Month: November 2020

Although this year has been particularly difficult, ALDA is even more determined to support local and participative democracy as well as to strengthen citizens’ local approach and resilience.

With its 20th anniversary and also taking into consideration the crisis generated by the worldwide outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which adds to other already existing challenges, ALDA adopted a new Strategic Plan for 2020-2024 during the Annual General Assembly to increase the impact of its action and we are now proud and excited to present our networks this new strategy!

With the aim of outlining the new strategic plan, the key objectives, the vision and ALDA’s driving forces, we are thrilled to announce the launch of 4 regional webinars, free and open to ALDA’s members and partner, which will take place during the month of December:

• 7 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with European area members and partners REGISTER HERE!

• 14 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with Mediterranean area members and partners. REGISTER HERE!

• 17 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with Balkan area members and partners. REGISTER HERE!

• 21 December/ at 2 pm CET – regional meeting with Eastern Partnership area members and partners. REGISTER HERE!

Oriano Otocan, President of ALDA and Antonella Valmorbida, ALDA General Secretary, together with the Regional Coordinators and the representatives of the new Governing Board, will unfold the vision of the quadrennial plan and will share with members and partners the new strategic views.

Democracy and citizens’ engagement are and will be a key factor for unlocking positive and constructive proposals for the future and, ALDA, together with its members and partners, wants to be at the centre of a successful proposal in order to design and activate positive changes while confronting the main current challenges.

Don’t miss the chance of discovering the new priorities of ALDA and to discuss further how to implement the plan in accordance with your local and regional priorities!

Join us online!

The first meeting, in English, will be dedicated to our members and partners in Europe. At the end of the seminar, we would love to discuss with participants the general situation and receive your feedback on the issues you are facing in this critical period.

Join us on December the 7^th at 2 pm CET! Please REGISTER HERE!

After registering, you will receive an email with the instructions to join the event.

***

Stay tuned for the forthcoming updates!

We are looking forward to meeting you online!

***

Stay tuned for the forthcoming updates!

An interview with Vladimir Martinovski, professor at the University of “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” in Skopje, Department of Comparative Literature, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Vladimir Martinovski is a poet, prose writer, literary critic, translator and musician. He is a professor at the General and Comparative Literature Department of the “Blaze Koneski” Faculty of Philology, “Ss Cyril and Methodius” University, Skopje. He received his Bachelor and Master’s degrees at the Faculty of Philology, and his PhD at the University of the New Sorbonne – Paris III. He has authored the following books: “From Image to Poem – Interference between Contemporary Macedonian Poetry and Fine Arts” (a study, 2003), “Maritime Moon” (haiku and tanka, 2003), “Hidden Poems”
(haiku, 2005), “And Water and Earth and Fire and Air” (haiku, 2006), “Comparative Triptychs” (studies and essays, 2007), “Les Musées imaginaires” or “Imaginary Museums” (a study, 2009), “A Wave Echo” (haibuns, 2009), “Reading Images – Aspects of Ekphrastic Poetry” (a study, 2009) and “Quartets” (poetry, 2010). He co-edited the books: “Ut Pictura Poesis – Poetry in Dialogue with Plastic Arts – a Thematic Selection of Macedonian Poetry” (with Nuhi Vinca, 2006), “Metamorphoses and Metatexts” (with Vesna Tomovska, 2008).

If we are to promote our rich cultural heritage, then the most logical thing to do is to preserve both the tangible and intangible cultural heritage in writing… consequently literature. Literature survives the test of time and is always apprehended. Interviewing Vladimir Martinovski on issues related to ‘shared or contested heritage’ gave us very knowledgeable, tasty and rich context in the research.

Cultural heritage tends to promote the creation of icons, which simultaneously tend to create stereotypes that risk negatively affecting individuals and groups. Such an icon needs to be critically deconstructed. What is your opinion about this discourse?

Vladimir: As the word suggests, cultural heritage is something we have inherited from previous generations. And, as well, we have borrowed it from the future ones, on behalf of whom we have an obligation to protect it. Yet, cultural heritage is something we should earn. Let us enter into living communication and save it from oblivion. Cultural heritage should enrich and ennoble our lives. To help us better understand the people of the past, and better understand each other today. To help us understand that the great achievements in art and culture belong to all mankind as signposts pointing out the best in any human. Andre Malraux said that art is one of the few things that humanity can be proud of. But when the complexity of cultural heritage is neglected, and simplifications are made based on looking through the national dioptre, it is quite easy to fall into the traps of stereotypes such as “we are the cultured ones, the others are the barbarians”. Therefore, the creation of “icons”” has two faces. On one hand, it is good to have examples from people of the past, to know and respect their meaning, and to constantly strive for their achievements and values. But even here a measure is needed. On the other hand, there is the danger of indulging in the temptations of uncritical idealisation, hyperbole, and simplification, which can lead to an idolatrous relationship, emptied of essence.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Vladimir: Words are always necessary, so there is a huge responsibility in them. The novelist Michel Butor said that all “”dumb artefacts” (artistic or architectural) are interpreted with the help of verbal discourse, “which surrounds them”, starting from the titles of the works. In other words, material, immovable cultural heritage, among other things, requires to be interpreted, explained through language. The attitude towards cultural heritage could certainly be compared to “reading” and interpreting stories. Some stories go on for millennia, some are forgotten. If the present or future generations are not shown the value, meaning, uniqueness of an object from the past, they could neglect it completely, leaving it to oblivion and the “ravages of time”. Cultural heritage requires care. Although intangible, language is also a cultural heritage site, one of the most valuable. It is through language that we realise that cultural heritage is something alive, in which each of us participates.

When dealing with shared history and heritage, international cooperation has the potential to foster more understanding within and between cultures. Do you agree? What is your personal experience?

Vladimir: International cooperation is crucial for both mutual understanding as well as understanding the concept of cultural heritage. Although there is a tendency to talk about national cultural heritage, which is quite legitimate, in essence no culture exists in isolation from others and all great achievements in culture belong to all mankind. As a phenomenon, culture is a palimpsest and the whole of culture is essentially shared. Understanding many phenomena in art, literature and culture at the national level necessarily leads us to intercultural dialogues, exchanges, as well as facing the fact that there are regional cultural achievements, as well as larger cultural zones. Great art crosses all boundaries. I have participated in many international literary festivals, where literary works are practiced by the authors to be read in the mother tongue, and then read in translation so that the local audience can understand them. It is wonderful to hear the diversity of languages, the different “music” of each language. Poets create in a language they inherited from their ancestors. But every song in the original and when translated, is not only the fruit of a linguistic tradition, it also belongs to world literature. Some of the most beautiful achievements in all segments of art are created precisely because of the mixing of cultures.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Vladimir: Unfortunately, just as material heritage (from fields to old family homes) can be a kind of “apple of discord”, likewise is the nationality of important personalities, artists or works of art from the past get bitterly disputed. Instead of critically perceiving the importance, value, and worth of those individuals or works, the discourse of belonging and possession is sometimes forced and absolutised. Some authors belong to more cultures and I do not see anything wrong with that. On the contrary. There are authors who have created in multiple languages, in multiple environments, under the influence of multiple cultures and poetics. Instead of stubbornly arguing over their belonging to a single culture, it is far better to look at them as bridges between cultures or as a common, shared value.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)? 

Vladimir: The epithets you enumerate are beautiful: diversity and pluralism and self-reflection and criticism are needed, as well as scientific acrimony and readiness for different opinions, arguments and interpretations. Cultural heritage should be preserved, nurtured, to be a part of our lives.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Vladimir: As an example for shared heritage I could point to the poem “Ο Αρματωλός” / “The Serdar” (1860) by Gligor Prlichev (1830-1893), a work written in Greek, in which thematic patterns and stylistic features from Homer’s epics, the Byzantine epic tradition, the Renaissance epic and the Macedonian folklore are intertwined in a masterful way, all through the talent of an exceptional poet, who received the epithet “the Second Homer”. This poetic masterpiece dedicated to the death of the hero Kuzman Kapidan has been translated many times in both Bulgarian and Macedonian, and with its value certainly enters among the most important literary works created not only in the Balkans, but also in Europe in the XIX century. As an example of shared heritage, I would like to point out the Old Slavic language, Old Slavic literacy and literature, as a common root of all Slavic languages, including, of course, Macedonian. Challenging the authenticity of the Macedonian language due to daily political agendas which we are witnessing these days is extremely problematic, as it could translate as a challenge or dispute of the Macedonian literature, art and culture.

In a context of uncertainties and dystopias, what is the role of cultural heritage?

Vladimir: In these pandemic circumstances, we have all become convinced of the fragility, vulnerability and insecurity of today’s humanity. Due to insatiable consumerism and greed for profit, we have become a threat to other forms of existence, as well as to our cultural heritage. In a short time, our everyday life began to look like a dystopian novel. We have seen that war conflicts in the last decade in different parts of the world have irreversibly damaged significant cultural treasures. The economic crisis that is inseparable from the pandemic crisis can also affect the neglect of cultural heritage. However, let us not give in to pessimism. Just as Boccaccio’s Decameron was created during a plague epidemic, these difficult months on our planet are sure to create works of art that will grow into a significant cultural heritage site. We learn to appreciate some things only when we realise that we can easily lose them.

One of the challenges for researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural heritage is to develop more inclusive approaches to share heritage in order to transgress social and national boundaries. Any ideas on how this approach could be implemented into your particular field of interest?

Vladimir: We live in a digital age, in which inclusiveness and accessibility to different forms of cultural heritage is also realised through the Internet: from digitised manuscripts and books to accessible sound libraries and virtual visits to buildings and museums. These “digital versions” of cultural heritage are important both for archiving, as well as for new ways of presentation, close to contemporary and future generations. However, this does not exonerate us from the responsibility for permanent protection of the existing cultural heritage.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Vladimir: I agree with Holtorf. It is in these times of crisis that we see how much these values are needed, and to what extent the values and virtues of humanism and global solidarity have been forgotten. We are all connected and we can all help each other in many areas, with the care for cultural heritage being one of them.

When we discuss shared or contested heritage, the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Vladimir: We can learn a lot from the past. Among other things, that we should not allow ourselves to sacrifice the present and the future for the sake of the past. As difficult and arduous as they are, mutual reconciliation, acceptance and cooperation are the real tasks of today’s generations, to leave a better world for future generations.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

Coalition of youth organizations SEGA worked on the project IMPACT – Inclusion matters!, implementing its activities, including local youth, foreigners residing in the country and the diligent hands of young children. In fact, we were working on a mutual message that was sent by drawing a picture on a canva.

The process of art stimulates emotional and cognitive development, enabling the creation of connections as well as reducing destructive behavior in people, regardless of their attitudes. Through art and expression, in particular through a picture we provided to the participants when organizing local workshops, our goal was to enable social inclusion and active involvement of local youth as well as inclusion of those who left their country and decided to continue living in our country, crossing through the risks and the fears of the unknown.

By organizing more activities of this kind, we strive to move forward to animate citizens with a different spectrum, offering opportunities for social inclusion, by overcoming social prejudices, acquiring skills, techniques, and also learning about new cultures and traditions.

Art is one of the most important and powerful ways to get involved in society. Involvement is important!

Author: Lela Jurukova, Coalition of youth organizations SEGA

An interview with Maria Tsantsanoglou, Acting General Director at MOMus and the artistic director of MOMus-Museum of Modern Art- Costakis Collection, Thessaloniki, Greece, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Maria Tsantsanoglou is Acting General Director at MOMus and the artistic director of MOMus-Museum of Modern Art- Costakis Collection in Thessaloniki, Greece. Her research field and publications mostly refer to the period of Russian avant-garde. She has specifically dealt with subjects such as synthesis of arts, visualpoetry, art and politics as well as with Russian and Greek contemporary art and contemporary art in Caucasus and Central Asia. She was member of the State Committee of the Ministry of Culture for the Costakis Collection reception (1998). She collaborated with the Ministry of Press and Mass Media as a scientific associate on subjects related to the cultural furtherance and promotion at the Greek Embassy in Moscow (1994-1997) and later on as Press Attaché (1997 – 2002). She taught History of Greek Art at the Moscow State Lomonosov University (1997-2001). She published a significant number of articles  and participated in numerous conferences in Greece and abroad. She was the co-curator of the 1^st Thessaloniki Biennale of Contemporary Art (2007) and the director of the 2^nd Thessaloniki Biennale of Contemporary Art (2009). She established an excellent cooperation with the Museum of Contemporary Art in Skopje and hereafter she shares with us her opinion on ‘shared or contested heritage’.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Maria: Tangible and intangible cultural heritage has the peculiarity that on the one hand it is transmitted, protected and valued, but on the other hand it is identified and redefined by society itself as it belongs to it. Cultural heritage cannot be imposed and impressed through artificial ways neither in society as a whole nor in a part of society. In this sense, any different approach of cultural heritage by part of the society should be governed by the rules of respect for human rights.

Which are peaceful and tolerant ways of reading and presenting facts about the shared history or contested history according to you?

Maria: History, shared history as well, has the objectivity of the recorded facts (what undoubtedly happened) and the subjectivity of their interpretation. It has also been many times a subject of falsification. History is studied and taught by scholars, who present the facts and openly discuss them and is not an object of political manipulation. When politicians deal with history for nationalistic reasons, people should be cautious.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Maria: I represent a big cultural organisation for visual arts in Thessaloniki and I consider the cooperation with North Macedonia important and seriously pursued it not only out of self-interest but because I believe that this could mutually enrich our relationship. I met exceptional, creative and inspiring people in North Macedonia. I am especially speaking about the colleagues from the Museum of Contemporary Art of Skopje who also sought a substantial cooperation with us but I am sure that this practice applies to other institutions as well. Now we have the best possible relations, we are very proud to be friends with great prospects for further mutual cultural events.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Maria: The organisation of two exhibitions, one produced by the Museum of Contemporary Art (MoCA) in Skopje and presented in Thessaloniki entitled “All that we have in common” and the other produced by the MOMus – Museum of Contemporary Art of Thessaloniki and presented in Skopje entitled “Am I that name or that image” gave the first incentive of a case study. Other collaborations will follow that will embrace the culture of our region as we believe that what unites us is much more and important than what may separate us.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Maria:I believe that cultural heritage does not always belong exclusively to a single nation but leaves its mark on a wider geographical area, where different nations interact and share common experiences over time. Hence the rich common Balkan folk tradition in music, dances, fairy tales etc. This interaction should be seen as a treasure trove of cooperation and good relationships.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Maria: I would rather not talk about fixed national narratives but about important cultural events that have been recorded in the collective memory through heritage and oral tradition and have been historically recorded and preserved.

Of course, these retain their importance as long as they are listed as acts that promote human values and protect the peoples’ freedom and social justice with emphasis not on hostility but on the question of brotherhood and good neighbourliness of the peoples.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Maria: I think that my previous answer partly answers this question as well. Cultural heritage can be the best example of cultural dialogue and cooperation when it is not limited to the national narrative and, of course, when it is not interpreted to serve narrow nationalistic purposes. Especially when there are similar features of cultural heritage, such as music, folk dances, fairy tales, as is often the case in the Balkan region.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Maria: Culture can also be defined as a tool for better understanding and defence of humanitarian values, it speaks an all-human language and nations contribute with their cultural achievements to this universal language. In this sense, cultural exchanges contribute to the building of a better future.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)?

Maria: Definitely, I do believe this. Through pluralism, diversity and participation, cultural workers aim to create conditions of tolerance and mutual understanding that could potentially solve such obstacles.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience reads the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Maria: Genuine art does not have one single level of interpretation, it is the object of thought and not of absolute knowledge. A creation that is interpreted unilaterally and one-dimensionally is either incomplete as a work of art or its approach is problematic.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

ALDA’s 20^th anniversary continues affirming itself as an unforgettable year of innovation and expansion, despite all the challenges 2020 has surely not spared us.

The celebrations of such an important milestone started with several meetings, which then became webinars, to showcase achievements and regional actions and, last but not least, to thank ALDA members and partners whose support and cooperation acted as the main fuel of all our accomplishments.

Changing perspective, ALDA’s 20^th anniversary brought with it a remarkable transformation of the overall visual identity of the Association, with a new logo and….a brand new website!

Growing as a more and more structured and articulated Organisation, ALDA has now a new web page reflecting in a clearer way its scope and objective. Accordingly, the highlight of the whole renovation process can be summarised in the importance of the visual impact of ALDA, displaying at a glance the geographical area covered by our actions and network through several interactive maps located in key pages.

Wider space has been consecrated to our projects, both the active and the ended ones, and to LDAs, members, ambassadors and networks, with a dedicated section for each of them!

Not less important, ALDA+ finally has its specific section illustrating all trainings and the services we provide!

While there would be much more to say, we want to let our followers the pleasure of discovery! Enjoy the new www.alda-europe.eu and.. let us know your feedbacks!!

An interview with prof. Darija Andovska, composer, pianist and author of orchestral, chamber, solo, vocal, film, theatre and dance music, as well as music for multimedia projects, by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Darija Andovska is a Macedonian trademark in the field of contemporary music, being a composer, pianist and author of chamber, solo, orchestral, symphonic, choral music as well as film music, theater, dance and multimedia projects. Her works have been performed on festivals and concerts in North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, Georgia, France, England, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Austria, Albania, Russia, Mexico, Canada, Poland, Romania, Armenia and the United States of America. Her music has been recorded on CDs and sold in Switzerland, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Italy, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Germany, and her scores have been published by Nuova Stradivarius – Italy, Sordino – Switzerland, Association of Composers – North Macedonia. Won several competitions, nominated and awarded as well for film and theater music all over the world. Chosen by MusMA (Music Masters on Air) as one of the best young composers in Europe for 2013/2014. Nominated (2014) and twice awarded (2013, 2015) the “Virtuoso” award for Best Composer in Macedonia. Won the Cultural Honor Award of the City of Zürich – Best Composer in 2014. Macedonian music ambassador for the project CEEC 17+1 between China and central- and east European countries for 2016/2017 and 2018-2020. Awarded state prize “Panche Peshev” 2018 for highest achievements in music art. Andovska is an artistic director of the Days of Macedonian Music festival, under the Association of Composers of Macedonia – SOKOM. Works as professor at the Faculty for music and Faculty for dramatic arts at the State University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius” in Skopje.

Music is also an integral part of the cultural heritage. Very often, contemporary musicians find inspiration in the traditional sounds and intertwine some elements of ethno-folklore in contemporary compositions in order to transmit the spirit of belonging to a certain place. Mrs Andovska being an educator (as a professor at the Academy of Music in Skopje) and an active creator in the field of culture and, as well as being a constructive critic of the Macedonian modern society, is appropriate relevant interlocutor on the topic of our research on shared or disputed inheritance.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Darija:  Our heritage is not what we choose it to be. It’s the environment that shapes our thoughts, beliefs, even our taste ever since we were kids, like the environment shapes up and directs the stem cells to develop into different tissues. It’s not about how it is presented to the public, it is already a part of us. The public that doesn’t come with the same heritage, can just observe it and accept it as it is, as a cultural diversity or partly relate to it, if there’s any connection. There’s actually no challenge in this, unless it’s put in the context of daily politics.

When dealing with shared history and heritage, international cooperation has the potential to foster more understanding within and between cultures. Do you agree? What is your personal experience?

Darija: I don’t see why this “shared history” is so prominent in the case of Macedonia. I don’t see any other countries dealing with such a problem or claiming to have shared history. Let’s challenge Greece and Turkey to have a shared history and heritage, or Greece and Bulgaria, or France and Germany, or Serbia and Croatia and Slovenia… let’s stop here. No, it doesn’t have a potential to foster more understanding, but just more oppression towards one of the parties involved.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Darija: These subjects are not in my particular field of interest. I am interested in contemporary music, moreover, ethno-music has, despite some similarities, completely different parameters in each country, so it cannot be construed as “shared” heritage.

In a context of uncertainties and dystopias, what is the role of cultural heritage?

Darija: Cultural heritage is the environment in which we develop.

Can we achieve reconciliation with the help of music (and its differences and similarities) if we place it in a new context?

Darija: There’s no dispute that requires reconciliation in these matters. It’s just different. You cannot reconcile it.

One of the challenges for researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural heritage is to develop more inclusive approaches to share heritage in order to transgress social and national boundaries. Any ideas on how this approach would be implemented into your particular field of interest?

Darija: Yes, it’s a challenge because this approach is artificial. It’s redundant.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them,” said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Darija: That’s not the case with cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is alive and intertwined in all segments of our day to day life, in one way or another. It’s in the language (the rhythm), it’s in the lullabies, it’s in the anatomy structure and many other aspects.  This sitation may be applicable to some history books.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Darija: Yes, we can all add up to this and enrich the world, but not on the account of one nation or another.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Darija: I hope not. Having our own cultural heritage, language, history, etc. is a part of our basic human rights.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview with Tosho Spiridonov, historian, anthropologist and archaeologist from Sophia, Bulgaria, by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Tosho Spiridonov is a leading expert in the field of ancient Thrace, historical geography, historical ethnography, anthropology, archaeology and has particular expertise in digitisation of cultural and historical heritage. He is an associate professor of history at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and director of the National Centre for Digitalisation of the National Scientific Expeditionary Club UNESCO. Mr Spiridonov participated in the creation of numerous projects in the fields of cultural tourism, ethnology and folklore. He was a director at the Museum of History and an expert at the Ministry of Culture.

He has great collaboration with colleagues from North Macedonia, very close exchange with the Faculty of Philosophy at the University “St. Cyril and Methodius”, especially in the field of digitalisation of the cultural heritage and in the creation of a software for the Museums in Macedonia that is ready for implementation.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Tosho: The answer to all questions related to historical heritage has been and will always be complex. It is complex because it has always been influenced by the political situation, which pursues its own goals, and in the name of which it is ready to ignore the historical truth which in itself is complex. That is why heritage should be seen as something that has two sides. One side is the legacy related to the lives of the people who created it, who actually participated in its creation and used it in their daily lives. The other side is to contextualise the heritage through the perspective present life. The present context dictates to scientists and politicians (because they study, use and present this heritage to today’s people) what exactly to say, how exactly to present heritage, having today’s tasks that they have to solve.That is why the analysis of heritage has two sides that must be clearly defined and presented to the people: in what historical context this heritage was created; how we “read” this legacy today. Without this unity, society will always be subject to the influence of one or the other side of the heritage’s interpretation. That is why I believe that presenting heritage in its integrality is very important for today’s society in order to understand its past and participate in building its future.

Which are peaceful and tolerant ways of reading and presenting facts about  shared or contested history according to you?

Tosho: Reading history has two sides. One side is personal, because everyone reads it, breaking it through their personal history. For example, in Bulgaria I see that there are people who curse the time of socialism, because then the government took away some of their property  or they suffered other type of losses as a result of the system. Others, on the contrary, regret socialism, because this system  gave them the opportunity to study and achieve something in their lives. And although this example is not directly related to heritage, it is indicative of the refraction of common history through personal history. How to read and present historical facts?

The simple answer is – through compromises on both sides, in the name of the future of both parties in the dispute. If there are insurmountable points of contention, they must be set aside. They should be the subject of calm scientific debates and discussions, with all the source materials and evidence on the table. Throughout these discussions, both sides should not be subjected to political and media pressure until a positive result is achieved.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Tosho: Yes, I have cooperation with colleagues from North Macedonia. So far I have no difficulties in this cooperation – on the contrary, I meet a positive response to our initiatives and I respond alike to their initiatives.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Tosho: I work in the field of ancient history, historical geography and archaeology. With the DIOS Society and the National Research and Expedition Club – UNESCO – Sofia  we engaged in cooperation with colleagues from the University of Skopje and the archaeological site in Stobi and we jointly developed software for the work of Macedonian museums and it is ready for implementation in practice.

Together with my colleague Svilen Stoyanov we participated in a conference in Ohrid, dedicated to the preservation of cultural heritage in North Macedonia.

I must say that I see small issues pertaining to the lack of geographical coordinates of each archaeological site, which will prevent the localisation of these sites in their exact place on the archaeological map and will make it difficult to work together. However, it opens room for a joint work in which we could cooperate – we can train Macedonian archaeologists to deal with this problem, which is essential in archaeological practice; the same is true of ethnographers and historians.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Tosho: Remembering the past is a matter of experience, and the experience is either personal or public. The personal experience of the past determines “my” attitude towards this past, which may not coincide with the public one. Social experience depends on many factors, the most important of which is the goal of today’s society and by what means can this goal will be achieved. Public experience forms the national context of cultural heritage, because it determines what selected points of reference in the history of this society will lay in the pursuit of its current goals. The regional context is something else, and it depends on the geographical location, on the local development of the given area and on the relations with the neighbouring areas. One geographical area may be more related or less related to another, and this is the most important factor as we go back in time. It all depends on the geographical location – whether an important trade route passes through a given region, whether the conditions allow a certain craft to develop, whether the region is influenced by this or that neighbouring region.Each region belongs to one or other society/state. All this happened as a consequence of the historical development of the given lands. Therefore, it is the job of this society/state to take into account the interests of each region that has fallen as a result of this historical development in this society/state. In this manner only will it be possible to build a cohesive society – when the interests of each region are taken into account. Neglecting the interests of a region leads to differences in society, which in turn leads to an unstable society. Hence the answer to the question – each region wants to preserve samples of its culture – restored, preserved, displayed. Because the further back in time we go, the greater the differences in cultural development between the different regions we see due to the weaker communications between the different regions of a country.Man has not come up with many different ways to share the patterns of cultural heritage. In summary, these are three ways – research, education and cultural tourism, each has its own specifics and can be considered at length.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them, said Anderson in 1991.” Do you agree with this citation and why?

Tosho: What Anderson says is mostly about national stories, and it’s true. What is the purpose of these stories? The national narrative has one important task – to unite the people of one territory by telling a chronologically constructed story that tells them the historical truth about themselves. He somewhat ignores the past, because there may be facts that will make one doubt whether this society is really as homogeneous as presented, whether there are no separate groups of people in it who think differently, and so on. In other words – if we start from the rule that the nation is a new stage in the ethnic development of society, it must have its own history; with it begins a new ethnic formation.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Tosho: The national narrative built on humanism and global solidarity is in the same direction as Anderson’s thinking. The same is important for Holtroff – he thinks that in no cultural heritage can be found in the past that would unite the population of a given country in the present. That is why it is important to find a new heritage – these are new “monuments of cultural heritage”, subordinated to humanism, to solidarity between the people in a country. Leaving aside to some extent the specific suggestion of the old monuments, these new “monuments” are universal, and they will unite people in the name of the future goal. These may be brand new monuments, but they may also be some of the past that will receive a new interpretation, subject to the goal – to unite the population around a single red thread – from the past. However, these old monuments must be carefully selected so as not to disturb the feelings of people who perceive them differently.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Tosho: The past is the past! It must not be distorted or transformed in the light of today’s political or national tasks. Such a transformation will lead to greater complications within the society/state itself and to greater difficulties in solving today’s tasks. A new nation must be built on two main pillars. The first is the past, the second is the future. The past – no matter what it is, is not crucial, it only tells us that a population lived in this area in the past. That is why a certain point in time is chosen, from which the gradual formation of the new nation begins – no matter what the reasons. It is important what the roots are, but more important is what today’s population creates, how they process the knowledge about themselves. It could be as (planting one variety of apple on another tree – a rough but true principle – the roots are old, with their “history”, but the apple already represents a new variety, and this is more important.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)?

Tosho: I believe that anyone who deals with cultural heritage and works with good intentions and commitment can solve at least one of the problems. The disputed heritage must be considered in the context of the time in which it was created. At that precise moment it met the requirements of that society. However, viewed in the context of today’s society heritage looks (or presents itself) in a different way. It’s all a matter of how today’s society “sees” this legacy, not what it represented then. In the theory of the ethnos, each new ethnic group is built on the basis of at least two other, relatively different ethnic groups. If we do not recognise these ethnic groups, then obviously we will have difficulties in building “ours”, today’s ethnic group.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Tosho: As is well known, politics is an art of compromise. If the story is written in a way that respects the views of both parties, anyone who reads it can find in it what interests them. Then the cultural heritage will be clearer, understandable and accepted by society.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview with Sanja Ivanovska Velkoska, archaeologist and conservator in the National Center for conservation of Skopje, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Sanja Ivanovska Velkoska is a PhD in archaeology, employed in the National Center for conservation in Skopje. As an expert in the field of archaeology and conservation she has considerable experience as an external consultant for other institutions and sites for protection of cultural heritage. Mrs Ivanovska Velkoska wrote a lot of scientific papers, participated in many scientific conferences and was on a scientific residency in Belgrade, Serbia and Lund, Sweden. Her wide knowledge in protection of cultural heritage in theory and practice makes her an excellent interlocutor on the issues related to shared or contested heritage.

What is heritage, how does it work and what does it mean for people with different backgrounds?

Sanja: The material and cultural values we inherited from our ancestors and their ancestors are what should be called cultural heritage. Unfortunately, its interpretation in different environments is often characterised with contrasting content.

Do you think that heritage institutions should be more inclusive or exclusive? Is it important to be clear about whose stories are being presented, by whom and for which purposes? Some practices point towards an inclusive approach through the restructuration of institutions and the fostering of supportive leadership. What do you think about this approach?

Sanja: If we want the general population to know what cultural heritage is and to nurture and preserve it unconditionally, then the institutions must make it easier to access and promote it more and in a suitable manner among the wide public. The reasons for presenting cultural heritage are not important at all because it should not be owned at all.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from Greece and Bulgaria and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Sanja: In the past, we had a greater institutional cooperation with many neighbouring countries, but that practice has slowly been declining in the last eight years. This is not due to any policies, but is a result of the extremely poor management of the institution in which I work. On a personal level, contacts with colleagues are maintained regularly. Even at my own expense, in my free time I establish connections with countries with which we have not cooperated so far. But all work remains based on a personal incentive or at the level of a small interdisciplinary group that has the idea to bring new techniques, technologies and methods of cultural heritage management from all aspects (pertaining to research work, conservation/restoration, presentation and popularisation).

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Sanja: Yes, it is in practice, but it should not be. Cultural heritage must never have ethnic, religious, gender or any other contextual framework. On the contrary, I believe that all cultural heritage belongs to each of us, a part of our past and affects our present and future.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Sanja: As a SIDA Fellow winner, I participated in an advanced training program on Conservation and Management of Historic Buildings at Lund University in Lund, Sweden, where I presented my case study on “Conservation and Presentation of the South Gate of the Archaeological Site Skopje fortress”. The approach at that time was guided by the principles of Europa Nostra, which have been observed and applied in my professional work regarding the integral protection of archaeological sites as cultural heritage.

What is the impact of cultural heritage on solving issues related with shared or contested heritage?

Sanja: In practice, none. Theorists can find many points of contact and influences, but the operative is aware that in practice in our country it is just a dead letter on paper.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Sanja: The meanings are not as important as the approach and the attitude towards cultural heritage. We are aware that cultural heritage as a category of culture is always on the margins in our country. All efforts to amend that are still in the making, while in practice it is shown that various irrelevant populist manifestations receive more publicity, and thus more funds than any project for the protection of cultural heritage.

No one can say that a piece of cultural heritage belongs to someone, unless they personally inherited it from their parents. What we as a society care about belongs to all of us.Popularisation is the most important way to share the value of cultural heritage, and thus to increase interest in it. In a popular existence, any cultural heritage is much easier to manage and can even be made self-sustaining.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Sanja: Unfortunately, this is often the case. However, there are occasional attempts to integrate the cultural heritage, which comprehensively analyses the problems, and hence the reactions to action are interdisciplinary. I repeat, this is very rare, but so far it has proven to be a successful practice. And as long as we keep treating cultural heritage from only one aspect, we will never come up with nearly ideal solutions.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Sanja: Yes, of course it can.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Sanja: Yes, I think so. As long as we use rich and cumbersome vocabulary with professional terms in cultural heritage stories, our target group will be the only group of people who can understand us. Those who do understand us are usually part of our professional circles or colleagues. In that case, we have completely missed the goal for popularisation of cultural heritage.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An Interview with Alexandros Stamatiou, photo reporter from Athens, Greece, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Alexandros Stamatiou is a photo reporter originating from Athens, Greece.  Mr Stamatiou has an impressive portfolio of photographs and documentary videos relating the political issues of the last few decades in the Balkans: documenting the situations after the wars that happened with the decay of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the name issue in North Macedonia; Greeks in Albania; coverage of conflicts between Albanian paramilitary troops UCK from Kosovo and authorities in North Macedonia; coverage of NATO’s bombing of Kosovo and Serbia and many others. While recording the moments of history he was arrested and hurt. His photos have been published in a lot of prominent journals and media such as: To Vima, Ta Nea, Eleftherotypia, Epsilon, Kathimerini, Eleftheros Typos,Naftemporiki, Time, Elsevier, Het Parole, Newsweek, Xinhua, New York Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung etc. Since 2006 he has been working for the Greek tv documentary show “BALKAN EXPRESS”, broadcasted on the Greek National Television ERT3, which depicts the traditions, music, history and culture of all the countries in the Balkans. Since 2000 he relocated in Skopje while still travelling for his work.

Witnessing and documenting a lot of scenes from our recent Balkan history and hearing a lot of narrative related to culture, geography, decays, wars, conflicts he will attempt to shed some light on the topic of ‘shared or contested heritage’.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Alexandros: I am well acquainted with the history of our region,  even though my professional experience is in photo reportage. In my opinion, in the last few decades we are witnessing a very serious situation, in which everyone wants to grab some part of history from the other. Instead of building closer cooperation and nurturing coexistence, history is being used as the most dangerous weapon for digging wider discrepancies on the Balkans. The divulged histories are not correct and consolidated according to the facts, but rather tailor-made, one history is served to the Bulgarians, another to the Greeks, a third to the Macedonians. This is shameful and should be stopped. We need to rebuild the broken bridges between the countries and my opinion is that culture and art are the best conductors for strengthening the bonds between our neighbouring countries. I  currently live in Skopje, North Macedonia, I am married to a Macedonian woman, and I am working hard on bringing a lot of Greek artists here, to work closely with the Macedonian ones, in order to help in overcoming the prejudices’ and the political imbalances, since this daily political playing with our people is disgusting.

What does heritage mean to you as an individual and as a citizen of your country and the world?

Alexandros: Cultural heritage is a universal value. I look at everyone’s heritage in the same way, no matter of the origin, country, nation. All is ours; it belongs to the whole of humanity. Once, I had an exhibition in the Museum of photography in Thessaloniki, and an American visitor asked me, where  were my photos taken. I answered that they come from different parts of the world. He said that I need to sort the photos according to the state, nation and geographical territory for better understanding. I neglected the critic coming from him, since for me, everyone in this world is the same, no matter where they come from, or what is their origin. I feel the same whether I am in Greece, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, everywhere I have very close friends I feel the same.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Alexandros: Politicians use the history, culture, cultural heritage for their daily political needs. In the past there were no borders, we were all the same. My father comes from Kallikrateia, Chalkidiki, so according to some parts of history I am a Macedonian. In the past my father’s relatives came from Izmir, Turkey, so there were no clear borders then. After that the borders were made and everyone went mad, grabbing and attempting to take possession of the past, the history, the heritage. I will insist on my opinion that only through culture we can go forward. When I saw how well Greek and Macedonian artists got along (on one residency that I organised) that was the biggest pleasure. Just with the power of the artists and the culture we can show our teeth to the politicians and celebrate humanity. After the signing of the Prespa Agreement, I experienced a very interesting situation, in which many of my friends, Greeks, called me and told me that they do not agree for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be renamed North Macedonia, but should be namedsimply Macedonia. This means that that there is still hope that we can reconnect the broken bridges.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Alexandros: Yes, I do have great collaboration with Macedonian colleagues, and I had never had a bad experience until now. Here I feel like home. I use to live in the centre of Athens, here I live in the centre of Skopje, and I feel like a “Skopjanin”. If something bad is happening with or in the city it hurts me because I feel this is my native town.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)?

Alexandros: Yes! I took many photos and recorded documentaries for museums throughout the Balkans, in Croatia, Serbia, North Macedonia, Albania, but at the National Gallery in Sofia, Bulgaria I had one of the most impressive experiences. We met and talked with their director, and I saw a great, positive reaction in his communication, he was a supporter of the idea that we are all the same, mainly humans of the world. He did not care if I spoke Macedonian or Greek, his main interest was to see what we could show to the public. So, accordingly, we organised a great exhibition in their Gallery.

Admittedly, we live in a time of lies, served by the politicians, but the art and artists do and can change the direction of the wind and the atmosphere. I am a photo-reporter that has dealt with politics for 35 years, but now I am fed up of politics.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history, photography etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Alexandros: The photography is an artefact, so it helps a lot in confirming cultural heritage or issues regarding shared or contested history. I am very often thrilled by the human eyes, the manner in which they interpret pictures, especially when it’s children’s eyes. Once, I photographed a child refugee from Kosovo, I photographed his emotional eyes. 15 years later, on an exhibition in Skopje, a youngster of about 20 years approached me, and asked if I recognise him. I answered negatively. Then he introduced himself being that refugee child on the photo, and said that I was an inspiration for him and that he is going to be a photographer. He learned to speak French, English, Macedonian and Albanian. So, this is one happy story. There are a lot such examples, good and bad. So, by the help of the photo or video documentation there are facts that cannot be neglected.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Alexandros: I do agree, a multi-layered approach is one of the keys in solving issues related with shared or contested heritage and history. Changes in history are  influenced by politicians, so the best way of adressing the issues are talks with local people from small communities. I have recorded and interviewed many villagers and old people from small communities in a lot of neighbouring Balkan countries, the most interesting thing is that they all share the same history, which is different than the switched and changed one, offered by the states through the educational institutions, as a part of the political agendas.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Alexandros: I definitely agree with Cornelius Holtorf. We should overcome the bad experiences of our fathers and grandfathers, let the past be the past (there are historians that can sit down, emotionless and discuss the specific and problematic moments arising from using different facts) and we, with the great help of culture, shall keep on being the active creators of the new era of humanism and global solidarity. I don’t say that we should forget about our past and neglect our history, but that this should not be the obstacle for being good neighbours and collaborators, a trap in which we are falling down over and over again for the sake of the daily politics.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Alexandros: Yes, as I already said, the past should remain in the past, not influencing our contemporary life, and it is only with the help of  culture that we can reconcile, reinforce and strengthen the relations and communications.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview with Prof. Elizabeta Dimitrova, art historian specialised in the Byzantine Empire, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Elizabeta Dimitrova, MA and PhD in art history from the University in Belgrade, is a Professor at the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje, Republic of North Macedonia (University of Ss Cyril and Methodius). Within her scientific work, she devoted herself to the study of art, culture and socio-cultural features of the early Christian and Byzantine eras. In that context, she interpreted and was the first to publish the program, iconographic and artistic features of the ceramic icons from the Vinicko Kale site. Whereafter, Vinicko Kale became in the ‘90s one of the main archaeological attractions in the Balkans. Mrs Dimitrova identified the programmatic and iconographic concept of the frescoes in the Episcopal Basilica in Stobi based on the fragmentarily preserved parts of the decoration from the 4th century. Many of her scholarly works are devoted to the analysis and contextualisation of the symbolic meanings of the iconography of the early Christian mosaics in Stobi, Heraclea Lyncestis, and the antique town of Lychnidos. In the field of Byzantine art culture, she wrote a monograph dedicated to the Church “Assumption of the Most Holy Mother of God”. Mrs Dimitrova is a very well-known worldwide researcher and a commissioner of many activities related to protection of cultural heritage.

What is the impact of Cultural Heritage on solving issues related with shared or contested heritage?

Elizabeta: The impact of heritage is one of the most influential aspects in this context, if one should have doubts about its value, capacity, management opportunities, protection options etc. On the other hand, if one wants to treat heritage as property, one should know that heritage is priceless therefore it cannot be treated as a property of any kind. Cultural heritage belongs to the whole of humanity; it just happens that a certain country takes care of the heritage located on that country’s geographic territory.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from Greece and Bulgaria and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Elizabeta: I do have cooperation with colleagues from Bulgaria (ongoing project for digitalisation of cultural heritage with professors from Sofia) and permanent cooperation in the process for review of archaeology and history papers with professors from Athens. In that regard, I have never had any problems, difficulties or pending issues involving historic dilemmas or any other kind of misunderstanding so far (including origin of the heritage or its institutional/non-institutional management, protection etc.).

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Elizabeta: When we say heritage, we address the qualitative scope of art works, artefacts, monuments and sites originating from different periods in time and diverse actions of human civilisation. Cultural heritage should be treated as a precious accomplishment of people’s creativity of a certain time, not as a mean for creating political views or manifests. It is a testimony to the creative potential of a certain epoch and its historic, economic, social and cultural amplitude; therefore, it should be interpreted in that manner – as a positive reflection of a historic momentum that is gone forever, leaving a precious trail in a certain artistic or cultural medium/sphere.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)?

Elizabeta: One should be methodologically correct, chronologically precise and historically accurate to be able to be a real spokesman of the “bright” side of cultural heritage, since the “advocacy” can have a negative side, as well. Cultural heritage has been left to us for more pleasant reason than to be utilised as a political/social/national weapon. As soon as one realises that it is left for admiration (art works) proper investigation (artefacts) and touristic presentation (monuments), the misuse of cultural heritage stops being interesting or valid.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Elizabeta: Of course, the church of the Holy Virgin in the village of Matejche, in the north part of North Macedonia first comes to mind. It was commissioned in the golden age of the Serbian medieval state, during the reign of Emperor Stefan Dushan as a mausoleum of the former Bulgarian princess Elena in the region of present-day North Macedonia. It belongs to the historic legacy of three modern states; yet, nobody takes care of it and the church is almost in decay. Instead of debating whose heritage it is (I remember some discussions on the subject), someone should ask whether they could do something for this heritage to survive in order to be classified historically or otherwise; if the church is gone, there will be no heritage left for discussion.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Elizabeta: With mutual initiatives (cross-border and/or international) for its protection and scientifically verified presentation (historic, chronological, thematic, artistic etc.). In my field of expertise, it is very simple – it is Byzantine cultural heritage, i.e. belongs to the medieval cultural and artistic production, manifesting certain architectural, iconographic and artistic features, the quality of which is the main hallmark recognised by its visual character.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Elizabeta: As I said before, cultural heritage is not an instrument for national or political dialogue. It represents a reflection of how cultivated the people had been in the past (defined by certain chronology). Also, it reflects how cultivated we are in our efforts to take care of the legacy and preserve it for posterity. Cultural heritage has the following main specificities: it originates from a certain historical moment (chronology), it is shaped in a certain visual form (typology), it has certain recognisable qualities (classification) and it has certain existential needs (protected or unprotected). In the 21^st century, we have to focus on the last specificity, since it requires the greatest effort. Everyone can say whatever they like about the heritage if one can see it, if not, we will all share the silence of a possible destruction.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Elizabeta: No, because, at least, in the Balkans the past has become the main argument for shaping the future. What is more dramatic is that the past has proven to be so changeable for  people in the Balkans that we no longer believe in what our ancestors have taught us. In such circumstances, the future becomes so uncertain that we are in pursuit of an opportunistically reconstructed past, defended by the role imposed to cultural heritage. Therefore, we have to give the legacy a new, more productive and highly affirmative function and save it from the current abuse and exploitation.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Elizabeta: By all means, that is why we need reliable spokesmen. Rhetoric skills have been much appreciated since the Ancient times due to their effect on people from all walks of life. The realm of words can have many effects (positive or negative) and that is why words should be selected carefully, intoned in a good will and passed through “secure” channels of professional approach and ethic standards. Cultural heritage, in its most basic definition, means creation and as such deserves creative approaches, treatment and appreciation.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.