Design Art Papers 2025 | No. 13

personal experience and we see a shift from existence of heritage only in an external world to an individual’s internal narratives and processes. Despite the fact that personal experiences of cultural settings can overlap (e.g., during customs which involve a group of people and appropriate tasks), cultural heritage can be subjectively experienced based not only on how it is broadcasted but also on how it is perceived and absorbed. Two years later the Council of Europe, in the Faro Convention From 2005 on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society provides us with the following definition of cultural heritage: „[c]ultural heritage is a group of resources inherited from the past which people identify, independently of ownership, as a reflection and expression of their constantly evolving values, beliefs, knowledge and traditions. It includes all aspects of the environment resulting from the interaction between people and places through time [4] ’’. This convention „recogniz[es] the need to put people and human values at the center of an enlarged and cross-disciplinary concept of cultural heritage’’ and that „everypersonhas a right toengagewith the cultural heritage of their choice [5] ’’. Themain difference between the first and thesecondconventionistherecognitionof intangiblecultural heritage and its significance in impacting local communities and individuals. Intangible cultural heritage is related both to notions of identity and its comprehension, as well as belonging and diversity [6] . It is acknowledged that diversity is not only related to differences between local communities but also to individuals' different understandings of heritage within a community. Graham and Howard conclude that heritage, in its broadest sense, is among themost important ways inwhich identity is formed and expressed [7] . Thismarks a reorientation from„theobjectivenatureofmaterial culture to the subjective experience of the human individual [8] ”. In this sense, customs, knowledge, vocal traditions, skills, and rituals that shape an individual’s worldview have been granted the status of cultural assets which introduced subjective freedominto theperceptionand interpretationof cultural heritage. Existence of Dialogue Between Cultural Heritage and Art It is debatable whether tangible heritage had an advantage in its revival, since 50 years later the world is gifted with countlessnewapproachesforrevitalizationandmonetization of tangible heritage – specifically monuments and buildings that are prolific for site-specific artworks. Biwako Biennale [9] , Oku-notoTriennale [10] andKochi-MuzirisBiennale [11] area few examples of large, public-facing manifestations that do not just celebrate, but completely rejuvenate heritage while also being a birthplace for intentional contemporary artworks. Theuseof cultural heritagewithincontextual creativity forms adialoguebetween thepast and thepresent that hasmoved beyond the museum, and into places of common history and experiences shared by individuals belonging to a group. Places become monuments of transience, and renewal of those places emerges both through creative artistic action and through the perception of what has been created. The attention given to intangible heritage shifted focus from stationary objects and places to processes, stories and identities. Even though personal experiences may overlap within a community, they never coincide because everyone has their ownpsychological andemotional template through whichtheycomprehendtheexperienceofthecorresponding heritage. Therefore, an individual’s relation with their origins offers a new stage on which the dialogue between past and present may occur, alongside the acknowledged physical monuments in the outside world. This relation can also shape the way an individual feels and reacts towards their surroundings and during this process one’s identity can be comprehended. Such exchange serves as a powerful driver of innovation and creativity. The Dialogue Between Art and Cultural Heritage The communication between roles within personal experienceofheritageisaptlyexplainedbyDutchpsychologist and scholar Hubert Hermans, who introduces the concept of the „dialogical self” stating that „[t]he dialogical self proposes a far‑reaching decentralization of both the concept of self and the concept of culture [12] ” and that „[s]elf and culture are conceivedof in terms of amultiplicity of positions among which dialogical relationships can be established [13] ’’. This is associated with the proposition that we all have roles throughout our life (e.g., sister, teacher, artist, citizen etc.) that can have dialogical relations with each other. Heritage is an integral part of these roles, and through their relationswe introspect and conceptualize our identity. Contemporary artists, also occupying other roles, draw inspiration from their dialogical selves, frequently using their birth-given traditions and cultures. Through art they comment on the social and cultural conditions that have shaped them. The exchange between an artist and their origins influences the intimacy between the artist and their art, and between the observer and the artwork. In this context, artistic work recycles and recontextualizes heritage and thereby strongly reflects both collective and personal identity. This process initiates a reconsideration of inherited patterns that can be channeled through art. Examples of Production In the following, I will present examples of contemporary artists who come from traditional environments and often draw creative inspiration from their cultural heritage. In these examples, heritage has a dominant role in the artists’ body of work, while surroundings and corresponding social behavioral patterns formed their critical opinions that catalyzed their artistic production. Later in this paper I will showcase similar patterns of influence that inspiredmy own artistic work, demonstrating how heritage and creativity forma coherent, unifiedwhole. Contemporary artist Ai Weiwei was born in China one year after The Hundred Flowers Movement , in 1956 when the Chinese communist party (CCP) called for intellectuals and artist to openly express their opinions on society and the government. Widespread criticism emerged, which promptedaswiftturnofthegovernment’sfavorandfounding of the Anti-Rightist Movement , which lasted between 1957 and1959,whosetaskwastorounduphundredsofthousands of so-called detractors and ship them off for execution or re-education through labor. At the time, Ai Weiwei’s father was a celebrated poet, Ai Quing, who was labeled a rightist and exiled during the Anti-Rightist Campaign [14] . Quing was denounced, publicly humiliated, and the whole family was sent to live in a labor camp in harsh conditions. The family spent 20 years in exile, which strongly affected Ai Weiwei’s childhood [15] . His work is shaped by the circumstances of witnessinghis fathersunexpectedandunjust punishment for his critical thinking, intellectual work and artistic approach. He has multiple works that challenge ideological settings and principles of his home country and its mentality. One of them is Dropping a Han Dynasty Urn (1995) [16] , a set of three monochromatic photographs showing a time-laps of the artist dropping the Han urn, and letting it shatter onto the ground. Collective identity is emphasized in this work as two millennia later themajorityethnicgroup inChina, eventoday, call themselves Han Chinese, while principles of that period are still active in people’s mindset e.g. the Confucian moral order, highlighting that rulers are above subjects, parents above children, elders above youth [17] . The act of breaking this important historical artefact represents the destruction of conventional or established values, a critique of hierarchy and authority [18] . His installation, Descending Light from 2007 [19] features a large red chandelier frozen in themoment of its shattering impact with the ground. In Chinese culture, thechandelier functionsasasymbol of status,whilethecolor red carries significant cultural meaning representing wealth, prosperity, joy, and vitality, among other associations [20] . This installation loosely recalls Théodore Géricault’s Romantic painting The Raft of the Medusa (1818-1819) that „depicts the aftermath of the 1816 wreck of the French Royal Navy frigate the Medusa [21] ” not in terms of subject matter, but in the monumental size and theatrical presence that evokes a powerful emotional response to a pressing contemporary issue. In this work, a seemingly ordinary object is magnified and suspended at themoment of collapse. This gesturemay be read as the artist’s commentary on reforms regarding the Chinese communist ideology, the allusion of the breakdown of the traditional authority, the fragility of cultural heritage and the ideological instability of modern China. Some of his other famous works that permeate heritage are Stools (1994-2009), Sunflower Seeds (2008), and Ton of Tea (2025). The Serbian, or more precisely Yugoslav performance artist, MarinaAbramović,hasexploredthemesrootedinthecultural heritage of her socialist nation surroundings in which formal equalitywas tied toobedience. Verdery explains that nations of this type emphasize dependency [22] , where „[i]nstead of political rightsorethnocultural similarity, itpositedamoral tie linking subjects with the state through their rights to a share in the redistributed social product. Subjects were presumed to be neither politically active … nor ethnically similar … they were presumed to be grateful recipients … of benefits their rulers decided upon for them [23] ”. Idolatry was imposed on the younger generation through social responsibilities such as the Relay of Youth [24] and Slet, which was a grand national manifestation where the pupils from around the country could participate, honoring their leader. „Abramović's family and cultural history has long influenced her performances… her parents fought in favor of the communist party during World War II, while her grandparents' generation were devout members of the Orthodox Church and vehemently opposed communism [25] ”. Abramović herself said she grew up inmilitary stylediscipline, being tornbetween communist ideology and the Orthodox religion of her grandmother [26] . Her projects often pushed physical boundaries to the point of life-threatening danger. In Rhythm 5 [27] (1973) she lays in the center of a wooden structure in the shape of a five- pointed communist starwhich, in red, was anemblemof the flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which I will refer to as Yugoslavia for brevity) [28] . Similar to sacrificial offerings, she ritually cut some of her hair, nails and toe nails and threw them into the corners of the star which was then set on fire. She then laid in the middle of the star as a final act of sacrificing herself. As flames consumed the oxygen, Abramović lost consciousness and the performance had to be interrupted. This performance was not merely a critique, but an enactment of her life within a communist ideological system. The artist herself described thepiece, inan interview for the Museum of Modern Art, as „a ritualization of the communist five-pointed star [29] ”. The image of her body lying in the burning star evokes archaic rituals, which can be connected both to the strength of communist ideology and to the pagan roots of that region. In this case, it becomes a symbolic offering to national ideals, to the prevailing idolatry and rigid principles of the Yugoslav regime. The emotional intensity with which Abramović engages this subject implies that political ideology of communism demanded complete devotion and sacrifice, ultimately taking everything from its subjects. It is worth noting that Rhythm 5 was conceived nearly three decades before the 2003 UNESCO Convention, at a time when there was no legal framework recognizing the importance of intangible cultural heritage or its influence on the identity formation of individuals and communities. Some of her other works that revisit cultural heritage are Balkan Erotic Epic (1980-1985), Balkan Baroque (1997) and The GreatWall Walk (1998). While the presented examples cannot capture the full scope and diversity of contemporary artistic production based on intangible cultural heritage, they nonetheless illustrate the richness of heritage through the themes these artists have interrogated: ideological systems, idolatry, spirituality, collective identity, authority and others. Each of these artists drew inspiration directly from their immediate environment or cultural background, contexts that have shaped their identity and worldview. However, an artist does not necessarily have to drawexclusively fromtheir own immediate surrounding and heritage. One such example is SerbianphotographerKatarinaRadović,whosedocumentary project When You’ve Stopped Combing Me, I’ll Stop Hating You (2013), created during an art residency at the WAAW Centre in Saint-Louis, in Senegal, explores the process of hair styling in African cultures. Thework reflects not only the biological characteristics of extremely dense, dry, and curly hair that requires specific and often intensive methods to style, but also the cultural meanings attached to this ritual. These include rites of passage, age and gender divisions, ethnic heritage, economic status, and religious affiliation [30] . Radović’s project demonstrates that heritage may also be approachedempathetically,notnecessarilythroughpersonal experience, but through analytical engagement and sincere understanding. The examples presented above showcase mostly a critique on social cultural heritage, but the mentioned artists have other projects that support and praise their traditional background, demonstrating that intangible cultural heritage is a highly fertile source for creativity and production in contemporary art. This resource is globally widespread and diverse, which can be seen through the work of other artists suchasShirinNeshat, El Anatsui, JeongMeeYoonandothers. 339 338 / / / / Caiete de Arte și Design / nr. 13 / 2025 / / / / Publicație a Centrului de Cercetare și Creație în Artele Decorative și Design / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /