Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II
A close look at commemorations with a focus on occurring performance shows the decisive role of physical presence and activity of the body for the success of these carefully planned events. . Commemorative sites can either be active sites of remembrance, or conditionally “passive” sites of...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institute of Ethnography, SASA, Belgrade
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | Glasnik Etnografskog Instituta SANU |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0861/2017/0350-08611701147D.pdf |
| _version_ | 1818722038061203456 |
|---|---|
| author | Đorđević Marija |
| author_facet | Đorđević Marija |
| author_sort | Đorđević Marija |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | A close look at commemorations with a focus on occurring performance shows
the decisive role of physical presence and activity of the body for the
success of these carefully planned events. . Commemorative sites can either
be active sites of remembrance, or conditionally “passive” sites of heritage,
depending on the presence or the absence of bodily action. Furthermore, the
stated performativity defines commemorative events and their spaces as
simultaneously tangible, i.e. monumental, and intangible, i.e.
narration/practice, heritage. Based on the performance-based duality of
commemorative events and their spaces, this paper aims to explore the
necessity and limitations of their dual interpretation within contemporary
heritage management practice. In order to do so, monumental sites of NOB
(Peoples’ Liberation Struggle) are used as a case study, with an emphasis on
the manner of their heritagization. By looking at the cases studies the
following questions are to be addressed. If the initial performance still
exists, can a site be considered as heritage? And if yes, should these sites
be considered only as tangible or intangible heritage, or the two are bound
to fuse? Furthermore, looking at the current changed narratives of these
sites it is justified to ask who and why considers them as heritage? |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T20:48:16Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-420d638b56f047f09e2a78dd339e9dfa |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0350-0861 2334-8259 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T20:48:16Z |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Institute of Ethnography, SASA, Belgrade |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Glasnik Etnografskog Instituta SANU |
| spelling | doaj.art-420d638b56f047f09e2a78dd339e9dfa2022-12-21T21:33:06ZengInstitute of Ethnography, SASA, BelgradeGlasnik Etnografskog Instituta SANU0350-08612334-82592017-01-0165114716210.2298/GEI1701147D0350-08611701147DPerformance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War IIĐorđević Marija0Hildesheim University, Hildesheim, GermanyA close look at commemorations with a focus on occurring performance shows the decisive role of physical presence and activity of the body for the success of these carefully planned events. . Commemorative sites can either be active sites of remembrance, or conditionally “passive” sites of heritage, depending on the presence or the absence of bodily action. Furthermore, the stated performativity defines commemorative events and their spaces as simultaneously tangible, i.e. monumental, and intangible, i.e. narration/practice, heritage. Based on the performance-based duality of commemorative events and their spaces, this paper aims to explore the necessity and limitations of their dual interpretation within contemporary heritage management practice. In order to do so, monumental sites of NOB (Peoples’ Liberation Struggle) are used as a case study, with an emphasis on the manner of their heritagization. By looking at the cases studies the following questions are to be addressed. If the initial performance still exists, can a site be considered as heritage? And if yes, should these sites be considered only as tangible or intangible heritage, or the two are bound to fuse? Furthermore, looking at the current changed narratives of these sites it is justified to ask who and why considers them as heritage?http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0861/2017/0350-08611701147D.pdfcommemorationperformanceheritagizationNOBantifascism |
| spellingShingle | Đorđević Marija Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II Glasnik Etnografskog Instituta SANU commemoration performance heritagization NOB antifascism |
| title | Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II |
| title_full | Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II |
| title_fullStr | Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II |
| title_full_unstemmed | Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II |
| title_short | Performance of commemorating/performing heritage: Roles of remembering and heritagization of World War II |
| title_sort | performance of commemorating performing heritage roles of remembering and heritagization of world war ii |
| topic | commemoration performance heritagization NOB antifascism |
| url | http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0861/2017/0350-08611701147D.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT đorđevicmarija performanceofcommemoratingperformingheritagerolesofrememberingandheritagizationofworldwarii |