This is not a normal essay, more like free writing. Each response 175-200 words.

Question for article 1: Young considers the public dimension of memorials, and of Holocaust memorials in particular. He notices that monuments refer us to the past, but that they can also play an activist role in the present, thus affecting the future. He quotes Marianne Doezema: "The public monument has a responsibility apart from its qualities as a work of art. It is not only the private expression of an individual artist; it is also a work of art created for the public, and therefore can and should be evaluated in terms of its capacity to generate human reactions."

Question for article 2: Stier reflects on the seeming sanctity (holiness) of the memory of the Holocaust, and questions whether Holocaust memorials cross the boundary of being icons and become idols. He uses the examples of Israeli architect Moshe Safdie's Memorial to the Deportees, and Washington D.C. U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum:https://www.ushmm.org/ What do YOU think of the questions he raises?

Question for article 3:Here is the link to the Berlin Jewish Museum, designed by Daniel Libeskind, and discussed in the final chapter: https://www.jmberlin.de/en 

Libeskind insists that the museum is not a memorial, but a "space for the encounter of history." Yet Plate points out that "this history lends itself to memory," and that "memory is an active, participatory process." 

Plate also says that "History…is learned through the head, memory through the feel." What does this mean to you??? Can you relate this statement to anything in your own experience?