“To Show in a Frozen Moment”: Camp Models and Dioramas as Forms of Holocaust Representation and Memory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article ““To Show in a Frozen Moment”: Camp Models and Dioramas as Forms of Holocaust Representation and Memory” is a fascinating account that soundly and persuasively argues in favor of the function of camp models and dioramas (many of which can be found at Holocaust memorials and museums) as legitimate forms of Holocaust representation and memory. In that, the article proves how space is an integral component for Holocaust representation and memorialization, offering symbolic spatial representations of real camps and events that happened there, one for which we need to consider the design, creation and intention. This is a highly innovate article as it tackles a form of Holocaust representation in which space is fundamental, that of the scale-model, which has not been so far thoroughly explored, and it represents a nuanced, pioneering starting point to be developed further by scholars.

To build the argument, the author has divided the article into several very well-chosen and interconnected sections. Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the article includes three theoretical sections defining scale-models, Holocaust representation, camp models and dioramas, followed by one section devoted to an inventory and rigorous analysis of formal representations of spatial Holocaust memory by camp models done by artists and designers, and one section devoted to an inventory and rigorous analysis of informal representations of spatial Holocaust memory by survivors and a historian.

When the author uses Terrence DesPres’s criteria for legitimate Holocaust artworks as means to use for the examination of camp models (the representation of the Holocaust as a historically unique event, having historical accuracy in mind, and ethical considerations for the solemn, sacred nature of the Holocaust), on page, 4, in the footnote referencing this, footnote 18, they should quote DesPres directly and not Magilow and Silverman.

Since the author also mentions their own building a scale model of the Chelmno death camp (page 1, lines 24-26), I would have expected them to add a section, before the conclusion, analyzing their own scale model in synch with the rest of the examinations proposed. If not adding this as a full-fledged section, some connection between it and the other models should be made in the conclusion.

Overall, I think the article is very well-written and perfectly fits into the scope of Genealogy and the special issue on “Space in Holocaust Memory and Representation”; I recommend it for publication in Genealogy and look forward to seeing it published.

Author Response

Thank you for your very positive review and thoughtful, constructive, comments. I very much appreciated them. I’ve fixed the citation for Des Pres and added a bit about my project to the section just before the conclusion (lines 480-491) This is something that I need to delve more deeply into at some point, especially regarding the question of intention.

Reviewer 2 Report

Briefly, the article is thoroughly documented, showcasing a good set of examples, and offers implicitly a more than welcome bird’s eye view over the matter, though not relying on a specific methodological toolkit.

It has two (unequal) components: (i) a preliminary theoretical reflection and (ii) a rich description of camp models and dioramas displayed in memorial sites and museums.

Part (i) starts predictably the formal reflection from Adorno and Wiesel’s doubts about the possibility of representing – spatially or not/ artistically or not – the Holocaust, and provides more nuances to these contentions, based on the comments by Friedlander, Magilow and Silverman, or Yehuda Bauer. Of course the bibliography on the matter is much wider, but I would single out just another worthy contribution: Rainer Schulze (ed.), Representing the Unrepresentable: Putting the Holocaust Into Public Museums (2008). Here, the editor formulates a question regarding the aims of Holocaust memory places: ”documentary or edutainment?” I guess this line of thought could be of interest to this approach too, if we think of its dimension related to museum or memory studies.

Another suggestion is to provide a brief definition of ”diorama”, similar to the one given to ”model” (p. 2), maybe starting from, but not limited to, a dictionary entry, especially since ”diorama” has different meanings in visual arts (thinking of Daguerre and Bouton’s 19th century invention).

Part (ii) provides an arresting description of various camp models and dioramas, without the intention of an in-depth analysis of the aesthetic and ethical implications of their building, as I anticipated. The conclusion section reiterates the unsettling ethical or aesthetic questions from the first parts, to which the answers are rather straightforward and empirical, with less theoretical weight than we could have expected after the introductory section.

All in all, this paper is valuable because it explores a little known, interdisciplinary, subdomain of memory studies / visual arts and therefore makes a necessary contribution to the wider debates about Holocaust representation.

The few suggestions above may help either for this, or for future papers.

Author Response

Thank you for your positive, constructive comments. I’m looking for a copy of Schulze’s article. It will be helpful going forward with future work on this, especially regarding the use of dioramas and models in museum settings which is something that I need to investigate more closely. I’ve added a brief definition of a diorama (lines 80-86) and noted the difference between its original usage to describe Daguerre's and Bouton’s invention and modern-day usage. Thank you for that suggestion.