Post by Veronica M. Bullock

Yeah, but… genuine ‘critical heritage’ logic holds ‘intangible cultural heritage’ to be generated by persons, and that these persons remain its controllers. Heritage practitioners can help to shape selected expressions to the terms of listing schemes when desired for recognition, protection and/or funding support, but they should not govern generators in any other context. As much as possible, heritage practitioners should be taught how to remove rather insert themselves into peoples’ heritage. It’s good to know about the recommended lexicon of the ‘Blue Bible’ Marc. Agreed, rather than ‘expert’-imposed lexicons, are important to successful negotiations, especially when cross-cultural. ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ practised well, for example as City of Adelaide is doing for its World Heritage nomination with 7 Indigenous Australian ‘First Nations’, generate case-specific lexicons. This is being done despite Australia not yet having ratified the 2003 UNESCO Convention Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The first problem with which is its title: ‘intangible cultural heritage’ is not singular.

Video Content