Page 10 - AC-2-1

Arts & Communication Cultural convergence in heritage landscapes

2015 revised Principles for the Conservation of Heritage there are still nuanced differences which reflect distinct
Sites in China builds on a previous range of attempts to cultural attitudes toward the concept of authenticity
address spiritual values as an important component within a broader heritage context 11-14 and, therefore, how
of heritage conservation. Western perspectives on the adaptation of landscapes can balance the notion of
33
heritage landscapes are characterized by an art-historic authenticity with changing societal needs. Eastern cultures
lens, which prioritizes “pictorialism.” 37,38 In England, this often emphasize the conservation of continuity through
40
is administered through the evaluation of historic and intangible practices, and the concept of heritage is deeply
esthetic “values” that demonstrate evidence of human intertwined with the perpetuation of beliefs, rituals, and
history and creativity in planned landscapes. The result lifestyle. 51,52 This particular emphasis on continuity aligns with
39
is a robust approach toward landscape conservation that the Eastern belief in the intergenerational transmission of
53
is underpinned by a strong reverence for history – the wisdom (e.g., traditional skills) –reflecting a cultural interest
“historical ground.” Landscapes in this regard become a in immaterial manifestations of heritage (or “intangible
8
54
tangible layered historical narrative of the site’s history. heritage”). The Chinese heritage discourse – which has
progressed rapidly since the state’s Reform and Opening Up
3.3. Holistic and individual approaches – has increasingly revisited the notion of evolution within
A striking difference between Eastern and Western heritage landscape conservation and how their transformation
approaches toward heritage landscapes lies in their can accommodate evolving societal needs. 55
contrasting perspectives on holistic unity versus the Western-European perspectives also now typically
conservation of individual elements. These differences embrace the notion of evolution within heritage landscapes
reflect distinct cultural attitudes toward the integration of and value the transformation of landscapes to accommodate
natural and built environments within the conservation evolving societal needs, although this is weighted toward
paradigm with regard to the notions of authenticity and architectural and artistic evolution, reflecting earlier
11
permanence. Eastern cultures often perceive heritage interpretations of nature being the “medium” and culture
40
landscapes as integrated wholes where nature and culture being the “agent”. For example, in England, this is now
1
40
(such as architecture) coexist harmoniously. These formally captured in the contemporary re-evaluation of
cultures consider landscapes as living systems where built conservation as “the management of change” – which

39
structures, natural features, and spiritual elements combine is contextualized within an overarching values-based
to create a sacred unity. 41-43 Conservation strategies often methodology for identifying the significance of the historic
prioritize conserving the balance and continuity between environment (capturing “evidential,” “historic,” “esthetic,”
human interventions and the surrounding environment, and “communal” values). Primary emphasis is placed on
39
ensuring that landscapes remain in harmony, 44,45 despite values relating directly to physical heritage fabric of sites,
their value often being modified to fit into a modern which helps to maintain synergy between the physical
Western idiom. For example, the Chinese holistic layering of change and the historical layers of cultural sites. 56
46
approach underscores the need for conservation strategies
that respect the interconnectedness of nature and culture. 3.5. Attitudes toward community involvement
Maintaining an ecological balance and spiritual harmony There are varying degrees of emphasis between Eastern and
of a heritage landscape is, therefore, often considered Western approaches placed on community involvement
paramount. Conversely, English perspectives typically in conservation efforts for heritage landscapes. These
47
emphasize the conservation of individual architectural differences reflect distinct cultural attitudes toward notions
and artistic elements that give sites and places permanence of collective stewardship, local engagement, 58,59 and the
57
and a recognizable quality. This, therefore, often involves role of communities in shaping the destiny of heritage
48
the meticulous restoration of specific elements back to a landscapes. 44,60 Eastern cultures often prioritize community
previous state. The focus on individual elements reflects the involvement as an integral part of heritage landscape
49
Western belief in capturing and conveying the products of conservation, with workshops and digital approaches
the past. The prioritization of preserving elements in their employed to increase engagement – for example, the
50
12

“original” state therefore places logistical and philosophical immersive multimedia tour at the Humble Administrator’s
emphasis on specialized interventions to restore a collective Garden, Suzhou, China. The collective ownership of
61
agreement of historical accuracy and esthetic value. landscapes is deeply rooted in Eastern culture, where
local communities often view themselves as “traditional
3.4. Concerns of continuity and evolution
custodians” of historical and spiritual legacies. There
53
While there is some overlap in contemporary attitudes are of course specific variances, such as urbanization
toward concerns over cultural continuity and evolution, pressures in China resulting in a more top-down approach
Volume 2 Issue 1 (2024) 4 https://doi.org/10.36922/ac.1923