|
Written on: 06. 03. 2012 [15:04]
|
|
patrick_lehnes
Patrick Lehnes
Topic creator
registered since: 09.11.2010
Posts: 9
|
Please comment in this space on the revised draft of the Declaration. Please indicate if you consider any change as "crucial for approval" or "nice to have".
Non-members using the guest account, please indicate your name when commenting. Anonymous comments will not be considered.
In order to keep the discussion structured:
Please start a new thread (i.e. new topic) if you want to propose a new change. Others can then reply and comment on the proposed change.
Thank you for your contributions. The commenting period will close by 20 March.
|
|
Written on: 09. 03. 2012 [19:04]
|
|
zvonko_belic
zvonko Belic
registered since: 09.03.2012
Posts: 1
|
"nice to have"
Firs I would like to say “Well done!”
Anyway it would be nice to mention living heritage. The heritage is not only in the past. We try to interpret it becouse we like to live it and preserve it. The best heritage interpretation is to live it with passion. 
Something like:
We encourage heritage communities to preserve the living heritage...
Regards,
Zvonko
|
|
Written on: 09. 03. 2012 [20:02]
|
|
sven_hultman
Sven Hultman
registered since: 09.03.2012
Posts: 1
|
In 1985 I took part in The First World Congress on Heritage Presentation and Interpretation which was held in Banff, Alberta, Canada on October 4. It was arranged by Heritage Interpretation International (HII), and basically run by a group of people in Canada. For some years I was on the Board och HII. At the Banff Congress the so called Banff Declaration (and attached Recommendations) was agreed on, and spread widely to many countries. It would be interesting to compare it to the present Freiburg D.
I am sorry to say that in Sweden in any case the Banff D did not have much (if any) impact. The time was not ripe. I sincerely wish better luck for the Freiburg Declaration - a good basis to stand on, a mutual PM of understanding.
Sven-G Hultman, former chair of the Swedish Centre for Nature Interpretation
|
|
Written on: 13. 03. 2012 [21:21]
|
|
nicole_deufel
Nicole Deufel
registered since: 20.06.2011
Posts: 4
|
I feel we should stay away from citing Freeman Tilden to the extent that it is presently done. His definition limits the relevance of interpretation as a discipline considerably, and is not, as I feel, useful and meaningful in a modern context - not just in terms of media, but also in terms of what we understand as 'heritage'. As Zvonko rightly points out, the declaration currently excludes 'living heritage', or intangible heritage, and probably holding on to Tilden's definition is partially responsible for that.
Also, while I feel the declaration is perfectly suited to a context in which interpretation is completely new as a discipline, it doesn't strike me as critical enough with regard to concepts such as benefit, heritage, heritage professionals, communities, stakeholders, etc. What do we mean by heritage? Whose heritage? Why do we need interpretation to 'explain' heritage? Are we doing heritage or history? What is the relationship between heritage 'professional' and community?
Particularly, I feel the declaration needs to pay greater heed to the importance of stakeholders and (heritage) communities, whithout whom there is no such thing as heritage, and consequently no need for heritage interpretation.
|
|
Written on: 06. 05. 2012 [14:58]
|
|
patrick_lehnes
Patrick Lehnes
Topic creator
registered since: 09.11.2010
Posts: 9
|
Dear Zvonko, Sven and Nicole,
Thank you for posting comments on the draft of the declaration. We hope that the final text, which is now sent to Freiburg Conference delegates and members for approval, will meet all or most of the comments made.
Sven: We recognise the importance of the first HII meeting in Banff – which delegates to it still talk about – but regret that its Declaration is not well known. We hope this one from Freiburg will be – and may have wider circulation beyond Europe, given time.
Zvonko and Nicole: Thank you for pointing us to the missing references to living heritage and to intangible heritage. These were intended to be implicit in the original wording but we agree they should be explicit and have amended and extended the text accordingly in several places.
Nicole: We cannot share your views about Tilden's definition which delegates at Freiburg accepted without formal comment. We have used it because we believe its generality is still all-embracing and can be used to relate to contemporary themes or strands in interpretation, such as 'living heritage' simply because it is all-inclusive. His reference to illustrative media is timeless as well and his definition neither excludes today's electronic devices and nor any future media. It does not refer to 'heritage' at all although, of course, it was written in the context of his overall title of 'Interpreting our heritage'. It allows us to describe 'heritage interpretation' both in the Declaration and on the IE website, distinguishing it from any other kind of interpretation including that of language.
Your comment about the declaration targeting contexts where interpretation is completely new is of course correct. That is one of its primary purposes because (heritage) interpretation is largely unfamiliar on much of the European continent. The declaration will be, we hope, a means of supporting the position of those who are trying hard to introduce interpretation in countries where the majority of stakeholders have never heard of the discipline. It is not the role of this document, which is as simply constructed as possible, to get involved in sophisticated discourses on definitions and related topics. That can and will be done elsewhere.
You will be pleased to see that we have added a paragraph relating to local, minority and shared-interest communities. In addition, in response to your wider point about the importance of stakeholders and local communities, the whole document has already been structured to address stakeholder groups who actively influence the excellence of interpretation. There are several references to the need for recognition of local communities (see A.2, A.3, A.6, B.1, B.3, C.1, D.1 (added), E.2, F.1).
Patrick and Michael
|
