1. Introduction

Contemporary iconoclastic practices have brought to the political and media debate the questioning of the quality and pertinence of the aesthetic and artistic transformations (^{Goes, 2020}, ²⁰²¹) which have taken place in the urban public space (^{Correia, 2013}; ^{Madden & Marcuse, 2016}; ^{Silva, 1996}; ^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}). Interpreting artistic and built heritage and questioning its function and place in the city (^{Mitrache, 2012}; ^{Muxi, 2004}; ^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}) within a globalised contemporary society (V. ^{Sousa, 2020}) has become an object of debate. This debate should not seek to establish a false majority consensus but rather encourage the development of new inclusion and cultural identification (^{Huntington, 1996}; ^{Steinmeyer, 2021}). Monuments and public statuary have always been ideological affirmation instruments of the political and economic hegemony. Commissioners use it to institute official discourses, aesthetic ideologies and historiographical narratives, targets of mythification (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}; ^{Duarte, 2019}; ^{Goes, 2020}).

Understanding heritage refusal processes and iconoclastic practices in contemporary times presupposes the comprehension of urban spaces expansion and the underlying economic and social development models. Those models expose the conflicting nature of public space and cultural non-identification processes with inhabited places (^{Mitrache, 2012}; ^{Muxi, 2004}; ^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}). Furthermore, we question and delegitimise the historiographical narratives taught within the teaching spaces (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}; ^{Maeso, 2016}; ^{Roldão et al., 2016}) and those presented in the museography discourses of museological institutions (^{Adams & Koke, 2014}; ^{Welch, 2006}).

Iconoclasm managed to expose the social fragilities and ethical decadence of society. On the other hand, it allowed the confrontation of ideas and conceptions about the art’s function in the public space. It also exposed, by virtue, the critical and conflictive nature of the sculpture installed in the public space, addressing issues that have long been repressed as an antithesis to the establishment of false social consensus (^{Hardt & Negri, 2019}; ^{Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015}).

This article aims to contribute to the reflection on the reappearance of various phenomenologies of non-identification with heritage, addressing the underlying social and political issues at the origin of these iconoclastic practices. We reviewed the scientific literature published in the last 20 years. We based our research in the contemporary iconoclasm study essentially on articles, theses and monographs authored by several thinkers, namely, ^{Cantarelli (2018}), ^{Cordeiro (2012}), ^{D’Ottavio et al. (2021}), ^{Elsner (2012}), ^{Fernandes (2018}), ^{Frank and Ristic (2020}), ^{Freedberg (2021}), ^{Gamboni (2018}), ^{Leupin (2019}), ^{McClanan and Johnson (2016}), ^{Paiva (2018}), ^{Renou (2020}), ^{Rota and Fureix (2018}), ^{Stapleton and Viselli (2019}), ^{Taussig (2012}), among others from the international context.

The discussion on the phenomenologies of racism and anti-racism in contemporary times draws on revisiting of some authors from the Portuguese context, namely, ^{Araújo and Rodrigues (2018}), ^{Kilomba (2019}; ^{“ ‘O Racismo É uma Problemática Branca’ diz Grada Kilomba”, 2016}), ^{Maeso (2016}), ^{Otávio et al. (2009}), ^{Ribeiro (2021}), ^{Roldão et al. (2016}), ^{Santos (2003}), ^{Vale de Almeida (2000}, ²⁰¹²), ^{Varela and Pereira (2020}), among others.

We aim to demonstrate how contemporary art (^{Ribeiro, 2021}), namely the one installed in urban public spaces and curatorial projects within cultural institutions, can establish critical relations of questioning post-historical narratives and call for reflection on persistently hegemonic western cultural heritage, a past of slavery, colonialism and racism. This investigation thus aims to contribute to the enhancement of cultural heritage by understanding and overcoming contemporary iconoclasm phenomena that jeopardise the integrity of the heritage.

Postcolonial discourses (^{Ashcroft, 2014}; ^{Nebbou, 2013}; ^{Olaniyan, 1993}), defined by the newly established power relations, based on processes of common cultural identification (^{Huntington, 1996}; ^{Steinmeyer, 2021}), seek to maintain the prevailing hegemony or the installation of a development model based on materialism and the economic exploitation of the former colonial space. Unleashing a new sphere of geopolitical relations and reactivating economic ties, like with the former metropolises, sedimented the new identity narratives legitimising the historical mechanisms of oppression. Ironically, the process of globalisation more efficiently concealed and implemented the hegemonic project of western economic domination (^{Hardt & Negri, 2019}; ^{Huntington, 1996}; V. ^{Sousa, 2020}), transforming the old political colonialism into an apparent new project of cultural neocolonialism (^{Huntington, 1996}; ^{Santos, 2003}).

The complexity of the map of post-colonial geopolitical relations, based on the maintenance of colonial heritage cultural links, namely with the definition of linguistic communities, contributed to the dissemination of consumption in the former colonial space, instituting a new formula of economic colonialism. The supranational and supra-sovereign cultural models sought to sell an idea of transnational free space. Instead, they sold the imaginary view of a non-existent cultural democracy, without this meaning the creation of conditions for the effective social emancipation of the citizens of developing countries, former colonies. The phenomenology of the processes of cultural non-identification with the inhabited place (^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}) may have contributed to the assumption of anti-colonial activism (^{Hardt & Negri, 2019}; ^{Hickel, 2021}). The nihilistic logic makes the iconoclastic double condition explicit in these sociological processes. It seeks to restore legitimising meta-narratives of the oppression heritage of these places, making them conducive to new economic exploitation and the implementation of a so-called free market.

The cultural capital (^{Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015}) of the old and new rulers is crucial, in neoliberal globalisation (^{Santos, 2003}), for the metamorphosis of classical imperialism to take place, transforming it into surveillance capitalism (^{Zuboff, 2019}), in a post-globalisation era (^{Ashcroft, 2014}). As an economic, political and cultural model, westernization has culturally uprooted local communities, universalising an aesthetic model and accentuating social exclusion and inequality (^{Scheidel, 2017}). According to ^{Rosembuj (2019}), the concept of “surveillance capitalism”, exposed by ^{Zuboff (2019}) in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, can pose a threat to the rule of law, sovereignty, and individual liberties, raising doubts about the role of democratic institutions.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the dismantling of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1991; ^{D’Ottavio et al., 2021}), we have noticed an artistic development, for example, in literature, cinema, music, and visual arts. This development aimed at its insertion into the global market and corroborated narratives established by the triumphant model and used the new means and technologies provided.

Boaventura de Sousa Santos (1997, as cited in ^{Vale de Almeida, 2012}) points out the apparent state of permanent crisis confronted with the emancipation projects, thus, alluding to the introduction of human rights in contemporary discursive practice. However, the non-effectiveness of these rights, as a process of political action, leads to the assumption of (new) identity policies (^{Vale de Almeida, 2012}). These identity policies contribute to the legitimation of new sovereignties. On the other hand, they socially fragment a society through racial and ethnic-cultural hierarchy, establishing a majority identity as prevailing. According to ^{Santos (2003}), considering the concept of “inter-identity”, it is proposed that Portuguese post-colonialism is expressed as anti-colonialism and as counter-hegemonic globalism in the face of Portugal’s peripheral insertion and subalternity in the European and Atlantic neoliberal context.

Perhaps market value formation, to the detriment of the narrative critical to history (and memory), has contributed to the forgetting (or whitening) of history itself (^{“‘O Racismo É uma Problemática Branca’ diz Grada Kilomba”, 2016}; V. ^{Sousa, 2020}; ^{Trouillot, 1995/2016}; ^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}, 2012; ^{Varela & Pereira, 2020}). The whiteness of racial identity reflects the power relations (^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}, 2012) and privilege within western societies (^{“‘O Racismo É uma Problemática Branca’ diz Grada Kilomba”, 2016}; ^{Trouillot, 1995/2016}, ^{Varela & Pereira, 2020}), namely through the imposition of narratives in cultural and educational institutions (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}; ^{Roldão et al., 2016}; ^{Soares, 2020}) and public urban space art (^{Bueno Carvajal, 2021}; ^{Cadela, 2007}; ^{Frank & Ristic, 2020}; ^{Goes, 2021}).

Mythographies deconstruction (^{Barthes, 1957/2001}) of White racial power (^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}, ²⁰¹²) should be a premise of contemporary art (^{Ribeiro, 2021}) and curatorial practices. It can also be used as a pedagogical tool to effect the inclusion of racial, cultural and ethnic minorities, ensuring that the cultural diversity of society constitutes an added value for human development and social cohesion.

The progressive technological transformation initiated since the industrial revolution contributed to a gradual improvement of living conditions in western societies. On the other hand, it contributed to increased social inequalities (^{Scheidel, 2017}), more pronounced in the outermost regions. This economic model and social framework challenge individual rights and the very sustainability of the model.

The appropriation and use of data to transform into commercial or political products aim to influence or control the individual’s behaviour (^{Rosembuj, 2019}; ^{Zuboff, 2019}). Post-colonial narratives are justified by denouncing and criticising the previous regime or model. On the other hand, they find new means to institute their neo-colonial programs from a moral and aesthetic point of view in contemporary culture. Today, contemporary neocolonialism is cultural and technological, feeding relationships of direct dependence between individuals and supranational institutions. Art does not dissociate from this debate. Therefore it is crucial to measure the impacts of contemporary artistic practices on public space and curatorial projects in the definition of post-colonial, anti-colonial and anti-racist narratives. We intend to verify the effects of iconoclastic customs associated with activism and transgressive artistic practices and evaluate the success of pedagogical actions in heritage implementation to develop processes of social identification, community participation and appreciation of artistic and built heritage.

The knowledge of phenomenology and motivations surrounding the order, as well as the production and references for public statuary or art in urban public space, are, perhaps, crucial to finding new solutions for the maintenance of heritage and cultural diversity (^{Meyer-Bisch & Bidault, 2010/2014}) and avoiding future iconoclastic, non-institutional actions. These proposals for understanding include heritage education and interpretation (^{Goes, 2020}, ²⁰²¹).

2. Literature Review

3. Discussion: Iconoclasm as a Critical Questioning of History and Creative Strategy

Contemporary art uses the denial of its condition as art as a practice for its institutional legitimation; an iconoclastic proposal can assume a creative strategy that allows the critical questioning of history. In a palimpsest logic, this strategy sets on the deconstruction of previous imagery through different subtraction and sum processes of traces, where the prior symbolic tradition reopens a new concept. The transformation of a sign, attributing a new, formal value, removes it from a past category, updates it and makes it (again) symbolic (^{Barthes, 1957/2001}). Despite the refusal of figuration, the iconoclastic processes establish new narratives, maintaining an intrinsically non-representative and non-naturalistic character, maintaining or not the previous symbolic tradition (^{Cantarelli, 2018}). Deleuze (1987, as cited in ^{Ávila, 2020}) questions the definition of a creative act, proposing that it constitutes an act of resistance to death and a form of humanity’s struggle. In this way, a historical narrative underlying a public work of art is always an artificial construction in the service of installed power (^{Ávila, 2020}).

^{Ávila (2020}) states that establishing a stable consensus around alleged universal values that sustain a certain narrative demonstrates how naturalised they are within a society. The tribute paid by installing a sculptural monument in the public space, enthroning some conqueror or slave trader, apart from interfering with the democratic nature of the public space, legitimises the (bad) practices of the person being honoured (^{Ávila, 2020}; ^{Silva, 1996}). It is worth noting that architecture so often establishes or legitimises the historical omission (^{Ávila, 2020}) of colonialism and slavery (^{Kilomba, 2019}; ^{“‘O Racismo É uma Problemática Branca’ Diz Grada Kilomba”, 2016}; ^{Santos, 2003}; ^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}, ²⁰¹²; ^{Varela & Pereira, 2020}).

Western hegemonic thinking, based on moral and racial superiority (^{Jones & Okun, 2001}; ^{Trouillot, 1995/2016}; ^{Weber, 1905/2004}), uses this false ideological construction of identity to justify pursuing a capitalist model structured on cultural domination, in the oppression and devaluation of human resources, as a guarantee for the maximisation of profits. The cultural domination of other peoples and communities is seen as collateral damage of imperialism (^{Ávila, 2020}), justified by a duty to civilise and evangelise. In the Portuguese case (^{Varela & Pereira, 2020}), it may not be just the historical characters at stake but their representation and the mechanisms of legitimation of these, namely the commissioner’s role. The figurative representations of the statuary installed in the public space perpetuate the fetishism (^{Pires, 2011}; ^{Sansi, 2008}) of colonial heritage and the myth of the “good” coloniser (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}; ^{Ávila, 2020}; ^{Goes, 2020}; ^{Kilomba, 2019}; C. ^{Pinheiro, 2002}).

If, on the one hand, the iconoclasm of public statuary can bring into debate the deconstruction of established historical narratives, on the other, it can constitute a factor in the elevation of the same and reiteration of nationalist pride sentiment. Therefore, it is vital to identify the protagonists in these acts and their real motivations. If associated with anti-racist (^{Alvarez, 2009}; ^{Bell, 2021}; ^{Maeso, 2016}; ^{Renou, 2020}) and anti-colonialist movements or if provided by nationalist, racist and xenophobic movements, to exacerbate tension and conflict, blaming other ideological factions or currents of opinion. Alternatively, if acts of random vandalism or provided with a mandate of intervention and artistic questioning.

Although questionable from an ethical point of view and criminalised from a legal point of view, they still are essential instruments: for the reactivation of debates around narratives of “whitening” or historical silencing (^{“‘O Racismo É uma Problemática Branca’ Diz Grada Kilomba”, 2016}; ^{Trouillot, 1995/2016}; ^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}; ^{Varela & Pereira, 2020}), and the quality of artistic interventions in public space. They also allow for the appreciation of the importance of heritage interpretation for the development of feelings of belonging and preservation of heritage, namely the historical and artistic.

When we question history, we redefine and improve the construction of identity. This path is only possible without masks, ghosts or hidden skeletons, with the courage to look critically and shamelessly at the nudity of works of art. Times of confrontation allow us to reflect, question and denounce the quality of aesthetic and infrastructural transformations we inhabit, which may lead us to a decadent identity (^{Goes, 2020}, ²⁰²¹). The issue is not, therefore, in the fact that a community does not value heritage but in the fact that they have not been allowed to experience their collective, pre-existing heritage (^{Goes, 2020}, ²⁰²¹). The disinvestment in people’s schooling prevented them from enjoying a heritage education, which exercises criticism and ensures its safeguard (^{Adamopoulos, 2003}).

The culture of vandalism was institutionalised (^{Cadela, 2007}; ^{Pinilla, 2012}; ^{Thörn, 2011}) and legitimised by the elites that sponsored it, impacting the public space (^{Goes, 2020}, 2021). Ironically, making a vandalism culture aesthetic (^{Cadela, 2007}; ^{Pinilla, 2012}; ^{Thörn, 2011}) has perhaps contributed to the assumption of new iconoclastic practices (^{Goes, 2020}, ²⁰²¹). The critical exercise of art may constitute a necessary condition for a heritage interpretation of public space (^{Cadela, 2007}; ^{Thörn, 2011}) by decolonising it. It may give objects a new context that acquired a historical distance within the museum space and update discourses within museums (^{Adams & Koke, 2014}; ^{Clarke, 2021}; ^{Gregório , 2015}; ^{O’Neill, 2020}; ^{Pauls & Walby, 2021}; ^{Reilly, 2018}; ^{Welch, 2006}).

4. Conclusion: The Decolonisation of Art and Curatorial Artivism as Anti-Racist Formative Processes

The decolonisation of urban public space (^{Correia, 2013}; ^{Madden & Marcuse, 2016}; ^{Silva, 1996}) and cultural and educational institutions, museums, and universities (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}; ^{Roldão et al., 2016}) are an ideological instrument. Should aim to deconstruct the imposition of a hegemonic, seductive aesthetic and visual model underlying the needs of consumers, which makes use of racism to justify the economic exploitation of human and natural resources (^{Hardt & Negri, 2019}; ^{Martin & Pirbhai-Illich, 2015}).

The decolonisation of historical narratives (^{Nebbou, 2013}; ^{Olaniyan, 1993}) within museums and other cultural spaces (^{Soares, 2020}), the adaptation of their discourses, the heritage interpretation of public statues and monuments, the decolonisation of public space, the new context of artistic objects from colonialism in museums (^{Bina, 2020}), contemporary artistic practices (^{Ribeiro, 2021}), the installation of urban public art (^{Duarte, 2019}; ^{Gregório, 2015}), new curatorial projects (^{Clarke, 2021}; ^{Gregório, 2015}; ^{O’Neill, 2020}; ^{Pauls & Walby, 2021}; ^{Reilly, 2018}), can be powerful instruments of criticism and historical reparation by deconstructing fetishisms (^{Pires, 2011}; ^{Sansi, 2008}).

Social movements, research groups and artistic collectives of African descent can develop curatorial projects (^{Duarte, 2019}; ^{Gregório, 2015}; ^{O’Neill, 2020}; ^{Ribeiro, 2021}) and didactic initiatives in performative and plastic arts to interpret the built and artistic heritage amplifying the critical view on historic public space, post-memory (Ribeiro, 2021), colonialism and slavery.

In this regard, it is essential to notice the ^{Resolution 69/16 (2014}) of November 18, 2014, by the United Nations General Assembly, which proposes a program of activities to implement the International Decade for People of African Descent (^{Resolution 68/237, 2013}). It seeks to develop awareness-raising actions by states and civil society to encourage equality and the realisation of human rights. To promote the remembrance of slavery and colonialism victims and prevent and combat racial discrimination, xenophobia and associated prejudice (^{Resolution 69/16, 2014}). Some of the main goals of this resolution are promoting cultural diversity, civic participation and social inclusion, valuing the contributions of people of African descent for growth (^{Resolution 69/16, 2014}).

Guided visits, awareness-raising actions for the interpretation and appreciation of heritage, artistic expression workshops, debate forums, along with an interdisciplinary program, outside the doors of institutions can support the practices of inclusion and social cohesion, combating racism and xenophobia (^{Alvarez, 2009}; ^{Bell, 2021}; ^{Maeso, 2016}; ^{Renou, 2020}; ^{Resolution 69/16, 2014}).

Art as the epistemology of decolonisation (^{Balona de Oliveira, 2019}; ^{Soares, 2020}) allows the adoption of a community aesthetic program (^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}), anti-colonial (^{Hickel, 2021}) that triggers a mindful critique of the social and human development state, fulfilling the duty of denunciation, underlying the social function of art. Contemporary thinking and the dialectic exercised by contemporary art, namely through new curatorial projects (^{Ribeiro, 2021}), have made it possible to criticise the mechanisms of imperialist appropriation (^{Hickel, 2020}, 2021) within cultural institutions (^{Soares, 2020}). Colonialism was at the genesis of the great European art collections, used as a propaganda instrument under the pretext of the Christian and civilised will (^{Goes, 2020}) to hide the real motivations of a hegemonic western elite: domination and economic exploitation of lands.

The devaluation of labour costs, which sustains modern capitalist growth, was ensured over centuries by colonial exploitation (^{Hickel, 2020}, ²⁰²¹; ^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}) via slavery and justified by the cultural backwardness of the racial minority of the dominated peoples. Ideologies that use racism were implanted within contemporary societies to justify labour exploitation and the devaluation of human resources (^{Hickel, 2020}, ²⁰²¹). Ensuring the maintenance of a “race-based class structure” (^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}, p. 4) guarantees the continuation of labour exploitation and profits maximisation. The end of value formation based on labour exploitation will inevitably underlie the process of cultural decolonisation (^{Hickel, 2020}, ²⁰²¹; ^{Vale de Almeida, 2000}).

Therefore, contemporary cities need to adopt new post-capitalist, post-neoliberal urban planning (^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}), which considers art’s deployment and expansion in the public space (^{Bueno Carvajal, 2021}; ^{Frank & Ristic, 2020}; ^{Thörn, 2011}). The success of this exercise is measured by the impacts caused by the development of collaborative artistic projects, the return of public space to citizens (^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}) and the activation of civic participation processes in the redefinition of the architectural and landscape space (^{Bueno Carvajal, 2021}; ^{Frank & Ristic, 2020}; ^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}; ^{Thörn, 2011}).

Contemporary art (^{Duarte, 2019}; ^{Gregório, 2015}; ^{Ribeiro, 2021}) can call for a critical debate on history and omissions (^{Pauls & Walby, 2021}) within cultural institutions, museums and universities (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}; ^{Soares, 2020}; ^{Roldão et al., 2016}), as well as enhancing the debate in the public and media space, namely, with the youngest, deconstructing institutionalised colonial discourses (^{Roldão et al., 2016}). Immigration, historical and identity questioning, interculturality, religious, musical and linguistic diversity, the end of the empire, post-colonialism (^{Leupin, 2019}), racism, social insertion and the archive are some examples of the themes underlying the concept of post-memory (Ribeiro, 2021), addressed in contemporary artistic discourses.

The journey, research, and artistic work of Grada ^{Kilomba (2019}; ^{“‘O Racismo É uma Problemática Branca’ Diz Grada Kilomba”, 2016}) exemplify the activation of the debate and invite the spectator to participate in it. Some Afro-descendant authors/artists (second and third generations) who, according to ^{Ribeiro (2021}), interpret the concept of post-memory through their multiple artistic practices: Aimé Mpane, Amalia Escriva, Ana Mendes, Délio Jasse, Fátima Sissani, Francisco Vidal, John K. Cobra, Louise Narbo, Margarida Cardoso and Nuno Nunes-Ferreira.

Community artistic interventions in urban public space (^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}), namely, developed by Afro-descendants, can contribute to a process of social inclusion (^{Resolution 69/16, 2014}) and overcome institutional omissions of racism and gender, persistent in many collections and exhibitions (^{Kilomba, 2019}; ^{Pauls & Walby, 2021}).

Promenades of heritage interpretation and pedagogical activities in public spaces may contribute to realising human and cultural rights (^{Resolution 69/16, 2014}; ^{Vale de Almeida, 2012}). By enriching the development of feelings of belonging (^{Stavrides, 2016/2021}), the mitigation of social inequalities (^{Bueno Carvajal, 2021}; ^{Thörn, 2011}), the elimination of conflicts and the phenomenology of violence (^{Otávio et al., 2009}), ensuring cultural diversity (^{Vale de Almeida, 2012}) and the deconstruction of the mythographies of the past (^{Barthes, 1957/2001}).

A socially committed museology (^{Gouveia, 2013}; Á. ^{Pinheiro et al., 2016}; ^{Soares, 2020}), alongside curatorial artivism (^{Clarke, 2021}; ^{Gregório, 2015}; ^{Leupin, 2019}; ^{O’Neill, 2020}; ^{Pauls & Walby, 2021}; ^{Reilly, 2018}), as political acts and pedagogical practices, can simultaneously enhance the establishment of new post-colonial narratives (^{Nebbou, 2013}; ^{Olaniyan, 1993}) and deconstruct neocolonial discourses, as well as promote anti-racist dialectics (^{Alvarez, 2009}; ^{Bell, 2021}; ^{Maeso, 2016}; ^{Renou, 2020}).

The development of collaborative and inclusive curatorial projects (^{Gonçalves et al., 2021}; ^{Leupin, 2019}) and the use of inclusive speech in museums (^{Primo & Moutinho, 2021}; ^{Soares, 2020}) can free cultural institutions from the burden of heritage (^{Alcântara Conde da Silva, 2021}) and involve diverse communities in the process of identity construction. Other proposals include replacing statues in museums or sculpture parks or placing interpretive information next to buildings (^{Bina, 2020}).

Contemporary art (^{Rendeiro & Lupati, 2019}; ^{Ribeiro, 2021}) and curatorial artivism (^{Clarke, 2021}; ^{Gregório, 2015}; ^{Leupin, 2019}; ^{O’Neill, 2020}; ^{Pauls & Walby, 2021}; ^{Reilly, 2018}; ^{Taussig, 2012}) can allow the deconstruction of Lusotropicalist discursive practices (^{Duarte, 2019}), which mythologise Portuguese colonialism (^{Araújo & Rodrigues, 2018}), under an allegorical cover of a civilising and evangelising duty (^{Goes, 2020}). Maintaining these “old” discursive practices masks the actual impacts of violence and racial oppression (^{Otávio et al., 2009}; ^{Roldão et al., 2016}; ^{Varela & Pereira, 2020}), leading to more discrimination and the dissemination of racist discourses at present.

Although we gained some progress due to the historical distance, the post-colonial narratives (^{Nebbou, 2013}; ^{Olaniyan, 1993}) still have the stigmas of war, the struggle for emancipation, exploitation and loss, replaced by the silencing of memory (^{Ribeiro, 2021}; P. ^{Sousa, 2019}). This silence led to a false social consensus, neglecting the horror drama and historical tragedy (^{Steinmeyer, 2021}) to the romanticised travel narratives wrapped in nostalgia (^{Duarte, 2019}; ^{Gregório, 2015}).

Questioning totalitarian and racist ideologies and activating the debate on the state of civilisation can be exercised within cultural institutions, namely museums and universities. As a political place, the public space is also a propitious space for the reactivation of this debate, where contemporary art can play a fundamental role.

^{Duarte (2019}) verifies how contemporary art (^{Rendeiro & Lupati, 2019}; ^{Ribeiro, 2021}) can be an important critical tool for decolonising thought and questioning history. ^{Gregório (2015}) also considers the contribution of the visual arts to the construction of post-colonial identities and the deconstruction of prejudices, basing artistic practice on the affirmation of diversity and discursive plurality. In this way, cultural institutions, namely museums, should invest in a plural program open to the community, promoting multiculturalism (^{Adams & Koke, 2014}; ^{Primo & Moutinho, 2021}; ^{Welch, 2006}) and collaborative projects, inclusion through art.

Following the provisions of the bibliographic review, it is possible to identify a critical interpretation concerning the use of public space and the art installed in it. It understands the contemporary iconoclastic practices as political instruments that activate the debate around the processes of refusal of the hegemony of the current memory and non-identification with heritage. It concludes that the symbolic hierarchy of buildings and public statues constitutes ideological instruments conveying historical narratives common to totalitarian regimes. The persistence of these narratives makes it impossible to change the cultural paradigm and psyches, which can also jeopardise contemporary democratic processes and the realisation of human rights (^{Resolution 69/16, 2014}). The absence of a critical heritage interpretation creates a gap in understanding history based on reciprocal altruism. Consequently, rather than art in the public space and heritage building forming instruments of social inclusion, they have been accentuating the phenomenology of violence as they perpetuate the legacies of oppression, slavery, and racism, legitimising the new forms of colonialism contemporary (^{Huntington, 1996}; ^{Santos, 2003}).

The maintenance of discursive practices that enthrone nostalgia for the colonial past (^{Duarte, 2019}; ^{Olaniyan, 1993}), corroborated by structures of the formative power of thought - museum and academy - confirm the difficulty of social emancipation by racial and ethnic-cultural minorities. Furthermore, make it challenging to deconstruct ontological racism, namely, in the Portuguese case, concerning young people of African descent (^{Roldão et al., 2016}). Cultural diversity endurance (^{Meyer-Bisch & Bidault, 2010/2014}) and historical criticism are predominant premises to ensure social cohesion, which only the decolonisation of thought and art will be able to operate (^{Duarte, 2019}).

5. Limitations to the study

Due to their interdisciplinary character, the subjects under study are worthy of further reflection. The recent iconoclastic events on public statuary, which occurred in Portugal and different western countries, may deserve a particular approach, considering the specificity of their representation. The recommendation is that a future study uses a methodology of questionnaires to the general population and interviews with Afro-descendant curators, artists and activists to deepen the following questions: is contemporary iconoclasm a global phenomenon? How can an anti-racist education contribute to changing the cultural paradigm? Who do the statues best serve? How can contemporary art update the interpretation of historical narratives? Can removing the statuary installed in the public space, namely the commission of the Estado Novo, contribute to the decolonisation of thought or accentuate contemporary totalitarian discourses? Can the restitution of historical heritage be an asset to the places of origin, contributing to the cultural identity of these territories or, instead, will it contribute to the perpetuation of relations with the former colonial power, removing pedagogical possibility from the historical correction of the oppressor? How can the redefinition of the economic model underlying urban planning contribute to the democratic process, realising human rights and social inclusion of racial minorities?