Evolution of Cultural Heritage: A Legal Perspective
The Genesis of Historical, Cultural, and Artistic Adjectives
This document presents the most laborious explanation of the genesis of the adjectives historical, cultural, and artistic. The background to the public’s interest in this heritage is associated with decisions of an organic nature, such as the creation of the Royal Academies of History and Fine Arts. Indeed, the Academy of History, in a royal decree of Charles IV of 1803, contains a detailed account of what is understood as “monuments.” Less implicitly, that unifying interest is basically historical. In parallel, due to the creation in 1753 of the Academy of Fine Arts, another channel of protection is launched, imbued with the aesthetic perspective. By order of January 11, 1808, the powers of the Academy are explicitly extended to “artistic monuments of the past and those of private property.”
Creation of Provincial Commissions of Monuments
Another important decision of an organic nature is the creation of peripheral structures in this field of cultural administration in 1844. This was achieved with the creation of a network of Provincial Commissions of Monuments, “Historic and Artistic Works,” which produces an administrative conjunction.
Analysis of Material Law
These organic notes are supplemented with the analysis of material law. Living cultural heritage exists within a very large number of specific regulations (documentary heritage, literature, etc.) with others generally applicable to all goods. From the reading of all this legislation, it is clear that there is a gradual and continuous process that goes from concrete to abstract. In this process, the art-historical adjectives assume, as did the cultural adjective, the function of open categories that express the total universe of securities included in that heritage.
Constitutional Regulations
But the clearest evidence of this process is capital regulations in the two centuries prior to the present Constitution: Article 45 of the 1931 Constitution and the law of May 13, 1933, “on the protection, conservation, and enhancement of the national artistic heritage.” For its part, Article 45 of the Constitution of 1931 states, “all the historical and artistic wealth of the country, whoever the owner, is a cultural treasure of the nation…” We see in this provision how the adjective “cultural” will be applied in subsequent constitutions.
The Rise of “Cultural” and “Cultural Heritage”
The increasing use of the adjective “cultural” and the term “cultural heritage” in legal language is more than just a new terminology. It is the linguistic expression of a deeper phenomenon, a process of evolution of the legal concept of material culture, opening new content and perspectives. The ultimate reason for this development is undoubtedly the great development and weight gained by anthropology in the twentieth century, which will bring a broad concept of culture that will be spreading to other disciplines.
“Cultural Heritage” vs. “Historical and Artistic Heritage”
Despite the open call in the adjectives “historic” and “artistic,” they show difficulties in providing adequate coverage to the new content and the anthropological concept of culture. These are best expressed by the phrase “cultural heritage.” This has not led to the obsolescence of “historical and artistic heritage,” which is deeply rooted, but it is forced to live with “cultural heritage” as an alternative expression.
Linguistic Modalities in the Constitution
This expansive and innovative concept of legal language is clear in Article 3.3 of the present Constitution, which explicitly includes within “cultural heritage” the “different linguistic modalities of Spain.”