Since the dawn of humankind pottery has played a role in civilization. Pottery can be used to pinpoint geographical expansion or migration of a people. It can be a way to determine events...Show moreSince the dawn of humankind pottery has played a role in civilization. Pottery can be used to pinpoint geographical expansion or migration of a people. It can be a way to determine events surrounding civilisations. This historical consciousness of pottery is also what illustrates some iconic events in the history between Japan and Korea, but it may also link the contemporary relationship of each respective ceramic tradition since there are many people interested in the Korean and Japanese pottery of the past. The content of this thesis argues that they are never completely separate from each other. Through the nineteenth and twentieth century Japan and Korea each developed their cultural heritage policies and respective nationalist discourses. In Japan anxiety of westernization crept in. In Korea anxiety of westernization came simultaneously with a struggle for their cultural identity because of the Japanese colonial rule. Both countries took countermeasures in the form of folklore programs and revitalization and other searches for nostalgia and identity. Due to such dynamics, the effect of state policies and national narratives affected how craftsmanship was perceived. It was often labelled as symbol of the state, and something to find your ethnic and national identity in. These post-war policies created a sense of cultural essentialism that was hard to alter, even in the social context. Institutionalisation, as part of ‘heritagisation’ created a web of museums, government advertising, government organized or endorsed festivals and the ‘National Living Treasure’ program. Especially in Korea was this a scholarly source of critique. Through analysis from which context each heritage discourse came from and how it is maintained today it seems as if it obstructs the possibility of creating an image of cultural connectedness. Nevertheless a certain different dynamic is rising. The contemporary communities of potters and ceramic artists may pose as an alternative level to portray pottery heritage juxtaposed to the grand narrative of the heritage industry and government. Will or can redirecting our view to the level of the people as artists involved with Korea’s and Japan’s ceramics heritage change an obstinate cultural essentialism and disconnectedness?Show less
This thesis studies the impact of shared heritage practices on local, non-Western, communities by means of a comparison between the Dutch Shared Cultural Heritage (GCE-) policy and the UNESCO 1972...Show moreThis thesis studies the impact of shared heritage practices on local, non-Western, communities by means of a comparison between the Dutch Shared Cultural Heritage (GCE-) policy and the UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention. Specific emphasis is put on the local views regarding these practices, in an attempt to move beyond the Western and neocolonial discourse that has dominated the field for the past decades. Through the execution of an in depth literature study on the history and rationale of both the GCE-policy and the UNESCO Convention, and through the assessment of a never before published comprehensive study on the functioning and effects on the local communities of the GCE-policy, and the execution of an original study on the local views of (designation of) World Heritage Sites through the case study of Stone Town of Zanzibar, Tanzania, it can be said that in order for the shared heritage policies and practices to become more successful, they need to start taking local communities into account. At the moment the cooperation in most cases only runs through local authorities or one or two local heritage specialists, but the rest of the community is not truly taken into account. As such, their ideas, wishes, and most importantly needs are not implemented in the projects and heritage practices, which as a result struggle to survive without the initiating party’s continuous efforts and money. The Dutch and UNESCO strife to make the local communities see the intrinsic value of the heritage concerned, that they feel is so important themselves, but fail to see that all parties value specific heritage differently or for very differing reasons. For the partner countries, the main incentive to join the shared heritage practices is an economic one. Instead of judging this, both UNESCO and the Dutch heritage organizations should appreciate that this is the reality that their local counterpart organizations have to deal with, and as such they should carefully listen to the local demands in order to come to a mutually agreed solution to any problems regarding the heritage. Only if local communities are taken into account in the implementation of shared heritage projects and policies, can they become sustainable and self-sufficient. What is important in shared heritage practices are not shared values regarding the heritage, but a shared understanding of all the disparate values concerned.Show less