Publication: Los bienes del patrimonio cultural como objeto de estudio o como experiencia vivida
Loading...
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2015
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Servicio de Publicaciones
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
En nuestra comunicación, pretendemos abrir un debate sobre conceptos básicos en materia de Patrimonio, su soporte teórico y las prácticas desarrolladas desde 1972
(Convención sobre la Protección del Patrimonio Mundial Natural y Cultural) y desde 2003 (Convención para la Salvaguarda del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial). Si es posible afirmar que en más de una ocasión la percepción e interpretación de muchos bienes declarados no se han ceñido exactamente a lo dispuesto en la declaración de 1972, y sí en la del 2003, nosotros proponemos reflexionar sobre las posibles razones de ello. Alguna puede venir dada por la impropia formulación de los tipos (material/inmaterial) de Patrimonio Cultural y ello basándonos en el segundo Considerando de la Convención de 2003: “Considerando la profunda interdependencia que existe entre el Patrimonio cultural inmaterial y el Patrimonio material cultural y natural”. Por ello queremos presentar un breve análisis de bienes incluidos en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial y alguno de los bienes incluidos en la Lista representativa del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial de la Humanidad: El Misterio de Elche (2008), El Espacio Cultural de la Plaza Jemaa el-Fna (2008), Las fiestas indígenas dedicadas a los muertos (2008) y La Dieta mediterránea (2014). Esta comparación de bienes de ambas listas nos permite reflexionar sobre las diferencias y semejanzas de los considerados dos tipos de bienes patrimoniales -Patrimonio material versus Patrimonio inmaterial- y analizar las diferentes maneras de relacionarse con cada uno de ellos tanto las administraciones estatales y locales como los ciudadanos particular y comunitariamente. Presentamos unas conclusiones provisionales que giran en torno a la mayor o menor implicación, en el conocimiento y en la pervivencia del bien, de los ciudadanos y de las diferentes comunidades. Se trata de acceder al conocimiento y valoración de los bienes culturales a través del conocimiento y empeño de la investigación, o a través de la experiencia y la vivencia de las personas y sociedades. En unos casos los ciudadanos son sujetos, u objetos pasivos, mientras que en otros son sujetos activos y directamente interesados en la vigencia, preservación y difusión del bien. Así se explicaría mejor la actitud natural e inevitable en la conservación y gestión de unos bienes por parte de los ciudadanos o la “libertad” de actuación más descontrolada de los gestores públicos.
This paper is set to open a debate about basic concepts related to the subject of Heritage, and about its theory and practical policies developed since 1972 (Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage) and since 2003 (Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage). It would be a fair statement to say that there are multiple examples where both the perception and interpretation of many properties protected under the rules of the convention have not adhered to the regulations stated on the 1972 Convention document but to those of the 2003 document. We would like to reflect on this fact and discuss some possible reasons for it. Some of these reasons might arise from the improper formulation of the type of cultural property (tangible/untangible) as stated on the second Regarding the Convention document of 2003: “Considering the deep-seated interdependence between the intangible: cultural heritage and the tangible cultural and natural heritage”. This is why we would like to present a brief analysis of the properties and assets included in the World Heritage List and some of those included in The Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity: The Mistery of Elche (2008), The Cultural Space of the Jemaa el-Fna Square (2008), The Indigenous feasts dedicated to the dead (2008), The Mediteranean diet (2014). The comparison between these two lists will allow us to reflect on the disparities and similarities between the two types of assets under discussion --tangible heritage versus Intangible heritage- and to analyse the different ways in which the local or state-wide administrations can relate to them, as well as the relationship with the communities, groups and individuals concerned. Therefore, we have assembled some provisional conclusions that we would like to present and these revolve around the different degrees of attachment and involvement of the people and communities within their knowledge of the property and its protection. It is a matter of getting to know and value the cultural heritage through the hard labour of research, or through the real experiences and the life of people. In the former, the citizens will be subjects, or passive objects, whereas in the latter they are active subjects directly interested in the validity, preservation and dissemination of the particular property. This could better explain the more natural and inevitable attitude of preservation and management of the property on behalf of the communities and citizens, or the more uncontrolled “freedom” of the public managers in charge.
This paper is set to open a debate about basic concepts related to the subject of Heritage, and about its theory and practical policies developed since 1972 (Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage) and since 2003 (Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage). It would be a fair statement to say that there are multiple examples where both the perception and interpretation of many properties protected under the rules of the convention have not adhered to the regulations stated on the 1972 Convention document but to those of the 2003 document. We would like to reflect on this fact and discuss some possible reasons for it. Some of these reasons might arise from the improper formulation of the type of cultural property (tangible/untangible) as stated on the second Regarding the Convention document of 2003: “Considering the deep-seated interdependence between the intangible: cultural heritage and the tangible cultural and natural heritage”. This is why we would like to present a brief analysis of the properties and assets included in the World Heritage List and some of those included in The Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity: The Mistery of Elche (2008), The Cultural Space of the Jemaa el-Fna Square (2008), The Indigenous feasts dedicated to the dead (2008), The Mediteranean diet (2014). The comparison between these two lists will allow us to reflect on the disparities and similarities between the two types of assets under discussion --tangible heritage versus Intangible heritage- and to analyse the different ways in which the local or state-wide administrations can relate to them, as well as the relationship with the communities, groups and individuals concerned. Therefore, we have assembled some provisional conclusions that we would like to present and these revolve around the different degrees of attachment and involvement of the people and communities within their knowledge of the property and its protection. It is a matter of getting to know and value the cultural heritage through the hard labour of research, or through the real experiences and the life of people. In the former, the citizens will be subjects, or passive objects, whereas in the latter they are active subjects directly interested in the validity, preservation and dissemination of the particular property. This could better explain the more natural and inevitable attitude of preservation and management of the property on behalf of the communities and citizens, or the more uncontrolled “freedom” of the public managers in charge.