| dc.description.abstract | A close look at commemorations with a focus on occurring performance shows the decisive role of physical presence and activity of the body at the designated sites for achieving their active influence in both geographical and symbolic landscape. Commemorative sites can either be active sites of remembrance, or conditionally “passive” sites of heritage, depending on the presence or the absence of bodily action. Furthermore, this performativity defines commemorative events and their spaces as simultaneously tangible, i.e. monumental, and intangible, i.e. narration/practice, heritage.
Based on the performance-based duality of commemorative events and their spaces, this paper aims to explore the necessity and limitations of their dual interpretation within heritage management practice, by using the monumental sites of NOB (Peoples’ Liberation Struggle), as a case study. Several ethical dilemmas can be detected and should be taken into a consideration. Firstly, if the initial performance still exists, can a site be considered as heritage? And if yes, should these sites be considered only tangible or intangible heritage, or the two are bound to fuse? Furthermore, looking at the current changed narratives of these sites, is it legitimate to ask who and why considers them as heritage? In order to address these questions, this paper explores the two segments of commemorative events dedicated to NOB – the commemorative performance and its changing narratives, with emphasis on the manner of their heritagization. | sr |
