An Interview with Alexandros Stamatiou, photo reporter from Athens, Greece, interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Alexandros Stamatiou is a photo reporter originating from Athens, Greece.  Mr Stamatiou has an impressive portfolio of photographs and documentary videos relating the political issues of the last few decades in the Balkans: documenting the situations after the wars that happened with the decay of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; the name issue in North Macedonia; Greeks in Albania; coverage of conflicts between Albanian paramilitary troops UCK from Kosovo and authorities in North Macedonia; coverage of NATO’s bombing of Kosovo and Serbia and many others. While recording the moments of history he was arrested and hurt. His photos have been published in a lot of prominent journals and media such as: To Vima, Ta Nea, Eleftherotypia, Epsilon, Kathimerini, Eleftheros Typos,Naftemporiki, Time, Elsevier, Het Parole, Newsweek, Xinhua, New York Times, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung etc. Since 2006 he has been working for the Greek tv documentary show “BALKAN EXPRESS”, broadcasted on the Greek National Television ERT3, which depicts the traditions, music, history and culture of all the countries in the Balkans. Since 2000 he relocated in Skopje while still travelling for his work.

Witnessing and documenting a lot of scenes from our recent Balkan history and hearing a lot of narrative related to culture, geography, decays, wars, conflicts he will attempt to shed some light on the topic of ‘shared or contested heritage’.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Alexandros: I am well acquainted with the history of our region,  even though my professional experience is in photo reportage. In my opinion, in the last few decades we are witnessing a very serious situation, in which everyone wants to grab some part of history from the other. Instead of building closer cooperation and nurturing coexistence, history is being used as the most dangerous weapon for digging wider discrepancies on the Balkans. The divulged histories are not correct and consolidated according to the facts, but rather tailor-made, one history is served to the Bulgarians, another to the Greeks, a third to the Macedonians. This is shameful and should be stopped. We need to rebuild the broken bridges between the countries and my opinion is that culture and art are the best conductors for strengthening the bonds between our neighbouring countries. I  currently live in Skopje, North Macedonia, I am married to a Macedonian woman, and I am working hard on bringing a lot of Greek artists here, to work closely with the Macedonian ones, in order to help in overcoming the prejudices’ and the political imbalances, since this daily political playing with our people is disgusting.

What does heritage mean to you as an individual and as a citizen of your country and the world?

Alexandros: Cultural heritage is a universal value. I look at everyone’s heritage in the same way, no matter of the origin, country, nation. All is ours; it belongs to the whole of humanity. Once, I had an exhibition in the Museum of photography in Thessaloniki, and an American visitor asked me, where  were my photos taken. I answered that they come from different parts of the world. He said that I need to sort the photos according to the state, nation and geographical territory for better understanding. I neglected the critic coming from him, since for me, everyone in this world is the same, no matter where they come from, or what is their origin. I feel the same whether I am in Greece, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Kosovo, Serbia, Bosnia, everywhere I have very close friends I feel the same.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Alexandros: Politicians use the history, culture, cultural heritage for their daily political needs. In the past there were no borders, we were all the same. My father comes from Kallikrateia, Chalkidiki, so according to some parts of history I am a Macedonian. In the past my father’s relatives came from Izmir, Turkey, so there were no clear borders then. After that the borders were made and everyone went mad, grabbing and attempting to take possession of the past, the history, the heritage. I will insist on my opinion that only through culture we can go forward. When I saw how well Greek and Macedonian artists got along (on one residency that I organised) that was the biggest pleasure. Just with the power of the artists and the culture we can show our teeth to the politicians and celebrate humanity. After the signing of the Prespa Agreement, I experienced a very interesting situation, in which many of my friends, Greeks, called me and told me that they do not agree for the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to be renamed North Macedonia, but should be namedsimply Macedonia. This means that that there is still hope that we can reconnect the broken bridges.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Alexandros: Yes, I do have great collaboration with Macedonian colleagues, and I had never had a bad experience until now. Here I feel like home. I use to live in the centre of Athens, here I live in the centre of Skopje, and I feel like a “Skopjanin”. If something bad is happening with or in the city it hurts me because I feel this is my native town.

---

“I look at everyone’s heritage in the same way, no matter of the origin, country, nation. It belongs to humanity.”

---

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)? 

Alexandros: Yes! I took many photos and recorded documentaries for museums throughout the Balkans, in Croatia, Serbia, North Macedonia, Albania, but at the National Gallery in Sofia, Bulgaria I had one of the most impressive experiences. We met and talked with their director, and I saw a great, positive reaction in his communication, he was a supporter of the idea that we are all the same, mainly humans of the world. He did not care if I spoke Macedonian or Greek, his main interest was to see what we could show to the public. So, accordingly, we organised a great exhibition in their Gallery.

Admittedly, we live in a time of lies, served by the politicians, but the art and artists do and can change the direction of the wind and the atmosphere. I am a photo-reporter that has dealt with politics for 35 years, but now I am fed up of politics.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history, photography etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Alexandros: The photography is an artefact, so it helps a lot in confirming cultural heritage or issues regarding shared or contested history. I am very often thrilled by the human eyes, the manner in which they interpret pictures, especially when it’s children’s eyes. Once, I photographed a child refugee from Kosovo, I photographed his emotional eyes. 15 years later, on an exhibition in Skopje, a youngster of about 20 years approached me, and asked if I recognise him. I answered negatively. Then he introduced himself being that refugee child on the photo, and said that I was an inspiration for him and that he is going to be a photographer. He learned to speak French, English, Macedonian and Albanian. So, this is one happy story. There are a lot such examples, good and bad. So, by the help of the photo or video documentation there are facts that cannot be neglected.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Alexandros: I do agree, a multi-layered approach is one of the keys in solving issues related with shared or contested heritage and history. Changes in history are  influenced by politicians, so the best way of adressing the issues are talks with local people from small communities. I have recorded and interviewed many villagers and old people from small communities in a lot of neighbouring Balkan countries, the most interesting thing is that they all share the same history, which is different than the switched and changed one, offered by the states through the educational institutions, as a part of the political agendas.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Alexandros: I definitely agree with Cornelius Holtorf. We should overcome the bad experiences of our fathers and grandfathers, let the past be the past (there are historians that can sit down, emotionless and discuss the specific and problematic moments arising from using different facts) and we, with the great help of culture, shall keep on being the active creators of the new era of humanism and global solidarity. I don’t say that we should forget about our past and neglect our history, but that this should not be the obstacle for being good neighbours and collaborators, a trap in which we are falling down over and over again for the sake of the daily politics.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Alexandros: Yes, as I already said, the past should remain in the past, not influencing our contemporary life, and it is only with the help of  culture that we can reconcile, reinforce and strengthen the relations and communications.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview to Aemilia Papaphilippou, visual artist from Athens, Greece, by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Aemilia Papaphilippou is a contemporary Greek artist. Departing from the survey of her chess continuum, Papaphilippou focuses on the notion of the ubiquitous and perpetual motion via the historical, socio-cultural and anthropological realms. Through her works we can have the affirmative answer to the question:  can contemporary art play a pivotal role in the understanding of our past through our present and future hypostasis? In her artworks she explores the interconnection of realities. One of her essential works is a major intervention set at the public site of the Ancient Agora of Athens, right at the foot of the Parthenon. Following, I will present her elaborated points of view on the topic of Shared or Contested Heritage.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Aemilia: The claim and opening sentence of this questionnaire “we do have heritage”, in the plural, suggests that this “heritage” (whatever is meant by that) is a cultural, or actual, property that is shared. Furthermore, it is implied that having different readings of this “heritage”, testifies to the fact that it is indeed shared, and it is only a matter of viewpoints. This however is a slippery road to fallacy; having different opinions upon the subject of “heritage” doesn’t necessarily testify to a shared cultural understanding, nor, of course, to a cultural property that belongs to all the parties involved. One only needs to think of Indonesia and Netherlands for example; many others exist in the history of colonialism. Or Cowboys and Indians to put it lightly. Intertwining pasts do not necessarily lead to a common future- far from it!

What does heritage mean to you as an individual and as a citizen of your country and the world?

Aemilia: Being Greek, and to continue from where I left off in the previous paragraph, I understand Culture as an ongoing process, which is exactly that: a constant cultivation, a culture which breeds the Present, the Now! It is democracy in the making. This process incorporates all kinds of twists and turns yet it keeps reinstituting itself incessantly. When one realises that responsibility and respect comes forth from within, and regardless if one is actually Greek or not, it sheds light on what Socrates meant when saying “Greeks are the ones that partake in the Greek culture”.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Aemilia: Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon”, created in 1907, and the usage of African masks, (among Asian or Iberian indicatives) in his portrayal of womanhood as the scary, confrontational “Other”. Interestingly enough Picasso’s only portrayal of a western woman is that of Germaine, the woman “responsible” for the death of his very close friend and possibly lover, Casagemas, who committed suicide in 1901 because being impotent Germaine denied to marry him. Picasso, according to Dora Maar, who “devoured” women and changed styles with every next lover, was a repressed homosexual. Interestingly enough this painting which, is probably dealing with Death and the sexual instinct for Life, intertwines genders, social stereotypes, colonialism, diverse cultures and artistic styles in thickly interrelated levels and cannot be truncated into easily digested chunks. However, although “Les Demoiselles d’Avignon” is considered a seminal painting to western contemporary art, we tend to remain at the surface of stylistic introduction to other cultures, (the African masks etc.) while the art market has not allowed a reading on manhood which would destroy the myth of Picasso as the ultimate male and surely reflect upon the value of his paintings.

But I should have first just mentioned the obvious: the ongoing (!) dispute over the Parthenon Marbles known as “the Elgin marbles”, removed between the years 1801 to 1812(!), from the Acropolis, by the Earl of Elgin, and now displayed in the British Museum. Even Lord Byron, his compatriot and contemporary, could see that this was an act of vandalism and looting and wrote about Elgin: “Loathed in Life nor pardoned in the dust…” Let us therefore be reminded that which lies beneath “contested heritage” is always connected with profit. Even though the parties involved may feel as  the protagonists, they may only be the leverage for pushing towards facilitating profit for parties that lay in the dark. In our region, the Balkans, the pressure to “reconfigure” the land has been a plight with no ending. Nowadays, among other things, we read about the energy market and we are entangled in its plot.

In a context of uncertainties and dystopias, what is the role of cultural heritage?

Aemilia: Culture, (which is based on cultural heritage but does not coincide with it) keeps people together as an infrastructure of sorts. It is a signifying system, a way of life that forms both the individual but also the collective and its connectivity.  A sense of identity stems from it while the need for meaning is possibly more important than survival itself. Blood has been shed for centuries by people fighting for what they believe in, yet we remain rather naïve. After all, in our times, technology, Internet and dense interconnectedness of all sorts changes who we are, both on the level of Selfhood but also on the level of Collectiveness.  It is therefore rather redundant to keep talking in terms of “cultural heritage” when Covid-19 has forced us all to realise not only the fragility of Life but how important art and culture, as an ongoing phenomenon, is for our survival.

One of the challenges for researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural heritage is to develop more inclusive approaches to share heritage in order to transgress social and national boundaries. Any idea of how you would implement this into your particular field of interest?

Aemilia: The “inclusive approach”, “transgressing social and national boundaries”, is not a good idea because it ends up being against diversity and variability while subduing conflict and controversy.

Obviously, we tend to undermine what Heraclitus taught us; that “all stems out of war”, meaning that we have to appreciate that in order to move forward we must undergo the dialectic of opposing forces, the Hegelian “thesis, antithesis, synthesis”, and accept the ever-changing flow of becoming. Furthermore, we tend to forget that People incorporate something cultural, which they feel drawn to, because it creates meaning for them. Once they do, they claim it as their own and protect it because it shapes who they are. It is human nature to the extent that even what is recognised as Selfhood is a construct not only on a social level but also on a neurophysiologic level. In this light we should invest in the future, creatively!

---

“Culture as an ongoing process which incorporates all kinds of twists and turns, yet it keeps reinstituting itself incessantly”

---

What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Aemilia: I disagree. Cultural heritage is as much a thing of the past as well as a living corpus that gets to be investigated, or not, by the extent of how we value and understand what has been, in the way we act Here, Now, Today.

Let us not be willing to erase memory, because it is only through dealing with the past that we can possibly evolve into something better in the future. Cultural heritage therefore cannot be considered fixed, but an ongoing process that interprets the past, also through the actions of the present.

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Aemilia: Amused by generalisations of this kind I’m at the same time appalled by where they could lead us. We cannot leap “from the particular to the universal” if we do not understand that what we perceive as a particular given, humanism for example, is not a shared understanding nor a given! For example, human life is not valued by terrorists. “Martyrs” who are not only willing to sacrifice their lives to bring havoc, but are actually proud to spread death, have also an idea of a “universal” that needs to be spread around, this way or the other! Nor are human rights a given, even in societies that have bled in order to defend them.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Aemilia: No, this is not possible either. Meaning that which informs the present is, partly, that which has already been established in the past. We need to understand that we should invest more in the present and creative processes, and yet at the same time be careful not to popularise the “past” in order to make it agreeable to the wide public or the market. The “past” indeed requires invested time and knowledge and we should be equally unwilling to deconstruct it so as to make it a commodity of sorts, nor think that it can remain dormant and let it “rest in peace”.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Aemilia: No. Words are only words. It is the way that words are used that makes a difference and it is only through communication that we can create common ground. Talking about “audiences” therefore, as is being suggested by the question, implies that “audiences” are rather passive listeners, and take in what is suggested by the “speakers”. However, this is never the case. “Audiences” do not exist passively because they are in reality partly co-authoring what is being put on the table. I, therefore, cannot but wonder: is what is being suggested here some propaganda of sorts?! If that is the case it will instigate further conflict.

When dealing with shared history and heritage international cooperation has the potential to foster more understanding within and between cultures. Do you agree with this? What is your personal experience?

Aemilia: Yes, I agree provided that this is possible. If the cultures involved value dialogue, communication, and the individual as an agent of change, then it “could foster more understanding within and between cultures”. The Galichnik residency in North Macedonia, is such a positive and successful case that I experienced personally. We should however note that heritage or cultural issues are/were not the goal of the residency, although they tended to surface. Making art is/was the goal of the residency; within the western paradigm of what art is about, which already established freedom of expression as a given (a common ground we should not take for granted). However not all cultures are open to that kind of dialogue and exchange.

In this light another incident, that I experienced personally, comes to my mind. I was invited to participate in a workshop in Greece, supposedly aimed at making art interactively. For this workshop, which involved only women Greek and refugees, the Greek women were not only advised by the organisers to be dressed “modestly” (they demanded no sleeveless dresses-it was Summer), but also that we would have to accept to undergo inspection by the refugees’ husbands, or their men kin (brother or whomever was considered “responsible” for them), in order to be allowed to finally interact among us. I declined participating.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers.  The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

One thing the covid-19 pandemic has taught us is to be extremely resilient and never give on our projects… quite literally in fact!

We are thus very proud to note that among ALDA’s projects ongoing before the crisis, all 60 of them are active and in line with the foreseen activities, despite some difficulties – mainly logistics.

And in a time in which we are flooded with pessimistic and bad news (not to mention the fake ones), we need to encourage the spread of positive and motivational information, to remember ourselves that good things are also happening in our planet!

---

Let’s encourage the spread of positive information… subscribe to our project’s newsletters!

---

At ALDA, thanks to our ongoing projects we can definitely provide you with some good piece of information, you just need to choose the topic of your interest and… subscribe to a project’s newsletter!

• [Environment] Skills and competencies equalisation of forestry workers.

Follow our project FOREST and discover how the team of partners involved is acting to reach a European standard of competencies and regulations. SUBSCRIBE to the newsletter and follow #FORESTprojectEU!

• [Migration & Technology] Research on the impact of novel technologies on perception and understanding of migration and security issues in the EU.

The project PERCEPTIONS aims to identify and understand narratives, imaginations and (mis-)perceptions of the EU – held outside of Europe – and the way they are distributed via various channels. Furthermore, it investigates how the information flow might be distorted and how a mismatch of expectations and reality caused by certain narratives might lead to security threats.

Click HERE to subscribe to its NEWSLETTER and follow PERCEPTIONS of Facebook and Twitter!

• [Construction & Innovation] Digitalisation skills in the construction sector. 

ICONS project responds to the skills gap between professionals and non-professionals involved in the operationalization of the Building Information Modeling (BIM). Start receiving its newsletter and be informed on ICONS training courses and the development of a digital app. SUBSCRIBE now and stay tuned!

• [Social inclusion & Women rights] Improvement of gender-responsive public services. 

The project BRIGHT is mobilising international stakeholders and communities to improve the conditions of Romanian and Bulgarian women employed in low standard labour sectors in Southern Italy. SUBSCRIBE to the newsletter, follow BRIGHT on Facebook and LinkedIn and be part of the change!

What is a public policy? How are the decisions taken? Would you be a decision-maker?

If only there was an easy and funny way to find an answer to all these questions. Because public policy is not a game…or wait, maybe it is!

Let us introduce P-CUBE, a new generation project which will let you enter the world of decision-making and literary learning by playing!

Indeed, P-CUBE is a project to design and implement an educational game for teaching public policy theory, with specific emphasis on policy change.

The project aims at improving awareness about the importance of developing multi-disciplinary skills in the policy making field, primarily addressing the youths, but also decision-makers, urban planners, NGOs, CSOs, social workers and scientists. Through the promotion of P-CUBE videogame to such a wider public, the project will contribute dispelling misconceptions and prejudices on the way innovations are put forward in public policies, by presenting the process through an interactive, interesting and yet realistic model.

---

A gaming project for youth to understand the world of public policy

---

The game will help players to become more familiar with the complexities of public policy making, and thus prove that there are different ways to overcome the obstacles that prevent current governance systems from tackling collective problems.

P-CUBE primarily addresses younger generations, since they will be the one leading and taking key decision in our near future and they need to have the knowledge to understand how such decisions are to be taken.

Don’t miss the opportunity to be part of this great project and.. Play Public Policy!

***

The project P-CUBE is an European project funded by the programme ERASMUS+ of the European Commission. The goal of P-CUBE is to build an educational strategy game (the Policy Game) designed to teach the theory and practice of public policy making to different groups of people, principally students. This project is led by Fondazione Politecnico di Milano (Italy) and gather experienced and expert partner, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (Spain), Technische Universiteit Delft (Netherlands), Politecnico di Milano (Italy), Université du Luxembourg (Luxembourg), La science pour la démocratie AISBL (Belgium), ALDA (France).

Differently from what all of us was hoping to, the covid-19 emergency has not stopped and neither slowed down. On the opposite, with the cold season coming up, the number of positive cases has started to rise again precipitously all over the globe.

For this reason, which already pushed ALDA to offer a number of free memberships to Municipalities highly affected by the crisis, we decided to postpone the deadline and continue our action of support to local communities.

Indeed, we highly encourage Local Authorities – which are not yet members of ALDA – to apply and benefit from a one-year free membership!

---

“We postponed the applications’ deadline to continue our action of support to local communities”

---

During our 20 years of activity and thanks to our network counting hundreds of municipalities from all the Union and its Neighbourhood, ALDA could testify how important is for local authorities to enter an international network and establish contacts with different, yet similar, cities and associations.

We strongly believe that partnership is the key ingredient to ensure innovation and prosperity to local communities and that’s what ALDA has been promoting and acting for since its creation.

Being a European Association developing projects and building bridges between civil society and local authorities to find shared solutions to local problems, ALDA wants to assist municipalities as much as possible especially in such a critical moment.

HOW TO APPLY:

Municipalities wishing to apply to this call are requested to fill in the registration form by December 31st, 2020, including precise information regarding:

• number of inhabitants
• number of infected people
• number of COVID-19-related deaths
• main affected sectors (education, tourism, agriculture, industry…)

You will also be requested to upload a text file describing at least one example of good practice that the Municipality has put in place in order to contain and fight the disease and the social and medical effects of it – highlighting, if possible, the cooperation that was established with the local Civil Society.

Let’s #stayEUnited and be resilient, together!

***

To have an overview of ALDA membership’s benefits, READ THE NEWS of the previous call for applications

An interview to Svetla Petrova, chief curator in the Archaeological Museum in Sandanski, (Bulgaria), interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Svetla Petrova is a PhD in archaeology and chief curator in the Archaeological Museum in Sandanski, Bulgaria. Her principal subjects are archaeology and world history, a specialist in ancient, late antique and early Byzantine Archaeology. She works on the organisation of exhibitions, scientific conferences, protection of cultural heritage, archaeological studies, excavations, as well as museum funds. Mrs Petrova used to be a member of the department of classical archaeology and a deputy head of the National Archaeological Institute and Museum, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, as well as inspector at the National Institute of Cultural Monuments. She has a competence in developmentand realisation of projects related to the ancient, late ancient and early Byzantine architecture and urban planning, early Christian Archaeology and basilica construction. She maintains excellent cooperation with Greece as well as with North Macedonia. Her professionalism and positive experience in cross-border cooperation makes her a very relevant speaker on the questions related to  ‘shared or contested heritage’.

What is heritage, how does it work and what does it mean for people with different backgrounds?

Svetla: Inheritance is what our ancestors left us with – material goods, historical memory, archaeological artefacts. When we speak about historical and archaeological heritage, it represents the ancestral memory of the people from a particular country or territory, shown through the artefacts. In any case, a person’s origin should not be relevant to the concept of heritage – it should be defined as national/ancestral memory.

Do you think that heritage institutions should be more inclusive or exclusive? Is it important to be clear about whose stories are being presented, by whom and for which purposes? Some practices point towards an inclusive approach through the restructuration of institutions and the fostering of supportive leadership.  What do you think about this approach?

Svetla: Archaeological and historical past are above all cultural, therefore the institutions dealing with Bulgarian national heritage – museums and institutes, ministry of culture; universities and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences act also as foundations. They are all committed to preserving the national cultural heritage. When the institutions operate efficiently, there is no need for them to be restructured, and it shouldn’t be a question of leadership therein, but only consideration of historical and archaeological data and facts.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Svetla: Of course, I have cross-border cooperation with colleagues from North Macedonia in the field of archaeology – the ancient and early Byzantine eras. I have no problems and difficulties with the communication and realisation of our projects.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Svetla: There may be some discrepancies. Stories are intertwined in the Balkans, but I don’t think that should disturb us. Historical facts are clear and should not be interpreted for one cause or another.

---

“A person’s origin should not be relevant to the concept of heritage – it should be defined as national/ancestral memory”

---

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Svetla: So far, I have no case of controversial results in my scientific field – Roman and early Christian/early Byzantine archaeology.

In a context of uncertainties and dystopias, what is the role of cultural heritage?

Svetla: I don’t see any uncertainty or discrepancy from their usual places in the area where I work.

One of the challenges for researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural heritage is to develop more inclusive approaches to share heritage in order to transgress social and national boundaries. Any ideas on how this approach could be implemented into your particular field of interest?

Svetla: Since my field of work pertains to an era when modern social and national borders did not exist, I have no problems in the study of the historical and archaeological heritage of that period. I think historical facts should be interpreted correctly. For archaeology, no such problem exists.

What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Svetla: I disagree, because national narratives are part of the ancestral memory of a given historical moment and there is no way, in my opinion, that they could be one-sided.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Svetla: The past always remains the past and cannot be interpreted as the present. In any event, as part of the cultural national heritage, it should have some impact. The past is marked by facts that, in our context, such as scientific activity, should not be distorted or adjusted to a particular situation. Cultural heritage, as a generic memory of a people, also determines its history. In the field of Roman and early Byzantine history and archaeology, I do not believe that adjustment or distortion of cultural heritage and identity can be applied, so far at least, it has never been the case.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Svetla: Words always influence if, of course, they are used accurately, clearly and correctly. Therefore, inordinate speaking in the field of cultural heritage, respectively, ancestral memory can lead to distortion and gross historical errors.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers.  The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview to Kristiyan Kovachev, historian, guest lecturer and PhD candidate from the South-West University “Neofit Rilski” in Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria Interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator.

Kristiyan Kovachev is a guest lecturer at the Southwestern University “Neofit Rilski” of Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria. He conducts seminars in Anthropology of the Middle Ages, Cultural Anthropology and Theory of Culture. He participated in the organisation and logistics of the conference “Culture, heritage and tourism for small towns” (2019) and was part of the team working on the project “Field archaeological excavations along the route of the Struma Motorway, lot 3.2 …” conducted by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. He has a Master’s degree in “Medieval Bulgaria: State, Society, Culture” from the Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski. As a historian whose PhD thesis is related with medieval Ohrid, he is a very relevant  interlocutor in the framework of our project “Shared or contested heritage“.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Kristiyan: Yes, I think so. I think that this is an essential task that could be solved scientifically – beyond the emotional – by presenting those “alternative stories” (outside the official national narrative) that complement definitions such as “shared history”, “common heritage”, and so on.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from North Macedonia and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Kristiyan: Yes, I do. My doctoral thesis is related to medieval Ohrid and I am in constant communication with representatives of the University of Skopje, the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Institute of National History in Skopje, various museums and the Macedonian Orthodox Church. I haven’t encountered any difficulties in our collaboration.

Have you worked on collaborative projects dealing with shared memories and histories?

Kristiyan: Yes. In 2018 I participated in a project related to the study of the process of construction of the popular historical narrative in Bulgaria and North Macedonia.

Can you suggest some new and creative approaches for the presentation of  facts relating to shared or contested heritage?

Kristiyan: Firstly, a good approach is to shift the focus – from the great national stories to the daily life of ordinary people – how they lived and thought the world around them. Currently, many researchers tend to focus not so much on the study of politics and wars (glorious victories and great kings) whereas on culture, placing the research focal point on “microhistory.”

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation? 

Kristiyan: Ohrid, which I am exploring, is a disputed area between Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs and Albanians. Serbian claims to Ohrid provoked Ivan Snegaroff to write “History of the Ohrid Archbishopric” in 1924. Today Ohrid is within the borders of the Republic of North Macedonia. However, Bulgarians (including some historians) insist that Ohrid is Bulgarian territory. In 2019, Albanian flags were placed on key historical sites in Ohrid. All this shows us that Ohrid is a disputed territory. At the same time, however, we can talk about Ohrid in a different way. The cultural heritage of Ohrid, which is a sacred place for Bulgarians and Macedonians, would benefit from a new reading as a “shared Balkan” and “shared European” heritage, without distorting historical facts and without opposing the countries’ interests in their current borders. This would be possible by presenting the “alternative story” – the one that will not divide us as for example, the history of art and culture. However, this could happen by adapting the modern Western conceptions of nations as “imagined communities”” (according to Benedict Anderson) and as a product of the 18th-19th centuries. Excluding nationalist discourse, medieval Ohrid can be seen as a place of contact between East and West, which is also depicted in its image system (frescoes, icons etc.).

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Kristiyan: In a national context, cultural heritage is thought of as something to be proud of. This is a relic left from the past to commemorate the glorious history of ancestors. It is used by the national governments as a tool for the formation of national consciousness, especially among adolescents. In the textbooks they are described as “strongholds of Bulgarian spirit” or “fortresses of Macedonianism”. Excursions are often made there with the task of consolidating the official national narrative in the students. In a supranational context, cultural heritage can unite the communities. In this regard, the attempt of the Council of Europe to develop Cultural Routes is indicative. They act as channels for intercultural dialogue and promote a better knowledge and understanding of European shared cultural heritage.

---

“Reviewing cultural heritage, a good approach is to shift the focus: from the great national stories to the daily life of ordinary people”

---

Another method of challenging the national narrative, regarding shared or contested heritage, would be to go from the particular to the universal. Cornelius Holtorf writes: “(…) the new cultural heritage can transcend cultural particularism by promoting values and virtues derived from humanism and a commitment to global solidarity.” What do you think about this?

Kristiyan: Yes, I think so. A good opportunity in this direction is the development of global networks for shared cultural heritage, which will strengthen universal values.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Kristiyan: I think not. In my opinion, this will be the case as long as the political discourse dictates how to talk about the past. This will be the case until the past ceases to be used by politics to argue current policies.

What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree or not and why?

Kristiyan: I agree. In the national historical narrative, there is always a victorious country whose history is presented chronologically in its “rise” to a glorious empire. This historical truth is fixed in the memory of the collective. It cannot be disputed. Any different story (from the established narrative) is perceived as an attempt to falsify the story.

Do you think that being more polyvocal, engaging, diverse, (self-)reflective and participatory may solve some of the obstacles on the way of presenting cultural heritage (shared or contested)? 

Kristiyan: I hope so. However, solving these problems must become a cause. And the whole group, in this case the “historical guild”, must be involved in this cause. And its task is not easy – to talk about the past as it is, without additional embellishments influenced by current politics and nationalism. “Sine ira et studio”!

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers.  The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interviewee and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

An interview with Bojana Janeva Shemova, art historian and curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Skopje, Interviewed by Ana Frangovska, art historian and curator

Bojana Janeva Shemova is an art historian and curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Skopje. Her interests extend to the fields of individual identity of the artist and social interactions as building blocks of society. Mrs Shemova also works as an independent curator, realizing and organizing many manifestations and exhibitions locally and internationally. In 2009 she curated the Macedonian participation at the Venice Biennale with the art project “Fifty-fifty” by the artist Goce Nanevski. Since 2012 she is a co-founder of “Ars Acta-Institute for Arts and Culture”, Skopje. She first specialized in Byzantine art history, and then, in 2010, completed her Master’s degree on “Art and Cultural Heritage, Cultural Policy, Management and Education” at the University of Maastricht. Currently, her work is mostly focused on the field of contemporary art and contemporary culture. Her passion for cultural heritage is derived from her professional experience as well as its application through the touristic tours she offers in Skopje. For the purpose of this interview, Mrs Shemova will reflect on the topic “Common or disputed heritage”.

What is heritage, how does it work and what does it mean for people with different backgrounds?

Bojana: Heritage, and in particular cultural heritage has a broad scope of meanings and levels of importance to different social, cultural and ethnic groups; and it can have a different interpretation depending on a personal approach. It has an enormous role in defining self-identification as well as on the conception of a national narrative, and in the creation of a sense of belonging, which has been very often used as a “tool” in political outwitting. The main mechanism of cultural heritage development is the social selection and the community’s way of passing it on from generation to generation.

Do you think that heritage institutions should be more inclusive or exclusive? Is it important to be clear about whose stories are being presented, by whom and for which purposes? Some practices point towards an inclusive approach through the restructuration of institutions and the fostering of supportive leadership. What do you think about this approach?

Bojana: Of course, there is notable world-wide reconsideration of the narratives and position stands that have been prevailing for quite some time. One of the most important examples is the re-conceptualisation of the MOMA New York collection by including more indigenous and black artists.

It seems as an important decision because everywhere in the world it is deemed as a starting position of the institutions’ cultural identity and political inclinations. I believe that there is a lot of work to be done in the field of restructuring the institutions towards more inclusive programs of underrepresented groups.

Do you engage in cross-border cooperation with professionals from Greece and Bulgaria and do you find any difficulties in its realisation?

Bojana: As a curator in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Skopje, I will point out that in 2019 for the first time after a long hiatus; a collection from artists of the Thessaloniki Museum of Contemporary Art was finally presented in our museum. This event represented a great success since we had not seen works from Greek artists in a long time.

We do have heritage that can evoke different – sometimes difficult or competing – views and emotions, depending on the approach and viewpoint. The challenge of dealing with such divergence lies in the attempt to simultaneously convey these different views and voices when presenting this heritage to the public. Do you agree and do you think that this is an essential task when dealing with heritage and histories that speak to different people in different ways?

Bojana: It can be, but what is fundamental when dealing with cultural heritage is to take into consideration all of the aspects and stories behind it. Also, to be ready for controversial reactions, because one of the keycomponents of rethinking cultural heritage is that it takes time.

Can you think of an example of a case study of shared or contested heritage related to your particular field of interest (ethno-music, history, archaeology, contemporary art, art history etc.) and how would you approach its presentation?

Bojana: The contemporary art field is in its basis above and beyond the national agendas and historical connotations. My approach to these topics is firstly focused on the universal, human ideas, then on the national characteristics. This is why in the field of contemporary culture, very often there are examples of international manifestations that are celebrating universal qualities and values.

---

Dealing with cultural heritage means taking into consideration all aspects and stories behind a landmark and be ready for controversial reactions

---

What is the impact of Cultural Heritage on solving issues related with shared or contested history?

Bojana: Cultural heritage has enormous importance in the contested history among different countries. Especially in the countries that have overlapping history. One of the peculiar examples for me is the naming of the medieval King Marko, with different nouns Krale Marko by Macedonians, Krali Marko by the Bulgarians and Kraljevic Marko by the Serbians. We all believe that he was part of our history, which he was, because of the geo-political positions at that time.

How we choose to remember the past and how we choose to move forward are the critical issues of today. What does cultural heritage mean in different national and regional contexts? Who can claim it as theirs, and who decides how it is preserved, displayed, or restored? How to share cultural heritage?

Bojana: Nowadays, the importance of certain aspects of cultural heritage  depends a great deal on the political agendas of the country. We are witnessing changes in narratives, overlapping with the changes of Governments. This is obvious especially in the young countries like ours, who are still in the formative period of  their national pride and sense of belonging through the different parts of the oral and written heritage.

“What signifies the national narratives are that they do not include layers; they are one-sided, often chronological and has a sense of a fixed, static, historical truth, about them”, said Anderson in 1991. Do you agree with this citation and why?

Bojana: Sadly, I do agree that this has been the case in the past and still is today. Maybe, it is finally time to rethink the possibilities of multilayered and open-minded views on history.

When we discuss about shared or contested heritage the issue of time is essential, and in extreme cases of recent turmoil, the best method for reconciliation might not be to address the past as individually relatable; but rather that the past should hopefully remain in the past. Do you think that this can be implemented into our context?

Bojana: I completely agree that the past should remain in the past, especially now when the whole world is infected with globalization and interconnectedness among people. However, in our context I believe that this process will go slowly and with difficulty, considering the social, economic and political strong agendas of the different sides.

Do you think that the realm of words can influence the way the audience read the stories related to heritage (shared or contested)?

Bojana: I do. Not only the realm of words, but also the visual imagery has a strong impact on this process.

***

The interview is conducted within the framework of the project “Shared or contested heritage”, implemented by ALDA Skopje and Forum ZFD. The aim of the project is to improve cross-border cooperation between North Macedonia, Greece and Bulgaria. The project raises awareness of the role of contested histories and shared cultural heritage for the EU integration processes among heritage practitioners and cultural workers. The content of the interview is the sole responsibility of the interview and does not always reflect the views and attitudes of ALDA and Forum ZFD.

After having been reported several times due to the global sanitary emergency, on Friday 9th October 2020 took finally place in Brussels the ALDA General Assembly, broadcasted online, so that each member of ALDA as well as the whole staff could participate, in accordance with rules related to anti-COVID-19 spreading. It was a very significant day, which marked an essential appointment in the ALDA annual calendar and saw the participation of special guests and keynote speakers.

The all-day long General Assembly was officially opened by Mr Oriano Otočan, President of ALDA, followed by Mr Gilles Pelayo, Head of Unit of the programme Europe for Citizens, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and Mr Xavier Cadoret, Vice-President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, who both expressed their greetings and best wished for ALDA’s present and future achievements.

This introduction was followed by a statutory part, during which a number of important internal documents underwent the members’ approval. Afterwards, the Extraordinary General Assembly began, and the members had been asked to express their opinions on a series of major decisions.

Among the highlights of the Assembly was the renewal of ALDA Governing Board with the consequent elections of its twelve new components (which will be presented in a separate article).

---

An eventful ALDA Assembly: statutory changes and relevant decisions, keynote speakers and the election of a new Governing Board

---

The afternoon was fully aimed at celebrating the 20 years of ALDA, through the launch of the recent Activity Report, the new Strategic Views 2020-2024 and the presentation of ALDA’s flagship initiatives, introduced by Antonella Valmorbida, ALDA Secretary General, with the interventions of the following keynote speakers:

– Mr Paolo Ciccarelli, Head of the European Commission’s DG DEVCO, intervened on the “European Support to Local Democracy”

– Mr Oriano Otočan, ALDA President, presented the “Balkan network for Local Democracy”

– Mr Denis Schrey, Head of the Multinational Development Policy Dialogue of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, for the “Local Democracy solving Local problems”, a very recent output of the project “Empowering Local Authorities & Civil Society to Deliver Solutions with Participatory Democracy”.

Keeping our tradition, the annual General Assembly ended with the presentation of the new members of ALDA, cheered with an ad-hoc “ALDA-member” certificate, which will be sent to each of them as welcome gift and acknowledgement of their presence in the wide network of ALDA!

On Friday October 9th, just after the Extraordinary General Assembly, the 12 candidates to the Governing Board were unanimously elected: an unprecedent situation justified by the number of candidates, being 12 as the positions available, and the excellence of each of them.

Thus, each candidate briefly introduced himself/herself and the ALDA-member organization they represent, highlighting the motivations to become part of the Board.

Afterwards, we all assisted to the proclamation of the new Governing Board of ALDA, officially composed by:

– Mr Maurizio Camin, Association “Trentino con i Balcani” (Italy)

– Mr Emir Coric, Municipality of Centar (North Macedonia)

– Mr Didier Duboisset, Pays Vichy Auvergne (France)

– Ms Shorena Khukhua, Kutaisi Municipality (Georgia)

– Mr Roger Lawrence, individual member (United Kingdom)

– Mr Dobrica Milovanovic, individual member (Serbia)

– Mr Bartek Ostrovski, Merkury Foundation (Poland)

– Mr Oriano Otočan, Istria Region (Croatia)

– Mr Alessandro Perelli, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy)

– Mr Andrea Rilievo, Social Cooperative “Studio Progetto” (Italy)

– Ms Natasa Vuckovic, Center for Democracy Foundation (Serbia) – Mr Francesco Zarzana, Association “Progettarte” (Italy)

In addition to the elected members, three statutory members make also part of the Board: a representative of the Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform, the President of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe or his representative and, finally, a representative of the LDAs network.

---

“We would like to officially offer our heartfelt thanks to each of the members of the exiting Governing Board”

---

On the same day of the elections, right after the appointment, the first meeting of the new Governing Board of ALDA took place, online as the rest of the events. This first internal meeting was particularly relevant not only as one of the first moments the newly elected members had to get to know each other better, but also as the designation field of the new Bureau of ALDA, composed as follows:

– Mr Oriano Otocan, ALDA President

– Mr Alessandro Perelli, ALDA Vice President

– Mr Francesco Zarzana, ALDA Vice President

– Mr Bartek Ostrowski, ALDA Vice President

– Mr Roger Lawrence, ALDA Treasurer

We wish all of them good luck for the next four years of work and engagement in ALDA Governing Board, and we would like to offer our particular congratulations and appreciations to Mr Oriano Otočan, re-elected President of ALDA, to Mr Alessandro Perelli, reconfirmed Vice President, to Mr. Francesco Zarzana already a member of the Board and elected as Vice President of ALDA, and to Mr Roger Lawrence, also renewed as ALDA’s Treasurer.

On behalf of the whole Association, we are extremely proud to be guided and represented by such a Governing Board, composed of qualified and experienced people, representing the geographical and cultural diversity which are among the core values promoted by ALDA.

On Wednesday 7th October 2020, took place the final conference of the project “Empowering Local Authorities & Civil Society to Deliver Solutions with Participatory Democracy”, organised in Brussels and streamed online for all participants.

Officially kicked-off in April 2019 and carried out thanks to the support of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) programme, the project aimed at strengthening local authorities in Ukraine and Moldova, by empowering them to identify and deliver solutions using participatory methodologies, thus involving the whole community in the decision-making processes.

Despite the hybrid nature of the event, with speakers and participants both online and in presence, the conference enjoyed of a great vivacity and a high level of interaction. At first, the event was introduced by Denis Schrey, Head of Multinational Development Policy Dialogue (KAS) and Oriano Otočan, President of ALDA. This was followed by three presentations conducted by Antonella Valmorbida, ALDA Secretary General, David Mathews, President and CEO of the Kettering Foundation (USA) and Alexandru Coica, Project and Area Manager at ALDA.

During her speech, Ms Valmorbida not only described the main findings and the experiences in the four target cities, namely Dnipro and Mariupol in Ukraine, Cimislia and Comrat in Moldova. Most importantly, she presented the highlight and the major output of the project: a published book, titled “Participatory Democracy in Moldova and Ukraine – Empowering authorities and civil society to deliver solutions at the local level”. The book presents the research, the tools and the practical recommendations for local development and it is intended to be a guide and a source of inspiration for all communities interested in embarking in such a participatory journey, aimed at finding pragmatic and shared solutions to local issues.

---

“We would like to officially offer our heartfelt thanks to each of the members of the exiting Governing Board”

---

Later on, the floor was given to Borys Albertovich Filatov, mayor of Dnipro and to Sergiu Andronachi, mayor of Cimislia, who shared their grassroot experiences concerning the application of innovative methods of citizens engagement. Afterwards, the perspective switched from local to a broader perspective, thanks to the input of Mathieu Bousquet, Head of Unit DG NEAR. The conference ended with a debate on recommendations to improve the effectiveness of local participative democracy, moderated by Alexandru Coica, and led by Daniela Morari, Ambassador and Head of the Mission of the Republic of Moldova to the EU.

All in all, the successful results of the project made it clear the immense potential of such processes in terms of problem solving, social empowerment and economic development, as they generate new energies, ideas and contribute to fight against the sense of frustration and brain drain in countries.

By virtue of this, even though this was the last conference, we suspect that actions to foster participatory democracy in Ukraine and Moldova won’t stop here. Stay tuned to discover all follow-ups of this great project!