A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Should heritage management be democratized? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany.
This paper is about the recent discussions (known as Denkmalpflegediskussion) on the general organization of heritage management in Germany. The main issue discussed was whether heritage management should be further denationalized (’entstaatlicht’) and made the responsibility of individual citizens in order to serve better both the monuments and the people. A number of fundamental criticisms were made concerning existing practices of heritage management, some of which were said to alienate and patronize people despite opposite intentions. In the course of the public exchange of views various alternatives were suggested and discussed. In particular, more influence should be given to the owners. The overriding criterion for scheduling should be a site’s ability to move people, in other words its ’beauty’ rather than some complex academic reasoning about historical significance. This paper will review the polarized debate that ensued, summarize the main arguments that were made, and discuss emerging key issues in the light of the existing discussion in Sweden, for example in the context of the Agenda Kulturarv project. Should heritage management in a democratic society be liberalized to the extent that it becomes a matter for local communities and individual citizens rather than for the state?
Should heritage management be democratized? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany.
This paper is about the recent discussions (known as Denkmalpflegediskussion) on the general organization of heritage management in Germany. The main issue discussed was whether heritage management should be further denationalized (’entstaatlicht’) and made the responsibility of individual citizens in order to serve better both the monuments and the people. A number of fundamental criticisms were made concerning existing practices of heritage management, some of which were said to alienate and patronize people despite opposite intentions. In the course of the public exchange of views various alternatives were suggested and discussed. In particular, more influence should be given to the owners. The overriding criterion for scheduling should be a site’s ability to move people, in other words its ’beauty’ rather than some complex academic reasoning about historical significance. This paper will review the polarized debate that ensued, summarize the main arguments that were made, and discuss emerging key issues in the light of the existing discussion in Sweden, for example in the context of the Agenda Kulturarv project. Should heritage management in a democratic society be liberalized to the extent that it becomes a matter for local communities and individual citizens rather than for the state?
Should heritage management be democratized? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany.
Holtorf, Cornelius (author) / Alzén, Annika / Aronsson, Peter
2006-01-01
pp 103-115 (2006) ; ISSN: 1653-0373
Article/Chapter (Book)
Electronic Resource
English
DDC:
710
E/E architectures between democratized mobility and autonomous driving
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2015
| DataCite | 2015