General term- Open Heritage
Open heritage evokes the relation between heritage and community. Its openness is twofold. First, it describes the heritage itself, not as listed assets, defined as heritage by specialists, but also encompassing those buildings, complexes, and spaces that have a symbolic or practical importance for local or trans-local heritage communities. Second, such heritage should be in several ways open for the community. It may comprise physical access, but even more importantly, open knowledge (including open heritage data) and possibility to define and re-define its values, create complex narratives and to impact the way the heritage is present in life of the community. Openness of heritage may be provided in many ways. First, by creating platforms where different stakeholders (e.g. local actors, local administration officials, financial partners, researchers, policy makers) can meet on an equal footing, learn from each other and establish networks. Second, ensuring easy access to the knowledge generated by action undertaken in field of open heritage.
Relevance: where and how is the term relevant in the OpenHeritage?
It is used by the Open Heritage consortium and is based on the assumption that abandoned or underused official and potential cultural heritage sites not only pose significant challenges for the public and private sectors, but also represent major opportunities. Heritage described as an open asset to a wide group of stakeholders is a relatively new approach. Such an approach empowers communities in the process of adaptive reuse. Focusing on governance, this model calls for cooperation and coalitions, the integration of resources and the exploration of innovative financial models. In doing so, the transformation of abandoned cultural heritage sites becomes an opportunity for increased community cohesion and social integration, the appearance of innovative bottom-up economic activities and the creation of employment possibilities.
Such an approach empowers communities in the process of adaptive reuse. Focusing on governance, this model calls for cooperation and coalitions, the integration of resources and the exploration of innovative financial models. In doing so, the transformation of abandoned cultural heritage sites becomes an opportunity for increased community cohesion and social integration, the appearance of innovative bottom-up economic activities and the creation of employment possibilities
In relation to the stakeholders open heritage should appeal to a broad group consisting of:
- Local actors: residents, civic organisations and entrepreneurs
- Local administration officials
- Potential financial partners
- Professionals and researchers
- Policymakers on all levels
Preferably this approach should lead to development of sustainable models of heritage asset management embraced by a wide range of stakeholders from local communities, to NGOs, academics and public administration.
Key discussions around the term:
As the term is new and is hopefully yet to gain broader significance no key discussion may be presented. However, it already appeared in some academic papers and relates to the very important discussions regarding Open Source idea. Hence, it is most often connected to the digital heritage, or digitizing of the monument (Pescarin et al. 2005; Häyrinen 2012; Bonsma et al. 2016) which is an approach very different from the one present in OpenHeritage project. Same approach may be found in Google Open Heritage initiative.
What may be more relevant is its connection to the concept of Open Data related to the cultural heritage and creating the platform to connect various actor of heritage communities. An example of such actions is the website https://www.open-heritage.eu/ - “an independent online space open to the contribution of the community of heritage researchers, practitioners, professionals and citizens interested in promoting the value of cultural heritage and supporting its public recognition” within the REACH project.
Sometimes the term “Open Heritage Sites” is used as a description of the he heritage sites which has an unrestricted access due to their landscape character (Sabha &Abu Daoud 2017). The participatitative approach connected to the laboratory methods was present also in the project „The Cultural Heritage Open Laboratory System (CheLabS)” (Calicchia, Pitolli and Salonia 2017) but the term „Open Heritage” was not used within its framework.
- Pescarin, Sofia, et al. 2005. "Open Heritage: an Open Source approach to 3d real-time and web-based landscape reconstruction." Proceedings of XI International Conference on Virtual Systems and Multimedia: Virtual Reality at work in the 21st century, Ghent Belgium.
- Häyrinen, Ari 2012. "Open sourcing digital heritage: digital surrogates, museums and knowledge management in the age of open networks." Jyväskylä studies in humanities 187.
- Bonsma, Peter, et al. 2016. "Inception standard for heritage bim models." Euro-Mediterranean Conference. Springer, Cham.
- Sabha, Muath, and Jacquleen Joubran Abu Daoud 2017. "Adaptive Camera Placement for Open Heritage Sites." Proceedings of the International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems.
- Calicchia, Paola, Luca Pitolli, and Paolo Salonia 2017. "The Cultural Heritage Open Laboratory System (CHeLabS). Unfolding a cultural heritage-driven development in science and technology." Acta IMEKO 6.3.
- https://artsandculture.google.com/project/cyark (accessed 07.05.2020)
- https://www.open-heritage.eu/ (accessed 07.05.2020)
- http://chelabs.idasc.cnr.it/?s=open+heritage (accessed 07.05.2020)
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?