Cultural heitage inspires people to think about what is truly important in life, about the meaning of life.

This answer is profound insofar as it invites us to think that man is a symbolic animal that goes through anguish, desires, solidarity and, above all, the search for creative solutions.

Aina thinking Olahbalbdayat first creative thinking of the human being and knowledge of shapes and symbols of symbolic and then access to the extent of their impact in his life in general

In such a moment, the cultural heritage has the function of reminding the people that they are the same, they belong to the same family, community and nation. It can also raise the sense of solidarity. This moment of mass infection will probably restore part of the communality that neoliberalism has eroded the past decades.

Thank you very much for sharing your impressions on this topic, which in a moment where life prevails, can be forgotten or undervalued

In the words of the American poet Emily Dickenson, "beauty (just) is". Esthetic appreciation at her level of definition is neither human nor naturally made - rather, both. As people can admire both, humans creating it on the one hand, and appreciating it (the natural) on the other, the drive to create beauty and to admire it can be seen as fundamental human drives. As such (to borrow from William Hazlitt and Matthew Arnold) "touchstones" drawn from what humans understand as "the beautiful" culturally (and, naturally) can be classified as "archetypes" (Northrop Frye) and the commonality of appreciation across different human societies forms a kind of amorphous, free-floating cultural bond as strong in its existence as the urge to compete - another fundamental human drive. The coeval relationship between fundamental human drives such as appreciating / making beauty and the need to compete ought to be studied in connection to human societies on a strength-per-strength basis vis a vis each other. Separating cultural icons in tradition and history from individually-created ones in space ("for the love of it") would be a nice place to begin. Trivially-speaking, my own take on what constitutes utopias and dystopias in my western bias derive strongly from the Attic (ancient Athenian Greek) writer Plato, who rather strongly intimates that beauty (human creation of it) ought only "glorify the state," - which Plato rather disingenuously refers to as "the philosopher king" - the wise all-knower and owner of the beauty (& everything else, including his/her "subjects") - and that it has been this bias in western civilization from then on (in Europe mostly) that has lead dreamers like Thomas More to scribe the positive fantasies perfect men might create as a society, but which tempered writers like, say, George Orwell, in the 20th Century, showed as real-case scenarios occurring in Eastern Europe (if situated in his fiction in England) in the ultimate of dystopian narratives. This novel of his ACTUALLY DESCRIBED the goings-on, as such, in Stalinist-Leninist dictatorships. In fine, I hold with Emily over Plato in her, some might say, "romantic" definition of beauty. It can certainly, yes, be as a glorification of the state (Robert Frost, the poet, reading encomiums at John F. Kennedy's inauguration). Then again, it could also be Louis XVIs's court sculptors doing for Louis in stone what few could achieve. But then again, it can - and often seeks to be - simply free. Test in case: we can admire sculpture commissioned by ancient kings today, quite free of having to admire the ancient king! (Keyword, that: "free.")

I do research on material religious heritage, specifically medieval churches in Europe, and I have spent much time this past while trying to reformulate or reconsider the significance and value of this heritage, even for those of us who may be secular or irreligious, under the current dire circumstances.

My first reaction to the suffering and death that was happening on such a large scale around the world was that my research felt irrelevant and petty. But then I slowly came around to seeing things differently.

First, many historic churches have weathered similar situations through history, which means that many people have prayed for strength and sustenance in those buildings, and shared and expressed their grief over the death of loved ones. In that sense, quite aside from the differences in denominations over time or space, there is something universal and important that those spaces can communicate to us now (even if we can't visit them physically right now). Just knowing that they are there, feels grounding and grants perspective.

Second, it is becoming apparent that people need art and music and poetry and other beautiful and cultural things more than ever before in this situation. Cultural heritage is what connects us in desperate times. It is becoming clear that culture is not a luxury, but a necessity.

Thank you all very much for your contributions. The question I asked was motivated because I could not make sense of the research I am conducting on literary heritage in Bogotá Colombia since the life of Gabriel Garcia Marquez. With some of your answers I begin to understand other ways of looking at the heritage issue today. Thank you

Dear Fabian,

Thank you for the feedback and for providing the context in which the question arose. I have just received a short-cut of a speech of the memorable Fidel Castro, former president of Cuba talking about bacteriological arms. I see that he is particularly relevant the period of pandemy the whole world is currently confronted with. Such speeches need to be re-studied in the light of our situation of today.

Good luck.

I am a little concerned with the fragility of life and heritage as economic development is given more priority than the democratization of culture

I tell you that as a result of this discussion I started with my heritage students a podcast program called Heritage and Dystopia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3yPCnFom-w&t=62s Although it is in Spanish, you can put the option with English subtitles

RG novice speaking :) This question appeared on browsing home feed. As I'm writing this answer, RG is popping a side tip to confirm experience in my field :). It's obvious that culture is not, I'm an anaesthesiologist; and just want to share my interest in culture. This has been elicited on planning for immigration about a year ago. Multiple contradictory motives have been, and actually still, conflicting each other and thus confound the decision. The motive for culture supports staying home, and the motives for education and finance support immigration. I still sincerely value both motives, but the motive for collectivism has surpassed all. I decided it'd be better, in this clearly hyper-connected world, to live my every-day and professional activities as a globalist. Borders whether Geographical, cultural, disciplinary, linguistic or whatever should not constraint communication, collaboration and solidarity. Looking forward to communicate dear cross-disciplinary colleagues :)

thank you very much for your contributions

Cultural heritage needs to be addressed from current discussions. I think about what George Floyd's Death has unleashed