The new DCMS "Rapid Evidence Assessment: Culture and Heritage Valuation" is meant to be a literature review on ideas of heritage value.
It includes the most professionally illiterate definition of "culture and heritage physical assets" I've ever read 👇
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
It includes the most professionally illiterate definition of "culture and heritage physical assets" I've ever read 👇
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
the consultants missed a trick by not including fascist architect Albert Speer's theory of Ruinenwerttheorie (ruin value) here — could've gone down quite well with the Common Sense Group
on knowing the price of everything, the value of nothing, and nothing at all about heritage management
*narrator voice*: "these are not the eight main categories of the historic built environment"
*narrator voice": "nor these the six main types of heritage designation"
what even is a "protected business" in this (or any) context?
at least they were thorough
what is the point of the supposed advocacy work of @SocAntiquaries, @archaeologyuk or @InstituteArch if they don't push back on this kind of taxpayer-funded nonsense?
would be good to know quite how much of this DCMS report has simply been lifted and badly edited by someone at @_Simetrica from the report they did two years ago with @nesta_uk
nesta.org.uk/report/economi…
nesta.org.uk/report/economi…
five quid says that next edition of the FISH thesaurus of monument types will have price tags next to each entry heritage-standards.org.uk/wp-content/upl…
actual lol - how much taxpayer money was spent on this?
loving this new theory of archaeological sites that they all fall into one of two categories:
it's either a castle, or it's a ruin.
it's either a castle, or it's a ruin.
someone please remind me whether after Brexit we're meant to be the castle or the ruin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
