Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

You are here: Home » Europe » European Projects of Poiein kai Prattein » Hermes Project » Opening conference of HERMES project in Weimar April 2004 » Reply to the discussion papers by Hatto Fischer

Reply to the discussion papers by Hatto Fischer

The interest to respond to this paper outlining the basic concept of HERMES is to review the general ideas generated by the first meeting about the project and its respective partners. While the paper by the authors can initiate discussion within the project, it should be noted that none of the other partners have the equivalent of institutions like the Bauhaus University participating within their own local and regional context. At the same time, cultural heritage as a concept will appear in a varied form, given the nature of different partners and their approach to this crucial question as to when cultural heritage can be taken as a factor of regional development. Obviously the intrest in a scientific framework for the entire project shall be sustained nearly all alone by the lead partner, but then all the more the concrete need that the other partners respond to this paper. The aim should be to ensure that this crucial element of theoretical and scientific reflection can be integrated into the project and bring about not only an interesting discussion within the project, but lead to some results.

One word of caution at the outset may be needed when viewing by what and how the HERMES shall be driven over the next three years. Besides the contribution and participation by the Bauhaus university within the scope of the lead partner, this work package 2 contains also another theoretical contribution, namely the one linked more closely to the interests and policies of the 'Stiftung Klassik' – Classical Foundation of Weimar. While here interpretations vary from art historical themes to more profound and philosophical understandings as to how varied cultural heritages can contribute to a common cultural identity within the CADSES space and beyond that within Europe, the discussion about identity and cultural diversity within the European Union can be a foregone closed one, if everyone sticks to his or her own culture instead of picking up different and varied cultural elements to form a yet to be defined European identity. To this second paper, presented as by by Frithjof Reinhardt and Justus H. Ulbricht, another type of response is needed. At the same time, it is not clear how these two very different theoretical approaches – spatial planning for the sake of local and regional development / art historical and philosophical approaches to the identity question – can be integrated within one and the same work package.

To complicate things further, the presentation made by the partner from Toblach with regards to their intention to link the discussion about sustainability to their proposal to attain “cultural sustainability” by developing further, thematically speaking, use of solar energy, means first of all that there will be still another theoretical input into the project from quite another angle. May it be called the ecological parameter, it is needless to say a political input with the intention to call all partners to attention about the looming ecological crisis and assumes, as the discussion showed already in Weimar, what differences prevail between Western and Eastern Europe even more now, that European integration has commenced as of May 1st 2004. The input by Toblach into the project caused a lot of disturbances especially amongst the Greek delegation from Volos. That response needs to be understood and be interpreted not merely in terms of compatibility or not between partners, but also in what can be viewed as a heavily biased intervention into the discussion within the project. As this may provoke misunderstandings, there is a need to keep in mind that the public space created by a European project presupposes a political and practical agreement, if one partner contributes solely by way of wishing to advance discussions about ecological needs in future.

Any reply to these very different inputs will have to take into consideration even more so the presupposition of all partners, when it comes to relating to cultural heritage as a way of coming to terms with modern needs. As Dr. Andrzej Ratay was quick to point out, some people in Eastern Europe are much closer to a natural use of resources since part of their cultural heritage is still intact e.g. way of treating the land in comparison to what is the case in the Western European world, even though the Toblach contribution by Hans Glauber tends to suggest that the Eastern Europeans are at risk to repeat but the same mistakes made by Western Europeans now that they have entered the European Union. If was furthermore only consequential that the partners from Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia challenged the use of the concept 'Eastern Europe' since in an integrated Europe their inclination to belong to Europe as a whole would wish avoiding in future the distinction between East and West as two separate entities or domains of different values, narratives and methodological approaches to one and the same question of cultural heritage.

Indeed, the commonality is at the same time not merely a wish for living and realizing more potentialities within a greater Europe, but also a way to discard old fashionable methods used to compare East and West when there prevailed still the Cold War and the Iron Curtain existed. It has been noted repeatedly that Western Europe is not prepared for the entry of the new partners especially in terms of knowing little or nothing at all about the vast and rich cultural heritage existing in the regions of the newest member states of the European Union. Certainly it will be in agreement with all partners of the HERMES project, that the very task of especially work package 2 should be to bring out these commonality while emphasizing as much the three strands just referred to:

All three aspects need to be seen first of all in terms of some of the most apparent contradictions which have dominated discussions so far. This is stated despite many efforts being made to bring about methodological clarification while relating 'consciously' to all the political changes which have incurred since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Since it is a matter of cultural adaptation in order to define the approach to be adopted if life is to be sustained within Europe and in the world during the 21st century despite the fact that it is already marked since 911 by a 'permanent war' and hence by an economy heavily dependent upon non productive elements i.e. weapons industry and over consumption of land just to keep the real estate business and the construction industry artificially alive.

Hatto Fischer

Weimar 27.April 2004

 

^ Top

« Between the Seas by Justus H. Ulbricht | Record of the 1st HERMES meeting in Weimar 24.04 - 28.04.2004 »