Cultural Heritage Management: Burra Charter Principles, Benefits, and Limitations - Report Example

cultural heritage management: Burra Charter Principles, Benefits, and Limitations Name Institution Course Tutor Date Cultural Heritage Management: Burra Charter Principles, Benefits, and Limitations Introduction Conservation activities practices throughout the globe have made possible publications covering all aspects activities stream. This has resulted in many of Charters formed around the world to manage the conservation practices. Many governments have come up with many different guidelines to help maintain and manage the issues of their pasts and cultural as well. United organizations amongst countries have also come up with charters to help the individual countries. One of the international earlier charters which its principles are applied internationally in cultural heritage management amongst countries is Venice Charter. Burra Charter was the first charter that was made out from Venice Charter’s principles and over the years has been just as successful as Venice Charter itself in cultural heritage management. Burra Charter was produced out of Venice Charter exhortation, when Australia ICOMOS felt to interpret the Charter to suit their cultural heritage management; after feeling their experiences were majorly affected by “European era”. This essay focuses on Burra Charter, its principles, application of the principles, and benefits and limitations associated with it. Australian built heritage and Preston Cemetery in UK has been discussed as the case studies where Burra Charter principle have been applied. Burra Charter Burra Charter, a name which came in use in 1979 after Australia ICOMOS ratified in South Australia, went through several revision of its principles until a major revision in 1999. This major revision saw the earlier charter superseded. Burra Charter, since then, has received much recognition in Australia and many and many outside countries (Larsen 1995). According Australian ICOMOS Newsletter (1978), Australia did not have any intention of abandoning or disregarding Venice Charter but felt need of addressing some of their cultural issues that they felt were left out by the Venice Charter. This is what motivated the formation of Burra charter. The charter highlights most of Venice Charters guidelines in it with additional principle they felt left out, and are important. Due to its revision to address multicultural issues and its marked concern on social aspect of life, Burra Charter has been relatively successful than the Venice Charter (Larsen). This is due to its much consideration of cultural significance as far as social and cultural factors are conserved, earning it its widespread use in many countries. Burra Charter Principles and Applications Burra charter majorly provides guidelines that can be used for the conservation and management of places of cultural significances. Its principles highlight the conservation guidelines that involve identifying the place, assessing cultural significance of the place, identifying all factors and issues associated with the place, developing a policy that aims at enforcing the conservation measures of the place, preparing a management plan, implementing the plans, monitoring the results and reviewing the plan (Australian ICOMOS 2013). Burra Charter principles have been used in Australia to assess cultural significance of Australian built heritage and to its management. According to Hussein et al (2014), built heritage of Australian demonstrates the past developments that are of value to the history of culture and built environment. Australian built heritage has cultural significance as it reveals how Australia built environment development over 200 year to date. It shows how housing design and expansion in urban structures, thus reminding Australian of the rein of the colonials when some were used as hospitals, army barracks (Freestone 2008). As stated by Hussein and his colleagues, one of the ancient buildings was even later used as government house in 1919 nominated by Australian Historical Society. Using Burra Charter principle, Australian Heritage Council has recognised the significance of adapting some of the buildings for economic gain endeavours. They have been upgraded and refurbished. Some have also been improved in terms of structure, adapting particular attractive historical structures to maintain the historical meanings of the buildings (Graham 2002). Abelson (2002) states that it has taken relatively quite a long time since the valuation of heritage buildings began to be considered serious by the responsible bodies but it has been making positive steps in conservation and polishing the face of Australian heritage buildings as environment. Burra Charter has enabled built heritage to go under many significant changes as many of relevant policies have been established with the help of Burra Charter to conserve and manage it as reported by United Nations (UN) (2011). Burra Charter argues that conserving a place with cultural significance involves developing the place without altering its historic and/or cultural value, and this has been adopted by associated city development bodies, ensuring the architectural and historic values of the buildings are considered why making renovations to the building and their future development plans as well (Cowell 2010). The formulated actions through the help of Burra Charter have also enabled corroboration amongst all stakeholders. This has enabled ethics of involving the public in decision learning and conservation place for these buildings (Johnston 2006). This has corrected the feeling that has always existed amongst the public that they have been left out in the matters involving their culture and history. Therefore, with Burra Charter as guide to the policies and management plans of the built heritage in Australia, it has been possible to improve the image of the Australian culture and history as far as building structures are concerned (Cowell). As stated earlier in this paper, Burra Charter has also been adopted in many other countries apart from Australia. Countries such as Singapore have come up with heritage charters and policies guided by the principles of Burra Charter in conserving their places of historical and cultural importance (Shua 2016). UK has also adopted this Charter to conserve and manage its places that have cultural significance (Australian ICOMOS 2013). Preston Cemetery in the UK is one area where Burra Charter’s principles have been adopted internationally to conserve and manage. The conservation management plan of Preston has been undertaken in accordance with the key principles of the Burra Charter and management issues related to restoration, maintenance and repair of the Preston Cemetery are assessed according to the same principles (Wixted et al 2015). According to the highlights of significance of Preston Cemetery, it is arguable that they have adopted the Burra Charter to define the significance of the place, and set conservation policy that aims to conserve the history significance of the place. According to Australia ICOMOS (2013), Burra Charter sets out guidance for assessing cultural significance of a place which can be looked at in four perspectives; Aesthetic, Historic, Scientific and Social significance. UK has adopted this to explain the significance of Preston Cemetery. Wixted and his friend say that Preston Cemetery has some aesthetic qualities. This is bought about by the impression of the tall Cypress tree along the boundaries of the place which provide visual interest. Historically, the place is of interest for the change in population that represent the circa in 1950. It is also argued that the place became noticed by the trustees that it was being used to bury migrants as a result of World War Two. Socially, Wixted and McLean say the place remains of significance to Mausoleum and Columbarium in English speaking European countries, thus the places is deemed of social significance as it has value to early Australian and migrant population as a place where victims of World War Two were being buried. Therefore, for the significances of the place, conservation policy for the place came to be made to ensure the place continue its existence and values; as the policy addresses every aspect of conservation and development of the place covering its environment, structure, and even future development. As stated by the Burra Charter principles, they have made management plans aimed at retaining and developing the cultural significance of Preston cemetery without alteration of the symbolic scape and structures representing historical features worth cultural, social and economic values (Wixted and McLean). Benefits and Limitation of Burra Charter Burra charter is used in many countries as a primary guide for the conservation of heritage place. It lays down the rational basis of conservation of heritage places and its principles demonstrates techniques and deadlines for formulation of conservation and management plans (Australia ICOMOS 2013). The Charter also improves ethic in management of places of cultural and historical significance since it recognises and addresses the need of public involvement in decision-making processes (Johnston 2006; Cowell 2010). This Charter presents apprehension of understanding significance of a place or an object and allow that that significance to guide measure that can be set in place for the conservation of the place; it provides a cautious approach to conservation of places of cultural and historical significance Australia and other countries that have adopted its principles (Mitchel n.d.). Mitchel argues that the Charter gives conservation practices which are preceded by deep understanding of the value of the object or place by comprehensive studies. This enables the management of the identified place to selectively acquire appropriate skills and materials needed to conserve the place and not to change its cultural value. However, the Burra Charter has also its limitations. First, applying the Burra Charter principles in conservation practice in Australia has been quite challenging since the world today in trending in modern structure and values. A place is defined by its modern economic, social, and cultural values amongst other, which is opposed to the Charter principles which only define the historic cultural significance of a place, conserving it without altering the historic cultural value (Winter 2013). Like any other country, Australia has adopted sustainability measures aimed at levelling Australia with the rest of the world in development. Using Burra Charter principles will mean that no alteration s will be done to historical buildings, sites, objects amongst others, to meet the skyscrapers, modern infrastructures amongst other modern designs and structure in other countries. This would not imply development in Australia and any other country that has adopted its principles in conservation of places deemed to have cultural and historical value or significance (Hussein et al). As argued by Australia ICOMOS (2013), the Burra charter requires studies on the pasts of a place of cultural significance to be done before coming up with a management plan of the place. This is sometimes challenging as it uncovers the buried past of a community associated to the place or object; affecting the attitudes of the public towards conservation of such places. Australian people, for example, have adopted modern ways of life mostly influenced by globalization. This has changes how people perceive history, and sometimes ends up developing negative attitudes towards the historical sites making them less valued. Burra Charter, as it broke away from Venice Charter, has also led to emergence of many other charters and policies in many countries that contradict the original principles and rationales of conservation practices (De-Marco 2009). This has made history and culture significances viewed in different interpretations making it difficult to get the actual significance of a place ought to be of cultural value as history may state. These resulting theories and policies also go ahead to confuse language too. Inherent ambiguity whilst trying to redefine the terms and purposes of principles have made the conservation practices done in different terms and methodologies making it difficult to assess the actual importance of the core principles of Burra Charter as it keep on changing with many versions over the past years (De-Marco). Conclusion It is arguable that Burra Charter has been applied in conservation practice in places of cultural importance in Australia. Many other countries have also adopted its principles in making their own policies and management plans directed to conserving their history and cultures. However, Burra Charter has limitation that to some extent have influenced the development of Australia and the countries that have adopted it. Its successful guidance amongst countries has also been hindered by different version coming up almost in almost all countries in Europe and oversees bring confusions and ambiguity in actual meanings related to conservation of culturally and historically significant places. It can also be argued that Burra Charter principle hinder change to modernisation of Australia and other countries applying it. Reference List Larsen, K.E. 1995. Nara Conference on Authenticity. Japan: Agency for Cultural Affairs UNESCO World Heritage Center. Australia ICOMOS Newsletter. The Venice Charter Annotated. Canberra: Australia ICOMOS, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1-4. Australia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter: The Australian ICOMOS charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Autralia ICOMOS Inc. Available from http://www.australia.icomos.org Wixted, D, Redden, R. & McLean, V. 2015. Conservation Management Plan: Preston Cementery. Preston. Hussein, J, Armitage, L. & Too, L. 2014. An historical perspective of the evolution of Australia built heritage and its management. Available from http://epublications.bond.edu.au/fsd_paper/158 Freestone, R. 2008. Preserving Sydney’s built heritage in the early twentieth century. Australian Historical Studies, Vol. 29, No. 112. Mason, R, Myres, D. & De la Torre, M. 2003. Port Arthur Historic Site: A Case Study. The Getty Conservation Institutes; Los Angeles. Mitchel, G. n.d. Application of the Burra Charter to large technology objects: a freelance conservator’s experiences. Shua, K.Y. 2016. Between Positivist and Relativist Approach in Recent Community-Owned Architectural Conservation Project in Singapore. Conference Paper. Johnston, C. 2006. An integrated approach to environment and heritage issues. Prepared for The Australian State of the Environment Committee. Canberra: Department of Environment and Heritage. Australia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance. Canberra: Australia ICOMOS. Graham, B. 2002. Heritage as knowledge: capital or culture. Urban Studies, 39(5-6), 1003 - 1017. Abelson, P. 2000.Valuing the public benefits of heritage listing of commercial buildings. In Proceedings Conference - Economic of Heritage Listings (p. 147). Sydney: New South Wales Heritage Office. De Marco, L. 2009. Connecting Principles with Practice: From charters to Guiding Case Studies. Available from http://www.ct.cecid-br.org Cowell, B. 2010. Why heritage counts: researching the historic environment. Cultural Trends, 13(4), 23-39. Winter, T. 2013. Clarifying the critical in critical heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 19, No. 6, 532-545 Read More

Burra Charter Principles and Applications Burra charter majorly provides guidelines that can be used for the conservation and management of places of cultural significances. Its principles highlight the conservation guidelines that involve identifying the place, assessing cultural significance of the place, identifying all factors and issues associated with the place, developing a policy that aims at enforcing the conservation measures of the place, preparing a management plan, implementing the plans, monitoring the results and reviewing the plan (Australian ICOMOS 2013).

Burra Charter principles have been used in Australia to assess cultural significance of Australian built heritage and to its management. According to Hussein et al (2014), built heritage of Australian demonstrates the past developments that are of value to the history of culture and built environment. Australian built heritage has cultural significance as it reveals how Australia built environment development over 200 year to date. It shows how housing design and expansion in urban structures, thus reminding Australian of the rein of the colonials when some were used as hospitals, army barracks (Freestone 2008).

As stated by Hussein and his colleagues, one of the ancient buildings was even later used as government house in 1919 nominated by Australian Historical Society. Using Burra Charter principle, Australian Heritage Council has recognised the significance of adapting some of the buildings for economic gain endeavours. They have been upgraded and refurbished. Some have also been improved in terms of structure, adapting particular attractive historical structures to maintain the historical meanings of the buildings (Graham 2002).

Abelson (2002) states that it has taken relatively quite a long time since the valuation of heritage buildings began to be considered serious by the responsible bodies but it has been making positive steps in conservation and polishing the face of Australian heritage buildings as environment. Burra Charter has enabled built heritage to go under many significant changes as many of relevant policies have been established with the help of Burra Charter to conserve and manage it as reported by United Nations (UN) (2011).

Burra Charter argues that conserving a place with cultural significance involves developing the place without altering its historic and/or cultural value, and this has been adopted by associated city development bodies, ensuring the architectural and historic values of the buildings are considered why making renovations to the building and their future development plans as well (Cowell 2010). The formulated actions through the help of Burra Charter have also enabled corroboration amongst all stakeholders.

This has enabled ethics of involving the public in decision learning and conservation place for these buildings (Johnston 2006). This has corrected the feeling that has always existed amongst the public that they have been left out in the matters involving their culture and history. Therefore, with Burra Charter as guide to the policies and management plans of the built heritage in Australia, it has been possible to improve the image of the Australian culture and history as far as building structures are concerned (Cowell).

As stated earlier in this paper, Burra Charter has also been adopted in many other countries apart from Australia. Countries such as Singapore have come up with heritage charters and policies guided by the principles of Burra Charter in conserving their places of historical and cultural importance (Shua 2016). UK has also adopted this Charter to conserve and manage its places that have cultural significance (Australian ICOMOS 2013). Preston Cemetery in the UK is one area where Burra Charter’s principles have been adopted internationally to conserve and manage.

The conservation management plan of Preston has been undertaken in accordance with the key principles of the Burra Charter and management issues related to restoration, maintenance and repair of the Preston Cemetery are assessed according to the same principles (Wixted et al 2015).

Read More