Discussions today revolved around tangible and intangible
cultural heritage, and what better place to do this than in the beautiful town
of Hoi An?
Alike many UNESCO world heritage sites, Hoi An is heavily geared towards tourists. I lost count of the amount of Australian accents heard on the streets! It makes a fairly obvious example of a negative aspect of being labeled by UNESCO. Sure, there are economic benefits to this but I wonder is community consultation would reveal a positive or negative reaction to this.
Alike many UNESCO world heritage sites, Hoi An is heavily geared towards tourists. I lost count of the amount of Australian accents heard on the streets! It makes a fairly obvious example of a negative aspect of being labeled by UNESCO. Sure, there are economic benefits to this but I wonder is community consultation would reveal a positive or negative reaction to this.
My question for today asks, is UNESCO simply forcing Western
attiudes upon ethnic, minority or non-western communities?
Of course it is important for the diverse culture of our world to be recognized, but what consequence does this have when communities are affected by a listing, that does not necessarily come with appropriate preservation methods or funding?
Many UNESCO sites are nominated by the governing country or state, but this decision is often not made as a result of community consultation and an understanding of which tangible/intangible heritages are worth preserving to them.
Of course it is important for the diverse culture of our world to be recognized, but what consequence does this have when communities are affected by a listing, that does not necessarily come with appropriate preservation methods or funding?
Many UNESCO sites are nominated by the governing country or state, but this decision is often not made as a result of community consultation and an understanding of which tangible/intangible heritages are worth preserving to them.
The final workshop for today focused on groups mapping the
Intangible Cultural Heritage of fishermen within Hoi An. Through speaking to
members of this community, we learnt that many fisherman - or people with a
generational history in that line of work - now attract profits from the
tourism industry. Therefore the heritage/history along with the associated
stories and practices have been lost in an effort to preserve Hoi An as a world
heritage site.
Similarly, when Halong Bay is in the North of Vietnam was declared a UNESCO heritage site, hundreds of people that lived on the floating villages within the bay were forced to be relocated. In addition, many of the originally dark wooden boats in the areas were required to be repainted white. These actions in turn destroyed much of the living heritage that pre-existed in the area.
This leads me to wonder if perhaps UNESCO should simply be a resource for museums to utilize in an effort to decrease these negative aspects of international UNESCO listing. This would stress the need for museums to act within their communities to further understand and preserve the intangible and tangible cultural heritage that is of interest to each particular community.
Many museums within Vietnam are already utilized as a performance space by communities. As we saw in the Ethnology museum, this is commonly used as a public programming method to communicate and demonstrate the use of important objects, practices and traditions are
If preserving specific Intangible Cultural Heritages are truly important to communities, shouldn’t this be reflected as a priority for museums? The already established resource of museums may be a better way to achieve the intentions made my UNESCO, in an effort to make positive progress for the community rather than placing ideals upon them without consultation.
I feel as though these topics of community consultation and museums prioritizing this engagement summarize a great deal of the issues raised throughout the last two weeks of the field school. It is interesting to consider other ways in which museums may utilize communities to create positive changes within themselves along with museum engagement.
Similarly, when Halong Bay is in the North of Vietnam was declared a UNESCO heritage site, hundreds of people that lived on the floating villages within the bay were forced to be relocated. In addition, many of the originally dark wooden boats in the areas were required to be repainted white. These actions in turn destroyed much of the living heritage that pre-existed in the area.
This leads me to wonder if perhaps UNESCO should simply be a resource for museums to utilize in an effort to decrease these negative aspects of international UNESCO listing. This would stress the need for museums to act within their communities to further understand and preserve the intangible and tangible cultural heritage that is of interest to each particular community.
Many museums within Vietnam are already utilized as a performance space by communities. As we saw in the Ethnology museum, this is commonly used as a public programming method to communicate and demonstrate the use of important objects, practices and traditions are
If preserving specific Intangible Cultural Heritages are truly important to communities, shouldn’t this be reflected as a priority for museums? The already established resource of museums may be a better way to achieve the intentions made my UNESCO, in an effort to make positive progress for the community rather than placing ideals upon them without consultation.
I feel as though these topics of community consultation and museums prioritizing this engagement summarize a great deal of the issues raised throughout the last two weeks of the field school. It is interesting to consider other ways in which museums may utilize communities to create positive changes within themselves along with museum engagement.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.