{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02052597819114817, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.995515695067264, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Living Wisdom and Intangible Heritage: The Case of Hu Brush

ABSTRACT The aim of intangible heritage is to preserve diversity for the sustainable development of culture, which allows its creators and stakeholders to reflect the evolution of cultural characteristics and identity for any given communities, or group of individuals. However, the safeguarding and interpretation of intangible heritage has faced challenges in practical performance, especially when representing local voices or in achieving inclusivity in negotiations related to identification, documentation, dissemination and tourism development. This paper traces the form and symbolic framework of Hu Brush at different historical stages; discusses two cultural spaces, government-led physical space and community-led ritual space, where Hu Brush performs. We highlight how the different community-based actors understand the intangible heritage policies, and argue that living wisdom, as a theoretical framework, provides the opportunity to explore local knowledge, practice and wisdom. These factors are relevant to the production-distribution-consumption-symbolisation of Hu Brush in the contemporary socio-historical context. The paper also portrays the complexity of contesting, negotiating and appropriation in heritage space and in discourse among different actors. As an alternative approach, living wisdom in intangible heritage is helpful to reveal how multiple powers and discourses contest, negotiate, and appropriate the complicated cultural space shaped by intangible heritage.