How do we define heritage, and who decides its parameters? Scholars have pointed out that heritage is a dynamic process and not a mere monumental object.
Part of this "anti-monumentalist" approach is our appreciation of heritage. Hence, the question is: Can heritage be found in non-heritage contexts?
What if we look at our socio-economic dynamics? Let's say, we take a look at the spontaneous movement of people through an outdoor market, or a public bus moving through the metropolis, or a street football pitch?
Is heritage only associated with a specific timeline? Is it culturally justified?
The "heritage" category includes all aspects of material and non-material culture that society retains over time, after they have exceeded their life span or after they are no longer relevant. In our daily life we come across many aspects of culture that we wonder if they should be preserved or not. I think that if we try to preserve certain things voluntarily, it means that we have the pretension to intervene on future generations. The demolition of Lenin statues in Eastern European countries in the 1990s shows that, in fact, we cannot do this, no matter how much we would like to. The future retains only what is relevant to it, not what we decide in the present. Heritage cannot be associated with a certain age of cultural elements. For example, a novel or a painting enters the heritage right after they have been published or exhibited. If the question is about how long a cultural element has to be resilient to be considered "heritage", I don't see a universal answer. As a rule, historians consider an event that is 30 years old - a generation - to be a historical fact.
The aswers are very correct, and me considerate to exist one radicality betwen city and heritage. In this context, if exit heritage or not, the accesibility for the people existent, are very importante for break this border. The territories are diferents, but analogs for the people-habitants
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology