World Heritage Site

for World Heritage Travellers



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

2020/2021 WHC Livestream

 
 
Page  Page 17 of 45:  « Previous  1  ...  16  17  18  ...  44  45  Next »

Author winterkjm
Partaker
#241 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 10:59 
I might pick up 3 incriptions with Madrid, Nice, and Korea's Getbol. I am not too cynical about the whole process, I have long ago accepted the imperfect nature of instituions like UNESCO, while also appreciating its value. I personally felt IUCN recommendations for Korea's nomation were valid and Korea could with certainty resubmit the nomination a 3rd time to make the 2024 WHC.

Author Zoe
Partaker
#242 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 13:05 
Is it just me or are the ratings for this year's inscriptions all rather low. Only one is above 3 stars.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#243 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 13:11 
If icomos and iucn had spine, they would resign. The prado is a great museum for its content. But nothing else. Lets inscribe the metropolitan, the British museum, ... however, there is money to be made, so they will keep up the farce.

Now, I take less offense with non European countries with short lists adding mediocre sites. But , really darmstadt or prado...

Author Jonas Bergmann
Partaker
#244 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 14:26 
nfmungard:
The prado is a great museum for its content. But nothing else. Lets inscribe the metropolitan, the British museum,

To be honest: I would have nothing against the inscription of around 10-12 top museums just for the content. Covering more world heritage than a lot of inscribed sites.

Apart from that: I think there is a common sense here about the mediocre quality of this year's inscriptions (and maybe also of the ones during the years before). But this is a result of the mediocre proposals made. Does anybody know why some countrys act like this although they have much better on their tentative lists? Russia, India e.g. come to my mind at once.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#245 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 14:57 
Zoe:
Is it just me or are the ratings for this year's inscriptions all rather low. Only one is above 3 stars.

Feel free to argue what hidden gem we are overlooking... it's all mediocre at best. Little surprise considering that e.g. Germany has exhausted their top sites (and those aren't top notch either) and keeps pushing no matter what. 3 limes wtf.

Also, eg the spas suffer from the serial site. If it were only karlsbad...

I think being nomination based instead of selection based is nowadays the wrong approach. There should be a selection committee that selects and proposes sites, supports state parties with the paperwork... instead you have horse trading. And to this day you will find headlines claiming bad kissingen is in the same league as angkor. Lol.

Author nfmungard
Partaker
#246 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 15:03 
Jonas Bergmann:
To be honest: I would have nothing against the inscription of around 10-12 top museums just for the content. Covering more world heritage than a lot of inscribed sites.

Museums tend to be too tied to their exhibition and collection. For me better served outside whs categories.

Jonas Bergmann:
Apart from that: I think there is a common sense here about the mediocre quality of this year's inscriptions (and maybe also of the ones during the years before). But this is a result of the mediocre proposals made. Does anybody know why some countrys act like this although they have much better on their tentative lists? Russia, India e.g. come to my mind at once.

For several of the worst offenders (europe) I don't see that. Germany, France, Spain are done on mainland Europe.

Better tentative lists... we had the top missing exercise. And it does not match anything that is scheduled.

Author Assif
Partaker
#247 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 16:12 
nfmungard:
Germany, France,

But we did have some top missing sites from these countries, with Olympia Park and megalithic Carnac among others. They are much better than the current proposals.

Author Astraftis
Partaker
#248 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 16:59 | Edited by: Astraftis 
elsslots:
ICOMOS again asks for name change, omitting the flowery Heart of Bronze Age Culture

This change could actually make sense, because, as they say, it is a little bit too general; but it's also true that it could benefit from just one specification, something like "Heart of the Bronze Age Culture of the Steppes". But ICOMOS seems to want the titles as prosaic as they can be.

Anyway, of all the proposals today, only deer-stones were not inscribed... however, I thought they had great potential! And they are surely much less problematic than "TIR", which got really pushed for some reason (I think it's cool, but it is also too much and too undefined and in a sense too technical, hence intangible). It all really boiled down to a matter of presentation, because there's not much to argue against the uniqueness and importance of the proposal. So, a real pity. I hope they will go on, they have many other sites with potential (sure, mostly leaning on the natural side).

The one inscription I cannot truly reconcile myself with is the Prado. I agree with others that the quality as a museum should not be taken into account for OUV. But on the contrary, the reason I totally agree with the Mathildenhöhe's inscription is that is a unique and incredibly harmonious urban landscape which itself physically embodies the art it was born from.

Author Messy
Partaker
#249 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 17:00 

Author Messy
Partaker
#250 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 17:02 
I don't remember when a WHS was kicked out of the group. Wow!

Author TaiTT
Partaker
#251 | Posted: 25 Jul 2021 20:38 
Messy
Dresden and Oryx sanctuary were both removed previously

Author Zoe
Partaker
#252 | Posted: 26 Jul 2021 00:11 
nfmungard:
Germany has exhausted their top sites

Neuschwanstein anyone? I think Dachau could also be inscribed alongside Auschwitz. Poland getting an exception for the war memorials isn't right. Also I think Dresden should be re-nominated ;)

Author jonathanfr
Partaker
#253 | Posted: 26 Jul 2021 01:39 
Zoe:
Dresden should be re-nominated ;)

I agree, as a serial inscription of the main monuments of the old declassified cultural landscape.

Author Jonas Bergmann
Partaker
#254 | Posted: 26 Jul 2021 04:11 | Edited by: Jonas Bergmann 
nfmungard:
Museums tend to be too tied to their exhibition and collection. For me better served outside whs categories.

Argument accepted. But because of the undeniable OUV of the collections of the top class museums maybe a new category should be introduced. Better having the British Museum on the list but Srebarna oder Zatec Hops Town. And by doing this it is possible to prevent such nominations like Prado where the pretext of the importance of the building is used to get the collection inscribed.

nfmungard:
I think being nomination based instead of selection based is nowadays the wrong approach. There should be a selection committee that selects and proposes sites, supports state parties with the paperwork...

Agree. And the task of this comittee should also to remove and redefine the existing ones if necessary.

Assif:
But we did have some top missing sites from these countries, with Olympia Park and megalithic Carnac among others. They are much better than the current proposals.

Agree. The existing tentative lists are not well kept. I still see at least arond 10 top potential nominations or extensions still existing in big European countries like Germany or France. ... But also the need to remove others.

Author meltwaterfalls
Partaker
#255 | Posted: 26 Jul 2021 05:25 
Do we know the order the sites will be discussed today?

Page  Page 17 of 45:  « Previous  1  ...  16  17  18  ...  44  45  Next » 
WHC Sessions www.worldheritagesite.org Forum / WHC Sessions /
 2020/2021 WHC Livestream
This topic is closed. New replies are not allowed.

 
 
 
www.worldheritagesite.org Forum Powered by Chat Forum Software miniBB ®
 ⇑