Built Heritage Management: An Australian Perspective

Abstract

In a recent article published by the International Journal of Cultural Property, “What Does Not Move Any Hearts—Why Should It Be Saved? The Denkmalpflegediskussion in Germany,” Dr. Cornelius Holtorf reviewed an expert report by Dieter Hoffmann-Axthelm, an architectural critic and author of several books on the history of architecture and urban planning, to the German Parliament on the principles and practices of state heritage management in that country. Of Hoffmann-Axthelm's criticisms, the most resonating was the view that heritage management processes in Germany were often patronizing, centralized, and undemocratic. Although his proposed remedies are abundant, some might be interpreted as being divisive, if not contentious. Hoffmann-Axthelm's central argument is that heritage management processes should be driven by the public and, thus, further decentralized.This paper is a response to an invitation by Holtorf for international comparisons and discussion. It aims to present an overview of Australia's approach to heritage management and discuss a number of issues, raised by Hoffmann-Axthelm, and questions, particularly the merits associated with the concept of “democratising heritage,” posed by Holtorf.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I wish to thank Dr. Patrick J. O'Keefe for being an inspirational mentor, and am grateful for the thoughtful comments and suggestions provided by Dr. Greg Terrill and Dr. Kirsty Douglas, and the unwavering support and patience of love ones. Opinions in this piece and any errors of fact or interpretation are my own and in no way represent the views of the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.