A 5 · Issues in presenting the historic environment
Presenting, and helping people to learn from, the historic environment is by no means always straightforward. Various factors explain why education in this field is less highly developed than education within museums.
The built heritage is complex.
Many of the ideas and legal and social rules accepted in the past are alien to us today. They may require considerable understanding and study before they can be grasped (and, still harder, sympathised with.) A study of churches, for example, may demand a detailed knowledge of the liturgy and of religious history. An understanding of historical context is crucial within the learning experience.
Many of the issues that underlie the historic environment have disappeared to become hidden histories and have only recently resurfaced. This applies to slavery – which provided the funding for some of the finest historic cities and country houses – and to the enclosure movement which caused massive rural depopulation and distress. While some historic sites now consider these issues, a golden aura of vague nostalgia still surrounds many historic buildings.
Historic buildings are highly charged, and may carry a weight of association which can be uncomfortable or offputting. Country houses, cathedrals, university colleges, embody for many people associations with privilege and wealth from which they feel excluded. For example, country houses built by the Protestant Ascendancy may still be viewed as symbols of oppression, particularly when they are presented as beautiful or eccentric documents of the past without consideration of the circumstances in which they were built or any local involvement. At the other extreme, Kilmainham Gaol in Dublin tells the story of colonial oppression.
Dubious heritage? In recent years a number of writers on ‘the heritage’ have discussed its social impact in strongly critical terms, notably David Lowenthal and Robert Hewison. At a time when new heritage sites were being created through the restoration or even the rebuilding for example of industrial sites, they suggested that an artificial, romanticised and even exploitative culture was being manufactured for financial reasons.
The stories to be told through the historic environment are complex and often misleading. How far is accuracy
important? If television drama can tell historical stories with little regard for accuracy in recounting historical events, does it matter whether the legends attached to a place are supported by historical evidence? Humpty Dumpty, for example, has been claimed by Colchester (and particularly by the town’s marketing department) as a Colchester man – does it matter that actually Humpty was probably a gun, and may not have had any Essex associations at all? We would suggest that it does matter – that however difficult it may be, the presentation of sites should always be based on thorough research.
Historic sites are multi-layered, and their interpretation is a complex business. Most old buildings and objects
have been subjected to an extended process of physical change and altered perception over the centuries. Material culture is ambiguous: many objects have become so multi-layered that today their character needs to be
carefully deciphered. A ruined abbey such as Fountains Abbey can be presented as a surviving medieval structure or as a Romantic artefact around which an artificial (though seemingly natural) landscape has been constructed, or as a modern tourist destination – or as all these things. It is possible to see a country house such as Nostell Priory as an adaptation of a medieval settlement, or as a notable work of architecture containing important furniture and paintings, or as an instrument of social exploitation, or as a place where generations
of working people contributed to the local economy, or as an outstanding survival of a medieval landscape. All these approaches are valid, and their multiplicity complicates the presentation of the built environment.
Understanding the multi-cultural sources of the diverse architectural styles represented in most British high
streets can help make grander buildings more accessible to all.
The history of immigration and of how successive waves of immigrants – Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans, Jews, Huguenots, Africans, Indians – found their place in Britain is an important and fascinating theme, which the historic environment can help to tell.
It is impossible to recreate an authentic past. The best we can do is to present, and examine, archaeological evidence of the past as accurately as possible, and draw on this evidence to enrich our understanding of the past, the present and even the future.
Historic sites are fragile, both because of their age and because many were not built to receive crowds. Their contents are often fragile as well. Evidence assembled over a long period has established the negative impact of large numbers of visitors on historic buildings. In cathedrals, the effect of mass tourism can be extremely damaging, a problem compounded by cathedrals’ dependence on visitor income. The same applies in historic houses containing textiles and furniture dating back centuries. If sensitive buildings and their contents, as well as their individual character, are to be conserved, it may be necessary for the quality of visits to take priority over the volume of visitors.
The long-term sustainability of historic sites is often insecure. There is a contrast here to museums. While many museums face uncertain futures, most of the larger ones belong to public bodies which are unlikely to close them. For many historic buildings this is not the case: private ownership is much more prevalent and fraught with potential problems, and even public owners may seem to shed their responsibilities. English Heritage, which is legally bound to preserve the historic sites in its care, has in recent years handed over responsibility for a number of properties to local authorities, for which looking after historic sites is not the first
priority in difficult times.
The future of some historic buildings, at least in their present form, looks bleak: notably country houses and parish churches. The physical survival of country houses as buildings is generally much better assured than it was in the 1970s. On the other hand, such houses depend for much of their interest on their contents, often created for the building and intimately linked with its history. Country houses, even if vested in trusts, remain subject to domestic and financial difficulties, which are likely to lead to forced sales. In 2002 a survey by the Historic Houses Association revealed that over 20% of capital repairs were funded by the sale of works of art. This can seriously damage the entity created by the house and collection and often results in the loss of public access to a celebrated work of art, or its loss to the nation.
The future of churches of all types is uncertain. For the Church of England, as well as Nonconformist chapels and Roman Catholic churches, which are often too numerous for the needs of contemporary worshippers, the future of historic structures in face of necessary rationalisation is very much in question.
The viable future of historic towns, threatened both by traffic and by changes in shopping habits which are steadily making high streets and traditional shops redundant, is also uncertain. This situation is currently exacerbated by changes in planning law, facilitating (once again) the expansion of out of town supermarkets.
A large number of historic places are in the hands of large or small voluntary sector organisations which do not receive any direct public support. They depend on income from visitors and friends, and external funding from bodies such as the Heritage Lottery Fund, and their future is far from secure.
|
section start
'These are big claims: that
heritage-based study is the ideal
education because it integrates many
disciplines; that it encourages the
development of transferable skills
that are in demand by employers; that
the heritage has the capacity to
enhance and change people’s
lives, teaching people to see,
value and care for their locale, and
develop a sense of ownership and
responsibility towards their
heritage; that the heritage has the
power to broaden our understanding
of the world we live in, and of our
local, regional, national, ethnic
and social identity.'
Christopher Catling
|
