Rememberance-Place for sexual and gender diversity in Hamburg

An invitation-only competition was held among 15 artists and teams for the artistic realisation of the project. The competition brief stated: ‘The memorial should confidently make it clear that Hamburg will continue to stand for respect and recognition of diversity in the future.’

On 17 July 2024, the jury appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Media met and recommended the realisation of the first prize: ‘Für Capri und Roxi’ (For Capri and Roxi) by Franziska Opel and Hannah Rath. The project refers to a little-known chapter in Hamburg's history of discrimination, namely the ban on dancing for male couples imposed by the Hamburg-Mitte district office in 1960, which was unique in Germany. Among those affected were the now closed Capri Bar, Roxi Bar, Stadtkasino, Bohème and Neu-Stadt-Casino. The design shows an oversized, iridescent purple-blue aluminium ‘streamer’ that appears to be blowing towards the edge of the Binnenalster and could be carried away by the wind at any moment.

Second prize went to the Other Spaces studio (Sebastian Behmann and Ólafur Elíasson) with their ‘Pavilion of Voices’ – a framed glass ring in rainbow colours resting on supports like a roof. Speakers are installed on the sides of the structure, from which voices from the communities – yet to be collected – would be heard. The design also includes a redesign of the square's landscaping and lighting by a 40-metre-high light source.

On 2 August 2024, the Department of Culture and Media announced that, contrary to the jury's recommendation, it would implement the second-placed design. This was justified by a unanimous vote by invited community representatives on 1 August 2024 in favour of the ‘Pavilion of Voices’.

The decision was met with strong criticism. Members of the jury and the art scene publicly addressed Senator Carsten Brosda. Among other things, they criticised the fact that the meeting on 1 August 2024 had taken place outside the formal process and that a joint exchange with all competition participants had been rejected. By 8 August 2024, no minutes of the jury meeting had been made available, nor had a date been set for a public exhibition of the entries. There were calls for the decision to be reversed and for the competition to be continued in accordance with the recognised procedural guidelines, with no predetermined outcome.

On 13 November 2024, the Hamburg Parliament – against the votes of the AfD – passed a resolution to also finance the original winning design, ‘Für Capri und Roxi’ (For Capri and Roxi). The memorial is to be erected at one of the former locations of the now defunct trendy bars; 150,000 EUR has been allocated for this purpose.

This means that two projects are now underway: the ‘Pavilion of Voices’ as a place of remembrance on the Binnenalster and ‘For Capri and Roxi’ as an additional, location-specific memorial.

We spoke about this with Ute Vorkoeper, artist and member of the jury:

→ How do you explain that the winning design, which was recommended for realisation by the jury, is now being described by the organiser as a ‘great addition’ to the ‘Pavilion of Voices’, which was awarded second place by the jury and was not recommended for realisation?

Describing the winning project as a ‘great addition’ ignores the unique nature of the design. ‘For Capri and Roxi’ would have created an unexpected, open and yet iconic symbol for the communities on Hamburg's Binnenalster, which, as the saying goes, would have set the scene dancing. The dance will now take place elsewhere, while the communities on the Alster contemplate themselves under a rainbow.

→ From the outset, the entire process, for example in terms of the composition of the jury, went beyond the rules of procedure. As a member of the jury, how do you assess the accusation that the community was not sufficiently involved in the decision?

The accusation is unfounded. The problem is that the Hamburg Ministry of Culture and Media, which organised the competition, gave the communities, as ‘users’, maximum say and ultimately the final say against expert and factual arguments. The focus of the process was no longer a question of artistic quality, originality, technical feasibility and adherence to the budget, but on the concern to fulfil the wishes of the communities. That is a dilemma.

The competition procedure was not conjured up out of thin air, but developed after workshops and a site visit with the communities. I participated in these meetings as a speaker and explained different competition procedures, i.e. I presented the conditions and opportunities of art competitions. I repeatedly emphasised that art competitions are open-ended, that commissioned works cannot be expected, and, in short, that the competition may have an unexpected outcome.

The composition of the jury was also ‘user-oriented’: two artists and one curator met with three voting members of the communities and four expert judges who work or have worked for the Hamburg authorities. The chair was held by a member of the communities.

→ How did it come about that, after the anonymity of the designs had been lifted in a process that was based on the principle of anonymity, and after the winners had already been informed of the jury's recommendation for implementation two weeks earlier, the jury's decision was overturned?

In my view, the process was undermined by the fact that the cultural authority had suggested a preliminary inspection by interested parties from the communities – without expert accompaniment – in order to note possible problems with the designs. Like a pre-jury, this group then distributed votes and made a clear vote for the second-placed design, which was openly displayed at the jury meeting. As a result, the well-founded technical arguments in favour of the design no longer resonated with the jury representatives from the communities.

This process also meant that all competition entries were known to a wider group of people even before the jury session. After the jury's decision, instead of maintaining confidentiality and waiting for the minutes, the community representatives must have sought to discuss the decision-making process with the communities and the Ministry of Culture and Media.

At least this was revealed by chance in the press when, in an interview in Szene Hamburg, one of the initiators mentioned that a meeting between the communities and the Ministry of Culture and Media was to take place in order to revise the jury's decision. In response, we – all the expert judges on the jury and the pre-selection committee – immediately offered to attend this meeting to explain the technical and factual arguments. But the authority disinvited us in writing.

→ What type of meeting was held on 1 August 2024 when the jury's decision was overturned, and how was the jury involved in this decision?

As I said, it was an exclusive meeting between the BKM and representatives of communities, some of whom had been involved in the process for a considerable time and now voted together for the second-placed design. Without further consultation and before sending out the jury minutes, the BKM then overturned the jury's decision in a press statement on 2 August 2024.

In response, we wrote an open letter stating that the city had not adhered to the rules and guidelines agreed upon in the competition brief and demanded that the decision published in the press release be withdrawn and the process be completed in accordance with the formal procedural guidelines. We also criticised the fact that the communities' vote was taken behind closed doors and that the public cannot form an opinion without seeing all the competition results.

→ Afterwards, the decision in favour of the design ‘For Capri and Roxi’ was criticised on the grounds that this work represented only the gay part of the community of a particular historical era. How did you discuss this issue in the jury?

The reduction of the design to a representation of the gay segment of the communities was also made in the preliminary inspection by interested parties from the communities. It was the vote that was attached to the design. The expert and technical jury did not see this narrowing and tried to resolve the misunderstanding with arguments. After all, the purple streamer is neither a symbol nor a metaphor nor an allegory for the ban on dancing. On the contrary, it is a positive, open symbol. As the designers explained in their statement, we also understood the ban on dancing as a catalyst or trigger for this new symbol, which has the potential to unite all communities. A form between new beginnings and future change, a sign of emancipation and resignification. A different title or information board could also have counteracted the narrow interpretation.

→ How would you sum up the entire process and its outcome?

In the competition, a total of fourteen artists/teams approached the communities' concerns from different perspectives and submitted diverse, sometimes extreme and exciting designs. They were all disappointed by the irregular procedure, not only the first and second-placed artists and the jury members.

In hindsight, this process could have been made less frustrating and more cost-effective by advertising the Denkort as a particapatory commissioned work. This would have resolved the dilemma outlined above in favour of the users and against the art from the outset, which cannot be in the artists' interest.

Because other competitions are also placing the interests and needs of users more and more explicitly at the centre of attention, we should tackle the issue head-on, insist on artistic quality criteria and demand more courage and openness to results. For memorial sites in particular, it may also be useful to devise process-oriented or curated procedures that seek to find inspiring, forward-looking works of art in direct dialogue with the ‘users’ and the public.