C O N T E X T 1 4 2 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 5 11 A fragile consensus Who is the expert in the historic building heritage? The IHBC member, obviously: a rigorous assessment process ensures that. But there are other experts too. We describe as heritage things that we value and identify with, and we may not need professionals to tell us what those things are and how we should treat them. Back in the 1980s Lionel Esher described what he saw as changing attitudes towards heritage. ‘Until 1940 educated people were extremely choosy about past styles of architecture. The Antique had a century of adulation; Tudor came in and went out; Louis XV went out then came in. But outside these decorators’ fashions, any new buildings were always thought to be an improvement and in designing them no deference whatever was paid to old environments. Then, perhaps as a result of the uniquely destructive character of World War II, there occurred a change in human sensibility. By 1950 we loved everything, however hideous.’ The change in human sensibility had not changed Esher’s confidence that, whatever anyone else thought, he knew what was important and of universal value. In the 21st century, by contrast, our ideas of the value of heritage – of what is of value and who has a right to have their views heard – have become much more fluid. On page 12 Rebecca Madgin and Michael Taylor set the scene for a set of articles in this issue of Context that look at how decisions about heritage are made and at some of the new types of expert that are playing valued roles in the sector. If heritage values belong to everyone, Madgin and Taylor wonder, where does that leave the role of the heritage professional? The heritage sector has continually evolved, they conclude: the challenge now is to unlock and recognise other forms of expertise in a world where consensus is fragile. Who is the expert?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=