World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



Forum: Start | Profile | Search |         Website: Start | The List | Community |
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /  
 

2019 WHC

 
 
Page  Page 24 of 30:  « Previous  1  ...  23  24  25  ...  29  30  Next »

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#346 | Posted: 18 May 2019 02:37 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Assif:
Tirgu Jiu (Brancusi) has been withdrawn/postponed until at least 2021

And the "reason" for the postponement is particularly interesting - "because UNESCO has to make a decision on all monuments that are related to a conflict or war.

I for one hadn't really taken on board the fact that the sculptures by Brancusi in Tirgu Jiu were produced and located as a "Homage to the Romanian Heroes of the First World War" - I had always been interested in them for their "artistic" value and regarded their original purpose as a secondary and less important aspect. I understand of course that the 2 aspects are difficult to separate and it would seem that ICOMOS felt unable to do so. See - Wiki . One would have thought that a careful presentation of the criteria and OUV could have avoided this mixing and ensured that the "Value" was expressed solely as "artistic". After all the many, many (many!!!) castles etc on the list haven't been regarded hitherto as being expressions of the glorification of War and Conflict!!!

The article suggests that, if only Romania had done a better job when it produced its first nomination in 2015 then it would have got through then - presumably because the issue of Memorials to conflict only really became significant with the nomination of the WW Battlefields in 2018. I wonder if that is correct - it would be very interesting to get hold of the documentation from the period and see why it didn't progress then.

Another issue raised by the article is the statement that "The "Brâncuşi" file is not the only one which is postponed. Countries like France, Belgium or Canada are in the same situation. All proposals were for memorial sites". Well - we know which the French and Belgian sites are (WWI Memorials and, possibly also, the Normandy Landing sites). But WHAT could the Canadian one be????? I had wondered if it could be referring to Vimy Ridge as part of the WWI Memorials of France but, even though that memorial is considered to now be on "Canadian Soil" I don't believe that it was nominated as such. Other "live"/"pending" Canadian nominations don't seem to fit. Any suggestions??

Author Zoe
Partaker
#347 | Posted: 18 May 2019 06:39 
Wasn't it obvious the landing beaches would be postponed, and France couldn't have chosen another site for 2019 instead (although I'm still unsure how this works as they had 2 lined up for this year)

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#348 | Posted: 18 May 2019 10:58 
Summary of Leaked Reports (Confirmation pending till May 20th)

Inscribe
- Paraty Culture and Biodiversity (Brazil)
- Erzgebirge / Krušnohoří Mining Region (Czechia, Germany)
- Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan (Japan)
- Megalithic Jar Sites in Xiengkhuang – Plain of Jars (Laos)
- Seowon, Korean Neo-Confucian Academies (Republic of Korea)
- Risco Caido and the Sacred mountains of Gran Canaria Cultural Landscape (Spain)

Withdrawn
- The Normandy Landing Beaches, 1944 (France)
- Brâncusi Monumental Ensemble of Târgu Jiu (Romania)
- Sila Forests Ecosystems (Italy)

Author elsslots
Admin
#349 | Posted: 18 May 2019 11:01 
winterkjm:
Summary of Leaked Reports (Confirmation pending till May 20th)

Inscribe
- Paraty Culture and Biodiversity (Brazil)
- Erzgebirge / Krušnohoří Mining Region (Czechia, Germany)
- Mozu-Furuichi Kofun Group: Mounded Tombs of Ancient Japan (Japan)
- Megalithic Jar Sites in Xiengkhuang – Plain of Jars (Laos)
- Seowon, Korean Neo-Confucian Academies (Republic of Korea)
- Risco Caido and the Sacred mountains of Gran Canaria Cultural Landscape (Spain)

Withdrawn
- The Normandy Landing Beaches, 1944 (France)
- Brâncusi Monumental Ensemble of Târgu Jiu (Romania)
- Sila Forests Ecosystems (Italy)

Plus Kladruby, I guess Referral https://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=16&topic=1905&page=23#msg21740

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#350 | Posted: 18 May 2019 11:09 
Coincidence that the Vatnajökull National Park - Dynamic nature of fire and ice (Iceland) IUCN evaluation will be published almost immediately after the final episode of Game of Thrones? Used as a filming location during the earlier seasons and with the moniker "fire and ice"? Really?

Author Colvin
Partaker
#351 | Posted: 18 May 2019 17:57 
Solivagant:
But WHAT could the Canadian one be?????

Quite clearly a memorial to the Yukon Ice Patches! (I jest — that nomination is cultural rather than natural)

But honestly, I have no idea what Canadian site they are referring to, and I remain concerned for what this delay by UNESCO means for Rwanda's upcoming nomination.

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#352 | Posted: 19 May 2019 02:11 
"UNESCO - Austria Awarded Two More World Heritage Sites"

Inscribe
- Großglockner High Alpine Road (Austria)
- Frontiers of the Roman Empire – The Danube Limes (Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia)

https://www.vindobona.org/article/unesco-austria-awarded-two-more-world-heritage-sites

Author davidyao
Partaker
#353 | Posted: 19 May 2019 03:50 
Germany will +2 or more this year
Erzgebirge / Krušnohoří Mining Region (Czechia, Germany)
Frontiers of the Roman Empire – The Danube Limes (Austria, Germany, Hungary, Slovakia)

Author Zoe
Partaker
#354 | Posted: 19 May 2019 08:46 
Solivagant:
Other "live"/"pending" Canadian nominations don't seem to fit. Any suggestions??

I'm thinking this is the Canadian Trail around Tynecot and Menin Gate.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#355 | Posted: 19 May 2019 11:37 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Zoe:
I'm thinking this is the Canadian Trail around Tynecot and Menin Gate

Australia has a memorial Trail as well and so may other Nations -
What potentially made Vimy "special" is that the land was "given" to Canada by France in 1922 and that the site is run by Parcs Canada so, "in theory", Canada would need to propose the site! But this situation is rather like Embassies in Capital cities which are regarded as "foreign soil" but still get include within inscribed areas! But, as I mentioned earlier I don't believe that the WWI memorials are the site referred to regarding Canada and a "proposal for a memorial site".

I wonder if the comment relates to Grand Pre which is very significantly a "memorial" to the Acadians and contains several elements whose very nature is that of a "memorial" - "A series of projects followed to symbolically mark the old territory: gardens with the willows, the statue of Evangeline (1920), Memorial Church (1922), Deportation Cross (1924), etc. Since this period, Grand Pré has become the main gathering place
for commemorations by the Acadian diaspora.
"
The site also contains other "OUV" in the form of the Polder landscape but that would hardly seem to be enough! Whilst the ICOMOS evaluation refers to its memorial role it doesn't suggest that this was regarded as problematic and, indeed, supports the Comparative Analysis" of the Nomination - "This study reveals the importance of places of memory in terms of the authenticity of the link between a region and a human
group, the importance of the associated dramatic events, the importance of the memorial experience that derives from these sites and its universal meaning Additionally,criterion (vi) is always used for places of memory. "
.
Among WHS compared with were numerous Slavery/Indentured labour related sites together with Auschwitz, Mostar and Robben Island.
But that is the problem about trying to differentiate between "Sites of Memory" where "dramatic events" took place! So - memorials to deported Acadians are ok but, apparently, memorials to fallen soldiers of many nations in WWI are not and neither are those to fallen soldiers of Romania.
OK - the Acadian site was deemed to have value beyond its purely "memorial" aspect - but then so do the WWI memorials and the Brancusi sculpture
Of course sites of memory for the Atlantic Slave trade are "uncriticisable" even when, as with Goree, they are clearly unauthentic! Whilst Valongo shows that almost any site can gain inscription if it can be linked to Transatlantic Slavery.

Author Assif
Partaker
#356 | Posted: 19 May 2019 14:45 
Solivagant:
So - memorials to deported Acadians are ok but, apparently, memorials to fallen soldiers of many nations in WWI are not and neither are those to fallen soldiers of Romania.

ICOMOS specifically states that the problem is with the memory of recent conflicts. So both Grand Pré and the slavery sites like Gorée and Valongo should constitute no problem.

Author Solivagant
Partaker
#357 | Posted: 20 May 2019 01:44 | Edited by: Solivagant 
Assif:
ICOMOS specifically states that the problem is with the memory of recent conflicts. So both Grand Pré and the slavery sites like Gorée and Valongo should constitute no problem.

Yes - regarding Grand Pre I was just trying to find ANY Canadian site which MIGHT have been involved in discussions about being a site of memory as per the Tirgu Jiu article. It was nominated way back in 2012 so ICOMOS might have developed its definition since then - but I agree it seems unlikely.

I find the limitation of discussion to 20th/21st C ("recent") conflicts unfortunate - the issue shouldn't be the date at which events happened but the extent to which assessment of the sites today can be "impartial" and "neutral". What about the "Stone Mountain" memorial to the Confederate Civil War leaders - 19thC so - "allowed"? Or imagine a triumphalist memorial outside the "gates" of Vienna commemorating the defeat of the Ottomans and the saving of Christianity from Islam in 16thC - not a "recent" conflict but one which still has (growing?) resonance!

As regards Slavery Sites - I also regard the ICOMOS decision to exclude sites relating to Slavery and Liberation from the discussion as unfortunate. There seems no doubt that Slavery sites get an easy ride, as "Western guilt" means that any mention of slavery gets them inscribed with little questioning even if their tangible value is limited or irrelevant. At the same time sites of genuine tangible importance (e.g the Brancusi) are getting excluded for being considered "War sites" when their value doesn't lie with that aspect.

Author kkanekahn
Partaker
#358 | Posted: 20 May 2019 01:49 
Eagerly waiting for the evaluation report which is supposed to release today

Author davidyao
Partaker
#359 | Posted: 20 May 2019 14:35 

Author jonathanfr
Partaker
#360 | Posted: 20 May 2019 15:12 
davidyao, congratulations, you were the fastest, yet we were watching all the results!

Page  Page 24 of 30:  « Previous  1  ...  23  24  25  ...  29  30  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2019 WHC

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 ®
 ⇑