Abstract

The built heritage, through the multiple meanings it associates (oldness, architectural, aesthetic, symbolic, authenticity), is characterized by uniqueness and irreversibility, being frequently related to the cultural and implicitly tourist image of cities. Due to the seniority of architectural heritage and the special relations established with the place and people, under the direct influence of the socio-cultural and political factors, it ensures the accumulation of symbols that codify the urban space. As a result, heritage buildings are associated with elements of territorial identity. Visual imagery is used as an argument to support the process of selecting significant buildings for local / national culture. These are promoted among the general public. Most of the time, the selection process aims at identifying representative buildings, a process that registers the influence of socio-cultural and politic factors. This article focuses on the socio-cultural evolution of the Romanian Athenaeum, a symbolic building of the Romanian culture. Based on a rich background of historical illustrations and recent observations, the authors analysed the symbols associated with the Romanian Athenaeum, in various historical periods. The authors used a sample of picture postcards with representations of the Athenaeum and interpreted the information they provided. The key results show the cultural role of the Athenaeum for the capital city, Bucharest, and its relation with the political factor, as this building was selected as the host for important political events with a deep historical charge, most often having the support of national authorities. In the course of time, the Athenaeum was represented constantly in picture postcards, as cultural building symbol and tourist attraction, due to its unique characteristics which emphasize its role as element of urban identity for Bucharest. At the same time, the interpretation of visual imagery allowed the decoding of the symbols and identification of the identity narrative and politics built around the Athenaeum, which, through the interactions generated by the socio-cultural and political plans, confer it the quality of symbolic building for the national and European culture.

Highlights

  • The architectural and art heritage represents the elements through which cities identify in various ways: as cultural expressions, as support for development (Youssef, 2018), and as functional links between people and the environment, buildings being part of the physical environment (Elhagla, Nassar & Ragheb 2020)

  • Each city is unique from the perspective of its cultural heritage that imprints particular features in terms of urban fabric, as well as a specific atmosphere imprinted by the elements of intangible heritage, collages of history, prominent personalities of the city and the interactions that take place in the respective urban space (UNDESA, 2012)

  • The Athenaeum was conceived as a cultural institution with a significant role in revitalizing the cultural life of the capital city and, as a result, it was necessary to identify a location in the centre of Bucharest

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The architectural and art heritage represents the elements through which cities identify in various ways: as cultural expressions, as support for development (Youssef, 2018), and as functional links between people and the environment, buildings being part of the physical environment (Elhagla, Nassar & Ragheb 2020). Old buildings generate an emotional response from the viewer (Watson & Waterson, 2010; Kepczynska-Walczak & Walczak, 2015) They are a symbol of the past, but which has a present The materiality of cultural objectives consists of their authenticity value , the preservation of original forms, the privilege of being selected from the mass of architectural monuments (Watson & Waterson, 2010), the aesthetic value associated with works of painting, sculpture (Kharitonov, Smirnova & Vilenskii, 2019), which gives heritage buildings uniqueness and irreversibility (Sache, 2009, quoted by Iorgulescu et al, 2011; KepczynskaWalczak & Walczak, 2015), social, symbolic, scientific, commemorative values (Bedate, Herrero & Sanz, 2004; Mason, 2002; Matečić, 2016; Merciu et al, 2020; Munasinghe, 2000; Navrud, 2005; Throsby, 2002; Vukonić, 2018; Yung, Yu & Chan, 2013)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call