Emotional Cartography of Everyday Heritage via Photography

Abstract

This paper presented the results of a heritage education intervention in a non-formal context via a collective photographic exhibition organised by a cultural association. In accordance with the Faro Convention on the value of cultural heritage for society, people’s role in the construction and sustaining of their identity is recognised, and the fostering of shared responsibility towards the environment was sought. A mixed methodology was employed in order to evaluate the effects of participation in this project on the perception of heritage, to analyse what relationship there was between this conception and the photographic output, and to explain to what extent participation in a collective exhibition had an influence on the emotional resignification of everyday heritage. The results showed that the participants modified their traditional conception of heritage towards a symbolic-identity type, consciously questioned their relationship and commitment with everyday places, and rediscovered their environment by way of a contextualised learning sequence.

1. Introduction

To what extent does photography, consisting of the process of production, reception, and contemplation [1], contribute towards people revising their links with the world around them? Authorial photography is an artistic strategy for reflecting on the perceptive experience of the subject towards certain spaces and the consequent assignation of values. Since the last third of the 20th century, authors such as Capel [2] have been presenting the confluences which arose regarding this issue among the social sciences, generating a vast range of contributions, particularly from the point of view of geography, psychology, anthropology, and economics, even touching upon urban planning and architecture. From Lowentahl’s personal geography [3] to Lynch’s urban morphology [4], via Barthes [5] and urban semiotics (to cite just a few examples), it was clear that both mental representations and the personal images of a territory determined the subjects’ behaviour and use of space.

Specifically, the everyday landscape demands an informed and contextualised perspective, deactivating its routine consumption in order to intentionally reinterpret and resignify it. This understanding requires rescuing memories, histories, and characters, which provide different analytical keys to the dominant material understanding of heritage in an urban context. The perspective of arts-based research (ABR) is of use in this process of (re)discovery. This approach to research in the social sciences originated in the last two decades of the 20th century and defended the construction of knowledge through experience. This perspective is linked to sensory cognition [6] to overcome, from an exploratory strategy, the banal over-stimulation to which the subject is submitted [7]. The ABR perspective seeks to visually document the changes that occur in the perception of the subjects; that is, their learning. “In this process, they must activate their imaginative and creative thinking to formulate a photograph that they must previously construct and visualise. This leads them to exercise a completely new and different vision, towards an environment that they perceive as a formalised space of education and that they must see with other eyes now, from this process of estrangement” [8] (p. 18).

In summarising the main principles of ABR, a useful point of reference was Hernández [9] (pp. 92–93), who, in line with Barone and Eisner [10], defined it as “a qualitative type of research which uses artistic procedures (literary, visual and performative) to account for practical experience in which both different subjects (researcher, reader, collaborator) and the interpretations of their experiences reveal aspects which do not become visible in other types of research”. It does not seek to offer solid explanations, but rather other ways of seeing problems, the study pursues. If the proposal is based on the use of photography, this should not assume a descriptive role, as in ethnographic studies. Rather, it was possible to build “autonomous narratives (textual and visual) which complement each other, interweave and make it possible for spaces to arise from which new meanings and relationships can be created” [9] (p. 100). As Barthes [11] (p. 73) stated, “ultimately, photography is subversive, not when it shocks, disturbs or even stigmatises, but when it is thoughtful.”

Hernández [9] (pp. 107–110) highlighted the contributions of this type of research based on the following aspects: artistic self-expression; reflexiveness; establishing a connexion between individual and collective; usefulness for capturing the inexpressible; memorable incidence; holistic communication; contribution to analysing what from one person can resonate in the life of others; the capacity for transforming the ordinary into the extraordinary; mediation of theory through metaphors and symbols; embodiment; greater accessibility than many forms of academic discourse; and finally, the capacity to make the personal social and the private public.

With its interesting application in heritage education [12,13], particularly based on the visual recreation inspired by living history [14], ABR connects, on the one hand, with art-based educational research, (ABER) [15,16], and, on the other, with the need to reflect on the relationship between the subject and the heritage, as a link [17] and a cultural practice [18]. In order to do so, self-produced images are employed which can lead to processes of symbolic appropriation and (re)construction of identity: “Identity is no longer a static unit, but rather it is defined as discursive throughout life. This discursive nature is dialectically defined by the environment. In other words, identity appears here as a vital process which changes and is nourished by experiences. Furthermore, identity is multi-material. That is, it is not only made up of experiences, but also of collective identities to which each individual belongs, of what is learned, of what is forgotten, and of what is appropriated or heritagised. Identity is proposed, therefore, as a cosmos in which contemporary art can contribute new meanings and new identities” [19] (p. 651).

The use of photography has a long history in social studies [20], since the days of Aby Warburg and Erwin Panofsky, the pioneers in defence of the use of images as documents via iconography and iconology. In addition to illustrating and accompanying the analysis of current or historical phenomena, photography is a heritage element in itself [21] and a tool for recording the intangible and material, such as the series published in the 1980s by García Rodero on the extinction of rural life [22] or, reaching much further back in time, the historical topographies carried out in England at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries by amateur photographers [23]. Furthermore, given that people also create heritage from the present, its use also serves to (de)activate heritages [24].

This study attempted to demonstrate that a heritage education project in a non-formal context, giving continuity to and complimenting formal education [25] for the shared promotion of civic consciousness, in accordance with the concept of educating cities [26], contributed to the emotional resignification of public places. In line with the thinking of Teixeira [27], heritage education acted as a tool for cultural literacy, enabling the subject to draw closer and understand the world around them from a historical perspective.

For this study, contact was established with an association of non-professional photographers in the city of Santiago de Compostela, the capital city of the region of Galicia (north-west Spain). Declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site, Compostela lies at the end of the pilgrimage route known as the Camino de Santiago, the first European Cultural Route declared by the Council of Europe in 1987. The main objective of the project was to make it possible for the participants, 70% of whom had not been born in the city, to resignify the city from a different perspective, not in terms of its monuments or stereotypes, leaving behind (de)personalised photographic clichés [28], but doing so from their own experiential and subjective process after searching for information about the place which had been randomly assigned to them: “When an image, in the midst of the iconic flow of our times, seems valuable to us, it is because within it there is more than the basic record of the event (more than its crass optical realism): it mobilises a poetic value, interrogates an ethical sense, formulates an existential urge, seeks a dreamlike reality. Perhaps this makes the difference between the pure amateur photograph and the image of the photojournalist: this capacity to consider the substantial-human in a unique way” [29] (p. 29).

A teaching sequence was applied based on learning by discovery and artistic creation, in order to attribute value to 55 urban locations divided into four groups: parks, cemeteries, the historical old town, and the new town. A creative project was proposed on the idea of personal aspects, framed in the category of the intimate life of contemporary photography. Each participant presented an image that made it possible to understand the city from a different point of view. This visual record was accompanied by a brief written narrative (a thought, idea, or reflection) on the element the photographer considered relevant for understanding the photograph and/or that inspired its creation. The whole process turned into a visual conceptualisation of links and emotions, mapped into a collective exhibition, which closed the project.

The following objectives were formulated:

Specific objective 1 (SO1). To evaluate the effects of participation in this project on the perception of heritage.

Specific objective 2 (SO2). To analyse what relationship exists between this conception and the photographic output.

Specific objective 3 (SO3). To explain to what extent participation in a collective exhibition has an influence on the emotional resignification of everyday heritage.

2. Materials and Methods

The starting hypothesis was that a heritage education project in a non-formal context, via a collective photography exhibition, contributes towards the emotional resignification of everyday heritage by way of the rediscovery of the histories, characters, and memories, which explain it. The research formulated a mixed multidisciplinary methodological strategy focusing on the conscious relationship of people with spaces, places, and other people, seeking to understand through their eyes, reflected in the photograph the place occupied by the elements which build the heritage of the city in which the participants live. This material was complemented by the texts which accompanied the photographs, along with different methodological strategies, which gave an account of the way in which the participants progressively incorporated different concepts related to the value of the heritage, in an objective or formal sense and subjectively, informally, and emotionally.

Different data collection tools were employed, associated with each of the specific objectives, which were to be demonstrated throughout the experiment. These analytical elements sought to measure the participants’ evolution throughout the course of the project; not only how they incorporated their technical knowledge derived from the dissemination activity on heritage but also the evolution of their perception and awareness with regard to the urban environment.

The data collection was carried out between the months of March and September 2020. The photography exhibition, entitled Vínculos de Compostela (Links with Compostela), was open to the public from October 2020 to January 2021 in the Casa do Cabido in Santiago de Compostela. It was organised by the cultural association Fotoforum Compostela and the Consorcio de Santiago, an institution responsible for coordinating activities of the state, autonomous region, and local administrations aimed at the preservation of the city of Santiago de Compostela and its heritage.

For the elaboration of the tools, authors of significant research in the field of heritage education [17,30,31,32] were taken as points of reference. The tools were distributed in the following way:

Tools 1 and 2 (SO1). Pretest and posttest questionnaires.

Tool 3 (SO2). Discussion group with participants.

Tools 4 and 5 (SO3). Exhibition of photographs and accompanying texts.

The tools were validated via a discussion group made up of three university teachers from Murcia, Valladolid, and Santiago de Compostela, experts in history education, research methods, and the construction of identity. Their suggestions contributed towards improving the suitability of the tools to the questions of an evaluative, relational, and explanatory nature required of the study, employing Likert-type scales in both questionnaires and opting for the use of a semi-structured interview to guide the participants in the writing of the text to accompany their photographs.

The first tool sought to understand the participants’ prior conceptions regarding heritage, while the second investigates how these were transformed by the project of the exhibition. The questionnaires shared a series of questions which made it possible to quantify the impact of the project on the value and meaning of the participants’ everyday heritage and the significance of the session on heritage education carried out in the first stage of the research.

The third tool aimed to verify the scope of the resignification of everyday heritage, following each photographer’s research on the place assigned to them and the incursions in situ to analyse it. Due to the pandemic and the restrictions deriving from the safety measures implemented in Spain, the discussion group with the people participating in the project was carried out online. The number of participants was high as the monthly meeting, organised by the Association for its members, was used for this purpose.

Once the starting point and the impact of the whole experiment had been established, the final two tools were used to attempt to evaluate how the emotional resignification and symbolic appropriation of the everyday heritage were brought about via the participants’ photographs and the accompanying narrative of their titles and texts. The textual information was obtained via a brief questionnaire, in which certain descriptive elements of the images could be contributed.

As far as the characterisation of the sample was concerned, it was made up of a total of 55 people, all members of the cultural association Fotoforum from Santiago de Compostela, who decided to participate in this project. In terms of age ranges, 84% were 60 years of age or less, while only 16% were over the age of 61; the average age was 51. Regarding gender, the sample was slightly unbalanced, with a majority of women (60%) compared to men (40%). The majority of the participants did not come from Santiago de Compostela, with more than 70% of them stating that they had not been born in the city. However, 60% of them had been living in the city for more than 20 years or all their life. Only 14.5% had recently arrived, having lived for less than five years in Santiago.

The dynamics of the experiment carried out can be defined in four consecutive phases for the development of the specific objectives and the specifically designed tools (

Table 1. Procedure followed in carrying out the study.

Phase	Objective	Description
1. Starting point	SO1	-Pretest questionnaire (Tool 1). -Assignation of places in Santiago de Compostela. -Workshop on heritage education.
2. Documentation and critical election	SO2	-Contextualised learning: search for information on the place assigned and choice of element for resignification via photography. -Aesthetic experience: sensory understanding and emotional identification of the place assigned. -Discussion group (Tool 3).
3. Photography exhibition	SO3	-Questionnaire on the photograph (Tool 5). -Text accompanying the photograph to explain the resignification carried out by the author (Tool 4).
4. Evaluation of the project	SO1	-Posttest questionnaire (Tool 2). -Analysis of the results.

).

Due to the fact that the inputs of the research ranged from questions of a quantitative nature to photographs and open reflections of a qualitative kind, a mixed methodology was proposed to enable good use to be made of the results obtained in each of the phases. For the analysis, a database was made containing the results of tools 1 and 2 and the questionnaire on the text of the photographs, which constituted tool 5. The statistical program SPSS was used for this purpose.

First of all, the open questions of the three tools were recoded and re-categorised, creating new variables to record the emphasis of the answers. Then, the comparative analysis of tools 1 and 2 was carried out in an attempt to understand the contrast between the beginning and the end of the project, thus giving an account of its impact on the participants. The time lived in Santiago de Compostela, and whether or not the participants were born in the city were used as cross variables. To analyse the open questions of the posttest questionnaire, a calculation of frequencies was carried out based on the elements of the initial re-categorisation. For the explanations of the word heritage, a cloud-type visualisation was created based on the responses, which were also organised according to the elements of the re-categorisation. A similar process was performed for the rest of the open questions, carrying out a frequency analysis of the new categories created from the initial recording. Due to the fact that the questions were semi-directed, an exploration via word clouds was not carried out as this was not valid due to the limited variation in the responses.

As far as the analysis of tools 4 and 5, the photographs and the texts, along with the emotional process resulting from tool 3 were concerned: first of all, the open responses were re-categorised, seeking to highlight their main motive in order to carry out a frequency analysis. In addition, the titles of the photographs were ordered, according to the framework provided for the images, and all of them were classified according to the type of aesthetic representation put forward by their authors. This categorisation was also analysed by frequency, and the results were crossed along with other elements of the same questionnaire, such as the emotion sought by the photographs according to their authors. In addition to the text, the purpose of which was to present the images, the authors provided an explanation of what they hoped to represent with their photographs. Re-categorisation, a frequency analysis, and a subsequent word cloud were also made resulting from these explanations. Last of all, with the texts, due to their variety and length, the decision was taken to categorise them according to their style in order to carry out a frequency analysis and to cross the results of the categorised aesthetics of the photographs and the emotions transmitted.

3. Results

3.1. Specific Objective 1. To Evaluate the Effects of Participation in This Project on the Perception of Heritage

When asked about the importance attributed to different heritage elements in relation to the cultural identity of Galicia, the perspective of the region’s monuments, represented by three elements declared as World Heritage, was that which obtained the best mean value. The intervention carried out seemed to have served to strengthen this conception as the variations were not very significant (Figure 1). The City of Culture, in Santiago de Compostela, was the only element evaluated separately with the rest, belonging to different points of Galicia, being evaluated together. This difference not only made it possible to contrast the significance of this heritage element in Galicia as a whole due to its contemporary nature, but also the significance conferred upon an element which the participants might consider to be their own compared to other commonly-owned elements. It was also the case that this was the heritage element with the lowest mean evaluation by far. One explanation for this might be found in the controversy associated to this site, due to the fact that it was an architectural project promoted by the conservative party of Galicia, more than a contrast between Galician elements, compared to those from Santiago or the evaluation between what is one’s own and what is commonly-owned.

The time lived in Santiago de Compostela, or the fact of having been born or not in the city was also reflected in small variations. The people who lived less time in the city were those who experienced the most changes in their evaluations, always towards an improvement in the importance attributed, highlighting the greater recognition of elements, which constituted the traditional heritage of Galicia such as the lacework of the Camariñas. On the other hand, after 10 years of living in the city, the variations tended to be fewer, both in overall terms and in their intensity (

Table 2. Time of living in Santiago and mean evaluation.

Heritage Element	Less than 5 Years		5 to 10 Years		10 to 20 Years		More than 20 Years		Whole Life
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Wall, Tower, Cathedral	5.50	6.00	5.50	5.00	5.25	5.00	5.47	5.32	5.71	5.50
Abalar Muxía, Cape Finisterre, Sto. André Teixido	5.13	5.50	5.50	5.00	4.83	4.83	4.79	4.95	4.93	4.64
Cathedrals Beach, Cíes Islands and Rei Cintolo	4.38	4.75	5.50	4.50	4.42	4.33	4.79	4.84	4.71	4.29
Entroido, Apalpador, Magosto	5.00	5.37	5.50	4.50	4.58	4.92	4.32	4.58	4.57	4.71
Camariñas lacework, Bell-ringing, Jet jewellery	4.13	5.25	5.00	4.00	4.17	4.50	4.16	4.16	4.43	4.57
City of Culture	2.00	2.25	1.00	2.00	1.50	2.25	2.42	2.74	2.43	2.86

).

A similar phenomenon occurred when discriminating according to the place of birth, as it was the people who were not born in Compostela who experienced more changes in their evaluations, highlighting the increase in the evaluation corresponding to natural heritage (

Table 3. Place of birth and mean evaluation.

Heritage Element	Santiago de Compostela		Elsewhere
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Wall, Tower, Cathedral	5.75	5.49	5.13	5.38
Abalar Muxía, Cape Finisterre, Sto. André Teixido	5.13	5.08	4.56	4.82
Cathedrals Beach, Cíes Islands and Rei Cintolo	4.69	4.90	3.75	4.64
Entroido, Apalpador, Magosto	4.50	4.87	4.63	4.62
Camariñas lacework, Bell-ringing, Jet jewellery	4.50	4.51	4.44	4.15
City of Culture	2.13	2.59	2.50	2.10

). In general terms, the experience of the exhibition, albeit with a discrete impact, increased the effectiveness in highlighting the importance of heritage among those who lived in Santiago for less time or who were born elsewhere.

Furthermore, the participants’ degree of agreement was sought with a series of statements relating to heritage. First of all, their perspective of heritage was measured, taking as a point of reference the analysis variable employed by Cuenca [30]. Secondly, conceptual characterisation was explored based on the proposal formulated by Fontal [17,31,32]. Thirdly, the contextual evaluation of heritage was measured according to different social aspects.

The experiment served to modify the significance associated with heritage (

Table 4. Perspectives on heritage–Contrast between pre- and posttest (%).

	Totally Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Totally Agree
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Heritage causes irrational admiration, becoming a talisman or cult item.	7.3	7.3	21.8	14.5	27.3	29.1	38.2	34.5	5.5	14.5
Heritage is characterised by its scarcity, rareness, and uniqueness.	14.5	16.4	21.8	34.5	21.8	12.7	29.1	30.9	12.7	5.5
Heritage is characterised by its spectacular nature, recognised prestige, and large dimensions.	14.5	25.5	49.1	43.6	10.9	18.2	18.2	9.1	7.3	3.6
Heritage is characterised by its artistic and stylistic beauty.	3.6	5.5	12.7	34.5	21.8	23.6	32.7	21.8	29.1	14.5
Heritage is characterised by its age greater than one hundred years.	9.1	25.5	34.5	30.9	18.2	20	30.9	18.2	7.3	5.5
Heritage consists of symbolic elements which characterise a society.	1.8	0	5.5	7.3	7.3	9.1	36.4	32.7	49.1	50.9

). An age of more than one hundred years, for example, was no longer so relevant in defining the heritage nature of an element, as the percentage of people who were in agreement or in total agreement with this aspect in the pretest (38.2%) was significantly reduced (up to 23.7%). The percentage of indecision was only reduced in the case of the statement regarding heritage as scarce or unique (more than 9%). In the rest of the statements, it increased after carrying out the project.

With regard to the conceptual characterisation of heritage, in general terms, there were no great transformations in the starting opinions, which were strengthened by the posttest questionnaire (

Table 5. Conceptual characterisation of heritage–Pre- and posttest contrast (%).

	Totally Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Totally Agree
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Heritage consists of monuments, places and things.	5.5	9.1	23.6	27.3	10.9	7.3	47.3	41.8	12.7	14.5
Heritage consists of the links and relationships of people with these monuments, places, and things.	3.6	1.8	5.5	0	10.9	1.8	45.5	34.5	34.5	61.8
Heritage is living, it is not unalterable. People can attribute new meanings to it and modify its use in other times.	3.6	0	1.8	0	10.9	12.7	61.8	41.8	21.8	45.5
Heritage represents a past time and should preserve its original state.	5.5	9.1	25.5	25.5	38.2	30.9	21.8	20.0	9.1	14.5
A contemporary element may be considered as heritage.	5.5	0	3.6	3.6	10.9	5.5	60.0	50.9	20.0	40.0
People can be considered as heritage.	7.3	3.6	10.9	1.8	23.6	12.7	34.5	38.2	23.6	43.6

). There was consensus regarding the material character of heritage, and also in relation to its link with people as a defining element. Following the experiment, the conception of heritage as a living or dynamic element which changes its significance over time stood out with double the percentage of people stating that they are in total agreement with this statement. Something similar occurred when evaluating the ubiquity of contemporary elements and of people as heritage, which also doubled.

The participants’ contextual opinions were reaffirmed, with the experiment (

Table 6. Contextual statements regarding heritage–Pre- and posttest contrast (%).

	Totally Disagree		Disagree		Undecided		Agree		Totally Agree
	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest	Pretest	Posttest
Because it contributes to knowing and understanding the environment.	0	0	1.8	1.8	1.8	1.8	45.5	45.5	50.9	50.9
Because it leads to people identifying with something.	0	0	3.6	3.6	5.5	5.5	54.5	50.9	36.4	40
Because it attracts tourism.	9.1	7.3	25.5	20	20	30.9	36.4	30.9	9.1	10.9
Because it keeps traditions alive.	1.8	0	9.1	1.8	9.1	12.7	47.3	52.7	32.7	32.7
Because it promotes relationships between people.	1.8	0	3.6	3.6	14.5	10.9	56.4	54.5	23.6	30.9
I do not care about the preservation of heritage.	85.5	92.7	14.5	3.6	0	0	0	3.6	0	0

). Hardly any changes took place, and those which did were minimal or did not alter the distribution between the extremes of agreement and disagreement. The opinion that heritage contributed to increasing tourism was strengthened, and indifference with regard to the preservation of heritage was reduced to marginal percentages. The low representation of the group with the least time living in Compostela in the sample did not indicate that these percentages had greater variation as an effect of the experiment and the project. This group, which, in theory, was more prone to changing its impressions after carrying out research and becoming personally involved with local heritage, was not very numerous and was not, therefore, capable of balancing the greater resistance to change in the opinions of the rest, who were already settled in the city and were, therefore, less permeable to a resignification of the values of their urban experience and its associated heritage. Furthermore, it seemed that perhaps in this group in particular it would be more appropriate to speak of learning. In their expressions, there were many mentions of the fact that they learnt things which they did not previously know, rather than of resignification, which was a notion much more related with a change in pre-existing conceptions and not with the acquisition of new impressions or knowledge.

With regard to the preservation of heritage and the identification of those responsible for the city, although there was a consensus concerning the importance of the public institutions and government in general, following the experiment, a greater degree of importance was attributed to the role of not-for-profit cultural associations (Figure 2). Apart from these small variations, the responsibilities of the three organisms represented were stable, and the experience of the project served, above all, to reaffirm them a little more in terms of percentages.

Last of all, the participants were requested to evaluate their expectations of the project (Figure 3). Increasing their knowledge of the city was the most valued aspect. In general, the experience of the exhibition supposed a moderation, as practically all of the expectations experienced a slight decrease in their mean score. The only exception was that which mentioned the success of the exhibition, as the impression that their participation in this project could contribute towards better preservation of the heritage of the city increased its importance from the pretest to the posttest.

Some specific questions from the posttest questionnaire looked in depth at the knowledge acquired during the experiment of the exhibition. The vast majority of the participants stated that the workshop on heritage education modified their general understanding of what heritage is (71%). This impact was noted to a greater extent by those who lived for less than five years in Santiago de Compostela (

Table 7. Impact of the course according to time lived in Santiago.

	Less than 5 Years		5 to 10 Years		10 to 20 Years		More than 20 Years		Whole Life		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Yes, it changed my understanding.	7	87.5	0	0	9	75	12	63.2	11	78.6	39	70.9
No, it did not changes my understanding.	1	12.5	2	100	3	25	7	36.8	3	21.4	16	29.1
Total	8	100	2	100	12	100	19	100	14	100	55	100

).

The participants were asked to give a personal definition of heritage. As this was an open question, their responses were categorised, and four groups of emphasis on different components were defined (

Table 8. Elements to guide the explanation of cultural heritage.

Elements	Description
Identity–community	Heritage is referred to as links, as the element which unites a community, a people. The most repeated term is identity, followed by community, although the most important aspect is that cultural heritage appears in the definitions established as the nexus, which gives and sustains the identity of a community.
Relational–social	Marked by definitions in which emphasis is placed on the leading role of individuals in the conception of that which is considered to be heritage, which is defined as something living or in transformation, in parallel or connatural to that of its society.
Inheritance–transmission	Predominance of cultural (the most repeated word) aspects, with a strong emphasis on aspects related to transmission, inheritance, and legacy. Heritage is what remains, is transmitted, or inherited.
Aesthetic value	Predominance of terms linked to aesthetic perception. Heritage is defined as elements of artistic value (from any field, art, literature, music, etc.), which have some outstanding aesthetic value, or which should be recognised.

).

It should be taken into account that no definition belonged exclusively to each one of these groups. Indeed, not even the components mentioned were completely watertight (Figure 4). For example, in heritage, the inheritance or transmission component could not be found without an element of social or community relations. The objective of this categorisation was simply to facilitate the handling of the complex content of these open responses via the identification of the motive guiding the definition given by participants.

The identity or community element was that which most often guided the definition or explanation of cultural heritage (Figure 5).

The participants were also asked to indicate which of the phases of heritage awareness established by Fontal [31] seemed the most important to them and to give a brief justification for their responses (Figure 6). The comprehension phase stood out with 27.3%, followed by those of appreciation and knowledge, both with 18.2%.

Their justifications were categorised in accordance with the aspect most-mentioned in their responses, which, in general, sought to explain what the participants considered the phase should achieve. These results were presented in two formats in order to represent the justifications in overall percentages (Figure 7) and in accordance with the phase of heritage awareness selected (

Table 9. Phase selected and justification (%).

Phase	Justification	%
COMPREHENSION (27.3%)	Amalgamates all of the phases	66.7
	Favours awareness	13.3
APPRECIATION (18.2%)	Favours awareness	50.0
	Amalgamates all of the phases	40.0
	Lends dynamism to the process	10.0
KNOWLEDGE (18.2%)	Lends dynamism to the process	60.0
	Favours awareness	20.0
	Amalgamates all of the phases	20.0
TRANSMISSION (16.4%)	Amalgamates all of the phases	55.6
	Inheritance or transmission	44.4
PRESERVATION (12.7%)	Favours awareness	42.9
	Inheritance or transmission	42.9
	Care of cultural identity	14.3
INTERPRETATION (3.6%)	Lends dynamism to the process	50.0
	Favours awareness	50.0
ENJOYMENT (3.6%)	Amalgamates all of the phases	100

). The most common justification was that the phase chosen served to amalgamate the awareness process as a whole. This justification was found above all in association with comprehension.

Last of all, the posttest questionnaire asked in an open way about the most and least interesting aspects of the exhibition experience. Standing out among the most positive aspects was a biographical or personal evaluation in which the participants frequently commented that the experiment improved their connection with the city and its history (Figure 8). Further, 32% highlighted the fact that they acquired knowledge through their participation. As far as the negative aspects were concerned, the vast majority (65%) did not mention anything, expressing their high degree of satisfaction with the project (Figure 9). However, 18% of the participants mentioned the unfavourable circumstances of the pandemic situation and the lockdown, which affected the development of the experiment.

The questionnaire of tool 5 included a question that also made it possible to measure the impact of the experiment among the participants. It sought to evaluate how their perception of the place assigned to them changed (Figure 10), how this change was justified, and on what basis (Figure 11). More than half of the participants stated that the main change was in their personal relationship with the environment, which they renewed or resignified. This result pointed directly towards the main objective of the project and demonstrated its success, as this transformation was linked, above all, to the personal sphere and, therefore, gave an account of a change that also took place on an emotional level. The justification for these changes was distributed almost equally among those who indicated a personal justification regarding their enjoyment or surprise during the project and those who mentioned having learned new information regarding something they already knew about their city.

3.2. Specific Objective 2. To Analyse What Relationship Exists between this Conception and the Photographic Output

In order to understand the scope of the heritage resignification carried out by each photographer, the plan was to organise a discussion group with the participants of the project. Due to the lockdown deriving from the COVID-19 health crisis, this session had to be held online during the monthly meeting organised by the association Fotoforum Compostela for its members. The large number of people attending the meeting who were not participating in the project led to a certain degree of difficulty in recording the data in this way. The session was guided to encourage participation, although there was the possibility to deal with any other issues, which could arise. In general terms, the reflections were directed towards the difficulties of how to represent the emotional link with an ordinary place by means of photography.

Prior to the group discussion, the participants were told that they could share opinions, feelings, doubts, etc. via email. The following comments (

Table 10. Sample of participants’ experience during the project

Code	Place	Heritage Resignification
ID03	Old town (street)	“… I’ve already been investigating. I know a person who lived there as a child who told me lots of stories about her family, which are, to a large extent, part of the history of that street. They are all really interesting stories, the kind that rarely appear in history books.”
ID10	Old town (tavern)	“Before this dystopian situation we are experiencing now appeared, I was trying to immerse myself in this project because it seemed to be a good cause, although I must admit that the place assigned to me was quite irritating for many reasons. On the one hand, because personally I have always had some kind of psychological problem with bars and taverns, probably some kind of trauma related with my family history which means that they are uncomfortable and unpleasant places for me. On the other hand, there was my prejudice against this tavern in particular which I had never been to, due to its strict opening hours and its style, which is quite unattractive to me and, in my opinion, too conservative. I love history, culture and heritage … but, in my opinion, it’s not necessary to take things to such extremes as to not change anything at all. However, I took it as a difficult challenge and faced it head on. I went into the bar a couple of times to have a drink. I looked for information on the Internet (I didn’t find much) and went for dinner there to try its specialties and to get to know the place better. I also introduced myself to (…) to get to know them. I must admit that, as was to be expected, all this gathering of information created emotional links with the place and its history (…). My perception of the place, which I had, in part, adopted, changed radically and I came to feel a great deal of admiration and surprise for the incredible degree of preservation that its owners had maintained in the bar and the desire to pass the baton on to the fifth generation (their nephew). It is clear that this tavern is much more than just their business, and that the meaning of their lives is to preserve this treasure left to them by their ancestors and to ensure that someone continues to work there and keeps their heritage intact.”

) may serve as an example of the shared experience during the project:

3.3. Specific Objective 3. To Explain to What Extent Participation in a Collective Exhibition Has an Influence on the Emotional Resignification of Everyday Heritage

This objective was sustained in the strictly aesthetic dimension and in the narratives accompanying the photographs. The textual information was obtained via a brief questionnaire in which the participants were also able to contribute certain descriptive elements regarding their photographs. As far as the inspiration to photograph the place assigned to them was concerned, the majority indicated that they had sought the contrast between the past and the present, particularly in terms of its use. This was mentioned in 40% of the cases (Figure 12). A considerable percentage mentioned other reasons not included in the options offered by the questionnaire, stating above all aesthetic or personal motivations.

In an open response, the photographers were asked to point out what they sought to highlight in their photograph of the place assigned to them. In analysing this question, the same methodology was employed as in their explanation of heritage, classifying the responses according to the guiding reason and then creating a word cloud with each group of emphasis in order to facilitate comparison (

Table 11. Guiding element in the explanation of the objective of the photograph.

Perspective	Description	%	Photographs
Urban evaluation	Normally include specific aspects of the city, such as colonnades, the evolution of the streets over time, etc.	30.9	- Rua del Villar - Estacion de Tren de Cornes - La Residencia - Nostalgia - El recodo del camino - Otra mirada - Nostalxia - Envidia - El árbol de la ciencia	- Día de carreiras - La señal - Parque da música - Contradicción - A historia repítese... - La Perla del Villar - Campus Sur: 3 Fechas x 1 Fotografía - Testigos silenciosos
Heritage evaluation	Normally include historical descriptions or conceptual elements related to heritage, such as the passing of time, symbolism, memory, etc.	30.9	- Hortas 39 - Dignidade libertaria - Estabas ahí -Las aguadoras del Toural - Abrótano Macho - La sombra del dedo de Venus. - Modus Vivendi - Sen distancias sociais - Rúa de San Pedro	- Piedra, árbol, pájaro, lluvia o espuma - S/t - Hora punta... en tiempos de pandemia - Haberá que ir sachar - Ruela de Xerusalén - Vale - Binomio surrealista - Tiempo de recreo
Personal evaluation	Touch upon the elements of themselves which they seek to represent via photography, feelings provoked in them by the places assigned, reflections on life, etc.	21.8	- Inservible - Daquela - Vidas - Algui y yo - El gato de la fábula de Aracne se volvió negro - Mi abuelo	- Sastrería Pepecillo - Entronque cultura-acción política - Había una vez... - Abastos 3.0 - Sit tibi terra levis - La taberna de Alicia
Aesthetic evaluation	Descriptions of the aesthetic element or of the creative process which they seek to recreate in their photography, shadows, movement, etc.	16.4	- Mapa emocional de Mazarelos - La escalera - San Francisco y su entorno: el abrazo solidario de Compostela	- Aceras brandas - Luz nas sombras - Rúa do Franco - Rúas paralelas - Cemiterio de Conxo - ¿Dónde está la fuente?

). The urban and heritage evaluations were predominant, each with almost 31% of the responses. The semantic content of the interpretation frameworks was represented via word clouds in order to understand their characterisation in more detail (Figure 13).

The participants were asked to briefly state and justify the emotion transmitted to them by the place they photographed. Using this information, an emotional route around the city of Compostela was built, assigning a colour to each link. The two most clearly evident emotions of this route were nostalgia (with a little more than 45%) followed by curiosity (with almost 24%; Figure 14). Above all, a significant influence of the personal narrative could be noted among the explanations for these links. The participants mentioned anecdotes of their experiences in these places and, fundamentally, the way in which their link with these places was transformed thanks to the project.

Last of all, it was necessary to analyse the titles, photographs, and texts provided by the participants (

Table 12. Categorisation of the photographs and their titles.

Element	Category	Description	%	Photographs
Photograph	Artistic/Compositive	Non-realistic production or composition of the place.	52.7	- Mapa emocional de Mazarelos. - San Francisco y su entorno: el abrazo solidario de Compostela - Aceras brandas - ¿Dónde está la fuente? - Estabas ahí - Las aguadoras del Toural - Abrótano Macho - Modus Vivendi - Rúa de San Pedro - S/t - Haberá que ir sachar - Vale - Binomio surrealista	- Algui y yo - El gato de la fábula de Aracne se volvió negro - Sastrería Pepecillo - Había una vez... - La taberna de Alicia - Rua del Villar - Estacion de Tren de Cornes - Nostalxia - El árbol de la ciencia. - Contradicción - La Perla del Villar - Campus Sur: 3 Fechas x 1 Fotografía - Testigos silenciosos
	Artistic/Realistic	Realistic representation, albeit seeking the aesthetics of the place.	29.1	- La escalera - Luz nas sombras - Cemiterio de Conxo - Hortas 39 - Dignidade libertaria - La sombra del dedo de Venus - Piedra, árbol, pájaro, lluvia o espuma	- Hora punta... en tiempos de pandemia - Daquela - Vidas - Abastos 3.0 - Otra mirada - Envidia - Día de carreiras - La señal - A historia repítese...
	Documentary	Direct photography without stylistic mediation.	23.6	- Rúa do Franco - Rúas paralelas - Sen distancias sociais - Ruela de Xerusalén - Tiempo de recreo - Inservible - Mi abuelo	- Entronque cultura-acción política - Sit tibi terra levis - La Residencia. - Nostalgia - El recodo del camino - Parque da música
Title	Urban/Compostelano	Taking in the name of the place, of the street or of some specific element of Santiago.	48.1	- Rúa do Franco -Parque da música - Aceras brandas - ¿Dónde está la fuente? - Hora punta... en tiempos de pandemia - La taberna de Alicia - Estacion de Tren de Cornes - Mapa emocional de Mazarelos - Las aguadoras del Toural - Abrótano Macho - Rúa de San Pedro - Ruela de Xerusalén - La Residencia	- El recodo del camino - Campus Sur: 3 Fechas x 1 Fotografía - La escalera - San Francisco y su entorno: el abrazo solidario de Compostela - Rúas paralelas - Cemiterio de Conxo - Hortas 39 - Inservible - Sastrería Pepecillo - Abastos 3.0 - Rua del Villar - El árbol de la ciencia. - La Perla del Villar
	Narrative/Reflexive	With a poetic or representative character of the aesthetic intention of the photograph.	35.2	- Haberá que ir sachar - Binomio surrealista - El gato de la fábula de Aracne se volvió negro - Otra mirada - A historia repítese... - Modus Vivendi - Había una vez... - Día de carreiras - La señal - Luz nas sombras	- Piedra, árbol, pájaro, lluvia o espuma - Vale - Tiempo de recreo - Daquela - Sit tibi terra levis - Envidia - Contradicción - Testigos silenciosos - La sombra del dedo de Venus
	Personal/Biographical	Feelings, memories, personal sensations to frame the meaning of the photograph or the evocation it suggests to the photographer.	16.7	- Sen distancias sociais - Vidas - Algui y yo - Dignidade libertaria - Estabas ahí	- Mi abuelo - Nostalgia - Nostalxia - Entronque cultura-acción política

). The titles were organised by categories in order to encompass the way in which they frame what was represented in the image. The photographs were classified according to the type of aesthetics represented, taking into account the characterisation of the place assigned.

The photographs of an artistic-compositive nature and, therefore, those which reflected a more personal and emotional approach, corresponded, on the whole, to those containing a descriptive title of the city (

Table 13. Categorisation of the photographs and their titles.

	Artistic/Realistic		Documentary		Artistic/Compositive		Total
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Urban/Compostelano	5	31.3	7	53.8	14	56	26	48.1
Narrative/Reflexive	9	56.3	2	15.4	8	32	19	35.2
Personal/Biographical	2	12.5	4	30.8	3	12	9	16.7
Total	16	100	13	100	25	100	54	100

). This juncture was representative of the type of link that the participants developed throughout the project, as the compositive process of this type of aesthetics involved a true transformation of the everyday perspective in the search for a new representation of urban heritage. As this was the most numerous type, a variety of emotions transmitted was shown (Figure 15), with a greater influence of factors such as curiosity and indifference. Documentary photography, which was perhaps more moderate in terms of aesthetic expression, was, however, the only type which did not represent emotions linked to indifference or sadness.

The textual presentation of the photographs was categorised by means of the type of text which the participants decided to attach to the photographs (Figure 16). Although the distribution was quite balanced among the typologies defined, there seemed to be a predominance of presentation of a narrative nature, which were generally proposed as stories that accompanied or told something about the place photographed, often making use of the historical elements discovered during the research. On the other hand, texts of a biographical nature were second in terms of importance and gave an account of the re-evaluation of heritage in personal terms, generally based on family or childhood memories and always with a significant influence of the heritage derived from the participants’ memories.

Narrative presentation was not, however, the main textual typology in photographs of an artistic-realistic nature, in which texts of historical presentation were predominant (Figure 17).

The texts of a biographical nature showed a more direct relationship with nostalgia, curiosity, and happiness, whereas the remaining presentations included a wide variety of emotions transmitted by the photographs (Figure 18).

4. Discussion

A non-formal context is a key ally for heritage education. Its potential increased when the leading agent was a cultural association with neither economic interests nor politicians who could affect the contents, objectives, and methodology of the heritage project. This study seemed to demonstrate that if the educational proposal was focused on the personal sphere, to experiment and express oneself, a high degree of satisfaction could be achieved among participants as they felt that they made contact with the environment, revised their emotional links with everyday places, and modified their general perception of what heritage is.

This individual process was shared publicly via a collective exhibition which contributed towards discovering what was significant for a community of non-professional photographers. Projects of this kind promote the appearance of heritage ecosystems, scenarios of exchange that activate citizen participation and involvement around heritage [33] and boost the development of skills related to emotional and territorial intelligence [34] (p. 162).

By way of learning, which was both significant and contextualised along with behavioural work, the participants developed a process of creation and symbolic appropriation [35]. The key to the project was based on heritage links, some of which were even biographical in nature. Given that art interprets and communicates reality through the use of keys and codes, photography, as an artistic process, is a tool that serves for self-reflection and introspection. For this reason, the focus of this study corresponded to the relationship which exists between artistic creation and the human dimension of heritage as a link, defining, in accordance with the Faro Convention [36], a meeting point that reinforced social cohesion and fostered a sense of shared responsibility towards the places in which people live (Art. 8).

Along these lines, heritage education transforms assets into a channel of communication with the environment [37], and the social dissemination of heritage reinforces respect and cultural identity [38]. This relational dimension made it possible for the participants to assume a changing and dynamic conception of heritage in constant evolution and interaction with people [32], and to attain a general perspective of a symbolic-identity nature [30].

The educational experiment corresponded to the sequence of awareness proposed by Fontal [31], encouraging people to become active social agents. The results seemed to indicate that indifference was considerably reduced, with regard to heritage preservation, therefore, the behavioural impact could be considered to be positive. In turn, comprehension was the most valued phase of the process of awareness. As Fontal stated, knowledge of heritage did not lead to spontaneous awareness, it required an educational intervention in which comprehension was key “to give meaning, coherence, consistency and a relationship of causality” and to recognise the diversity of values that could be projected upon the same asset [39].

However, the project seemed to indicate that the fact that it was carried out in a non-formal context demanded a more long-term educational experiment. This would contribute towards minimising the commonly-held material perception of heritage [40] and to reinforcing other associated meanings in order to foster its critical interpretation and promote more specialised knowledge regarding the issue of heritage. It was extremely difficult for an educational experiment of less than a year to achieve changes in the heritage conceptions of its participants, who, in this case, were, on average, 51 years of age and with firmly established ideas.

One fundamental cornerstone of the study was the idea of the use of photography as a heritage mechanism which promoted “new inclusive ways of identifying, building and appropriating those elements which we consider significant” [41] (p. 148). The photographs formed part of this process of exploration, resignification, and activation by means of reflection. This creative strategy encouraged emotional discovery and interpersonal communication through visual language. Photography does not only record, it also projects what the photographer considers to be essential, although it may not necessarily be visible; “there is nothing more necessary than the emotional system for the enjoyment of cultural heritage” [42] (p. 4). In this case, nostalgia was the dominant emotion, which could be considered indicative of the type of behavioural approach of the participants with regard to heritage. It was considered as something in danger of being lost, already lost, or discovered among the ruins of what remained in the present, be it family histories or material elements, monuments or not, which tells stories about the history of Compostela.

The creation of photographs was presented as an alternative for artistically rethinking and revising heritage elements, which were appreciated or ignored by the community from a subjective and experiential perspective [39]. In accordance with arts-based research, photographic images were an effective tool “for arguing, proposing and debating our position and/or thoughts with the same or even greater effectiveness, whilst building knowledge from an emotional experience” [43] (p. 19).

Taking this idea as a starting point, each photographer immersed themselves in a visual dialogue with the place assigned to (not chosen by) them, which led to a visual conceptualisation linked with an emotion associated, in turn, to colour and accompanied by a personal narrative. This discursive sequence demonstrated the educational potential of photography in heritage awareness, in that “to photograph is to confer importance” [44] (p. 22). Each author employed visual rhetoric as a procedure for the creation of meaning [45].

The resulting exhibition made it possible to travel through the city by way of the metaphorical, bibliographical, symbolic, and descriptive perspective of each author. “Whatever it offers to the viewer and whatever the means employed, a photo is always invisible: it is not the photo we see” [11] (p. 32). All of these elements led to the creation of an emotional and identity map of Compostela, which promoted the connection between shared links and the socialisation of (de)constructed heritage (Figure 19).

5. Conclusions

This study evaluated the impact of an educational proposal that addressed the perception of urban space in its participants’ conception of heritage. It analysed the relationship between this conception and the resulting photographic output and explained to what extent this experiment had an influence on the emotional resignification of the environment. The hypothesis confirmed that a heritage education project in a non-formal context, applying a learning sequence through discovery and creative reflection, contributed to the rediscovery of histories, characters, and memories that explained and signified everyday places.

In general terms, the experiment served to reaffirm the initial opinions of the majority of the participants. Heritage was clearly associated with the identity–community component. Comprehension was the most important phase of the heritage awareness sequence defined by Fontal [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. The most appreciated aspect of the whole experiment was the development, improvement, or deepening of a personal link with the city of Santiago de Compostela. Researching, photographing, and writing about the place assigned implied a process of emotional revision, which was reflected in a collective photographic exhibition. The photographs sought to appreciate urban heritage through an artistic-compositive, and not necessarily realistic, perspective presenting an extremely personal perspective of the city based on the relational dimension. In the light of this conclusion, the words of Sontag [44] (p. 95) gained importance: “Insofar as photography is (or should be) about the world, the photographer counts for little, but insofar as it is the instrument of intrepid, questing subjectivity, the photographer is all”.

Although the study was restricted to research in a city with a substantial heritage wealth (World Heritage Site), it was found that a resignification of everyday spaces can occur. It was significant that, despite the amazing environment, the participants modified their assessment of what previously went unnoticed.

However, being a case study, this research had limitations; its results cannot be generalised, and it will be necessary to verify similar effects in other cities with similar or lesser heritage wealth.

The process of emotional identification, on the whole, leant towards nostalgia, normally associated with elements of collective, family, or personal memory. This unique and subjective element was predominant in the presentation of the photographs, which were generally accompanied by texts of narrative nature. Once more, Sontag [44] (p. 11) intervened with her reflection on the crepuscular capacity of photography to mummify moments, as an invitation to sentimentalism: “All photographs are memento mori. To take a photograph is to participate in another person’s (or thing’s) mortality, vulnerability, mutability. Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt”.