IN DIALOGUE WITH CULTURAL HERITAGE

181
A l e x a n d r a Z B U C H E A*

Z BUC H E A
Abstract
Cultural heritage is ever-present in our lives, but it is often only an invisible fra-
mework. Despite its significance and recognized value, it is frequently ignored, someti-
mes - assaulted, and rarely - valued. Certain organizations are trying to bring it to the

A l e x a n d r a
fore. Museums, monuments and heritage sites are among such establishments. These
are paradoxical institutions. On the one hand, they benefit from reliable high trust capi-
tal; on the other hand, they are / seem to be uninteresting for the general public. They
are accused of being dusty, old-fashioned, boring, stiff etc. but they display a fairly large
dynamism in their offer compared to other cultural and educational suppliers.
This intervention aims to bring into question how museums/ heritage sites carry
out their educational and cultural mission. Heritage should not be a passive educational
resource. It could be a partner for personal development, both for the children and the
grown-ups.

Key words: cultural heritage, contemporary society, Romania

Heritage and the contemporary society

The concept of heritage incorporates a wide range of elements. Heritage in-
cludes everything that society and communities want to save1. People want to
preserve it due to its value for the present and future societies. Nevertheless, al-
though some benefit from the existence of heritage, some others might be dis-
advantaged by it2 . For instance, the existence of an archaeological site within a
city imposed certain limits and conditions to the urban development plans. In-
evitably, voluntarily or unwillingly, both individuals and organizations, including
the public administration, which in fact, should be one of the prime stakeholders
concerned with heritage preservation and promotion, could affect heritage.
The cultural organizations managing the local heritage, such as museums,
could contribute to the development of communities and individuals in many
ways. They are keepers and researchers of both culture and science, and of the
community`s knowledge. They provide spaces for education, experience stimu-
lation and creativity. They are places for relaxation, entertainment and friend /

*
Facultatea de Management, SNSPA, e-mail: alexandra.zbuchea@facultateademanagement.ro
1
Peter Howard, Heritage. Management, Interpretation, Identity (London-New York: continuum, 2003),
1-3.
2
Howard, Heritage, 4.
 family gatherings. They represent the local communities and could lead to local
182 development and cultural regeneration.
Various organizations and individuals pay attention to the cultural heritage.
I N D IALO G U E W I T H CU LT U R A L H ER I TAG E

Heritage is generally admired because of its value and the creativity behind it. It
is studied in various ways and within a wide range of agendas. For instance, some
investigate it bearing in mind the interests of the local communities, others do it
within some political agendas, or out of a mere intellectual curiosity related to it.
Heritage generates various associations and is related to local identity, possibly
providing a sense of direction and pride although some may see it only as a form
of recreation.
Heritage is a complex resource. The owners can use it for their benefit, both
in a financial and a symbolic way. For stakeholders, heritage is a resource with
economic, educational, as well as status significances. Having these aspects in
mind, the cooperation with stakeholders is vital for an effective heritage manage-
ment.
Heritage stakeholders are very diverse, ranging from individuals to large or-
ganizations, from small local companies to global institutions. Some of the stake-
holders could cooperate and be in agreement with the heritage management,
while others might be hostile, having quite different interests in mind. The en-
gagement of the stakeholders is also complex 3, some of them being in various de-
grees of opposition among each other and thus negatively affecting the heritage,
while others might be supportive, offering resources and a positive input4. Stake-
holders could impact the heritage both directly and indirectly5. Participatory ap-
proaches while cooperating with the stakeholders would lead to better results and
greater levels of satisfactions for those involved.
The typology of heritage stakeholders is very vast. Peter Howard divides
them considering the different markets on which heritage is relevant: owners, in-
siders, outsiders, media, academics, and governments6. The ”insiders” are mainly
locals and can be very vocal in manifesting their concerns and rights related to
the heritage considered. The ”outsiders” are mainly those only visiting the re-
spective heritage site.
The role of heritage within a community or society, also depends on its at-
traction for a heterogeneous public. The 2014 Cultural Barometer showed a rela-
3
J.-C. Lefeuvre, ”Natural world heritage: A new approach to integrate research and management. Inter-
national Journal of Heritage Studies 13(4-5)/ 2007, 350-364.
4
B. Garrod, A. Fyall, A. Leask, and E. Reid, ”Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction”,
Tourism Management 33(5)/2011, 1159-1173.
5
Sean Lochrie, ”Engaging and marketing to stakeholders in World Heritage Site management: a United
Kingdom multiple case study perspective”, Journal of Marketing Management 2016.
6
Howard, Heritage, 104.
tively low cultural consumption for Romania7. 70% of the Romanians did not
visit a heritage site in the previous year, and only 7% are frequent visitors. Roma- 183
nians prefer to visit heritage sites while they are traveling. Nevertheless, heritage

Z BUC H E A
is considered important, especially when considering its contribution to tour-
ism development, preservation of traditions and identities, and increasing local
pride8. For Romanians, heritage has primarily a macro-level value as they do not
seem to relate to it in a very personal way.

The volatile heritage

A l e x a n d r a
In contemporary societies, a strong tendency of “heritagization” is observed.
An increasingly wide variety of objects and symbols are designated as heritage.
Not all the heritage components are ”old”. Politics, cultural practices and ac-
tions, administrative considerations, as well as the public perception are some
of the elements leading to heritagization9. Well-established heritage10 is widely
recognized – it is considered ”great heritage”11. Contemporary society considers
as heritage the various elements (such as buildings – e.g. factories, objects, ways
of doing things – e.g. traditional techniques) in which a certain social group is
interested, and for which they have cultural significance12 . Nature and places /
landscapes could be heritage, becoming both culture and resource for sustainable
development13.
Despite this tendency of heritagization, heritage happens to disappear. Mon-
uments could be destroyed, and objects could vanish in contexts such as wars/
terrorism, natural disasters or human neglect. In Romania, cultural organizations
and heritage are affected by processes related to the elimination of the negative
effects that communism had on society. In this context, the application of the law
referring to the retrocession (rather than rebate) of the properties confiscated by
the communist regime to the initial owners/ their descendants has a major im-

7
Carmen Croitoru and Anda Becuț (coord.), Culture between local and global (Cultural Consumption Ba-
rometer 2014) (Bucharest: Pro Universitaria, 2015), 116-119. For a brief analysis of the museum visitati-
on in Romania see also Alexandra Zbuchea, ”Vizitez. Privesc. Înțeleg. Reflecții privind rolul curatoru-
lui în influențarea vizitatorului”, Revista Muzeelor, 1, 2015, 57-58.
8
Coritoru & Becuț, Culture between local and global, 109-110.
9
Jean Davallon, ”À propos des régimes de patrimonialisation: enjeux et questions”, paper presented at
Patrimonialização e sustentabilidade do património: reflexão e prospectiva (Nov 2014, Lisboa, Portugal,
2014), 3.
10
Davallon, 5.
11
Davallon, 9.
12
Davallon, 10-12.
13
Cécile Tardy, „La patrimonialisation du point de vue du vivant”, paper presented at Patrimonialização e
sustentabilidade do património : reflexão e prospectiva (Nov 2014, Lisboa, Portugal).
 pact on museums and other cultural organizations. Numerous heritage buildings
184 and objects entered the private domain and are no longer available to the wider
public. The civic society, the media or the representatives of the affected organi-
I N D IALO G U E W I T H CU LT U R A L H ER I TAG E

zations, claiming that false documents have been presented or other irregularities
have been committed, contest some of the trials associated with this retrocession
process14.
In 2015, the Romanian National Network of Museums developed a study
mapping the retrocession phenomenon. No figure of the heritage in discussion
could be provided due to the partial information available, the unreliable data or
even the lack of desire of the persons and institutions involved to talk about the
subject. Following interviews with museum representatives and an online critical
research, the study revealed that more than 110 museums in ca 80 localities, and
60 various other cultural organizations (libraries, theaters etc.) in 45 localities
lost or were in danger of losing their buildings15. The mobile heritage requested
by the former owners could not be tracked during the mentioned investigation,
due both to the complexity of the phenomenon, and but also due to the lack of
transparency and cooperation of parties involved.
This process is relevant for local communities because the disappearance of
the access to heritage leads to an even smaller cultural participation, to smaller
tourism opportunities, to a decrease of the dynamism in the area – to mention
only the most evident aspects. In some cases, the cultural organizations that dis-
appear are the only ones in the area… In other cases, the collections of the mu-
seum that lost its building are stored for indefinite time or other types of disfunc-
tionalities occur16.

14
Many opinions and reports have been presented in media on this issue. A sample of them, giving a
sense of the wide variety of situations, are as follows: Sorin Ghica, ”Rechinii imobiliari au înșfăcat și
moșia Ghica”, Adevărul, 9 January 2012; Vlad Dumitraș, ”Retrocedare cu acte false a clădirilor istorice
din Oradea!”, Cotidianul, 24 June 2013, Valentna Ispas, ”Muzeul de Artă pierde 5 milioane de euro?”,
Obervator de Constanța, 27 October 2014; Diana Pârvulescu, ”MNAR: Statul român să fie reprezentat
de procuror în procesele privind restituirea lucrărilor de artă”, Mediafax, 14 January 2015. Many reports
and claims such as the previous ones are to be identified. Some of them might be false allegations, but
some are true. Only a few of them seem to have been considered in courts. No clear image and uncon-
tested situation of the retrocessed heritage is available for Romania.
15
A brief summary of the findings of the study of the Romanian National Network of Museums: 117 iden-
tified buildings housing museums which were claimed by/ returned to private parties, three quarters of
the buildings are registered in the list of the monuments, 29% of the buildings are in rural areas, in 47%
cases there is a definitive court decision, in 14% cases there is a definitive court decision but the muse-
um still functions in that building, in 5% of the cases the state bought the building after it was returned,
5% of the buildings were not returned to the owner – according with definitive court decision, in 16%
of cases the process is ongoing, in 14% of cases the returned building is deserted and in advanced state
of decay, in 6% of cases the returned buildings are being restored.
16
Dragoș Neamu, ”Muzeu închis pentru retrocedare”, Dilema Veche, 584, 23-29 aprilie 2015.
 185

Z BUC H E A
A l e x a n d r a
Figure 1: (Partial) Map of the buildings housing cultural organizations in request by/ returned to
private owners. Red represents places with museums under strain, while blue represents other
cultural organizations.

Some positive evolutions are also registered. Heritage in advanced state of

decay is being restored and used for cultural venues or other type of activities
beneficial for local sustainable development. Several examples could be given, out
of a longer list, such as the Bonțida Bánffy Castle17 or the Perticari-Davila Man-
sion18.

Connecting with heritage

Monuments and historical sites, but especially museums are the spaces most
favorable for the interaction between public and heritage. These organizations
are evolving, under the pressure of economic, social and cultural developments of
the contemporary society. Heritage-based organizations are not only guardians

17
The castle, one of the most important monuments in Transylvania was concessioned by Transylvania
Trust from the owner who regained the ensemble - http://www.transylvaniatrust.ro/index.php/en/
programs/the-restoration-of-banffy-castle-bontida/, https://electriccastle.ro/info/castle.
18
The Perticari-Davila Mansion in Izvoru is is only one of the monuments restored and reactivated by
the Pro Patrimonio Foundation: www.propatrimonio.org, http://www.monumenteuitate.org/ro/mo-
nument/718/Izvoru-Perticari-Davila.
 of the heritage. They are equally researchers, curators, educators and entertain-
186 ers. Nevertheless, their image is ambiguous, being considered elitist and compe-
tent, but also, in the same time, rusty and dull. In the past decades, the practices
I N D IALO G U E W I T H CU LT U R A L H ER I TAG E

and offers of heritage-based organizations changed significantly. In the following

section, we will concentrate on museums (as the institutions undergoing, prob-
ably, the most obvious transformations) and the way they connect to the the con-
temporary public.
The most popular definition of a museum is given by the International
Council of Museums (ICOM): a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of
society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches,
communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its
environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment 19. Although this
definition is technically correct, it does not includes the new evolutions taking
place within the museum world – the way they reach their mission, and make
their heritage accessible to various segments of the public. Claire Solery from We
Are Museums proposed a rewriting of this definition: A museum is an open to
all, ever changing place, in the service of humanity, where curators act as keepers and
transmitters of knowledge, culture and values that are shared with co-curators in inno-
vative and inspiring ways, giving them insight into their past and present and inform-
ing their future self-development20 .
In present day museums, visitors are interacting with the heritage. They en-
ter a creative and inspiring dialogue with heritage, curators, educators, research-
ers, as well as with other visitors. Orhan Pamuk, the Nobel Prize winner and ini-
tiator of a museum in Istanbul, considers that the future of museums stays in
addressing the small stories of the ordinary people, in order to reach the human
dimension of history and culture21. In such museums connecting with the heri-
tage should be easier, and interacting with other individuals in order to enter a
significant dialogue with the heritage also.
Museums aim mainly at visitors – who are extremely diverse. Nevertheless,
they are also addressing various stakeholders22 . All these persons (should) inter-
act with the heritage, at various levels; they connect to it personally – intellectu-
ally and/or emotionally.
For a positive encounter between heritage and various individuals, the scene
of the encounter (i.e. exhibition, heritage site) has to be planned. Proper plan-
ning is ensured through interpreting the heritage. A team of various profession-

19
http://archives.icom.museum/definition.html.
20
Clarire Solery, ”Let`s rewrite the definition of museums!”, We are museums blog, July 7, 2016.
21
Orhan Pamuk, ”Orhan Pamuk’s manifesto for museums”, The Art Newspaper, 6 July 2016.
22
Alexandra Zbuchea, Marketing muzeal pentru nonmarketeri, Bucharest: Tritonic, 2015, 31-57.
als (curators, educators, PR specialists, etc.) could ensure the process, having in
mind not only the characteristics of the heritage and the mission of their organi- 187
zation, but also their visitors and other stakeholders23. Not only the characteris-

Z BUC H E A
tics, needs, desires and interests of the public should be considered in the process
of designing exhibitions, but visitors and various stakeholders could be also in-
volved in the process. Their implication may start from the process of designing
the exhibition, going through the installation process, and even their involvment
in developing the exhibition further following its opening 24.
The heritage is for each individual an educational resource, but each one

A l e x a n d r a
has his / her own style of learning in museums and other cultural organizations.
Education and learning in museums has greatly changed in the past decade, both
from the perspective of museum professionals and the visitors25. The heritage of-
fers educational support from a cognitive, emotional, as well as spiritual perspec-
tive. Some visitors relate to one of these aspects, while others to several. Each
person interprets in his/ her own way the heritage, interacts with it in a specific
way, and uses it in a personal manner.
The museum curator instrumentalizes heritage having in mind certain edu-
cational aims. S/He also should consider the specific characteristics and inter-
ests of the public and stakeholders26. Several aspects could be taken into account
as facilitators for education: design of an exhibition, access to collections, and
the provision of information associated to the heritage. Establishing an effective
educational setting involves also a stimulating framework for the interaction be-
tween artifacts and visitors, between visitors and the museum`s representatives,
among visitors or stakeholders. Providing different points of reflection related
with the museum`s discourse, as well as connecting the heritage with interests/
concerns of the contemporary society could increase the degree of interaction
related to heritage.

23
Alexandra Zbuchea, ”Vizitez. Privesc. Înțeleg”, 61-63.
24
M.M. Duarte Candido, et al., ”The museum experience: discussion on the relationship between con-
temporary museums and their visitors”, 2013; Lars Lischke et al., ”User Defined Exhibitions – Explo-
ring Possibilities to Involve Visitors in the Design of Exhibitions”, TEI`14, February 16-19, 2014, Muni-
ch, Germany; Nina Simon, The Participatory Museum, 2010.
25
Eilean Hooper-Greenhill, Museum and Education. Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance, London-New York:
Routledge, 2007, 1-14. Alexandra Zbuchea, ”Formal and informal education in museums”, Revista mu-
zeelor, 1, 2006, 45-53.
26
Alexandra Zbuchea, ”Vizitez. Privesc. Înțeleg”, 57-64.
 Concluding remarks
188
Heritage is a multifaceted concept, influencing both individuals and com-
munities. Heritage is related with a wide range of stakeholders. Despite its signifi-
I N D IALO G U E W I T H CU LT U R A L H ER I TAG E

cance and positive role, despite the tendency of heritagization observed world-
wide, heritage could be ignored or even destroyed, instead of being used as a
complex resource, with educational, cultural, social and economic implications.
Cultural organizations, especially museums, and their stakeholders tend to
see heritage as an educational resource. The practices of interaction with heri-
tage have changed during the past decades, leading to an increased dynamism
and increased appeal of museums. Education takes place through dialogue and
interaction. Creativity is an important part of this scheme. Nevertheless, a pleas-
ant encounter does not guarantee educational outcomes. We recommend further
research into how to design an experience, which is not only personally reward-
ing, but also culturally enriching and effective.

References
Croitoru, Carmen, and Becuț, Anda (eds.), Culture between local and global (Cultural
Consumption Barometer 2014), Bucharest: Pro Universitaria, 2015.
Davallon, Jean, ”À propos des régimes de patrimonialisation: enjeux et questions”,
paper presented at Patrimonialização e sustentabilidade do património: reflexão e
prospectiva, Nov 2014, Lisboa, Portugal, 2014, available online at https://halshs.
archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01123906/document.
Duate Candido, M.M., Aidar, G., and Conrado Martins, L., ”The Museum Ex-
perience: Discussion on the Relationship between Contemporary Museums
and Their Visitors”, 2013, 50-58, available online at https://www.academia.
edu/4290532/2013_-_The_museum_experience_discussion_on_the_relation-
ship_between_contemporary_museums_and_their_visitors.
Dumitraș, Vlad, ”Retrocedare cu acte false a clădirilor istorice din Oradea!”, Cotidi-
anul, 24 June 2013, available online at http://www.cotidianul.ro/retrocedare-cu-
acte-false-a-cladirilor-istorice-din-oradea-216478/.
Garrod, B., Fyall, A., Leask, A., and Reid, E., ”Engaging residents as stakeholders of the
visitor attraction”, Tourism Management 33(5)/2011, 1159-1173.
Ghica, Sorin, ”Rechinii imobiliari au înşfăcat şi Moşia Ghica”, Adevărul, 9 January
2012, available online at adevarul.ro/news/societate/rechinii-imobiliari-insfacat-
mosia-ghica-1_50ad31997c42d5a663907ca5/index.html.
Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean, Museum and Education. Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance, Lon-
don-New York: Routledge, 2007.
Howard, Peter, Heritage. Management, Interpretation, Identity, London-New York: con-
tinuum, 2003.
Ispas, Valetina, ”Muzeul de Artă pierde 5 milioane de euro?”, Obervator de Constanța,
27 October 2014, available online at http://observator.ro/muzeul-de-arta-pierde- 189
5-milioane-de-euro-282972.html.
Lefeuvre, J.-C., ”Natural world heritage: A new approach to integrate research and

Z BUC H E A
management. International Journal of Heritage Studies 13(4-5)/ 2007, 350-364.
Lischke, L., Schneegass, S., Dingler, T., and Schmidt, A., ”User Defined Exhibitions –
Exploring Possibilities to Involve Visitors in the Design of Exhibitions”, TEI`14,
February 16-19, 2014, Munich, Germany, available online at http://www.tei-conf.
org/14/wip/wip-lischke.pdf.
Lochrie, Sean, ”Engaging and marketing to stakeholders in World Heritage Site man-

A l e x a n d r a
agement: a United Kingdom multiple case study perspective”, Journal of Marketing
Management 2016.
Neamu, Dragoș, ”Muzeu închis pentru retrocedare”, Dilema Veche, 584, 23-29 aprilie
2015, available online at http://dilemaveche.ro/sectiune/tema-saptamanii/articol/
muzeu-inchis-retrocedare.
Orhan Pamuk, ”Orhan Pamuk’s manifesto for museums”, The Art Newspaper, 6 July
2016, available online at http://theartnewspaper.com/comment/comment/orhan-
pamuk-s-manifesto-for-museums/.
Pârvulescu, Diana, ”MNAR: Statul român să fie reprezentat de procuror în procesele
privind restituirea lucrărilor de artă”, Mediafax, 14 January 2015, available at
http://www.mediafax.ro/cultura-media/mnar-statul-roman-sa-fie-reprezentat-de-
procuror-in-procesele-privind-restituirea-lucrarilor-de-arta-13765018.
Simon, Nina, The Participatory Museum, 2010.
Solery, Clarire, ”Let`s rewrite the definition of museums!”, We are museums blog, July 7,
2016, available online at http://www.wearemuseums.com/lets-rewrite-the-defini-
tion-of-museums/.
Tardy, Cécile, ”La patrimonialisation du point de vue du vivant”, paper presented
at Patrimonialização e sustentabilidade do património : reflexão e prospectiva,
Nov 2014, Lisboa, Portugal, 2014, available online at https://www.academia.
edu/12367693/La_patrimonialisation_du_point_de_vue_du_vivant.
Zbuchea, Alexandra, ”Formal and informal education in museums”, Revista muzeelor, 1,
2006, 45-53.
Zbuchea, Alexandra, Marketing muzeal pentru nonmarketeri, Bucharest: Tritonic, 2015.
Zbuchea, Alexandra, ”Vizitez. Privesc. Înțeleg. Reflecții privind rolul curatorului în
influențarea vizitatorului”, Revista Muzeelor, 1, 2015, 57-64.