• Journal of information and communication convergence engineering
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.129-134
• /
• 2011

Nowadays, most of exhibits are material antiquities while the exhibit of intangible cultural heritage is deficient and the form is less advanced which cannot meet the exhibition needs of digital times. This has resulted in insufficient display of intangible heritage's value which may not facilitate inherit and protection of intangible heritage, no other than protection mechanism of forming healthy industrialization. This article has established digital exhibition mode in museum about intangible cultural heritage by analysis on current museum and using mobile communication and augmented reality techniques. Discuss the mode in the layer integrating creative industry and mobile industry and provide practicable reference project of forming the healthy industrialization mechanism for protecting intangible heritage.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.55 no.1
• /
• pp.35-50
• /
• 2022

The Korean cultural heritage protection act, enacted in 1962, is known to have been enacted in imitation of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act. The Japanese law differs from the current law dealing with intangible cultural heritage, folklore materials, and buried cultural properties. The Japanese law was enacted in consultation with the GHQ, and reflected the historical issues at the time of the enactment. Recently, in Japan, GHQ documents have been released and so research on the cultural heritage protection act is carried out. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the meaning and achievements of the Japanese cultural heritage protection act before comparing it with the Korean law. GHQ stipulated the emperor as a symbolic entity in the Japanese constitution and prescribed the country as a liberal democracy. Influenced by this, the cultural heritage protection act was enacted to identify the people's cultural heritage. Accordingly, the cultural heritage protection committee is a private and independent organization in Japan. The committee designates cultural heritage assets, and it operates as the national museum and the cultural heritage research institute. This system was a part of policy changes shifting cultural heritage management to the private sector. Since many cultural heritages are associated with the imperial family, museums were managed by the imperial family. Meanwhile, the Japanese house of councillors persuaded GHQ, which was negative about including intangible cultural heritage in the cultural heritage protection act. The purpose of this idea was to provide the system of the government support for Japanese imperial court music and dance. In addition, folk materials were included with the consent of the GHQ in that they represent the cultural heritages and the academic achievements of the people at the time in Japan. According to the Korean Law, the subject of designation of cultural heritage is the government, and the cultural heritage committee acts as an advisory body with its limited functions. In the early days, the committee confused the concept of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials. This was because the concepts of cultural property was borrowed from Japanese law and applied to the Korean law without a full understanding. In response, the cultural heritage committee urged the ministry to investigate the current situation in Japan. The cultural heritage committee, mainly consisting of folklore scholars, was confused about the concepts of intangible cultural heritage and folklore materials, but the concept became clear when the enforcement regulations of the cultural heritage protection Act was enacted in 1964.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.34-43
• /
• 2022

This study compared the characteristics of cultural heritage in China and Vietnam, which have developed in the relationship of mutual geopolitical and cultural influence in history, and the following conclusions were made. First, the definition of cultural heritage in China and Vietnam has similar meanings in both countries. In the case of cultural heritage classification, both countries introduced the legal concept of intangible cultural heritage through UNESCO, and have similarities in terms of intangible cultural heritage. Second, while China has separate laws for managing tangible and intangible cultural heritages, Vietnam integrally manages the two types of cultural heritages under a single law. Vietnam has a slower introduction of the concept of cultural heritage than China, but it shows high integration in terms of system. Third, cultural heritages in both China and Vietnam are graded, which is applied differently depending on the type of heritage. The designation method has a similarity in which the two countries have a vertical structure and pass through steps. By restoring the value of heritage and complementing integrity through such a step-by-step review, balanced development across the country is being sought through tourism to enjoy heritage and create economic effects. Fourth, it was confirmed that the cultural heritage management organization has a central government management agency in both countries, but in China, the authority of local governments is higher than that of Vietnam. In addition, unlike Vietnam, where tangible and intangible cultural heritage are managed by an integrated institution, China had a separate institution in charge of intangible cultural heritage. Fifth, China is establishing a conservation management policy focusing on sustainability that harmonizes the protection and utilization of heritage. Vietnam is making efforts to integrate the contents and spirit of the agreement into laws, programs, and projects related to cultural heritage, especially intangible heritage and economic and social as a whole. However, it is still dependent on the influence of international organizations. Sixth, China and Vietnam are now paying attention to intangible heritage recently introduced, breaking away from the cultural heritage protection policy centered on tangible heritage. In addition, they aim to unite the people through cultural heritage and achieve the nation's unified policy goals. The two countries need to use intangible heritage as an efficient means of preserving local communities or regions. A cultural heritage preservation network should be established for each subject that can integrate the components of intangible heritage into one unit to lay the foundation for the enjoyment of the people. This study has limitations as a research stage comparing the cultural heritage system and preservation management status in China and Vietnam, and the characteristic comparison of cultural heritage policies by type remains a future research task.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.30-45
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that transmissions of an intangible cultural heritage in Korea may be cut off because it is separated from human and social environment and protected and managed under the national system. In addition, another purpose is to criticize concept and method dichotomy in the current institution from an ecological perspective and consider the problem that the intangible cultural heritages are transmitted mainly by holders having skills and accomplishments by distinguishing them from others. Furthermore, the last purpose is to suggest a direction of policy emphasizing an importance of establishment of environment which allows nurture, change and development of local people, which may ensure continuous transmission in order to solve the problem and a transmission system of the intangible cultural heritage by using a principle in which the system is operated by self-recovery and natural rule of the ecology. The findings of this study show that seven problems can be analyzed by reviewing concept establishment and protection and transmission measure of intangible cultural heritages according to the Cultural Properties Protection Law, based on the ecological perspective. The protection and transmission methods of the intangible cultural heritage through the cultural heritage ecology are suggested by applying ecological theory to it. The intangible cultural heritage ecology defined in this paper means 'a sustainable community consisting of intangible cultural heritage, subject of activity and physical environment.' Since it is operated according to the principle reflecting the rules and features of natural ecology, it can keep system through self-recovery without an external intervention, as the case of natural ecology.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.1
• /
• pp.146-165
• /
• 2016

With the introduction of the system of recognizing masters of craft and performance skills in 1970, the principle of "preserving the original form," which was already in general use, was adopted as a legal principle in the Cultural Heritage Protection Act. While the concept "original form" can be related to tangible elements of heritage through the Act, the intangibility of craft and performance skills does not allow their pinpointing at a particular temporal period or the identification of a particular master from the past as the basis of an original form. Therefore, those craft or performance skills that are available at the point of recognition of relevant masters must serve as the basis of the original form for the intangible heritage concerned. This means that the principle of preserving the original form of intangible heritage has been implemented not based on a fundamental form of materiality, but rather on the craft or performance skills that may be held by a master at the time of his/her recognition as a "temporary original form." This principle has been observed through intangible heritage transmission and education policies for recognized masters and their trainees, contributing to establish an elitist transmission environment in which public were denied to join the education on intangible heritage. Even with policies guided by the principle of preserving the original form, designated craft and performance skills have been transformed contingent upon given social and environmental conditions, thus hindering the preservation of the original form. Despite the intrinsic limitations of the principle of preserving the original form when applied to intangible heritage, this principle has served as a practical guideline for protecting traditional Korean culture from external influences such as modernization and Westernization, and also as an ultimate goal for the safeguarding of intangible heritage, engendering actual policy effects. The Act on the Safeguarding and Promotion of Intangible Cultural Heritage that comes into effect in March 2016 takes the constantly evolving nature of intangible heritage into consideration and resultantly adopts a concept of "essential form" (jeonhyeong) in place of "original form" (wonhyeong). This new concept allows for any transformations that may take place in the environment surrounding the intangible heritage concerned, and is intended to mitigate the rigidity of the concept of "original form." However, it should be noted that "essential form," which is manifested as the unique significance, knowledge, and skills delivered by the intangible heritage concerned, should be maintained according to the guidelines and principles related to heritage conservation. Therefore, the new concept can be understood not as a rupture, but more as a continuum of the concept of "original form."

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.57 no.1
• /
• pp.180-195
• /
• 2024

Community beliefs of the coastal villages in Gochang are cultural activities and rituals manifesting the hopes and spiritual worlds of the locals who live off the sea and tidal mud. Along with their societal functions wishing for peace, maritime safety, and good catches, the values of the Jwajeongdam (How god came to be), Yuraedam (History of worshipping), and Yeongheomdam (Stories of miracles), as living heritage need to be reexamined according to the recent Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. The community beliefs of the coastal villages in Gochang, where outstanding universal intangible and tangible values coexist, have been perpetually transmitted in interactions with tidal mud and the ecological environments of the sea. They reinforce the "Outstanding Universal Value" UNESCO mentions and sustainability that connects the past, present, and future. Furthermore, a coastal area is endowed with international accessibility over regionality. Hence the community beliefs are charged with eco-cultural values, which its preservation and promotion should also focus on to provide policies and protection activities. In short, the tidal mud and community beliefs of coastal villages in Gochang, which according to the concept of UNESCO's "mixed heritage," meet the values for natural, cultural, and intangible heritage at the same time, and so must be approached not in the scope of points or lines, but also in surfaces when arranging protection initiatives.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.252-269
• /
• 2019

Since the inauguration of the Kim Jong-un regime in 2012, the safeguarding and management system of cultural heritage in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has been changing to a form similar to that of a democratic country's legal system. In addition, the National Authority for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (NAPCH) has continuously recorded and cataloged intangible cultural heritage elements in the DPRK, listing Arirang, kimchi-making, and ssireum on the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Representative List. In particular, the multinational nomination of ssireum in October 2018 is symbolic in terms of inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation for peace and reconciliation, raising expectations for the further multinational nomination of the two Koreas' intangible cultural heritage. Currently, South Korea lists 20 items on its Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, three of which are shared by various countries with multinational nominations such as falconry, tug-of-war, and ssireum. However, when comparing the process of applying for multinational nomination in the three elements that follow, it is necessary to discuss whether these cases reflect the nature of multinational nomination. In particular, in the case of ssireum, without a working-level consultation between the two Koreas to prepare an application for a multinational nomination, each applied for a single registration; these applications were approved exceptionally as a multinational nomination by the Intergovernmental Committee under the leadership of the Secretary-General of UNESCO, and no bilateral exchanges have taken place until now. This is symbolic, formal, and substantially similar to the individual listings in terms of the spirit of co-listing on the premise of mutual exchange and cooperation. Therefore, the only way to strengthen the effectiveness of the multinational nomination between the two Koreas and to guarantee the spirit of multinational nomination is to request multilateral co-registration, including the two Koreas. For this, the Korean government needs a strategic approach, such as finding elements for multilateral co-listing; accumulating expertise, capabilities, and experience as a leading country in multilateral co-listing; and building cooperative governance with stakeholders. Besides, to reduce the volatility of inter-Korean cultural exchanges and cooperation depending on political situations and the special nature of inter-Korean relations, measures should be taken toward achieving inter-Korean cultural heritage exchanges and cooperation under a multilateral cooperation system using UNESCO, an international organization.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.172-187
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the 'tradition' has been identified and used concretely on the protection system of cultural property. Firstly, this paper investigated the historical process and aspects that the 'cultural property' and the 'tradition' combined, each had different meaning at the beginning. And it investigated the linkage of them which effect to the protection system and to each other on the system operated. Then, it pointed out a rift within the discourse of tradition to which the system have held on, and the problems as its result. This paper applied the viewpoint of anti-essentialism that the tradition is presented with hegemonic act to raise the inevitable continuity with the past, instead of the common notion that the tradition is 'everything that is handed down from the past.' Because the cultural property is the product of the state system, to pursne the linkage of it and the tradition is identical to examine how the tradition have been officially defined in the national hegemony. Since the 1920s the tradition has defined as a fixed, essential, pure reality in the changing process of the protection system of cultural property. This essentialist viewpoint about the tradition have been continued as the institutional premise regardless of many critics, raised by studies focusing on the culture and cultural property. But we see now a rift on the discourse of tradition as the intellectual discourse has been supported to the system, that is caused by the fast-changing global economic environment and a rat race around the registration of intangible cultural heritage of UNESCO.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.44 no.4
• /
• pp.18-41
• /
• 2011

The Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Korea has begun since1962 when the Cultural Properties Protection Act was established. Korean ICH Safeguarding system is initially derived from Cultural Properties Protection Act in Japan. Japan has started Important ICH Designation System in 1954 to concede the skills and artistic talents holders, thus it could implement the multilateral system management for adopting different ICH protection systems such as Important Intangible Folklore Properties, Selection and Preservation Techniques, and Documenting Records. However, Korea has solely adopted Important ICH Designation System since Cultural Properties Protection Act was introduced. Korean ICH Safeguarding System represented by the Certification System of ICH Skill Holders is to ensure skills and artistic holders who perform the elements of Intangible Cultural Heritage, and manage the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in order to let the skills and artistic holders instruct inheritors. As a result, it could build up the internal foundation for the diffusion of inheritors and established the related organizations. However, the inheritor-centered protection system has caused many problems as it is being lasted for more than fifty years. Fragmented designation measures, the cultural power of skill holders, and the research and evaluation methods have pointed out the difficulties of safeguarding and preservation measures of ICH. Moreover,the legitimacy of safeguarding system related in the authenticity of transmission in ICH has emerged to review the safeguarding system of ICH with diverse viewpoints. Therefore, this paper will review the implementation process and achievement of ICH safeguarding system to examine the problem and causes of the safeguarding system. The conference records of Cultural Property Association and articles of cultural properties policies directors, Cultural Property Association members, and professional experts are being used for the initial materials of this paper, and it is examined for the contents of designation system of Important Cultural Heritage, rather than overall cases. Thus such problems the limitation of expansion in ICH lists as inheritor-centered designation system, hierarchical and exclusive transmission system, inappropriate concept of archetype as the principle of ICH transmission are derived from the root of Important ICH designation system. Thus this paper demonstrates that this system must be revised for the expansion of ICH safeguarding system in Korea and points out multilateral protection system should be established as well as Certification System of Important ICH skill holders.

• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.52 no.3
• /
• pp.172-187
• /
• 2019

Knowledge of intangible cultural heritage is usually disseminated through word-of-mouth and actions rather than written records. Thus, people assemble to teach others about it and form communities. Accordingly, to understand and spread information about intangible cultural heritage properly, it is necessary to understand not only their attributes but also a community's relational characteristics. Community members include specialized transmitters who work under the auspices of institutions, and general transmitters who enjoy intangible cultural heritage in their daily lives. They converse about intangible cultural heritage in close relationships. However, to date, research has focused only on professionals. Thus, this study focused on the roles of general transmitters of intangible cultural heritage information by investigating intangible cultural heritage communities centering around Jeongseon Arirang; a social network analysis was performed. Regarding the research objectives presented in the introduction, the main findings of the study are summarized as follows. First, there were 197 links between 74 members of the Jeongseon Arirang Transmission Community. One individual had connections with 2.7 persons on average, and all were connected through two steps in the community. However, the density and the clustering coefficient were low, 0.036 and 0.32, respectively; therefore, the cohesiveness of this community was low, and the relationships between the members were not strong. Second, 'Young-ran Yu', 'Nam-gi Kim' and 'Gil-ja Kim' were found to be the prominent figures of the Jeongseon Arirang Transmission Community, and the central structure of the network was concentrated around these three individuals. Being located in the central structure of the network indicates that a person is popular and ranked high. Also, it means that a person has an advantage in terms of the speed and quantity of the acquisition of information and resources, and is in a relatively superior position in terms of bargaining power. Third, to understand the replaceability of the roles of Young-ran Yu, Nam-gi Kim, and Gil-ja Kim, who were found to be the major figures through an analysis of the central structure, structural equivalence was profiled. The results of the analysis showed that the positions and roles of Young-ran Yu, Nam-gi Kim, and Gil-ja Kim were unrivaled and irreplaceable in the Jeongseon Arirang Transmission Community. However, considering that these three members were in their 60s and 70s, it seemed that it would be necessary to prepare measures for the smooth maintenance and operation of the community. Fourth, to examine the subgroup hidden in the network of the Jeongseon Arirang Transmission Community, an analysis of communities was conducted. A community refers to a subgroup clearly differentiated based on modularity. The results of the analysis identified the existence of four communities. Furthermore, the results of an analysis of the central structure showed that the communities were formed and centered around Young-ran Yu, Hyung-jo Kim, Nam-gi Kim, and Gil-ja Kim. Most of the transmission TAs recommended by those members, students who completed a course, transmission scholarship holders, and the general members taught in the transmission classes of the Jeongseon Arirang Preservation Society were included as members of the communities. Through these findings, it was discovered that it is possible to maintain the transmission genealogy, making an exchange with the general members by employing the present method for the transmission of Jeongseon Arirang, the joint transmission method. It is worth paying attention to the joint transmission method as it overcomes the demerits of the existing closed one-on-one apprentice method and provides members with an opportunity to learn their masters' various singing styles. This study is significant for the following reasons: First, by collecting and examining data using a social network analysis method, this study analyzed phenomena that had been difficult to investigate using existing statistical analyses. Second, by adopting a different approach to the previous method in which the genealogy was understood, looking at oral data, this study analyzed the structures of the transmitters' relationships with objective and quantitative data. Third, this study visualized and presented the abstract structures of the relationships among the transmitters of intangible cultural heritage information on a 2D spring map. The results of this study can be utilized as a baseline for the development of community-centered policies for the protection of intangible cultural heritage specified in the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. To achieve this, it would be necessary to supplement this study through case studies and follow-up studies on more aspects in the future.