The Significance of Heritage/ M. Jewachinda 1

Dear all,

This essay will be developed as a part of the introduction in my thesis entitled

‘Architectural Heritage: as Culture and Cultural Policy in Europe 1960s-1990s, Culture, Nation and Community, Whose Buildings are They? The brief scope of my thesis is as follows:

*****************************************************

The European Union, a grand political project of the post World War II period, has searched for new ways to advance the integration process since the 1960s, making culture a key concept in that process. This thesis presents an analysis of the ways the EU has sought to build Europe by using concepts of culture and architectural heritage. In so doing, it will propose a new way of looking at the EU’s transformation from the 1960s to the 1990s, namely the cultural construction of the ‘new Europe’. It will examine the European Union’s ways of exploiting the power of architectural heritage upon the integration process. The primary idea is that architectural heritage has been exploited in threes ways: as a representation of common European culture; as a metaphor for building the ‘new Europe’, and as a key aspect of development. The interplay of these functions serves as a dynamic force to insert the ‘idea of Europe’ in the European Union’s denationalization process.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ‘THE NEW EUROPE’

As far as collective memory of the past plays a significant role in creating the sense of belonging to any communities among their people, political regimes practically exercise their power in the process of making the past in which artefacts are chosen to be its representation. Similarly, the European Union has endeavored to construct ‘the new Europe’ by creating a collective memory known as the ‘common European culture’ in the process of which the concept of architectural heritage has become seminal in the representation of common European culture. Architecture by its nature mirrors the shadow of power by two levels. Firstly, the power of architecture itself creates human-being’s dwellings and space. It becomes a built environment which influences people’s lives. Secondly, it represents power of any political regimes in constructing their communities through styles and the function of architecture. Metaphorically, architecture as a structure of form is the very symbol of power and bureaucracy since its physical appearance is a huge form of something powerful, important and complex. Undoubtedly, any political regimes, including the European Union are attracted by the language of architecture and select it to be a representation of European culture.

However, not every architecture is selected to be the representation of common European culture. In the selection process, the idea of heritage is concerned. The term ‘heritage’ is also similar to architecture in the sense that it associates with power—who defines what is heritage. Heritage as collective inheritance is a symbol of a community civilization and culture. Political power, particularly nation state takes a dominant role in defining what is national heritage. By the same token, a new political power like the European Union has endeavored to build up the Community by getting involved with architectural heritage. Nevertheless, the relation between supra nation and architectural heritage in a contemporary period is characterized not only by political power’s vision but also by the on growing trend of the socio-economic benefit of heritage industry which becomes a main actor in shaping the perception of the past. More importantly, from the nineteenth century onwards, architectural heritage has long functioned as a symbolic factor in defining the nation-state, but the European Union has endeavored to promote national architectural heritage in order to celebrate ‘the common European culture’ or ‘the European unity’. Such a contradiction, thus, proves to be interesting in seeing why architectural heritage is so important for the construction of ‘the new Europe’.

Herein, the significance of architectural heritage is the point of departure and it will be analyzed into three main topics: the rise of the term ‘heritage’ in the post war period; the importance of architectural heritage for defining nation state, and ‘the new Europe’. As heritage become a main actor in shaping the landscape of the past, the rise of heritage and heritage industry needs to be clarified. My argument is that the term ‘heritage’ which has been widely used nowadays is a rather new concept, it only emerged and has been formulated since the 1970s. Furthermore, the widespread use of the term ‘heritage’ was influenced by the international movement and the socio-economic element of heritage. Subsequently, the significance of architectural heritage shall be analyzed in the context of nation state and supra-nation. Why architectural heritage is important to the construction of Europe is another principle question. The hypothesis is that the European Union assumes the role of a nation state and imprints its power over the reinterpretation of European history by defining what the architectural heritage of Europe is. However, the involvement of the European Union in the field of architectural heritage and the way of using this architectural heritage is more complex than that of the nation state.

Heritage

The term ‘heritage’ has gradually arrived in vogue since the 1970s. Originally, it meant ‘that which has been or may be inherited; any property, and esp. land which develops by right of inheritance’.[1] Before the 1970s, the terms ‘cultural property’ and ‘historical monument’ were more applied to historical and cultural assets. In `1954, UNESCO adopted a convention[2] to protect cultural assets from armed conflict by selecting the term ‘cultural property’. In the convention, the term heritage is mentioned as an alternative term of cultural property. Weber[3] proposes that the term heritage substituted the concept of historical monument in the 1970s. This proposal is somewhat reasonable since before the 1970s, the term ‘historical monument’ was widely used at the international level, applied to architecture as artistic and historical value. At that time, the international movement to protect historical and cultural property was more concerned with the endurance of the past by using the term ‘historical monument’. The most important witness is the Venice Charter (1964) which uses the term historical monuments and sites meaning that,

‘The concept of an historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or an historic event. This applies not only to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significancewith the passing of time’[4]

In this Charter, the term ‘heritage’ was used as a collective term referring to human being property without any significance.

The term ‘heritage’ began gaining its importance in the European Conference of Ministers held in Brussels in 1969. In this conference, it was juxtaposed to the term ‘monument’ as seen in the recommendation namely, Recommendation of the European Conference of Ministers Responsible for the Preservation and Rehabilitation of the Cultural Heritage of Monuments and Sites. Nevertheless, it became an international term in 1972 when UNESCO announced the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972. Later, the Council of Europe through the Committee of Ministers also used the term heritage by heading its charter concerning architecture ‘European Charter of the Architectural Heritage’ (1975). Besides, in the European Union’s documents concerning culture in the 1970s, the term ‘heritage’ was used as a representation of European culture.[5]

The outgrowth of the concept of ‘heritage’ since the 1970s has had three new characters. First of all, it includes natural resources to be natural heritage such as landscape, natural sites, outstanding parks and etc. Secondly, for cultural heritage, the meaning is very broad as the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage defines that cultural heritage means,

‘Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are out standing universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;

Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art and science.

Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and are including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view’.[6]

Thirdly, the concept of heritage has been broadened to include recent cultural assets and buildings such as industrial heritage—buildings in dock land, tools in old factories, coal mine sites etc. This is a new phenomenon in the sense that artistic value is not the only criteria in order to judge which artefact can be called a heritage. The practical value of artefacts becomes another important concern.

Heritage in vogue: factors

1. The increase of international solidarity in protecting the world’s properties

The idea of protecting cultural and natural properties has gradually become more international in the post war period since almost all of Europe were affected by the war. It brought about the increasing awareness of protecting cultural properties at a national level. Furthermore, natural disasters such as flood which submerged outstanding heritage and artistic value and cities, was an important catalyst to formulate the international solidarity to protect the world properties. The first movement was the protection of the Abu Simbel and Philae temples in Egypt which were greatly affected by the decision of the Egyptian government to construct the Aswan High Dam. The construction of the Aswan High Dam could cause floods in the valley containing these two temples. The two temples were also ‘dismantled and moved to dry ground and reassembled’.[7] In 1959, UNESCO launched international campaigns to protect the temples. ‘The campaign cost approximately US$ 80 million, half of which was donated by some 50 countries, showing the importance of nations’ shared responsibility in conserving outstanding cultural sites’.[8] The concern with the temple of Philea still appeared in 1966 as seen in the Times which published a photograph of the temple with the description that, ‘The water of the Nile partly cover the temple of Philea, one of the Nubian antiquities affected by the Aswan High Dam. The water is now likely to remain at this level’.[9]

Another important event was a big flood in Florence and Venice on the 4th November 1966. Consequently, ‘…all the streets of Florence were torrents of rushing water as the River Arno broke its banks. Cars were lifted bodily and buried beneath water and mud’.[10] In Venice, the level of water was over 2 feet high and other areas around were destroyed by the flood. Apart from physical damage of these two cities, all buildings and works of art were in severe danger. Saving Florence’s art became a huge international issue since it was far beyond the city’s and the Italian government’s capacity to solve the problem alone. It started when ‘the city of Florence appealed to the world…to help save its flood-damaged art treasures’.[11] Moreover, leading newspapers in many countries continued reporting news about the flood and the art treasure in danger.

The formulation of international solidarity to protect world properties is represented in newspapers. For example, the Times published a full page article, the Ruin of Florentine Art: What the Floods have Cost Civilization, by John Sherman[12] who wrote that,

‘…the effects of this flood will continue, even for years; the weakening of foundations will go on, rising damp in the wall will affect frescos, violent humidity changes will do further damage to panel paintings or furniture… A definitive assessment of the destruction will never be made. Similarly, no assessment can be given of the cost of whatever restoration can be done. One may only say that if it is to be done within a generation the cost is many times greater than any one country can bear.’[13]

Another example is an editorial article in the Times saying that,

‘To this must be added the cultural losses which no money can replace and which are only now in process of being accurately assessed... Britain’s ties with Italy are of very special sort, and imply special obligations. Leaving aside the dept that all European countries owe to Rome and Italy in general, Britain’s special links over the past four centuries—and more—lie in the things of the mind and of the human spirit’.[14]

Furthermore, this idea was transformed into concrete action to protect Florentine art--the international committee was then set up to hasten restoration measures. People from everywhere came to save Florence by giving a helping hand in moving all of the works of art from water and mud to safe places. UNESCO launched an international campaign for raising funds to restore art and the architectural heritage in Florence and Venice. All of these experiences aroused awareness of the erosion of world properties and the creating of the sense that all national properties are also world properties. In this way, the term property does not serve the new rising sense, but the term ‘heritage’ functions well as a neutral term for international inheritance.

The world solidarity was also shaped by the UNESCO initiatives, the World Heritage. The World Heritage is a project set up since 1972 for the reason that ‘the cultural heritage and the natural heritage are increasingly threatened with destruction not only by the traditional causes of decay, but also by changing Social and economic conditions which aggravate the situation with even more formidable phenomena of damage or destruction’.[15] UNESCO has operated the Word Heritage initiative by setting up the World Heritage Fund and the World Heritage Committee. The Committee annually announces the world heritage list by selecting from the cultural and natural sites. It also makes a list of heritage in danger each year in order to create the awareness of protection of heritage among people all over the world. The long-term plan of the World Heritage initiative increases the sense of protecting heritage in a national and international context. More importantly, it makes the term ‘heritage’ popular for referring to natural and cultural assets.

2. The increasing socio-economic trend of heritage

The term ‘heritage’ acquires its importance in the contemporary period, having become an industry, a main witness is the increasing numbers of heritage registered by states. For example, in Ireland, ‘during the decade 1970 to 1980, the number of monuments given state protection …doubled, to 2,055 sites, with substantial increase in listing and preservation order’[16]. The intervention of architectural heritage of historical interest at that time is not limited only by the Irish government, but expanded to local agencies which can be seen from the number of sites and buildings in that decade, there were around 60, 000 buildings of historical interest, but ‘one in ten of which were considered to be of national or international significance’.[17] It means that the nine percent of architecture of historic interest in Ireland was invented by local agencies in order to attract tourists which was a new approach to activate local economies.

Heritage has become an important commodity which brings about prosperity in economic terms. This is very much influenced by the economic circumstances in the 1970s and the 1980s when the fragile situation of the European economy worsened because of the oil crisis in 1973. All European countries encountered inflation, balance of payment difficulties, currency disorder, rising unemployment etc. Even though the problem of economic recession was solved to a certain extent in the late 1980s, the rate of unemployment was still high. In contrast to the decline of the heavy industry, tourism grew and became one of the main income in many countries. More importantly, tourism increased jobs in various ways, i.e., in accommodation business, souvenir markets and heritage sites. In the light of this circumstance, tourist attraction is a chief issue. As a result, most European countries actively created an image of their capital cities and provinces by adding list of national heritage and promoting them as tourist attractions. Moreover, many sites which related to mankinds’ past and activities which had not been heritage such as coal mines and other industrial sites were created to be heritage by private companies.Furthermore, heritage industry expands since it is the commercialization of nostalgia. Changes in European societies during the 1970s and the 1980s enhanced this feeling of nostalgia, as Lowenthal wrote ‘dissatisfaction with the present and malaise about the future induce many to look back with nostalgia, to equate what is beautiful and livable with what is old or past’.[18]

3. The expansion of state heritage into popular culture