Perception of the Modern Movement in Architecture as Cultural Heritage

Abstract

SummaryWhen the definition of cultural heritage in architecture is questioned regarding the perception of society, the results demonstrate that people identify cultural heritage as both material and spiritual achievements in the past and as a reflection of identity associated with historical monuments. Furthermore, the distinction between monument and cultural heritage does not have a well-distinguished definition for society in most cases. Therefore, the perception of people in the appraisal of cultural heritage consistently obscures the protection process, especially regarding the heritage of the Modern Movement era in architecture which started to be seen in the 20th century. While the experts acknowledge Modern Movement artefacts as cultural heritage, in most cases the perception of non-experts differs. Therefore, its architectural merit is not appreciated by society in the way it deserves, neither as an artefact nor as cultural heritage. By both literature review and performed research, this paper aims to analyse the reasons which create deprecation regarding the evaluation of Modern Movement heritage. Furthermore, it tries to suggest a series of actions which can be taken for achieving the protection of Modern Movement heritage.

Computing Heritage Values: A Case for Georgia and Malta

“…Based on the evaluation of leading publications studied by Mason [6], Yung and Chan [7], de la Torre [8], Doğan [9], Chen and Li [10] and Olukoya [11], 24 heritage value typologies were identified which formed the baseline for assessing a given heritage site through the Heritage Value Calculation [1]. These typologies -classified into four categories (N): (i) form and physicality, (ii) socio-cultural, (iii) economic and use, and (iv) informational value -are tabulated against six heritage dimensions (K) -design, materiality, function, location and context, tradition and techniques, and spirit and memory -forming a heritage value grid whereby all the dimensions of heritage and heritage values carry equal weighting.…”

Defining Historic Townscape Characteristics following Local People’s Perceptions: Developing a Townscape Character Assessment Policy for Chiang Mai Old City, Thailand

“…This value consists of historical values, social values, aesthetic values, and spiritual values (Lipe, 1984;Mason, 2002;Doğan, 2020). Historical values are the core of the heritage concept and the capability to react to the past of heritage objects is significant in explaining their meaning.…”

Computation of heritage values: Towards a holistic method to assess built heritage

“…Research compiled by Mason [13], Yung and Chan [14], de la Torre [11], Doğan [15], Chen and Li [16] and Olukoya [17] formed the basis for Table 1. In this quantitative overview, 37 leading sources from the turn of the twentieth century were classified in terms of the following value typologies: 1) spiritual/religious, 2) cultural/symbolic, 3) social/community, 4) political, 5) anthropological (archaeological and environmental), 6) typological/townscape, 7) contextual, 8) historic, 9) rarity, 10) prestige/legacy, 11) commemorative, 12) aesthetic/artistic, 13) architectural, 14) scientific/structural, 15) technical/constructional, 16) economic, 17) option, 18) use, 19) tourism, 20) evidential, 21) educational, 22) newness, 23) ecological/landscape, and 24) authenticity.…”