De stygge kulturminnene. Vurderinger og begrunnelse for bevaring av kontroversielle kulturminner og kulturmiljøer, sett i lys av verneteoretiske perspektiver
Abstract
When we talk about cultural heritage, we normally think in positive terms. But heritage is not only positive memories, and some times we really
wish to forget. How do we handle this heritage and how can we deal with it?
The article brings a short summary of the development of conservation principles, and it discusses the premises of conservation of monuments
and sites. Primarily referring to the works of Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin, but these two also shows that there are choices you have to do when working with conservation tasks.
The development of the notion cultural heritage monument, or site, is discussed as a relatively new notion in the sense that it is not only the
most magnificent buildings, artworks or the oldest part of the heritage that is to be conserved or protected. By referring to Alois Riegl (via
Myklebust), and Riegls discussions on monuments and artworks we can get an understanding of the change in the understanding of cultural heritage. As persons we respond on artworks and monuments. Riegl shows that the understanding of the monuments and sites will change over time, and that it is relative to the person who is watching or precipitating the object.
This means that our understanding of what is cultural heritage will change and our understanding of the ugly will change over time and be
nice, and vice versa.
What is ugly heritage is not necessarily only to the visual esthetical point of view, but also connected to the heritage that remembers situations
of conflict or humiliating situations or humiliating history for groups of people.
The principals for conservation should be the same for the monument in all cases. We have to be true to history but the society changes and so do the historytelling. There is questioned how it is possible to select and choose
the ugly or conflicted monument between monuments without any conflicts, as a monument for everyone in a democratic way if no-one
wants to remember or rather forget. For the conservationist this is more a technical question, but there are forces in the society that will influence
on the choice of methods or even the protection of the monument it self. Still this kind of monuments should be protected.
wish to forget. How do we handle this heritage and how can we deal with it?
The article brings a short summary of the development of conservation principles, and it discusses the premises of conservation of monuments
and sites. Primarily referring to the works of Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin, but these two also shows that there are choices you have to do when working with conservation tasks.
The development of the notion cultural heritage monument, or site, is discussed as a relatively new notion in the sense that it is not only the
most magnificent buildings, artworks or the oldest part of the heritage that is to be conserved or protected. By referring to Alois Riegl (via
Myklebust), and Riegls discussions on monuments and artworks we can get an understanding of the change in the understanding of cultural heritage. As persons we respond on artworks and monuments. Riegl shows that the understanding of the monuments and sites will change over time, and that it is relative to the person who is watching or precipitating the object.
This means that our understanding of what is cultural heritage will change and our understanding of the ugly will change over time and be
nice, and vice versa.
What is ugly heritage is not necessarily only to the visual esthetical point of view, but also connected to the heritage that remembers situations
of conflict or humiliating situations or humiliating history for groups of people.
The principals for conservation should be the same for the monument in all cases. We have to be true to history but the society changes and so do the historytelling. There is questioned how it is possible to select and choose
the ugly or conflicted monument between monuments without any conflicts, as a monument for everyone in a democratic way if no-one
wants to remember or rather forget. For the conservationist this is more a technical question, but there are forces in the society that will influence
on the choice of methods or even the protection of the monument it self. Still this kind of monuments should be protected.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.