Culture of culture. 2015. 1. URL: http://cult-cult.ru/culture-as-a-symbolic-activity-the-stage-of-formation/. In Russian.

Frankl 1990 – Frankl V. Man’s search for meaning. Transl. into Russian. Moscow, 1990.

Ionin 2004 – Ionin L. G. Sociology of culture. Moscow, 2004. In Russian.

Kant 1994 – Kant I. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Transl. into Russian. Moscow, 1994.

Kurakin 2011 – Kurakin D. The elusive sacred: the problem of the ambivalence of the sacred and its significance for the “strong program” of cultural sociology. Sociological Review. 2011. Vol. 10. 3. Pp. 41‒70. In Russian.

Lefebvre – Lefebvre H. La production de l’espace. Transl. into Russian by I. Staff. Moscow, 2015.

Lekus 2022 – Lekus E. Yu. Soviet monumental sculpture: between freedom of creativity and political gesture (based on the works of V. I. Mukhina «Wind» and «Worker and Kolkhoz Woman»). Bulletin of the Moscow State University of Culture and Arts. 2022. 1 (105). Pp. 93‒103. In Russian.

Mamardashvili 2019 – Mamardashvili M. K. Introduction to philosophy. Moscow, 2019. In Russian.

Nevvazhay 2013 – Nevvazhay I. D. Legal philosophy: from rationality de facto to rationality de jure. The World of Man: Normative Dimension. 3. Rationality and legitimacy. Saratov, 2013. Pp. 92‒104.

Pelipenko, Yakovenko 1998 – Pelipenko A. A., Yakovenko I. G. Culture as a system. Moscow, 1998. In Russian.

Pushkin 1975 – Pushkin A. S. The Bronze Horseman. Petersburg Tale. Collected Works in 10 volumes. Vol. 3. Moscow, 1975. In Russian.

Radchenko 2019 – Radchenko D. A. Women fry a crocodile: the right to interpret a monument. Folklore and Anthropology of the City. 2019. Vol. 2. 1‒2. Pp. 230‒255.

Rea 2019 – Rea N. What do the French truly think about Jeff Koons’s Divisive Gift? We camped out by the sculpture for three days to find out. Artnet. 2019. URL: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jeff-koons-tulips-poll-1682545.

Ryzhov 2006 – Ryzhov Yu. V. Ignoto deo: new religiosity in culture and art. Moscow, 2006. In Russian.

Smirnov 2018 – Smirnov S. A. The problem of orientation and navigation of the individual in anthropology: a methodological framework. Cultural and historical psychology. 2018. Vol. 14. 2. Pp. 93‒101. In Russian.

Svasyan 2010 – Svasyan K. A. The problem of symbol in modern philosophy (criticism and analysis). Moscow, 2010. In Russian.

Turchin 1982 – Turchin V. S. Monuments and cities. the relationship of artistic forms of monuments and the urban environment. Moscow, 1982. In Russian.

Weber 1998 – Weber A. Der dritte oder der vierte Mensch. Abschied von der bisherigen Geschichte. Transl. into Russian by M. I. Levina, T. E. Egorova. Moscow, 1998.

Zenkin 2012 – Zenkin S. N. The undivine sacred: theory and artistic practice. Moscow, 2012. In Russian.

About author

Elena Yu. Lekus
Cand. Sci. (Cultural Studies)
Associate Professor of Centre for Innovative Educational Projects
Saint Petersburg State Academy of Art and Design named after A. L. Stieglitz
13, Solyanoy per., St. Petersburg, 191028, Russian Federation
E-mail: lekus_elena@mail.ru

For citation:
Lekus E. Yu. Monument in the space of a modern city: sacred versus profane. Journal of Visual
Theology. 2025. Vol. 7. 1. Pp. 49–65. https://doi.org/10.34680/vistheo-2025-7-1-49-65

Published
2025-06-26
How to Cite
Lekus, E. Y. (2025). Monument in the space of a modern city: sacred versus profane. Visual Theology, 7(1), 49–65. Retrieved from http://www.visualtheology.ru/index.php/journal/article/view/149
Section
Articles
Views
8
Downloads
0