Cultural Heritage Analysis

1618 Words7 Pages
Making an entrance in the debates and discourse of around cultural heritage, Hastein asks the question, to whom does heritage belong? And Who is re-contextualising culture and to what effected? I will extract Hastein’s answer by examining the relationship of cultural practice to the practitioner when there is intuitional and government involvement in the efforts of safeguarding and commodifying, illustrated by a letter in the wake of the success of Simon and Garfunkel’s song El Condor Pasa (1970). Hastein also makes a note of the govementaily agenda underlying the approach that gives merit to cultural practices within the context of protection, presents his solution to the problems he argues is deprive of the current method. Hastien argues…show more content…
The minister notes need to protect intangible culture as the effects of commercialisation and globalisation of transcultural was taking away from tradition culture (Hastien 2007, p.3). And secondly, cultural heritage uses for economic and political gain. I suggest that Hastien is expressing the idea that institutions rush to perverse and seeing that without preservation, there is only destruction, however, ignore the inherent nature of heritage, heritage is change (2007, p.75). This notion of heritage as changes is typified by Barbara Kirstenblatt Gimblett (2014, p.37) remake that heritage is in the past of present. Cultural heritage lives its first life is lived as habitus, its second life is as, the second life as performed for cultural economics(CITE), fundamentally in gain in this notion is the idea that heritage is change. Barbara Kirstenblatt Gimblet theorization heratiage as metaculture Hastien notes fundematal to any productive debate around heritage. Metacultural practise cultural in a way that locates it as a removed representation for the culture claimed. This forever shifts the relationship of the heritage to its practitioners (Hastien 2012, p.512). It the…show more content…
Looking at the definition UNESCO’s definition of intangible cultural heritage of Hafstein (2007, p.7) establishes an approach to the heritage that is different from the conventional institutional method, which is a he refers to a top-down approach. Haftsien offers a solution in the inverse of the system, a bottom-down approach. To understand what is meant by a bottom-up method, it is best to explore the idea comparison between the two approaches. A top-down procedure is done by scholarly expertise defining what the cultural heritage of a community or state is, and evaluating it, and deciding if there is merit in giving it the resources to protect the cultural expression (Hafstien 2007, p.7). Hafstien suggests however that bottom-up approach is more in line with UNESCO’s definition of intangible cultural heritage. “Intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expression, knowledge, skills. . . That the communities, groups and, in case, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage (UNESCO, Article 2, paragraph 1). A bottom-up approach is a wide-spread consultation and participatory process that would survey and research communities, groups and

More about Cultural Heritage Analysis

Open Document