Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do


2nd HERMES Symposium (28/29 October 2005)
Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage – promotion, utilization, and its consequences Abstracts of conference papers


Sylvia Amann
(project STRATCULT, Upper Austria/A; E-mail: office(at)strategyforculture.net)
Cultural Strategy Development in the Framework of EU-Structural Funds 2007-2013

The intervention of Sylvia Amann, STRATCULT project co-ordinator, during the 2nd Hermes Symposium in Krakow will focus on the experiences made by STRATCULT partner regions and beyond in the thematic field of “Culture & EU-Structural Funds”. Europe-wide research and investigations in partner regions have been realized in the first year of operation and experiences in new and old EU Member States demonstrate some similarities, but also some important differences. Focal point of STRATCULT INTERREG-III-C – operation is also the common preparation of the new Structural Funds period in the field of culture. Basic documents have been elaborated, the so-called STRATCULT Fact Sheets on Convergence, Regional Competitiveness, Social Cohesion, European Territorial Cooperation and Rural Development.
For more information on the project STRATCULT: http://www.strategyforculture.net

Anna Dobranowska
(Małopolska Institute of Culture (MIK), Kraków/PL; E-mail: dobranowska(at)mik.krakow.pl)
Where the Bees meet Jacobson – Educational Workshops at Heritage Sites. First Experiences from the Museum of Beekeeping in Stróże (Małopolska, Poland)

Presentation of three kind of workshops which took place in Museum of Beekeeping in Stróże as an example of interactive education at heritage site. What can be done in such place as Museum of Beekeeping? How to link ‘sophisticated’ ideas with bees? How to make heritage site interesting and attractive place for young people? Presentation tries to answer these questions.
Dr. Hatto Fischer
(Poiein kai Prattein, Athens/GR; E-mail: hattofischer(at)poieinkaiprattein.gr)
Museums as Parameters of Cultural Dispositions of Societies to Remember their Problematic Futures

In the Greek language ‘paradigm’ means premise, including value premises that explain dispositions to think and to practice, even to play according to certain rules and aims. Clearly in that sense museums can be considered as parameters of cultural dispositions of societies especially when faced by problematic futures. By being disposed only towards certain exhibitions, museums display what inherent values of culture and cultural heritage created and found in the past should be kept for the future. As ‘memory institutions’ with only certain resources available, access shall be limited to the state of the arts but reflect as well the underlying policy of that museum. Whether called highly selective or not, meanings given to artefacts on display within the context of the museum is the creative process of interpretation, as Giovanni PINNA calls it. Consequently to him the museum’s ability to communicate about its specific culture depends on its intellectual organisation.
The paper will want to focus, therefore, on these three specific areas: museums as parameters, cultural dispositions of societies, and why it becomes at times difficult for societies to remember their futures. Here museums have a role to play but in doing so they face immediately ethical issues since presentation of exhibitions and interpretations thereof are increasingly dependent upon funding possibilities that can easily divert museums from their main tasks. Of practical interest is, therefore, the question whether or not the narratives told by museums continue to safeguard and to enrich cultural heritage, and if not how this will affect the ‘memory work’ of societies when faced by challenges to both their cultural self understanding and political system.
An outcome of this paper is hopefully a better understanding as to what ‘fears’ museums have when faced by a society transforming their cultural artefacts into mere commodities to be traded like any other good in a global context. There is equally the demand by multicultural societies that no cultural singularity dominates anymore in museums but a different kind of openness so that the ‘soft power’ of culture can be used to give recognition to all creative forces contributing towards community building processes. How the museum world responds to these challenges is of great interest not merely to experts of museums, but to all interested in visiting these museums in order to map strategies for survival now and in future.

Celia Galeotti
(dwif – project Transromanica, Magdeburg/D; E-mail: celia.galeotti(at)gmx.net)
The Trans-European Route of Romanesque Architecture (Transromanica)
The European project TRANSROMANICA is based on the idea of promoting the integration process of a greater Europe through our common cultural and historical roots: Romanesque heritage. Long ago, between 950 and 1250, for the first time in Europe, regions and countries of distinct cultural identities were already developing a common style in arts and architecture. Using this cultural and historical basis, TRANSROMANICA has formed a transnational network of five partner regions and 25 Romanesque sites. By this, Saxony-Anhalt, Thuringia, Carinthia, the Province of Modena and Slovenia are willing to merge their Romanesque potential for a more sustainable development and marketing at transnational level. Of course, it is also foreseen to extend this network and to win new partners especially from France, Spain and the new EU-members.
Further information under: www.transromanica.com and www.heritageradio.net/transromanica

Prof. Dr. Brian Graham
(University of Ulster, Coleraine/UK; E-mail: BJ.Graham(at)ulster.ac.uk)
Heritage, Place and Identity
This paper uses the device of the simultaneous existence of two cities, the external and the internal, to explore something of the contradictions and tensions that exist between the economic and cultural uses of heritage. A complex web of economic and cultural uses, and the cultural industries and agencies that service them, help define urban heritage capital and the images through which places are marketed in economic and cultural terms. In the external city, heritage is linked to innovation and tourism as one factor promoting the international performance of a city. But the global standardisation and the loss of distinctiveness that it implies, may undermine the marketing images being portrayed through the medium of urban heritage. These images still function, however, to establish the singularity of a place and to mark its advantages over other places, not only as a centre of innovation but as a vibrant and attractive living urban environment.
Beyond the external city, however, but obviously overlapping with it is the internal city of the mind that reflects the cultural dimension to heritage. This is much more an inner-directed mnemonic city, one that is concerned with social inclusion and exclusion, lifestyle, diversity and multiculturalism. It is a place of complex, overlapping and ambiguous messages and, not least, of the dissonances that exist between official representations of urban heritage and those of urban residents. Both official and unofficial forms of heritage can be seen as knowledges that shape the external and internal cities, which are then multiply consumed and sold as economic and cultural capital. It is this plethora of roles, forms and uses that makes heritage such a ubiquitous but simultaneously ambiguous form of knowledge in the city. It is also the factor that conceals its importance to innovation clusters and to the measurement of innovation in cities and perhaps explains why heritage – a serious and profound topic in these circumstances – is often reduced to little more than an adjunct to urban tourism and place marketing. The potential for contestation and conflict endemic in the duality of urban heritage as economic and cultural capital provides a classic example of heritage dissonance in which conflicting messages are being conveyed through the same heritage forms.

Kerstin Greiling, Jana Laasch
(German Association for Housing, Urban and Spatial Development, Berlin/D; E-mail: k.greiling(at)deutscher-verband.org, j.laasch(at)deutscher-verband.org
The European Route of Brick Gothic (EuRoB) – a case study of valorizing architectural heritage for local and regional development

EuRoB II is an Interreg IIIB project, situated in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). We have 34 partners from 7 countries around the Baltic sea, working on Brick Gothic Heritage and its activation.
Heritage activation can be a means for reaching different aims in the context of promoting a city as a tourist destination. Within EuRoB not the activation itself is the focal point of the activities. Instead we are giving the opportunity for promoting heritage and encouraging acitivation of heritage in order to achieve a sustainable spatial, social and economical development, using the historic background of the Baltic Sea Region.
Nevertheless we are able to present examples of activation. The Concert Cathedral in Neubrandenburg is such an extraordinary example, combining historic and modern architecture in an astonishing way and giving the city of Neubrandenburg the opportunity to develop a name in culture tourism beyond architecture.
In Olsztyn the benefit from refurbishing and thus activating the ancient City Wall is not so much on the economic side. Here the process of raising awareness for the city’s heritage and thus creating an identity for the whole of the City among its population increases its potential as a tourist destination.
Besides these positive aspects, activation does have negative sides, creates problems and has to face political and financial limits. This, too, shall be issue of the contribution from EuRoB to the conference.

Dr. Burkhardt Kolbmüller
(Salve Consult – Agency for European Projects, Weimar/D)
Culture, Heritage and Regional Development in the System of European Structural Funds. Expectations and Strategies for the Future

The aim of this presentation in the final section of the conference is to provide some concluding remarks with reference to EU Structural Funds, and to the Interreg programme in particular. It should be remembered that HERMES is not primarily a research project, but that its general aim is to explore and discuss the potential of culture, and cultural heritage, as an active factor of growth and development. Based on the conviction that heritage can indeed enhance the social and economic development of communities – or ‘regions’ -, the task is now to influence the process of political decision-making within the European Union so as to ensure the inclusion of culture in the financial instruments of the Union’s regional policy in the near future.
The presentation will attempt to identify, in an ad hoc manner, main arguments and possible conclusions to be drawn from the symposium, which could then be formulated as policy recommendations for the future. This will be done in the light of the existing EU framework for projects such as HERMES, and also with reference to previous papers at the symposium (e.g. the ones by AMANN and TYLUS).

Prof. Dr. Zdizislaw Mach
(Jagiellonian University, Kraków/PL; E-mail: usmach(at)cyf-kr.edu.pl)
Multicultural Heritage, Remembering, Forgetting, and the Construction of Identity

Building and changing of collective memory is an essential part of the process of construction of identity. National, ethnic, or regional identity use cultural heritage as a treasury from which symbols are taken to be used in construction of images representing collective identities. The memory of multicultural heritage, especially in those places from which multiculturalism has been eliminated due to various forms of ethnic cleansing, migration, deportation, demographic and political change, becomes a crucial factor contributing to the understanding of pluralism, sensitivity for cultural differences and for majority/minority relations. But the process of constructing memory is complicated. Who remembers what and how? Who forgets what? When and how particular elements of forgotten past are re-integrated into the public memory? These and other questions must be answered in order to understand the sociology of memory of multiculturalism. Southern Poland is a good place to study these issues, due to its rich multicultural heritage, which includes Polish, Jewish, German, and Ukrainian elements, to mention just the most prominent ones. The multi-dimensional process of constructing of memory of multiculturalism, and the public debate about the meaning of different symbols, are particularly important today, when after the European enlargement Poland has opened up not just to the rest of Europe, but also to different interpretations of its history. Poland’s future position in Europe, and the development of civil society in Poland largely depend on the shape this process will take.

Kerstin Manz
(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris/F; E-mail: k.manz(at)unesco.org)
World Heritage – from the Concept to its Implementation

Since its adoption by the UNESCO General Conference in 1972, the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage has witnessed increasing success both in terms of concrete heritage protection measures in the States Parties to the Convention and in terms of attention for cultural and natural heritage around the world. The World Heritage Convention is the first international treaty to address the safeguarding of both cultural and natural heritage using the over-arching concept of “outstanding universal value”.
The first two Articles of the Convention define the notion of heritage, whereby cultural heritage is referred to as immovable heritage and defined in three categories: monuments, groups of buildings, and sites. Drafted as a consensus document that needs to be applicable in all regions of the world, these categories allow further interpretation. Over the last thirty years, the concept of cultural heritage has been further developed and broadened to include urban ensembles (historic cities), cultural landscapes, associative sites, industrial sites and modern architecture. Not only is this reflected in the World Heritage List – the most widely acknowledged and visible result the Convention’s work – but also in the changes that have been made over time to the “Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention”, directing each step of the Convention work.
While the implementation of the Convention in view of conservation is clearly defined through the official texts, the aspects of communication, information, promotion and utilization of the World Heritage at the site-level can be subject to individual interpretation, and depending on specific national policies.
Next to presenting the use and functioning of the Convention as a powerful tool for international heritage protection, this paper will present specific case studies on the utilization and promotion of different types of World Heritage properties, with particular focus on the European situation.

Dr. Irena Ograensek
(University of Ljubljana/SLO; E-mail: irena.ograjensek(at)ef.uni-lj.si)
Cultural Tourism as the Catalyst of Regional Economic Development: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations

In popular view, cultural tourism is often perceived as the means to quickly achieve impressive growth rates even in the most backward of regions. However, careful consideration of its demand and supply characteristics shows an altogether different picture. The conflict between preservation efforts of regional and local communities on one, and exploitation goals of business entities on the other hand, casts a shadow over the role of cultural tourism as a catalyst of regional economic development. Different strategies of dealing with the conflict are discussed in this paper along with recommendations for preparation of an effective action plan.

Lucja Piekarska
(Małopolska Institute of Culture (MIK), Kraków/PL; E-mail: piekarska(at)mik.krakow.pl)
Mental Time Machines: Internalizing Heritage in Action

In my paper I will briefly discuss how heritage has been understood, introduced and constructed in two projects carried out by MIK (Małopolska Institute of Culture).
In the first one, undertaken within a larger European project “Heritage- Memory- Local communities”, a socialist city of Nowa Huta was chosen as a fieldwork. The aim of the first module (out of three in the project) was to build artistic representations of heritage of Nowa Huta. As we were interested in “modest” and “true” representations, a group of interviewers was recruited to talk with the inhabitants. Conversations were developed around five thematic categories and later on typed and submitted to the artists who were to prepare some posters. Later on the posters will be a part of a series of public debates, where they will be discussed and commented by those whom they should represent.
Our key category in this project was “text”, understood broadly as anything carring or coding any meaning. Heritage was in this context understood as set of texts, not necessarily dating back in ancient past. In grammatical terms we intended to have a “present perfect” heritage, as opposed to “simple past” one. We presented our role as of those who help to liberate the texts out of their natural contexts in order to make them shared and discussed, and primarily to enhance interpretation. Our goal then was to introduce some texts of heritage in the circuits of communication and this is how we wanted to make it “present pefect”. In this project heritage was firstly formulated and expressed, within the rules of shared language, later it gets filtered by an artist and given back for the public again.
The second project was also carried out in local communities living in places chosen to participate in Małopolska Days of Heritage. The aim of “Grand Exploration” was to establish personal relation with a historical monument that often presented a tourist attraction and, as such, was not treated as a part of common local space.
By sets of diverse activities different personal stories were developed by participants, and the setting of the monument was a stimulus for imagination. All senses were sharpened and used to get the most of, say gothic church’s atmosphere: with its light, smells and sounds. The role of a workhop leader was however not only to stimulate imagination but also to present some other tools for interpretation of the place. Very often presence of experts was also useful, for example where a cloister life conditions were explored, the monks gave a first hand testimony. Sometimes the participants were in a way transported back in time, to make the experience of the place possible. Narrative and introspection were again tools for making heritage internalised. But in this case activities were a key feature in fulfilling the task. Here I would like to mention two key terms which were: “locality” and “authenticity”, both being also crucial for current analisys of tourism.
The pictures from both projects will illustrate my presentation.

Prof. Dr. Giovanni Pinna
(Italian Association of Museological Studies and Journal ‘Nuova Museologia’, Milano/I; E-mail: giovanni(at)pinna.cx)
The Intellectual Organisation of Museums

Museums are very special companies, whose primary product – the cultural growth of the community through identification with its own cultural heritage – is difficult to quantify. And so, to enable economic assessment, we tend to consider the secondary products: entry fees, the sale of products linked to the image of the museum, the sale of services to the public. This has led us to consider the structural organisation of museums and their staff in the same terms as a manufacturing company, i.e. with the view to optimising the profitability of these secondary products. We have failed to analyse the aspects of museums’ internal organisation and the characteristics of their staff which guarantee the production and spreading of their primary product: the intellectual organisation of museums and the professionalism of museum operators in the scientific and cultural field. I wish to discuss these two aspects of museums.

Sebastian Schröder-Esch
(Institute for European Urban Studies, Bauhaus-University Weimar/D)
A General Introduction to the Symposium, and to the HERMES Project

This first presentation of the conference will serve several purposes: Firstly, it shall provide a brief description of the HERMES project; secondly, it shall give an overview of the aims and the structure of the symposium; and thirdly, it shall raise some crucial issues and questions already at the outset of the conference which should be taken into account in the following discussions.
HERMES (short for: Heritage and New Media for Sustainable Regional Development) is an initiative co-financed by the EU’s Interreg IIIB CADSES programme, with a duration of 2½ years. Its sixteen partner institutions pursue a variety of activities in the fields of media (especially internet radio), museums, local and regional development, and research and education. The project’s common denominator is the belief that culture and cultural heritage need not only be a cost factor for communities on various scales, but that they can indeed be (also) regarded as contributing to the social and economic development of communities and societies. All activities carried out within HERMES intend to apply and exemplify this understanding of the nexus between heritage and development which is simultaneously aware of the potential and the restrictions of such an approach.
The present symposium – the second of altogether four such events – shall serve to discuss the relevance of the concept of ‘cultural heritage’ in practical fields such as local and regional development (especially cultural tourism), education, spatial planning etc. On the one hand, opportunities and risks of practical heritage work in the field of tension between preservation and utilization are to be investigated; on the other hand, the question of the best possible promotion and presentation of cultural heritage shall also be posed.
With regard to a possible working definition of the term ‘(cultural) heritage’, the present paper proposes to conceptualize it as a social construct, i.e. not as a ‘natural’ given, but as the result of societal and political decision-making. According to this approach, ‘heritage’ would have to be understood primarily as a certain meaning which is attached to ideas, objects, people, places etc.; in other words: as the present use of the past for certain socio-political and/or economic purposes, shaped by negotiations within and between cultural groups. This working definition shall be juxtaposed with other approaches laid down in key documents such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) or the Interreg III B CADSES Programme Document. It should be acknowledged that, although such texts may not represent the highest standard of scientific study and theoretical reflexion, they are very influential and important, and therefore deserve to be scrutinized closely.

Karolina Tylus
(Polish Ministry of Culture, Warsaw/PL; E-mail: ktylus(at)mk.gov.pl)
Culture as a Factor of Social and Economic Development - Polish Experiences with Structural Funds in the Cultural Sector and the Perspectives on Future EU Regional Policy

At present, culture is one of the most important factors of development. The role of culture in development should be treated as multi-layered: on the one hand as an intrinsic value, and secondly as a real factor of regional development leading to increased attractiveness of regions for tourists, residents and investors, thirdly, as an active factor of societal development based on knowledge, tolerance and creativity. Culture also belongs to a fundamental reference point in relation to metropolitan functions and the significance of cities in spatial, economic and social arrangements.
The purpose of this paper is an attempt to present culture as a factor of social and economic growth. Examples related to Polish experience with implementation of structural funds depict the thesis of culture as a significant factor in development. In the end, a development vision of European Union regional policy for the years 2007-2013 in the context of cultural related activities will be advanced.

Justus H. Ulbricht
(Classic Foundation Weimar/D; E-mail: kulturgeschichte(at)swkk.de, jhujena(at)web.de)
Business or Education? Ambiguities in Dealing with European Cultural Heritage - the Example of Weimar

The topic of this paper is the cultural heritage of Weimar, and how it is dealt with at present. The point of departure for the following considerations is a quick search in the library catalogue of the Duchess Anna Amalia Library on some terms such as ‘Weimar’, ‘Krakau’ or ‘Klassik’. This brief exercise bears little fruit, leading one to the assumption that there are only few direct connections between Weimar and Cracow. And even those few artefacts in Weimar which do hint at a link between German and Polish culture – such as the little monument of Adam Mickiewicz next to the town castle – are nowadays probably of very little significance to most Germans.
This paper argues that heritage repositories are defined according to certain requirements. They have to be constructed as a corpus and rendered meaningful; they are designed and used in a selective manner. They are also subject to alterations of their content and meaning with the changing of political systems. Therefore, one can argue that such ‘heritage stock’ never bears a general significance for an entire society, but that it is rather connected to certain groups and milieux and their particular interests. Which ‘heritage’ I want to come into, which one I encounter, whether different nations and cultures are connected to one another through certain historical events or even a common heritage – all this is first and foremost a question of decision, of political attention and sensitivity, and of historical knowledge. Furthermore, it is also a question of where I begin my search in the limitless tradition that it is handed down to us from (and about) the past.
Categories such as ‘national’ or ‘European’ cultural heritage are therefore not self-explanatory. And yet they are always linked to great expectations and demands: they are supposed to create ‘identity’, to reinforce the norms of civil society, or to make the citizens of a particular country aware of its cultural and political significance.
Looking at the ways in which heritage is commercialized by the tourism industry, one usually finds a clear focus on the aesthetically and culturally pleasant, politically correct and unproblematic traditions. On the other hand, negative aspects of history, disturbing events of the past, and the traumata of individual and collective biographies are much more difficult to handle in terms of a utilization for the purpose of economy and cultural tourism. They are more easily dealt with in the seclusion of academies and universities than in the dispute of public opinions or within ‘touristy’ event-culture.
The term ‘ambiguity’, which figures in the title of this paper, thus possesses various facets already in itself: European cultural heritage (which we talk about quite naturally, without having consensus as to what it encompasses) can be ambiguous; the significance for the present of what is inherited is ambiguous; and the way in which heritage is dealt with is often ambiguous, too, as is the multi-layered social composition of the groups which produce it. Likewise, the emotions by which individuals – or sometimes whole societies – are overcome when confronted with certain heritage or memories, can be ambiguous.
Good (i.e. successful) business, in the sense of selling a product on the tourism market, is usually achieved with picturesque witnesses of the past, with beautiful things and the ‘nice stories’ full of significance and secrets.
Turning to the particular case of Weimar, it has to be mentioned that every political regime since the middle of the nineteenth century has used the spiritual, non-material resources of the place for very diverse purposes, predominantly with a marked reference to the nation. The expectations which are ‘officially’ directed towards a visit of Weimar today are difficult to fathom. The permanent incantation of the ‘European’ dimension of the heritage of Weimar is very much in line with the general political mood these days. All too often, however, ‘European cultural heritage’ is only vaguely defined in terms of its content and character.
When we speak about the years after 1945, we should bear in mind that since those times, the memory of atrocities in the concentration camp at Buchenwald also belongs to the heritage of Weimar and its representation. At present, we are witnessing a fundamental change of the situation in Weimar with regard to the politics of remembrance. Although the unified Federal Republic of Germany is indeed a nation-state, there is little certainty as to what constitutes its ‘national heritage’, and much dispute and controversy on this issue.
In a process which lasted several decades, Weimar and Germany have made the darkest chapter of their own national history – the ‘Third Reich’, Hitler, and Buchenwald – an integral part of their policy of history and remembrance. In contrast to this, the history of the GDR is remarkably under-represented in public consciousness, and even more so in the field of market-oriented tourism. Forty years of German life and urban history have virtually disappeared from the surface, while they are still clearly present in the biographies of the inhabitants of the town. But this is only revealed to those who live in Weimar or actively inquire about these things. The great majority of visitors to Weimar clearly show an interest exclusively in the ‘beautiful’ facets of local history.
To describe the situation in a simplified manner, one can state that the ‘evil’ part of German and Weimar history appears to have taken place between 1933 and 1945, and perhaps also between 1949 and 1989; in contrast to these, other epochs seem unproblematic, as phases of ‘succesful’ history. Therefore, the task of education (‘Bildung’) should be to occupy these empty spaces of superficial memory.
Yet the success of such offers and initiatives strongly depends on one thing which most day visitors to Weimar do not have: time. The buildings of Weimar, its museums and collections, are ideal objects for education in cultural history which makes its objects vivid and understandable. Whoever intends to use this kind of infrastructure for the purpose of information and education, should account for his aims and intentions: which ‘heritage’, and what aspect of ‘heritage’ do we want to bring to life? What is our intention, what is our aim – apart from attracting as many people as possible to Weimar so that they spend their money there. This is also a legitimate goal, especially with regard to economic aspects and structurally weak areas such as the ‘new federal lands’; on the other hand, however, the role of culture and education should not be restricted to their function as ‘soft locational factors’.
This is particulary true for the notion of education (‘Bildung’) developed by the German Classic. According to this, there is more to education than ‘entertainment’, ‘information’, ‘usefulness’ and ‘market’. And whoever would subscribe to the opinion that culture and art have always fostered and visualized aesthetically the contradiction to dominant positions, ought to strive for a strengthening of these facets of cultural heritage. In doing so, it should become clear how fragile and threatened peaceful culture can be. Weimar is a place fit for such an important task – where once a place of barbarism was created just 10 kilometres from Goethe’s house.
It is required of the Germans not just for themselves as a nation, but also for their neighbours and for Europe, that they do no forget about this – without being so naive to think that it should be possible to learn from the mistakes of the past automatically and unambiguously. What ‘heritage’ is telling us does not lie in the heritage itself but in the questions that we pose – yet these stem from a consciousness of our own present, from the attitude of citizens of a democratic state. In this respect, dealing with the heritage of one’s own nation, or that of others, is always a political issue.

Bertram Welker
(Brandenburg Technical University, Cottbus/D; E-mail: welker(at)tu-cottbus.de)
Heritage Education at the University - Concepts and Experiences

What is “World Heritage” and how can we properly manage World Heritage Sites? Those questions are a challenge to conventional ways of teaching heritage-related issues in higher education institutions. In 1999, the Brandenburg University of Technology started a Master’s Programme in World Heritage Studies with the aim to integrate different disciplines and approaches to critically accompany the implementation and development of the UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention. I will present a short outline of this course and discuss challenges and solutions for international and interdisciplinary education in the field of heritage studies.

^ Top

« 2nd HERMES Symposium: Practical Aspects of Cultural Heritage Krakow 2005 | Geschäft oder Bildung? von Justus H. Ulbricht »