ACHS 2016 - What does heritage change?

Havik, K. M. (Participant)

Activity: Participating in or organising an event › Participation in conference

Description

What does heritage change? From June 3rd to June 8th 2016, the Canada Research Chair in Urban Heritage of UQAM’s School of Management, in collaboration with Concordia University and the Center for Oral History and Digital Storytelling, hosts the Association of Critical Heritage’s third Biennial Conference under the theme “ “What does heritage change?”. More than 700 delegates are participating, from all five continents. Heritage is a powerful witness to mindsets and zeitgeist; it is commonly understood that it gives way to a better understanding of societies and even brings together communities. But how would this happen? Can heritage affect reality? What does it change? Under this question, “What does heritage change?”, the ACHS2016 Conference, hosted by the Canada Research Chair in Urban Heritage (ESG, UQAM) in collaboration with the Center for Oral History and Digital Storytelling (Concordia) considers the manifestations, discourses, epistemologies, policies, and stakes of heritage—as a phenomenon, a symptom, an effect or a catalyst; as a tool of empowerment or leverage; as a physical or intangible restraint or kick-off; in communities, societies, or any material or mental environment. Subthemes range from gender-related issues to identity-making, mythologies of cultural diversity and the rethinking of heritage policies beyond the authorized heritage discourse.

Period	3 Jun 2016 → 8 Jun 2016
Event type	Conference
Location	Montreal, CanadaShow on map

Keywords

cultural heritage
architecture
oral history
narrative
community
commons

Documents & Links

session: Expertise in a time of deregulation The second half of the 20th century saw the affirmation of national and international heritage administrations run by teams of experts that mutually validated each other’s knowledge and findings. The emergence of new forms of heritage, new collections and international networks related to museums, or other heritage structures, has led to the development of numerous new or reformulated specialities. In the last two decades a new ideal of heritage has gained ground, one based on communities of interpretation and localised emotions. In Europe, the Faro convention (2005, implemented in 2011) setting out the value of cultural patrimony for social development, introduced the idea of a kind of expertise specific to a given space and population. The scholarly framework that formerly validated heritage forms seems to be giving way to claims by indigenous groups, or autochthones and to be related to the affirmation of identities and memories. Whilst some deplore the decline of former models of “objective” expertise others approve and consider the emergence of new forms of expertise, in particular collaborative initiatives, as a positive development. Yet it would be simplistic to consider that there is a clear opposition between a top down and a bottom up expertise as there are many forms of collaboration and negotiation that connect them to each other. One might add, that as scientific as public expertise may claim to be, it is of course also conditioned by ethical, political and otherwise tactical considerations, making it also circumstantial and “impure”. On the other hand, “local” activist expertise can often be tied back to official policies that also lead to the establishment of scholarly forms of connoisseurship and heritage administration. Critical research carried out from the perspective of different disciplines on the selection processes and the preservation measures taken by commissions, associations and administrations, has revealed the variety of issues at stake in the interplay between expertise and heritage making processes. Institutions confronted with requests for restitutions have had to revise their traditional conception of expertise and respond to new expectations. Are we witnessing a kind of “deregulation” of heritage expertise? Can one distinguish between the expertise of countries of origin and that of countries of holding? To what extent is heritage susceptible to forms of folklorisation? How are they competing and how can this be negotiated? How can “disinterested” forms of expertise weigh in against economic and tourist driven factors? Inversely, how does local expertise, weigh up against international norms? Can these forms of expertise be translated from one field of action to another or are they mutually exclusive?

ACHS 2016 - What does heritage change?

Description

Keywords

Documents & Links

Related content

Research output

Monotonie en diversiteit rond de IJoevers

Strength and vulnerability creativity at former industrial sites in the netherlands

Alternative Politics in Urban Innovstion

Open Fort400: Ymere-Nai-Prijsvraag 2009

Productive uncertainty: indeterminacy in spatial design, planning and management: editorial

Subcultuur als generator van stedelijke activiteiten