Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries /

Italian WHS

Page  Page 2 of 3:  « Previous  1  2  3  Next »  
Author winterkjm
Registered
#16 | Posted: 21 May 2016 21:39 | Edited by: winterkjm 
Italy Nominations
- The Venetian Works of Defence between 15th and 17th centuries (2017)
- Ivrea, industrial city of the 20th century (2018)
- Cross-border space Maritime-Mercantour (2018)
- Great Spas of Europe (2019)
- Padova Urbs Picta. Giotto, the Scrovegni Chapel and the 14th century painting cycles (2019)

Active Nominations (unsure date, but still in race for 2019/2020)
- Salento and the "Barocco Leccese" (Italy)
- The Porticoes of Bologna (Italy)

http://mattinopadova.gelocal.it/padova/cronaca/2016/05/21/news/candidatura-unesco-per -padova-si-parla-del-2018-1.13515558

Author elsslots
Admin
#17 | Posted: 24 May 2016 10:03 
Hi Nan

In your Lecce review, you state "a fellow traveler had posted a raving review on this site a while ago; the review is now gone". Can you remember anything about it? When have you seen it for example? I can't find anything, also not on the Waybackmachine.

Author nfmungard
Registered
#18 | Posted: 24 May 2016 10:31 
I am reasonably certain that I read a review on Lecce. Somewhere. It was part of the reason of me going. Maybe I am growing old :/

Author meltwaterfalls
Registered
#19 | Posted: 24 May 2016 13:02 | Edited by: meltwaterfalls 
There were some positive words for it further up this thread if that was what sparked off the idea?

Although in saying that I am sure I remember reading a review of some cathedrals down that way as well. About a year or so ago I was reading up for a potential trip, and I feel sure I read a review, perhaps with a focus on Bari? but that t-site doesn't have anything either.

Author nfmungard
Registered
#20 | Posted: 24 May 2016 14:54 
Been to Bari and will comment. Not that great ;) review to follow.

Author nfmungard
Registered
#21 | Posted: 26 May 2016 14:52 
Still very convinced there was review that pushed me over the edge to go and visit Lecce. Now there is again. Maybe others will go ;)

Author Colvin
Registered
#22 | Posted: 26 May 2016 22:14 
Rest assured -- should I ever find myself enjoying the Baroque wonder of Lecce some day, it will be because this stalwart review inspired me to set aside time for a detour to the heel of Italy! Glad you were able to get this review posted again. :-)

Author Assif
Registered
#23 | Posted: 10 Jul 2016 20:20 | Edited by: Assif 
Italy plans to nominate Padua for 2019. Interestingly, this nomination includes the municipal museum for the artefacts it houses:
"It houses important examples of the 14th century Padova painting. In chronological order, the Croce by Giotto (originally painted for the Scrovegni Chapel), the detached frescoes by Pietro da Rimini, the painted panels by Guariento (originally located in the Cappella della Reggia Carrarese), and the detached fresco of Madonna dell'umiltà by Cennino Cennini."
I guess it is to be expected that a museum cannot be nominated for its artefacts (which are tangible), contrary to Museum Island which was nominated for its architecture and museal concept. How could you explain such an experienced world heritage nominator as Italy committing such a beginner's mistake? Am I missing something about the significance of this component within this nomination?

Author Solivagant
Registered
#24 | Posted: 11 Jul 2016 03:53 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Assif:
I guess it is to be expected that a museum cannot be nominated for its artefacts (which are tangible),

The issue which would seem to prevent museum contents being inscribed isn't that they are "tangible" but that they are "movable".

I guess it would be said that
a. The Fresco items in the museum are described as "detached" and were not intended to be "movable". That argument could less easily of course be applied to e.g Giotto's Crucifix
b. All of the items complement/complete the main aspects of the proposed nomination and are not simply a collection of artefacts in a museum separated from their original context. Although they are not in their original locations are they not an "essential" part of the "close by" nominated "set" such that, without them, the full "OUV" isn't represented?

I note also that the museum contains items in its collection which are in no way linked to the 14th Century (Roman, Pre-Roman and paintings through to the 18th C). So - would any nomination exclude these? I guess not - many a city/town has been inscribed for OUV relating to a particular historical period but buildings not from that period are not "excluded" from the inscribed area.

I raised a similar issue in my review of Zeugma ( http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/twhs.php?id=5726 ). In this case - whether the actual site could/should be accompanied in any nomination by the magnificent mosaics now housed for preservation and safety in the Gaziantep Mosaic Museum (in this case the museum isn't mentioned in the site's T List description - but it has only been constructed and filled recently). The entire collection on show there is from Zeugma and none of them were ever intended to be "movable" - although that act has surely been justified. They are undoubtedly a part of any OUV which Zeugma might have. If they had been moved to a museum "on site" at Zeugma rather than to a museum 55kms away would that have made any difference to the acceptability of their inclusion in a nomination? If they had been moved on site but relocated in a similar location to the original (i.e further up the hill away from the man made lake which had inundated them) would that have been more acceptable? I think of Abu Simbel and Philae which have been inscribed despite having been "moved".

A fair number of archaeological sites possess on-site musea which contain highly valuable and significant artefacts from those sites but I know of no example where these musea and/or their contents have been cited as part of the OUV. An upcoming nomination where this could be significant is Aphrodisias where the frieze from the Sebasteion is wonderfully presented in a purpose built structure and cast replicas have been placed on the original building where it still stands. Is that original Frieze a part of the site's OUV or not?? If so would it still be so if the museum had been built 5, 10, 50, 1000 kms away?

The only example I know of from "WHS History" where a nomination was rejected for being "movable" was that of the SS Great Britain iron hulled steamship in 1988. This is located in a dry dock in its home port and site of construction in Bristol.

Conversely there are a number of examples of where the contents of an inscribed site would appear to be "essential" for its inscription even if they are "movable". E.g would either of Stoclet or Plantin Moretus still have adequate OUV if the contents had been removed (this is actually an issue with Stoclet, is it not, since ownership varies as between contents and building)? Where the contents are a genuine part of the "original" their importance would be greater but quite a lot of what is on show in the Plantin Moretus house isn't originally from that house - e.g collections of maps etc. How much of it could be "removed" for the site still to be worthy of inscription?

Author paul
Registered
#25 | Posted: 11 Jul 2016 10:41 
Strangely the 20 or so paleontology sites only have value after their "contents" where removed.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#26 | Posted: 11 Jul 2016 10:57 
paul:
Strangely the 20 or so paleontology sites only have value after their "contents" where removed.

Very true - take the bones away and the site has "OUV"! Why? For what WAS there ? In which case the value is purely "associative! Or because of what MIGHT yet be found there - if there are some bones then there are most likely going to be others!

Author winterkjm
Registered
#27 | Posted: 21 Aug 2016 16:30 
2017
- The Venetian Works of Defence between 15th and 17th centuries (Italy) C transnational
- Primeval Beech Forests [extension] (Italy) N transnational
- Sila National Park (Italy) N

2018
- Ivrea, industrial city of the 20th century (Italy) C
- Cross-border space Maritime-Mercantour (Italy) N transnational

2019
- Great Spas of Europe (Italy) C transnational
- Padova Urbs Picta. Giotto, the Scrovegni Chapel and the 14th century painting cycles (Italy) C

Wait List/Development: 2
- Salento and the "Barocco Leccese" (Italy) C
- The Porticoes of Bologna (Italy) C

Author Assif
Registered
#28 | Posted: 21 Aug 2016 17:00 
Italy and China have been competing for the highest number of WHS for the last few years. If indeed the one nomination per state rule is inforced starting 2019 Italy will have the advantage of being able to bypass this restriction by bringing forward transnational nominations. China, which so far has only managed to forward one transnational nomination (Silk Roads), will either have to change its nomination policy to favour transnational cooperations or lag behind Italy.

Author Durian
Registered
#29 | Posted: 24 Aug 2016 04:38 
Italy Earthquake

Felt really sad for the earthquake and my thoughts go to those affected, hope no more casualties. For WHS the Langobard Sites is maybe the most effected as part of serial sites is in Spoleto only 35 km from epicenter.

Author Solivagant
Registered
#30 | Posted: 14 Oct 2016 07:06 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Just a "minor" correction to an entry on this Web Site which I have uncovered when researching the Rhaetian Railway inscription folowing a visit to it last month
The History of the "The Vineyard Landscape of Piedmont: Langhe-Roero and Monferratois" is shown with it having been deferred in 2012 as ""Wine Grape landscapes: Langhe, Roero, Monferrato and Valtellina".
As far as I can see from the records is was in fact deferred under the name by which it was eventually inscribed (i.e WITHOUT "Valtellina").
Now the original T List site was indeed titled "Wine Grape landscapes: Langhe, Roero, Monferrato and Valtellina" having been placed there in 2006 -and this is correctly recorded in our list of "Former TWHS".
However, some time between 2006 and the 2012 deferral the Valtellina element was dropped by Italy.

The reason why this is "of interest" is that the Valtellina area (see map - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valtellina#/media/File:Valtellina_mappa.png ) has been, and still is, "active" in trying to gain inscriptions for sites there. It must have been a disappointment to lose out in the definition of the Piedmont Vinyards - but the area is of course significantly geographically separate from the remaining elements - but the Italian "conveyor belt" of potential UNESCO sites just rolls on.

I found this describing a meeting in Tirano in June 2016 - http://www.altarezianews.it/2016/06/07/siti-unesco-in-valtellina-e-valchiavenna-esper ienze-e-prospettive/
Here is a somewhat awkward automatic translation of the purpose of one of the sessions
"Dreams or real prospects for new UNESCO sites in the province of Sondrio. It coordinates prof. Andrea Rural, Regional President of the FAI
Applications in which it is interested the valley:
The expansion to the archaeological areas of Teglio - Tirano - Grosio of Unesco rock art site of Valcamonica: Dr. Raffaella Poggiani Keller former Superintendent Archaeologist of Lombardy
The street of terraced vineyards heretics and speculated on the architecture of Lombardy site of hydroelectric plants arch. Oscar Del Barba
The Village sanatorium Eugenio Morelli in Sondalo, prof. Luisa Bonesio
The Stelvio road (and Spluga?), Prof. Cristina Pedrana Proh
"

See also this Book - "The Valtellina and UNESCO - Making a global landscape".
This partly available under Google Books
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TL9M5XrS33UC&pg=PA120&lpg=PA120&dq=provinea+UNESC O&source=bl&ots=ilSdixOFWO&sig=dp0g7nk_XM8XTcO183YwpdI80co&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiy8r eGkNrPAhVMAsAKHYD7Cx0Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=provinea%20UNESCO&f=false

The book refers significantly to an organisation called "Provinea" whose aim is to promote and protect the area with particular reference to its viticulture (including getting the Landscape inscribed)! Indeed this organisation claims to have been the prime mover in getting the Italian and Swiss governments to work together to ensure that the inscription of the Rhaetian Railway included Italy's 3kms from the frontier to Tirano station! Switzerland, it appears, had happily been progressing a nomination which stopped at Campocologno.

It would seem that we can expect more T LIst sites from this area!

Page  Page 2 of 3:  « Previous  1  2  3  Next » 
Countries www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / Countries / Italian WHS Top

Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
 
  www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®