PROGRAMMES, PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES BEST REFLECTING THE ...



CONVENTION FOR THE SAFEGUARDING

OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE FOR THE

SAFEGUARDING OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE

Sixth session

Bali, Indonesia

November 2011

Proposal no. 00515

for a Programme, Project and Activity Best Reflecting the

Principles and Objectives of the Convention in 2011

|A. |STATE(S) PARTY(IES) |

| |FOR MULTI-NATIONAL NOMINATIONS, STATES PARTIES SHOULD BE LISTED IN THE ORDER ON WHICH THEY HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED. |

|HUNGARY |

|B. |TITLE OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY TO BE PROPOSED FOR SELECTION AND PROMOTION |

| |THIS IS THE OFFICIAL TITLE OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IN ENGLISH OR FRENCH THAT WILL APPEAR IN PUBLISHED MATERIAL FROM THE|

| |COMMITTEE. IT SHOULD BE CONCISE. PLEASE DO NOT EXCEED 200 CHARACTERS, INCLUDING SPACES AND PUNCTUATION. THE TITLE SHOULD BE |

| |TRANSCRIBED IN LATIN UNICODE CHARACTERS (BASIC LATIN, LATIN-1 SUPPLEMENT, LATIN EXTENDED-A OR LATIN EXTENDED ADDITIONAL). |

|THE TÁNCHÁZ METHOD: A HUNGARIAN MODEL FOR THE TRANSMISSION OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE |

|C. |GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY |

| |CHECK ONE BOX TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THE GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS ESSENTIALLY NATIONAL, SUB-REGIONAL, |

| |REGIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL (THE LAST CATEGORY INCLUDES PROJECTS CARRIED OUT IN GEOGRAPHICALLY NON-CONTINUOUS AREAS). |

| NATIONAL |

|sub-regional |

|regional |

|international (including geographically non-continuous areas) |

|D. |Status of the programme, project or activity |

| |SELECT ONE BOX TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED, IN PROGRESS OR ONLY PLANNED AT THE TIME THE |

| |PROPOSAL IS SUBMITTED. |

| COMPLETED |

|in progress |

|planned |

|E. |Identification of the programme, project or activity to be selected and promoted |

|E.1. |Identification of the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned and their location |

| |ACCORDING TO THE 2003 CONVENTION, INTANGIBLE HERITAGE CAN ONLY BE IDENTIFIED WITH REFERENCE TO COMMUNITIES, GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS |

| |THAT RECOGNIZE IT AS PART OF THEIR CULTURAL HERITAGE. THUS IT IS IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY CLEARLY THE COMMUNITY(IES), GROUP(S) OR, IF |

| |APPLICABLE, INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED WITH THE PROPOSED PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY. LARGER PROGRAMMES, ESPECIALLY THOSE OF AN |

| |INTERNATIONAL CHARACTER, MAY INVOLVE MULTIPLE COMMUNITIES. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED SHOULD ALLOW THE COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY THE |

| |PRIMARY PARTIES CONCERNED WITH A PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY, AND SHOULD BE MUTUALLY COHERENT WITH THE RELEVANT SECTIONS BELOW. |

| |NOT TO EXCEED 250 WORDS. |

|1. BEARERS OF THE TRADITIONAL CULTURE, SOURCES OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE IN RURAL HUNGARY AND NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES |

|- LOCAL MUSICIANS, DANCERS, SINGERS, STORY TELLERS, HANDCRAFT ARTISTS AND MASTERS |

|- SPECIALISTS, ARTISTS AND PERFORMERS, AWARDEES OF THE MASTER OF FOLK ARTS (NATIONAL DISTINCTION) |

|- LOCAL HERITAGE REVIVAL COMMUNITIES AND GRASS-ROOTS GROUPS, LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS |

|2. MEDIATORS/INTERMEDIARIES AND TRANSMITTERS OF TRADITIONAL CULTURE (IN BUDAPEST AND MAJOR CITIES THROUGHOUT HUNGARY): |

|- RESEARCHERS AND EXPERTS IN THE VARIOUS DOMAINS/FIELDS (FOLK MUSIC, FOLK DANCE, FOLKLORE, EDUCATORS, MUSEOLOGISTS, COLLECTORS IN THE FIELD, |

|CHOREOGRAPHERS, ETHNOMUSIOLOGISTS, FOLKLORISTS), ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS |

|- COORDINATING AND DISSEMINATING SPECIALISTS – REVIVAL FOLK MUSICIANS, FOLK DANCE, -SONG AND HANDCRAFTS INSTRUCTORS, PEDAGOGUES, PROGRAM |

|ANIMATORS, AND EDUCATION AND CULTURE INSTITUTIONS SUCH AS THE HUNGARIAN HERITAGE HOUSE, TÁNCHÁZ GUILD, FOLK MUSIC AND ART SCHOOLS. |

|- SPECIFIC UMBRELLA INTEREST GROUPS, NGO’S: ASSOCIATION OF HUNGARIAN FOLK ARTISTS, MUHARAY ELEMÉR FOLK ART ASSOCIATION (FOR RURAL REVIVAL |

|GROUPS), MARTIN GYÖRGY ASSOCIATION (REVIVAL FOLK DANCE GROUPS) AND HERITAGE CHILDREN’S FOLK ART ASSOCIATION, AWARDEES OF YOUNG MASTER OF FOLK |

|ARTS (NATIONAL TITLE) |

|3. PARTICIPATING PUBLIC (PRIMARILY AT TÁNCHÁZ OCCASIONS AND EVENTS THROUGHOUT HUNGARY BUT INCREASINGLY AROUND THE WORLD) |

|- SELF-ENRICHMENT GROUPS, EXTRA-CURRICULAR GROUPS (AFFILIATED WITH SECONDARY, POST-SECONDARY, AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS), AND |

|MIDDLE-AGED MEMBERS OF THE URBAN BASED HERITAGE REVIVAL MOVEMENT OF THE 1970S |

|- ASSOCIATIONS OF VARIOUS FOLK ART DOMAINS (DANCE GROUPS, SINGING GROUPS, HOBBY GROUPS) |

|- INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS. |

|E.2. |GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND RANGE OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY |

| |THIS SECTION SHOULD IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS IN WHICH THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS CARRIED OUT. |

| |NOT TO EXCEED 100 WORDS. |

|THE TÁNCHÁZ MODEL SPREAD IN THREE WAVES: 1) EMERGENCE IN BUDAPEST IN 1973 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT RAPID SPREAD THROUGHOUT HUNGARY. 2) GAINING GROUND|

|IN THE ETHNIC-HUNGARIAN COMMUNITIES IN NEIGHBOURING COUNTRIES BY 1985. 3) ADOPTED BY NON-HUNGARIANS (TÁNCHÁZ-ES, GROUPS AND CAMPS APPLYING THE |

|METHOD IN EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND ASIA WITH CONTINUED CLOSE AFFILIATATION TO TÁNCHÁZ EVENTS IN HUNGARY). TÁNCHÁZ-ES IN NORTH AMERICA EMERGED |

|IN BOTH THE SECOND AND THIRD WAVES SINCE THE 1980S, WITH A MIXED FOLLOWING OF ETHNIC HUNGARIANS AND NON-HUNGARIANS. FOLLOWING THE THIRD WAVE, |

|THE MODEL WAS ADAPTED AND APPLIED TO THE SAFEGUARDING AND TRANSMISSION OF OTHER TRADITIONAL CULTURES. IN 1994 POLISH, IN 2002 SLOVAKIAN |

|TÁNCHÁZ-ES EMERGED IN POLAND AND SLOVAKIA RESPECTIVELY, INSPIRED BY THE HUNGARIAN MODEL. |

|E.3. |DOMAIN(S) REPRESENTED BY THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY, IF APPLICABLE |

| |IDENTIFY CONCISELY THE DOMAIN(S) OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY, WHICH MIGHT |

| |INCLUDE ONE OR MORE OF THE DOMAINS IDENTIFIED IN ARTICLE 2.2 OF THE CONVENTION. |

| |NOT TO EXCEED 100 WORDS. |

|THE TÁNCHÁZ MODEL DUE TO ITS COMPREHENSIVE NATURE/CONCEPT AND RANGE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT EMBRACES AND REPRESENTS ALL OF THE DOMAINS |

|STIPULATED IN THE CONVENTION: |

|A) ORAL TRADITIONS AND FORMS OF EXPRESSION, INCLUDING LANGUAGE AS A VEHICLE OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE |

|B) PERFORMING ARTS |

|C) SOCIAL PRACTICES, RITUALS AND FESTIVE EVENTS |

|D) KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES CONCERNING NATURE AND THE UNIVERSE |

|E) TRADITIONAL CRAFTSMANSHIP |

|F. |BRIEF TEXTUAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY |

| |THIS BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY WILL BE PARTICULARLY HELPFUL IN ALLOWING THE COMMITTEE TO KNOW AT A |

| |GLANCE WHAT PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS BEING PROPOSED AND WHY IT SHOULD BE SELECTED AND PROMOTED BY THE COMMITTEE AS BEST |

| |REFLECTING THE PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONVENTION. IT SHOULD BE A SUMMARY OF THE DESCRIPTION PROVIDED IN ITEMS 1 AND 2 BELOW|

| |BUT IS NOT AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LONGER DESCRIPTION OF ITEM 1. |

| |NOT TO EXCEED 200 WORDS. |

|THE ’TÁNCHÁZ’ MOVEMENT EMERGING IN THE EARLY 1970S IN BUDAPEST, IS AN INTERACTIVE COMMUNITY-BASED, RECREATIONAL OCCASION OF ENTERTAINMENT AND |

|ENRICHMENT FOR MODERN-DAY PEOPLE THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE APPLICATION OF TRADITIONAL ICH (PARTICULARLY MUSIC, DANCE, POETRY, CUSTOMS, ETC.). |

|TÁNCHÁZ [TERM LITERALLY: ’DANCE HOUSE’- FROM ETHNIC-HUNGARIAN VILLAGES IN EASTERN PART OF THE HUNGARIAN LANGUAGE TERRITORY] IS AN OPEN, |

|GRASSROOTS, FREELY ACCESSIBLE CULTURAL NETWORK BORN OF THE COMBINED EFFORTS OF FOLKLORE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ARTISTIC ACTIVITIES FOR THE |

|TRANSMISSION OF TRADITIONAL ICH. |

|Essence of the method: ICH elements are gleaned directly from as yet living practice in rural communities and from archive collections under |

|continual guidance from experts and researchers. Living rural culture is transplanted into vastly different socio-cultural environments, |

|revaluating its importance locally and ensuring its capacity for renewal. The model is exemplary as it has a flexible easily adaptable |

|methodology for the safeguarding and transmission of any community’s ICH through hands-on acquisition – thereby safeguarding and sustaining its|

|diversity. Active engagement of participants instills a sense of community which is renewed and sustained through repeated opportunities for |

|social interaction, enrichment and recreation. The direct engagement method of learning the ICH facilitates its integration into participants’ |

|daily lives, who in turn become the bearers, transmitters and re-creators of the heritage. Although Táncház receives limited state funding and |

|has been somewhat institutionalized, it remains a self-sufficient, self-perpetuating socio-cultural movement. |

|1. |Description of the programme, project or activity |

| |TOGETHER, ITEMS 1.A. AND 1.B. SHOULD PROVIDE A SUCCINCT DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY AND ITS MAIN ELEMENTS. IF |

| |IT IS COMPLETED OR IN-PROGRESS, PLEASE DESCRIBE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR IS UNDERWAY. IF IT IS ONLY PLANNED AT THE TIME OF THIS |

| |PROPOSAL, DESCRIBE WHAT IS INTENDED AND CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO HAPPEN WITHIN ITS SCOPE. |

|1.A. |BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE |

| |Describe the situation that led to the creation of the programme, project or activity – what safeguarding needs were identified and |

| |by whom, and how priorities were identified and established. Please identify the programme, project or activity’s primary objectives.|

| | |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|The grass-roosts initiative ’táncház’ emerged at a time and in a socio-cultural environment when folklore research, education and artistic |

|activity joined forces beneficially for the safeguarding and transmission of ICH. Methods for teaching folk music and dance in a community |

|recreational setting for the participants’ own enrichment and enjoyment (as opposed to staged performance) were devised and refined by experts |

|of multiple disciplines. Anyone at any age can enter the process at any time and immediately live the experience while acquiring the necessary |

|knowledge. Age group- or content-specific táncház-es have developed, as well as workshops, camps, playhouses and handcraft clubs. |

|General goals: |

|- establishing a value-based, community-building, entertaining yet educational form of recreational activity through the complex application |

|and transmission of ICH |

|- supplanting the natural trans-generational transmission of ICH that was disrupted, through humanized interactive engagement - enabling ICH |

|elements to become an integral part of youger generation’s daily lives and practice |

|- contributing to recognition of cultural diversity on local/ national/international levels by providing access and exposure to the |

|multi-ethnic culture of East-Central Europe |

|- conveying norms and patterns of inter/intra-community communication/behaviour through traditional forms of expression (folk dance, music and |

|poetry) while encouraging creativity |

|- safeguarding and sustaining the diversity of culture locally and in other socio-cultural environments. |

|Development |

|1972–82 – Inception |

|The first táncház was organized in Budapest in 1972 for two Budapest-based dance groups (Bihari, Bartók) by their respective |

|choreographer-leaders (Foltin, Timár) initiated by dance ethnographer, researcher (György Martin). By 1973 regularly scheduled, openly |

|attendable táncház-es were organized throughout Budapest and eventually the country with live music and dance teaching – becoming a nation-wide|

|social movement drawing thousands of young people. |

|Factors contributing to instant popularity: |

|- interest of contemporary public media |

|- discovery, data collection of the still vibrant, functionally intact dance and music culture of villages in the eastern part of the Hungarian|

|language territory |

|- willingness of researchers, artists and educators to jointly provide continual assisstance in developing/refining and implementing methods |

|- contemporary youth’s attraction to grassroots, alternative sub-culture and to active involvement void of formalities; their need for |

|community belonging/identity. |

|1982-2000 – Institutionalization |

|Training programs and courses are devised to prepare revival folk musicians and dance teachers for operating in táncház-es. The Folk Dance |

|Resource Centre is established (1981) where the public can access archive recordings of dance and music informations and bearers while |

|receiving assisstance in methodology. Increasing numbers of publications (books, audio and visual media) appear – popularizing táncház and |

|assisting in methodology and transmission. |

|The National Táncház Festival and Fair (held annually since 1982) is the largest-scale meeting of bearers, mediators and enthusiasts. Táncház |

|methods are utilized in art schools and all levels of public education, and influence performing folk dance/music culture. |

|2001– present |

|NGO’s form and are represented and coordianted by nation-wide umbrella organizations. The Hungarian Heritage House (establsihed by the Ministry|

|of Culture and Education) also serves to nurture the táncház movement. |

|Developments in higher education greatly enhance the continued quality of táncház-es: |

|- 2007 – BA, 2010 - MA Instrumental Folk Music degree course is establsihed at the Liszt Ferenc University of Music |

|- 2010 – MA Folk Dance Educator course commences at the Hungarian Dance Academy. |

|Táncház has outgrown original infrastructural bounds finding new popularity in further community spaces while engaging their clientele (ie. |

|coffee houses, pubs). |

|1.b. |Safeguarding measures involved |

| |This section should briefly describe the specific safeguarding measures the programme, project or activity includes and why they were|

| |selected. Please identify what innovative methods or modalities were/will be involved, if any. |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|1. Development of methodology framework |

|The methodology of táncház folk dance and music teaching combines traditional forms of natural acquisition (learning material by imitation, for|

|example) and modern pedagogical and folkloristic methods (ie. movement analysis). This method enables anyone regardless of his/her level of |

|competence or exposure to immediately become an active participant, even in a single encounter. |

|The teaching in táncház breaks down figures to component motiffs or movements. These are shown by instructors and imitated by participants in a|

|circle, and later in couples to live music, until a level of improvisative free dancing is reached. Singing instruction, handcraft activities |

|and ethnographic presentations complement the dancing. |

|Typically the first hour of táncház is exclusively dance instruction, which is followed by free improvisative dance for experienced dancers and|

|continued teaching for novices. |

|2. Development of institutional and educational support systems |

|Táncház enthusiats initially established NGO’s of representation. Today these are members of umbrella organizations spanning the entire country|

|- specialized by field/domain and by region. |

|Another form of institutionalization was the concurrent development of the system of education and training in the field, which is now |

|integrated in primary and secondary education, art schools, adult further education and higher education. Its presence in training and |

|education spanning the entire vertical spectrum caters to the needs of amateur interested individuals on through to the professionals in the |

|field at their respective levels. |

|3. Access to source material (publications, archives) |

|Educational materials (CD, DVD, DVD-ROM) facilitating the teaching of dance, music, handcrafts and methodology are continuously being published|

|(Hungarian Heritage House publications and Planétás: ’Jelenlévő múlt’ [Ever Present Past] series). |

|A digitalized audio-visual collection is also publically accessible in the Martin Media Library of the Hungarian Heritage House. |

|The amassed knowledge of ethnographic research has a direct effect on the táncház model. |

|4. Maintaining channels of communication |

|Channels of communication specific to the civic network are maintained through a quarterly periodical ’FolkMAGazin’ by the Táncház Guild, and |

|through Internet forums ie. ’Folkrádió’, ’Folklista’. |

|5. Innovation in Methodology |

|Elements of ICH are adapted to other (contemporary) socio-cultural environments. Active and interactive participation is required by |

|participants. The aim is not the creation of a performance, but rather providing active entertainment and community belonging. ICH is |

|transmitted through local traditional expressions and is based on folklore and dance research, utilizing developments in the revival folk dance|

|and music field as well as taking into consideration the expectations and needs of non-formal learning and community enrichment. |

|There is a continuous face-to-face contact and interaction among the parties involved (táncház-goers and the ’source’- the bearers of ICH |

|elements). These bearers of folk dance, music and other elements attend the camps and workshops, while táncház-goers visit the rural |

|communities of the bearers. The result: a cultural exchange/dialogue, increased tolerance, sense of identity and cultural self-esteem. |

|The model leads to an open, self-sustaining cultural network, void of central control that through the cooperation of NGO’s ensures public |

|access. |

|2. |Why this programme, project or activity deserves to be selected and promoted |

| |SECTIONS 2.A. TO 2.D. SHOULD PROVIDE THE COMMITTEE THE INFORMATION IT WILL NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY |

| |BEST SATISFIES THE SELECTION CRITERIA IT HAS ESTABLISHED (OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES PARAGRAPH 52). THE JUSTIFICATION OFFERED HERE SHOULD|

| |BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, RATHER THAN SIMPLY ASSERTED. |

|2.A. |HOW IT REFLECTS THE PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONVENTION |

| |Identify the specific principles and objectives of the Convention that are addressed by the programme, project or activity and |

| |explain how it reflects those principles and objectives in its conception, design and implementation. |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|a) Safeguarding ICH |

|The Táncház method facilitates safeguarding, transmission and sustaining ICH both at its natural local level as well as in the non-traditional |

|setting created by folklorism. The nature of the táncház model makes it functionally adaptable, wherein 21st century man (far removed from his |

|heritage) is provided with a conscious, integrated cultural language (music, dance, customs, etc.), as well as an increased awareness of nature|

|and a way of living. Embodying this viable alternative also facilitates an openness to and acceptance of other aspects of culture, as well as |

|other peoples’cultures. |

|Táncház also facilitates the sustainability of still existing but changing traditional values. |

|b) Raising awareness and respect for the ICH of involved communities, groups and individuals |

|The táncház movement and the systematic documentation, archiving and processing of research upon which the model is based has raised awareness |

|regarding the importance of traditional culture. The interest and enquiries carried out locally by musicians, dancers and singers as well as |

|the data collections and learning processes in the field have also sensitized memebers of the local rural communities to the importance and |

|value of their own traditional culture and spurred them to partake in its preservation and revival. Making this cultural heritage publically |

|accessable within the framework of the táncház movement has raised awareness and increased the respect of outsiders for these rural communities|

|and their local traditional culture. |

|c) Mutual recognition of ICH and raising awareness at local, national and international levels |

|As the traditional knowledge of these communities is being transmitted in the domains of expression stipulated by the Convention, it becomes |

|natural to recognize and respect the manifestations of ’other’ communities, ethnic groups and nationalities. |

|The Hungarian táncház method serves to bridge the gap between different ethnic groups and facilitates learning of each other’s culture and the |

|development of respect based on knowledge there of. |

|d) Development of international cooperation and assisstance |

|The method is also based on an openness to domestic ethnic groups as well as those in neighbouring and distant countries. International |

|recognition is evidenced by application of the táncház model for preservation of their own heritage in other countries (Slovakia, Poland,the |

|Udmurt Republic) or regular occasions of Hungarian táncház-es abroad (Germany, Japan, USA, Uruguay, etc.) where communities have formed to |

|learn and practice Hungarian culture. In Hungary dance groups, revival and heritage preservation groups have formed as a consequence of the |

|movement and regularly host international folklore festivals (Summerfest- Százhalombatta, Duna Carnival International Multi-Cultural Festival, |

|’Gyöngy’ International Folklore Festival – Gyöngyös, etc.) under the egis of CIOFF Hungary. |

|The táncház method is a viable manifestation of article 2.3 of the convention: ’safeguarding’- measures promoting the preservation of ICH |

|including identification, documentation, transmission and dissemination of elements (especially as regards formal and non-formal, and |

|curricular and extracurricular teaching), as well as revival of various aspects of that heritage. |

|2.b. |Its effectiveness, either demonstrated or reasonably expected |

| |If already completed, please show how the programme, project or activity has demonstrated effectiveness in contributing to the |

| |viability of the intangible cultural heritage concerned. If it is still underway or planned, show how it can reasonably be expected |

| |to contribute substantially to the viability of the intangible cultural heritage concerned. Please explain how the results of the |

| |programme, project or activity have been or will be assessed. |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|Various activities and measures of the Táncház movement serving the sustainability and preservation of ICH (in figures): |

|- 50 weekly organized táncház-es, 80 camps |

|- annual Festival of Folk Arts (70,000–100,000 visitors, 1500–2000 collaborators) |

|- annual National Táncház Festival and Fair (15,000–17,000 visitors, 2000–2500 collaborators) |

|- annaul táncház season opening event (2000 visitors, 15–18 collaborating bands and instructor dance couples) |

|- education, publications |

|- periodical ’FolkMAGazin’ bi-monthly, 2000 copies, archives at folkmagazin.hu) |

|- Internet presence |

|Folkrádió – online folk music radio broadcast, events calendar, news and photo gallery (folkradio.hu) |

|Folklista – on line mailing lists; over 700 members, freely accessible database of folk song lyrics |

|() |

|Dance House Guild – tanchaz.hu |

|Hungarian Heritage House (hagyomymanyokhaza.hu |

|Federation of Hungarian Folk Artists (nesz.hu) |

|Mesterség és Művészet [Craftsmanship and Art], a quarterly periodical appearing for 16 years, 600 copies |

|Táncház-es have been held regularly in Hungary since 1972. In the capital Budapest , a táncház can be visited any night of the week by any one,|

|the largest (Gödör) draws crowds of 1200–1500. Currently attendance at the 50 weekly organized táncház-es domestically ranges from 50–150 |

|people. Organizers include both non-profit as well as for-profit entities, generally held in larger cities, university towns. |

|Each summer there are anywhere from 80–100 camps where the táncház method is applied. |

|New venues and applications of living and experiencing ICH have been and are being continuously created by the táncház movement: in everyday |

|clothing, common personal articles, customs, festive events – it has become an integral element in many people’s way of life. |

|Archive: |

|Folk musicians and dance instructors of táncház have since the onset based their work on the scientific archive collections. |

|- The Folk Music Archive of the Institute for Musicology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences has amassed a collection of 16,000 hours of |

|instrumental and vocal recordings, 25,000–30,000 different folk songs (15,000 accessible on line), 400,000 metres of folk dance footage, 25,000|

|dance sequences from 1000 settlements (zti.hu) |

|Since 1981 the Folk Dance Resource Centre offered access to copies of research footage of the folk dance and music of most ethnic groups of |

|East-Central Europe. The Hungarian Heritage House, as successor institution continues this public accessibility through the largely digitalized|

|and on-line technology of its Lajtha László Documentation Centre. |

|Components: |

|- Táncház archive – collecting and archiving all documentation, publications and materials associated with the movement |

|- Martin Media Library – audio (12,830 hours) and visual (2640 hours) recordings, photo archive (28,870 stills) |

| |

|- Publications and manuscripts archive – collection of 65,000 items () |

|Individuals involved in táncház are not only utilizers of these archives but contributors to them as well. Thousands of hours of footage are |

|attibutable to their work. (Numerous recordings were made at táncház-es in Budapest) |

|Survey and Assessment methods: |

|1. Quantitative: |

|- Questionnaires (in 1999, and annually since 2004) at the National Táncház Festival and Fair 1000-person sample |

|- Sociological analysis of results and published in FolkMAGazin. |

|2. Qualitative: |

|Mediators and interested parties frequent the Folklista, an on-line mailing lists forum, with recurring debates on táncház and applied |

|methodologies. |

|2.c. |How it may promote coordination on regional, sub-regional and/or international levels, if applicable |

| |Explain, if applicable, how the programme, project or activity has promoted or may promote the coordination of efforts for |

| |safeguarding intangible cultural heritage on regional, sub-regional and/or international levels, with particular attention to |

| |strengthening South-South and North-South-South cooperation. (A programme, project or activity carried out at the national level may |

| |not involve such cooperation, but should be a potential model; see item 2.d.) |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|Due to its international popularity táncház is uniquely suited to establishing and developing regional, sub-regional and international |

|cooperation in ICH safeguarding, transmission and promotion. Currently operating táncház-es in for instance Japan, Western Europe, Slovakia and|

|America all operate as part of a cultural network with a common underlying philosophy and content. |

|a. The common philosophy is that purported by UNESCO regarding ICH as well as the universal quest for cultural identity palpable around the |

|world. |

|b. The common content is Hungarian dance and music culture, and the traditional cultures of peoples cohabiting the East Central Europe and part|

|of the Balkans (Romanians, Slovakians, Gypsies, Germans, Southern Slavs, Bulgarians, Macedonians and Greeks) which within the táncház |

|framework manifests as common collective knowledge. This is then augmented by the uniquely created new cultural heritage stemming from local |

|and regional traditions incorporated at the various individual táncház-es, which in turn serve to strengthen and preserve the local |

|specificities of cultural diversity. |

|Acquisition of the common knowledge happens continually at the regularly held táncház-es world over, at courses and camps well attended by |

|international participants, and the annual National Táncház Festival and Fair which also draws a considerable international audience: |

|1. Regularly scheduled táncház-es have a constant locale, their own band and draw regular followers, but can be attended by anyone. |

|2. recurring internationally organized dance courses with a particular táncház band and dance instructors (Hungary, USA, Japan, etc) |

|3. Dance camps in rural Hungary or Transylvania, Romania attract participants primarily from Hungary but from other countries as well. Select |

|ICH bearers from local villages actively participate in the teaching process, which are geared for various levels of expertise. |

|4. Tens of thousands of visitors participate in the annual National Táncház Festival and Fair (Budapest), attending concerts, performances, |

|exhibits, fair and teaching sessions. It is an opportunity to meet and develop contacts; experience and meet with folk art masters, bearers and|

|Masters of Folk Art; purchase publications, recordings, or works of folk art. Communication and the flow of information among the táncház-es |

|around the world in this grassroots cultural network is facilitated by the Dance House Guild – a Hungarian NGO with international membership, |

|media publications (CD, DVD), Hungarian and English language bi-monthly periodical, and website. |

|Local rural communities who are bearers of ICH also participate in the Táncház movement, however there are greater numbers of urban táncház |

|communities who are driven by their interest in traditional forms of exression (dance, music and poetry) and who strive to integrate these |

|forms into their lives for their own enjoyment and enrichment. Newly formed táncház-es entering the network or temporary withdrawal from it do |

|not entail a formal procedure and can happen freely at any time. |

|This lack of formal criteria within the system provides freedom of movement for táncház-es to form, collaborate at various levels (local, |

|regional, internationl), as well as to take advantage of the events and activities the network has to offer in raising awareness of ICH, |

|strengthening community identity, sustaining cultural diversity and further developing individual creativity. |

|2.d. |How it may serve as a regional, sub-regional and/or international model, particularly for developing countries |

| |Describe how the programme, project or activity may serve as a sub-regional, regional or international model, as the case may be, for|

| |safeguarding activities. Please pay special attention here to how it may be relevant to the needs of developing countries and |

| |appropriate to their circumstances. |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|The Táncház method is aviable internationally applicable model due to the following characteristics: |

|1. flexible and adaptable to suit other similar grassroots initiatives purporting similar content and philosophies, void of superfluous |

|formalities, open and accessible nature ideal for any geographic and socio-cultural setting |

|2. complex nature encompassing a range of ICH domains, and is grounded on the embodiment and practice of free dance and singing to live music |

|and other community forms of expression. |

|3. Cross-generational nature – facilitating transmission of ICH from generation to generation |

|4. Multi-cultural nature – enabling transposition of the system to any nationality, ethnic or religious group |

|5. Multi- and trans-level nature - facilitating cooperation of local or sub-regional communities on national or international levels based on a|

|common philosophy and common cultural content. |

|6. Multi-faceted social support and professional assisstance with the joint involvement and collaboration of researchers, dance and music |

|teachers, cultural managers, archivists and participants from all social strata. |

|3. |Community involvement and consent |

| |ITEMS 3.A. AND 3.B. TOGETHER ADDRESS OTHER OF THE SELECTION CRITERIA SET BY THE COMMITTEE (OPERATIONAL DIRECTIVES PARAGRAPH 52), |

| |SPECIFICALLY THOSE CONCERNED WITH COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY AND THEIR CONSENT TO THE PROPOSAL. |

|3.A. |PARTICIPATION OF THE COMMUNITY, GROUP OR INDIVIDUALS IN THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY |

| |Describe how the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned have participated or will participate in the programme, |

| |project or activity at all stages of planning and implementation. |

|The first communities involved in the Táncház process are the bearers of ICH in rural villages who willingly interact with and provide the a) |

|intermediaries - researchers, practicing, teaching or performing dancers, musicians and other folk artists, as well as b) interested members of|

|the participating public access to the living heritage. Results of this access are collected in field work and visits to the rural communities.|

|Bearers of ICH are also featured regularly in various Táncház movement events (táncház-es, annual National Táncház Festival and Fair, folk |

|camps, etc.) presenting their culture to táncház participants and the public at large. This results in a direct interaction/dialogue between |

|the sources of traditional cultural heritage and not only supporting participants of táncház-es, but also with members of the public in a |

|completely different socio-cultural environment (especially attracting the youth of this group). |

|The second group are the mediators of traditional culture. They identify, collect in the field, document, archive, systematize and process the |

|data collected in bearer communities and individuals, which all serves as an essential reference for practicing teachers, performers and |

|lay-persons alike. Specialist mediators endeavour to master this heritage as accurately as possible so that they may then present, popularize, |

|transmit, and teach it at various táncház occasions, and/or within programs of education, or through publications. |

|NGO’s and interest groups associated with the táncház movement coagulate all interested experts, lay-persons, concerned communities and groups |

|that participate in any way and at any phase of the application of the táncház method. These organizations operate at all levels from local to |

|national umbrella organizations. Their aims include ensuring exchange of information, devising and applying evaluation systems, organizing |

|events (táncház-es, performances, camps, festivals, exhibits, etc.), issuing publications, implementing new field work and contributing to |

|educational projects. |

|The largest international event of the táncház movement is the National Táncház Festival and Fair organized by the Dance House Guild. This is |

|an annual event where participants at all levels of the movement can meet, network, learn and interact with folk art masters, bearers and |

|Masters of Folk Art, purchase publications, insturments and other works of folk art. |

|The active participation and renewed interest of participants at various táncház events facilitates the sustainability, preservation, |

|dissemination and trasmission of this traditional culture. Interested participants often eventually become qualified musicians, dancers and |

|craftsman, further ensuring the transmission of heritage from generation to generation within a new context. |

|3.b. |Free, prior and informed consent to this proposal |

| |Demonstrate that the community, group or, if applicable, individuals concerned have consented to the proposal. Their free, prior and |

| |informed consent may be demonstrated through written or recorded concurrence, or through other means, according to the legal regimens|

| |of the State Party and the infinite variety of communities and groups concerned. The Committee will welcome a broad range of |

| |demonstrations or attestations of community consent in preference to standard or uniform declarations. |

| |Please attach supporting evidence demonstrating such consent and indicate below what evidence you are providing and what form it |

| |takes. |

|Concerned communities were informed of the present nomination through the channels referred to in E1 and 3a above. The coordinating body of the|

|nomination proposal – the Intangible Cultural Heritage Department of the Hungarian Open Air Museum in Szentendre – established a working group |

|of experts drawn from relevant organizations. Major NGO’s of a national scope and dealing with folk art, together with the relevant state |

|institution joined together in the supra-organization, MANÉTA (Hungarian Folk Art Council) – established by the Hungarian Heritage House- |

|through which all member organizations and local communities and groups were informed of the nomination and the preparatory procedure. National|

|organizations and interest groups expressed their free, prior and informed consent to the nomination in a Document of Consent and Support. |

|A summary document of the nomination and the Document of Consent to be filled out was posted on a number of relevant websites and Internet |

|forums (tanchaz.hu, folkmagazin.hu, hagyomanyokhaza.hu, martinszovetseg.hu, , tancforum.sk, |

|’Students of Ethnography on-line mailing lists’) as well as publsihed in quality dailies and announced on Hungarian State Radio Stations. |

|Enclosed in the present proposal for nomination is the written and signed Document of Consent of national NGO’s and interest groups (under the |

|egis of MANÉTA), the locally operating táncház directors, hosting institutions, as well as Hungarian minority groups outside Hungary (active |

|participants in the táncház movement internationally: ethnic Hungarian Slovakians, Romanians, Szerbians, Croatians and ethnic Hungarian |

|community groups in North America) indicating support for and intent to participate in the nomination procedure. |

|The certified English translations of the signed original Hungarian documents are enclosed. |

|Popular consent for and intention to participate in the nomination proposal is also evidenced by an enclosed DVD containing a recording of the |

|live vocal support of participants at one of Budapest’s largest and most popular táncház-es (which happens to specialize in Transylvanian and |

|Moldavian music and dance). |

|4. |Willingness to cooperate in the dissemination of best practices |

| |THIS SECTION SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COMMUNITY, GROUP OR, IF APPLICABLE, INDIVIDUALS CONCERNED, AS WELL AS THE STATE PARTY AND |

| |THE IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATION OR BODY,ARE WILLING TO COOPERATE IN THE COMMITTEE’S EFFORTS TO DISSEMINATE BEST PRACTICES, IF THE |

| |PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY IS SELECTED FOR PROMOTION. |

| |The State Party should also be willing, in the event the Committee selects the programme, project or activity, to provide |

| |photographs, videos and/or other documentation to be used in the dissemination of best practices. Such documentation need not be |

| |submitted as part of the proposal, but will be required if the programme, project or activity is selected. Documentation submitted at|

| |that time must be accompanied by a non-exclusive cession of rights document granting use rights to UNESCO (see Form ICH-07). |

| |Not to exceed 500 words. |

|The enclosed documents referred to in point 3.b. above also include expression of comitted parties to cooperate in and contribute to submission|

|of the nomination proposal. Comitted signatory organizations, communities, local relevant authorities and individuals also undertake to |

|participate and cooperate with the Committee in disseminating the model should the nomination be accepted. |

|The State Party undertakes to ensure the continued support for programs, events, research, institutions and organizations associated with the |

|Táncház movement or applying the Táncház model as it has in the past. In 2001 the Ministry of Education and Culture established the Hungarian |

|Heritage House, whose primary task is to further the cause of táncház through archiving, digitalizing existing materials, organizing and |

|overseeing training programs, evaluating young talent programs (Young Master of Folk Arts and Táncház Music) and issuing publications. |

|The State Party also undertakes to provide the Committee timely access to any and all pertinent and relavent visual and audio material as well |

|as any and all documents facilitating the dissemination of best practices should the present nomination be accepted. |

|5. |Contact information |

|5.a. |Contact person for correspondence |

| |PROVIDE THE NAME, ADDRESS AND OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE PROPOSAL. IF AN |

| |E-MAIL ADDRESS CANNOT BE PROVIDED, THE INFORMATION SHOULD INCLUDE A FAX NUMBER. FOR MULTI-NATIONAL PROPOSALS PROVIDE COMPLETE CONTACT|

| |INFORMATION FOR THE PERSON DESIGNATED BY THE SUBMITTING STATES PARTIES AS THE MAIN CONTACT PERSON FOR ALL CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE |

| |SECRETARIAT OF THE CONVENTION RELATING TO THE REQUEST (REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, ETC) AS WELL AS ONE PERSON IN EACH STATE |

| |PARTY. |

|MS ÁGNES BÍRÓ KOVÁCSNÉ |

|SECRETARY-GENERAL |

|HUNGARIAN NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR UNESCO |

|MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE |

|BUDAPEST |

|SZALAY U. 10-14. |

|H-1055 HUNGARY |

|TEL: +36 1 473-7464 |

|FAX: +36 1 331-3526 |

|E-MAIL: AGNES.BIRO@UNESCO.HU |

|WWW.UNESCO.HU |

|5.B. |COMPETENT BODY INVOLVED |

| |THIS SECTION SHOULD PROVIDE THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE COMPETENT BODY (AGENCY, MUSEUM, INSTITUTION, OR MANAGER) WITH |

| |RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY. |

|HUNGARIAN HERITAGE HOUSE [HAGYOMÁNYOK HÁZA] |

|DIRECTOR: MR LÁSZLÓ KELEMEN |

|BUDAPEST |

|CORVIN TÉR 8. |

|H-1011 HUNGARY |

|TEL: +36 1 225-6000; +36 1 225-6049 |

|FAX: +36 1 225-6077 |

|E-MAIL: HHINFO@HAGYOMANYOKHAZA.HU |

|WWW.HAGYOMANYOKHAZA.HU |

|5.C. |CONCERNED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS OR REPRESENTATIVES |

| |PROVIDE THE NAME, ADDRESS AND OTHER CONTACT INFORMATION OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS OR REPRESENTATIVES, OR OTHER NON-GOVERNMENTAL |

| |ORGANIZATIONS, WHO ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PROGRAMME, PROJECT OR ACTIVITY SUCH AS ASSOCIATIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, CLUBS, GUILDS, STEERING|

| |COMMITTEES, ETC. |

|MANÉTA (HUNGARIAN FOLK ART COUNCIL [MAGYAR NÉPMűVÉSZETI TANÁCS]): |

|MEMBERS: |

|1. HUNGARIAN HERITAGE HOUSE [HAGYOMÁNYOK HÁZA] |

|DIRECTOR: MR LÁSZLÓ KELEMEN |

|BUDAPEST |

|CORVIN TÉR 8. |

|H-1011 HUNGARY |

|TEL: +36 1 225-6000; +36 1 225-6049 |

|FAX: +36 1 225-6077 |

|E-MAIL: HHINFO@HAGYOMANYOKHAZA.HU |

|WWW.HAGYOMANYOKHAZA.HU |

|2. DANCE HOUSE GUILD [TÁNCHÁZ EGYESÜLET] |

|PRESIDENT: MR SÁNDOR TÍMÁR |

|MANAGING REPRESENTATIVE: MR ISTVÁN BERÁN |

|BUDAPEST |

|SZILÁGYI DEZSő TÉR 6. |

|H-1011 HUNGARY |

|TEL./FAX: +36 1 214-3521, +36 1 225-1666 |

|E-MAIL: TANCHAZ@MAIL.DATANET.HU |

|WWW.TANCHAZ.HU |

|3. ASSOCIATION OF HUNGARIAN FOLK ARTISTS [NÉPMűVÉSZETI EGYESÜLETEK SZÖVETSÉGE] |

|MANAGING DIRECTOR: MS GABRIELLA IGYÁRTÓ |

|BUDAPEST |

|SZILÁGYI DEZSő TÉR 6. |

|H-1011 HUNGARY |

|TEL./FAX: +36 1 214-3523 |

|E-MAIL: NESZFOLK@NESZ.HU |

|WWW.NESZ.HU, WWW.MESTERPORTA.HU |

|4. MUHARAY ELEMÉR FOLK ART ASSOCIATION [MUHARAY ELEMÉR NÉPMűVÉSZETI SZÖVETSÉG] |

|PRESIDENT: MS ÉVA HÉRA |

|BUDAPEST |

|SZILÁGYI DEZSő TÉR 6. |

|H-1011 HUNGARY |

|TEL./FAX: +36 1 201-7931 |

|E-MAIL: MUHARAY@MAIL.DATANET.HU |

|WWW.MUHARAY.HU |

|5. MARTIN GYÖRGY FOLK DANCE ASSOCIATION [MARTIN GYÖRGY NÉPTÁNCSZÖVETSÉG] |

|PRESIDENT: MR LÁSZLÓ DIÓSZEGI |

|BUDAPEST |

|LENDVAY U. 15. |

|H-1062 HUNGARY |

|TEL./FAX: +36 1 269-5680 |

|E-MAIL: MARTIN@MARTINSZOVETSEG.HU |

|WWW.MARTINSZOVETSEG.HU |

|6. HERITAGE CHILDREN’S FOLK ART ASSOCIATION [ÖRÖKSÉG GYERMEK NÉPMűVÉSZETI EGYESÜLET] |

|PRESIDENT: MR ANDRÁS CSASZTVAN |

|BUDAPEST |

|AKÁCFA U. 32. |

|H-1072 HUNGARY |

|TEL.: +36 20 962-7629, +36 70 639-6121 |

|WWW.OROKSEG.HU |

|6. |SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE PARTY |

| |THE PROPOSAL SHOULD CONCLUDE WITH THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE OF THE OFFICIAL EMPOWERED TO SIGN IT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE PARTY, TOGETHER |

| |WITH HIS OR HER NAME, TITLE AND THE DATE OF SUBMISSION. |

| |In the case of multi-national proposals, the document should contain the name, title and signature of an official of each State Party|

| |submitting the proposal. |

|Name: Ma’rta Schneider, Ph.D. |

|Title: State Secretary |

|Date: 13 December 2010 |

|Signature: |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download