That the huge Humboldt Forum and the significantly smaller House of One next door are two projects right at the heart of berlin, which, in their dialoguous core concept of an understanding among cultures on the one and religions on the other side, are to be thought in connection, is no news. Culture and religion, religions and cultures are intertwined in such a complex way, that a strict seperation into two buildings - dialogue of cultures on one side, dialogue in between religions on the other - simply could not work as its content itself would be nonsense.

As trivial as this statement is, as interesting it gets once you think further: It is inevitable to immediately ask, how the dialogue of cultures deals with religion(s) and vice versa. That the exploration of an appropriate answer can lead us to quite surprising constellations is with no doubt demonstrated by the attachment of the cross on top of the Humbold Forum's dome.

Was this simply a confusion?

The very top of the Humboldt Forum, the "new forum for culture and science" as a "space for the variety of opinions, exchange and diversity" now boldly flaunts the golden cross at 60 meters height, accompanied by the banner, gathered by Friedrich Wilhelm IV, which consists of two verses from the biblical act as well as Philippians: "And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, to the glory of God the Father. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth." So...cross and salvation on top of the museum...

Neutral House of worship, religious museum

And on top of the House of One, the sacred building that is yet to be constructed? Nothing. Anyone who will inch closer to the building in the future, will neither be able to find a cross, Star of David nor a crescend – the buildings outside is free of any symbolism.
The sacred building will be a religious neutral while the museum is overcast with religious symbolism: How can this switch be explained?
 

Concerning the Humboldt Forum one has to stick with the intention of accepting the placement, the “local” as well as the willingness to continue the history, from the castle to the Berlin-Brandenburgische Kunstkammer as “stemcell of the berlin museums” up to the palace of the republic and to add a new, actuality-related layer. Finalized was this reconnection to the historical location with the decision to reconstruct the Castle of Berlin. The reconstruction of cross and banner followed under the same premise, under which only on the east side a – reasonable – modification of the historical frame of reference has been made.

The decision of reconstructing the baroque castle with its political and religious iconography, which is rooted in the construction itself, came with its own pressing necessity for the “Stiftung Humboldt Forum im Berliner Schloss” to decide on a togetherness of the Stiftung Humboldt Forum and the Berliner Schloss which in lack of such would have robbed the project of any coherency. On an argumentative level the decision bases itself on a multi-layered spectrum:

In a conceptional sense one has to stress that the iconography and symbolism of the castle does not hollow the core concept of the Humboldt Forum as a “space for a variety of opinions, exchange and diversity”. The dynamic of the architecture in connection with its own power of symbolism therefore has to be kept in balance with the overall tone of the project in a way that avoids a counteraction.

A verdict against tolerance and pluralism

Content wise all of the above is of immense importance: “It must by all means be avoided, that in a place of science and culture, a place of exchange and diversity these old symbols once again serve as reference for systems of power in all kinds of cultural and political scenarios. Therefore, the direction of content as well as the structure of the program of the Humboldt Forum require a high amount of diversity and multiperspectivity. A statement concerning global, cooperative exhibitions and programs of a souveranity of opinion  as well as through interventions and presentations held by various artists. In this overall sense the reconstruction of the castle including all of its symbolism – specifically the cross and dome – will be a constant cause of friction which has to be made valuable and fruitful as such “.

The road one has to walk down is a consequent historialisation of architecture, iconography and symbolism. One of the main tasks the program of the Humboldt Forum has to concern itself with will therefore be „transparancy, contextualisation and mediation”. One has to develope „suitable measures and concepts to classify the statements of the dome and fassade that have been made in historical relation – through publications as well as digital and specially formed projects for the unique history of this location.”
The cross and banner therefore are to be treated as historical testimonies as well: on the one hand one has to treat them from a theological-historical point of view without the religious context, but on the other hand also as symbols in need of completion and an (artistic) intervention: “Let’s do something special to this cross! How about we don’t leave it up there permanently and instead offer that spot on the dome to other religions for a certain period of time?”
 

Whether or not these carefully eyed new ways on the spectrum between mediation and intervention will lead to a convincing balance of the „Humboldt Forum im Schloss Berlin“-program is the great challenge the entity of users will continuously have to face. Matters will stay interesting.

That there are sceptics, also within the House of One, who fear that the castles symbolism, especially cross and banner, will in spite of all efforts to create fruitful friction and tension simply never become that and instead remain a verdict against tolerance and plurality in its golden-representative dominance, has to be taken seriously in sense of a constant reminder. First evaluations and judgements will be possible with the opening of the Humboldt Forum.

House of One with a cross, Star of David and crescent?

Would it be a wise decision from perspective of the House of One to accompany the cross with a Star of David as well as crescent? Will that adequately mirror the plurality of our society and therefore be the cure of all issues?

It’s not as simple as that – and for sure it’s no coincidence that you won’t be able to find these symbols at the House of One. Viewed separately and in their everyday use the Star of David, cross and crescent are simply symbols of different backgrounds and political contexts that have been with striking clarity assigned to be unchangeably belonging to certain groups of people and therefore do not mirror the plurality of our society at all. Religious symbols are in danger of becoming increasingly constrictive.

On top of that, especially in a religious context it is of immense importance to differentiate between actual symbols and those that are chosen to be representative. While actual symbols are to be understood as signs or actions in which the symbol takes place in the process of a certain action, e.g. sealing the deal with a handshake, representative symbols are simply of informing nature, e.g. a road sign that draws attention on something other than the symbol itself. For the religions comprehension of themselves and their practised rituals the actual symbols are of immense importance and therefore to be acknowledged to foremost be actions instead of objects. Christening and communion are, judged by Christian conception, such symbols, as well as reciting the Koran in the muslim community or reading the Thora in the morning service on Shabbat as a “taste into what the redeemed world in messianic times”.  Incorporated in these actions, in a religious sense the symbolic and all representative symbols as a sign of information only “come to life” in connection to the actual symbol, without it they are empty whereas in reverse the actual symbol still remains in its meaning and importance without the representative symbol.
In this way of thinking the actual symbols that unfold as actions within the sacred spaces are especially important for the House of One. And therefore it is equally logical, that also representative symbols in immediate relation to actual symbols are only to be found within the sacred spaces. In an interreligious sense the creation process of the House of One itself can be interpreted as a collectively practised symbolic action (actual symbol) while the building will serve as (observable) representative symbol.

Rulers symbol of the Hohenzollern

This assignment of actual and representative symbols is different from the one at the Humboldt Forum and it is this difference precisely that demonstrates the dissimilarity of the two projects:

At least great parts of the symbols and objects that can be found on the building are representative. That includes the ornamental rulers symbols of the Hohenzollern as much as the cross and banner. Speaking with the previously mentioned togetherness of Humboldt Forum and Castle of Berlin in mind these symbols must not be anything aside from their representative function. “We understand all symbols to be simply a testimony of the buildings history that are in no way connected to our work at the Humboldt Forum in a way of influence on the content or even program.”

The cross on top of the dome as well as the many other religious symbols in the future exhibition are decontextualized representative symbols that do not reference to actual symbols as no one at the Humboldt Forum will practise religious rituals originated in Europe, Africa or Oceania.

That is why the thought of mediating beyond the “direct” actual symbolism is so important, the attempt to indirectly create a new context, that in a multi perspectival sense could become something adjacent to an actual symbol of a successful “dialogue of the cultures”.

In a widely set scheme all of the above results in a contrarotating categorization concerning religious symbolism: At the House of One, the motion develops from the actual symbols in form of actions towards the representative symbols whereas at the Humboldt Forum the motion runs from multiple representative symbols towards an (aspired) actual symbol. The first (House of One) motion embodies a direct connection of actual and representative symbolism, the second motion is indirect. At the House of One, without the actual symbol coming first, the representative symbol wouldn’t be possible and it can only be filled with meaning in this combination and order; at the Humboldt Forum the representative symbols evoke the one actual symbol of creating a dialogue of the cultures through (historical) recontextualization.

A cross, defenseless against abuse

If we were to be asked whether to place religious symbols on the outside or on top of the House of One building or not, my answer would be “No, the strength has to grow from the inside out, originating in the symbolic actions practised within the sacred spaces for the representative symbols will only in this way gain a new beauty, dignity and plausibility. Without this strength the religious symbols are useless and it is our, the House of One’s great duty to spark this strength.”

The other way around, if we were to be asked how we feel about the cross on top of the Humboldt Forum, I would answer: „You will find at least four different answers to this within the House of One, a Jewish, Christian, Muslim and an entirely non-religious one. The House of One can only exist in this multi perspectival way. However, a Christian answer could be that a cross on top of a museum is without meaning; almost dangerous for it has no practised religious life as pendant and therefore is practically empty and can defenslessly fall victim to instrumentalization or even abuse. And it is dangerous in this sense especially because from the religions‘ perspective such a shift of their symbols into the museums is a sign of their decease.
 

Author: Roland Stolte, Stiftung House of One