Devil's Den Justification

This whole project works on the model of reaching the individual and the sum of individuals affecting positive change at a massive scale. Such a large and broad issue deserves a unique approach to monument. For this, a large monument in a heavily populated area is less effective than the sum of a series of more intimate and personal interventions on a small scale. The monument that would affect an area such as my home county in rural PA would find itself in Gettysburg. Once in Gettysburg, it would be most effective in a social landmark such as the area of Devil’s Den…

…I will not deny my love for this site; it’s been my favorite place back home since I was five. Despite this, I have very clear reasons for designing here; I will continue to articulate them. This thesis is mine, and I find it more challenging and rewarding to design something that is personally relevant. This is a strong site because any resident of the town and surrounding areas has intimate knowledge of land. A message as large, hopeful, and important as the one I’m designing needs to affect the social atmosphere of Gettysburg, and I believe it has a strong chance of doing this in a site that is meaningful to such a wide breadth of people. Devil’s Den is a common destination for nearly all Gettysburg tourists. It is a median area of the site; tourists approach it during the middle of their visit when they are apt to break and spend an extended amount of time in one place. One rarely just passes by but stays to explore, picnic, or read. The area has little specific historical importance. There was a skirmish here, but there was no great battle. It was a temporary stage for sharp shooters, and after the battles bodies were dragged here for profitable dramatic if inaccurate photographs. This project is not simply a monument for the military dead of Gettysburg but touches many other issues, therefore this is better suited than other areas loaded with specific history such as the area of Pickett’s charge. Touching the ground on this site will be controversial, but I think it is justifiable. I could not justify adding anything beyond what exists on a site like Pickett’s charge for articulating my message.

The site has stunning and dramatic geology. It’s natural beauty and unique appearance is a powerful setting for contrasting the built form with nature. In such a setting, work by the hand of man takes a new significance as either powerful and beautiful, or intrusive and unworthy of sitting amongst its natural setting. What we can build here becomes obvious; either it is an extension of the attitude of the land or an intrusion on it, this can viewed as a critique of anything built today. The majority of structures in Gettysburg are built upon flat land; this site provides the singular opportunity in Gettysburg to build upon something other than a gentle slope or flat plane. Ground leveled for a new fast food chain (however obnoxious in appearance) is less offensive than an architectural work of art built here, why does our society allow this? We are desensitized to bad taste and accept it because there are no alternatives in places like small town PA. Just as the site begs the question of the beauty nature can construct, so too can it beg the question of the beauty/offense that man can construct, and ask the question “at what cost?” I want people to question the value of their environment in order to think harder about saving, using, or abusing the land in which they live, work, and visit. I want it to encourage thought and discussion of the value of remembrance, self-expression, and social property.

The site bends visitors into daring, exciting, and uncomfortable positions. The site influences users to be curious, adventurous, and experience the site. This will extend to the anti-monument I construct in order to make it more dynamic and intriguing.

This is a small site of significant value to Gettysburg which attracts hordes of residents and tourists. Users will not expect to confront these issues here; this relates to the denial or hesitance of our society to confront the large and difficult issues at hand. More will experience the monument even if unexpectedly than would travel out of their way to see it alone in a different setting. My ultimate goal is for this to be a coercive and enlightening work of art rather than propaganda disguised as architecture, and I realize this may be a fine line.

In summary…

- Personal attachment to site
- Intimate knowledge by most residents
- Highly challenging
- Personal relevance
- Highly meaningful to the town
- Devoid of existing monument
- controversial
- Many casual uses for site
– exploring, reading, picnicking, rest
- Visitors tend to wander and spend a fair amount of time here
- Lack of specific historical significance (as opposed to areas like Pickett’s charge)
- Natural beauty will encourage high contrast to built form
- Unique topography provides design opportunities like nowhere else in gburg
- Introduce a higher order of architecture
- Site encourages curiosity, exploration, and intrigue
- large exposure to tourists and residents alike
- the site acts as a geological form of bait for interaction

I think this description is pretty clear. If you think of any reasons I may have missed, please let me know. If none of this convinces you then I doubt anything else I say will do so, and I will move on and stop beating a dead horse… but I don’t think this will be the case.