Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
Over recent decades a more holistic view of cultural heritage has emerged, beyond simplistic tangible versus intangible dichotomies. Similarly, conservation has evolved from being material- to value-based, developing living heritage, people-centred and people-culture-nature approaches. As conservation interventions on objects, monuments and sites can affect an associated living culture and vice versa, conservators have a responsibility not only to understand tangible and intangible values, but also the local community and practitioners and bearers of tradition, by considering forms of 'usage' and 'interaction' with objects/monuments, identifying them before practical conservation starts. Whilst often constraining practice, living heritage can enrich professional work by encouraging participation and creativity through generating new, and adapting existing, approaches. This paper examines some (practical) implications of living heritage for conservation practice, by considering the Patan Durbar Square in Nepal, and the emphasis placed on continued use and community connection, to help conservators assume their social responsibilities and increase awareness of this issue.
Haselberger et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: