10.22956/nihc.2020..9.004

The current Cultural Heritage Protection Act stipulates 7 categories of intangible cultural Heritage. Particularly, out of a total of 148 skills designated as the national intangible cultural Heritage, 53 (35%) skills are defined as the category of ‘traditional skills related to crafts and arts’ (traditional skills, hereinafter). In contrast to the foregoing higher percentage of the traditional skills, the holders, training assistants and trainees of traditional skills, who are at the forefront of passing down those skills, account for 11% of all transmitters of intangible cultural Heritage, which underscores the weakening foundation for the transmission of traditional skills. To address the challenge, the Cultural Heritage Administration and its affiliated organizations have implemented many support projects and commissioned research projects in a bid to invigorate the transmission of intangible cultural Heritage. Nevertheless, the high variability specific to intangible cultural Heritage warrants continuous discussions.This paper reviews the established system for designating the National and City·Do Intangible Cultural Heritage, and analyzes the current status of designating the categories of traditional skills. Also, it describes a few discrepancies resulting from the dual designation of intangible cultural Heritage by the central government and municipalities/provinces in the absence of integrated recommendations. Such discrepancies are found in categorization, designated numbers and designated titles. Based on the analysis findings, this paper derives the following suggestions for rectifying the traditional skill category designation system.First, the 「Cultural Heritage Protection Act」 should re-define the traditional skills. Currently, traditional skills are largely categorized into ‘crafts, architecture and arts.’ However, the categorization does not substantiate any equivalence among the terms. Also, the definitions reveal a lack of understanding of the terms. To rectify the problem, the current definition should be replaced with traditional skills related to crafts, attires, sculptures, paintings and calligraphic works and architecture. Second, the designated titles should be altered. Currently, the titles designated for traditional skills are composed of the ‘skills or products or materials’ and the word ‘making/maker(匠),’ which implies the traditional skill transmission system is focused on people rather than their skills. Thus, the word ‘making/maker’ should be replaced with the ‘skill.’ For example, the ‘Maedeupjang (knot making/maker)’ and ‘Nakjukjang(Nakjuk making/maker)’ should be renamed the ‘knot skill’ and ‘Nakjuk skill,’ respectively.Third, regional characteristics and specificity should be reflected in designated National and City·Do Intangible Cultural Heritage. Since traditional skills are substantially influenced by the natural and cultural environments of the regions where they have been passed down, it is efficient for some skills to be administered by municipalities rather than the central government. By applying this situation, local governments are to designate items with high impact on special products or specialties in each region. If the state then collectively designates them to form a network of transmission, it will not only secure cultural diversity in the region, but also reduce the weight of craftsmen in each category. The suggestions of this paper will be conducive to taking a macroscopic and consistent course in designating and administering National and City·Do Intangible Cultural Heritage.