In the contemporary city, the popular habitat is hardly conceived as an expression of cultural heritage, especially in countries as Colombia, since informal qualities and aesthetic expressions which are manifested in them are predominantly perceived in geative terms for it´s characteristic of an informal-irregular urbanism. This article presents some reflections around the research developed in a glocal environment of cultural heritage present in f the ordinary world, called ‘the heritageable’. Through an experiential mapping exercise obtained by the use of an experiential device based on artistic practices. Interaction between creation-researchers and students, Bogota’s local urban and periphery population discover aesthetic, symbolic or significant heritage in its subjective and collective dimension. Mapping information emerging from the process is identified as a potential resourse in popular habitats resistance, social innovation and territory transformation.

Keywords: heritageable, cultural, urban expansion, globalization, computerization, scenography, aesthetic, symbolic or significant heritage

Post-metropolis and dissipation of significant places

Cultural heritage is an invention and a social construction.¹ According to Bogumila Lisocka-Jaegermann "the definition of cultural heritage is a process that manifests close relationships between territory and identity, power relations and cultural aspirations".² Some authors highlight how heritage is the same social practice that defines the cultural asset.^3,4 while others affirm that patrimonial assets are not unequivocal but "equivocal/ambiguous" and that its evaluation raises in the first place a problem of interpretation and in a second place of conservation.^5‒7

In a changing world, the dynamism of the urban space generates rapid transformations and enormous capital gains, which make it difficult to attribute meaning to places and protect cultural heritage. Global processes such as globalization, computerization, and urban expansion have profoundly transformed the contemporary city. Due to the deep ruptures generated to the canons of the modern city new analysis categories are require to interpret the postmodern metropolis (post-metropolis).⁸ The city is everywhere and in everything, and it is subject to contradictory questions: we want it as a "mother" and as a "machine" or as an instrument at the same time. The traditional urbis form has been dissolved, it is only a union of places of production and market: each sense of the human relationship is reduced to production, exchange, and the market. And the city is no longer a polis neither a civitas, but a sinoiquia: cohabitation. The traditional symbolic places disappear and are suffocated by places of exchange that are an expression of the mobility of the city. "We have hospitalized our memory, as well as our historic cities, turning them into museums".⁹

The popular habitat (and the contemporary ancestral habitatⁱ), especially those located in centre urban areas or in proximity with environmental systems, are wanted by their location and are threatened by urbanization, elite, gentrification processes, or in contrast by aestheticization processes, which transform daily life into a spectacle for visitors or tourists, altering the historical and architectural heritage into a mere scenography for business activities whose profits are not for the population that carries out the cultural heritage. The popular habitat as it is, is constantly unprotected. The purpose of the research is to subvert the hegemonic discourses that do not recognize the popular habitat as cultural heritage, because they privilege a universal, totalizing and totalitarian vision of the patrimonial value.

In Colombia, Law 397 of 1997 - General Law of Culture - defines in its article 4 what is meant by cultural heritage. Law 1185 updates the definition of the nation's cultural heritage and it defines a special regime for safeguarding, protecting sustainability, disseminating and encouraging BICsⁱⁱ -Assets of cultural interest- and for the manifestations of the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Nation (RLICHN). The cultural heritage in Colombia is thus defined and regulated by differentiating, on the one hand, the material heritage that is divided into movable property and immovable property (Decree 763 of 2009) and on the other hand the intangible heritage (Decree 2941 of 2009). The natural heritage does not have specific regulations and remains in an undefined area, inoperative from the point of view of protection or safeguard.

However, the popular habitatⁱⁱⁱ, is not contemplate as a cultural heritage; on the contrary it is conceived as a set of informal qualities from spatial facts, and aesthetic expressions typical of irregular urbanism, with only negative values.¹⁰ Investigating the cultural heritage of the ordinary world means, in the first place, asking about the ignorance upon the heritage value of the popular habitat and, in second place, complementing the institutional and normative vision referred to the safeguard of the intangible cultural heritage and the protection of the goods of cultural interest; relying on a different vision in accordance to an integrated local heritage, build up from the bottom to the top, and that focuses on social appropriations and forms of recognition based on artistic, social and aesthetic practices.

Popular habitat and collaborative artistic practices: research-creation of the heritageable

With a territory approach¹¹ we explore the value of popular habitat based on collaborative artistic practices, presented or proposed, in observatory places of Bogotá and its surroundings. As Samuel Arriaran Cuellar reminds us, we assume in the investigation “memory is not in the past, it is in the future. Connecting the past with the present and with the future is what it’s regularly lost. Everything is a matter of interpretation, everything is fiction, and there are no objective facts. This imaginative capacity means that we are always beyond ideology and new utopias, because history does not end.¹² We used artistic practices as a form of research that supports a type of qualitative analysis based on life stories, images, imaginaries, sounds and sensory experiences, both of the researchers-creators and of the participants.¹³ In the dynamic of collaborative art, the community that is involved in the realization of the works, generates shared actions and meanings,^14,15 which are located in real geographical contexts and provide information about the territories where the art form have place. The collaborative artistic processes combine during the research, a mixture of facts derived from quantitative and qualitative data, and information from the artistic practices.¹³ It suggests topics and questions, proposes contents, evocations, artistic cartographies, representations and political meanings, awareness raising and emancipation, related to territories.^16,17 Collaborative artistic practices help us discover aesthetic, symbolic or historical values ​​typical of the ordinary world, significant for the community.^18‒23

Based on these proposals, we carried out focal groups about work definition, recognition and mapping of heritage in five observatory sites of Bogota and surroundings, the focal groups where made with people from the observatory sites. Several concerns regarding the meaning and value of cultural heritage for ordinary people have emerged as a result from the activities. We analyse how does the geographical reality from haulier communities is given by the recognition of the objective dimension, what are the perceptive and subjective scopes and how does the axiological resignation of the patrimonial good is formed in that context; the “relational” dimension of it, is what determines urban and socio-spatial connectivity. Off course doing a traditional functional geographical cartography have not been of much contribution for this manners.²⁴

For this purpose we adopt a concept that has been called the heritageable, and it particularly identifies the value of the cultural heritage of the everyday world. The meaning or scope of the heritageable has been theorized and explored in a co-elaborative way since the first stage of the research that began back in 2015. In general terms, the heritageable has been configured as a collective agreement, which is established in a dialectic, heterogeneous community and in different contexts. It represents the subjectivities, the relationship with the place and its temporalities. It is aimed to measure the processes of territory that have been formed gradually with creativity and relatively few resources. The agreement of the heritageable is based on the re-knowledge, dialogic and alteration of a common good and the emotional bonding of the person, (individual and collective) with the same. The heritageable is a specific category which moves away from the canonical, Eurocentric and hegemonic vision of cultural heritage,^25‒31 since it raises to heritage value what its inhabitants recognize from subjectivity, social and artistic practices, as well as the particularity of habitats. The heritageable supposes a utopian dimension that is very close to a concrete utopia; it refers principle of hope of the philosopher Ernst Bloch,³² who shares the same social function in the construction of possible worlds. The heritageable is the cultural heritage (material, immaterial, natural), which is present in the ordinary world and has not been yet recognized, visualized, appropriated or valued.¹⁸ The theory in research of what is heritageable is built on a network^iv, based on the approach of research-based-on-the-arts, and founded on the initial questions: What is heritage for you? Can artistic practices build places? Is the popular habitat a cultural heritage? These and other questions, approached from diverse fields of skills and disciplines, contributed to the construction of the theoretical and multi-methodological framework of the investigation. They also contributed to the construction of a device for mapping the patrimony.

A device acts as a "basic scheme of thought," according to Michel Foucault, is a network that can be established between an heterogeneous set of elements that includes: discourses, institutions, regulations, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical and moral propositions. It constitutes a mix field of the human and the non-human and helps us deal with heterogeneity. It creates topological spaces, that is to say spaces defined by the relationship between a heterogeneous set of elements that are not significant per se. In a particular/specific case, it helps us analyse concrete practices: analyse the knowledge and power that is being made^33,34 that are being constructed. To this end, the analytical dimensions adopted in the observatory of Patio Rubio Territory, include material, immaterial and natural components that are reproduced in the landscape and in the value of context of the heritageable.

ⁱThe term "contemporary ancestry" self-identifies members of the Inga community of Putumayo as a migrant population settled more than fifty years ago in the city of Bogotá (Heritageable Observatory- Locality Rafael Uribe U.). Ticio Escobar (Escobar 2016) talks about ancestral art and includes it in the popular art category. From the crossing of both and the notion of habitat of Martin Heidegger (Heidegger 2014) the concept of "contemporary ancestral habitat" is generated, is included or included in the category of "popular habitat" in this research.

ⁱⁱ For its Spanish abbreviation

ⁱⁱⁱAmong the definitions we highlight that of Hernández Garcia: "The sectors of the popular habitat are those sectors of the city with particular economic and social characteristics that are developed and consolidated over time, where they coexist, often mixed several origins and ways of producing and express city. But, whose common denominator is the inhabitants, settlers who, according to their possibilities and economic, social and participation spaces, are creating, transforming, improving and giving form and expression to their habitat "(J. Hernández García 2007, 15)

^ivThe de facto conformation of a network of the heritageable is born with international partners from other places-observatories of Italy, Spain and Brazil. (Project No. 2015027) Faculty of Arts, UAN) and local partners such as the Museum of Contemporary Art in Bogotá, a group of artists and active associations present in the observatory, in addition to the GIPRI Research Group and schools such as the Hato in Choachíi and San Martin de Porres. El Bosque University was a partner from the first stage of the research (August 2015-July 2017).

In Colombia a consolidated tradition of heritage does not exist, instead "referent programs" have been included by the OHES (Observatory of Heritage Education of Spain) in their databases. There are pedagogical resources that simplify the incorporation of the cultural heritage notion in the teaching programs of Colombian schools and colleges, for example the Heritage in the classroom program³⁵ that articulates with the Vigias Program of Cultural Heritage, of the Ministry of Culture. The Vigias Program is part of the social appropriation of the cultural heritage and respect for the cultural diversity of the nation; the program uses a strategy that encourages citizens to participate so that communities organize themselves in the recognition, assessment, protection, recovery, dissemination and identification of actions. The activities planned in the watch are notable for their scope and difficulty, especially because it’s performing would carry out a real task of volunteering, without funding transferring the vast amount of the responsibilities and efforts to the communities without resources. We add to the previous references of programs the Training in Heritage called Civinautas, a pedagogical commitment of the District Institute of Cultural Heritage-IDPC of the Mayor of Bogotá, which in alliance with the cultural sector and the Ministry of Education, seeks to promote in different educational institutions of the public sector the experiential learning based on the Spanish model.

However, the concept of heritage education mentioned above incorporate an approach based on models built for other contexts that differ from the social and economic reality of Latin America^v. The common approach is the patrimony education to and from the heritage, which takes into consideration a set of processes of patrimony and identity construction³⁵ with emphasis on the nation's heritage. Though, our proposal seeks to trace a new path, oriented towards conceptual and social innovation. The proposed model is creative heuristic since it lies in the "immersion of the everyday".³⁶ In our case the figure of the teacher/educator in heritage education transcends the view of a specific professional figure, it uses pedagogical models and acts in the field of non-formal schooling with different teaching strategies. The creative heuristic model of the heritageable education is basically based on the artistic practices developed in the observatory sites; coherently build up with the methodology proposed for the exploration, recognition and evaluation of the patrimony. It does not focus on the figure of the teacher or educator, but, on the contrary, approaches the idea of ​​a plural artist who opts to maintain an approximation of the context of experimental, exploratory, playful and constructive type; producing a non professional and non pedagogic teacher/educator. Furthermore, it is better identified with an informal teaching field, by reason of being in diverse heritageable realities. The teaching strategy is founded on the workshops - some of creation, others of conversation - and research based on the arts, which take place in the observatory sites for the recognition of the patrimony based on community artistic practices. The central aspects of the model proposed are based on project pedagogy, collaborative self-learning, family education, the popular habitat conceived as an open museum, citizen observatories, artistic community practices, education without school (Figures 1‒3).³⁷

Figure 1 Example of mapping the heritageable.

Figure 2 Collage pictures from the analogical mapping of the heritageable in relation to the territory of Pardo Rubio (Pardo Rubio and El Paraiso neighbourhoods) November of 2017.
Source: Photographic register. Cartography workshop of the heritageable. From analogue to digital 11,18 and 25 of November of 2017. UAN Project, Cod. 2017204.

Figure 3 Results, Social cartography of the heritageable: from analogue to digital.
Source: UAN Project, Cod. 2017204.

Heritageable dispositive in glocal mapping^vi

The device of the heritageable in development, gives a special relevance to the subjectivities and the processes of subjectivities, resistance, production and transformation of the popular habitat; conceptual and social innovation driven by mapping of the patrimony lies on this. So it is expected that the device facilitates the creation of products and services from and for the popular habitat.

The research of the Heritageable Network explores in a participatory way the value of the context of the popular habitat, using collaborative artistic practices, conceived as a "unit of analysis" and as research-creation processes, which complement quantitative and qualitative research. The inclusion of common knowledge along with expert knowledge, traditional and ancestral knowledge of local communities, perceptions about the territory and PRA practices (participatory rural appraisals) represent important pieces in the creation of the device. All the previous pieces create in the literature the essential bases for the development of participatory projects, the formation of citizen observatories and participatory GIS designed to strengthen governance^vii. These are practices and tools that will complement the technical-scientific knowledge about the territory processes and help, for example, in the elaboration of "descriptors" of the heritageable^viii, in the understanding of the values and changes of the cultural indicators for development (UNESCO), environment, social and aesthetic indicators, as well as socio-environmental threats or risks.

In the virtual space promoted by the Cultural Ring for the MuRe project -Museography in Network node Uruguay^ix- was possible to experiment in an international and network context, the confluence and circulation of the perspectives and the aesthetic experiences of groups of participants from Colombia, Spain, Venezuela and Uruguay. In these exercises the patrimony is recognized from the subjectivity, it is mapped individually, without a mediator with the group, restoring in the second instance a co-elaborative digital "social cartography", with the use of applications of free circulation on the Internet.

The participants were instructed, through a slogan and a tutorial how to put on the map what is their own, what is valued, what is fine-looking, what is beautiful, what is identified at risk or about to disappear, without being known or recognized. The diversity of experiences, customs and mapped information can be considered in itself a patrimonial process. The mapping included both, what exists and what existed belonging to the memory now days, a tangible or intangible value of the traces left. There are cases where the mapping revealed the existence of unexpected historical architectural heritage, of a private nature, whose relevance is discovered in successive phases of the mapping, thanks to colloquiums or in-depth interviews.

A guidance question was propose for the elaboration of the mapping, based on the arguments of the general investigation about the heritageable, which has been mentioned in the previous section. The question was: "If we define the cultural patrimony both tangible and intangible or natural that has not yet been recognized, visible, appropriate and / or valued What do you identify in your territory as a patrimony? And Why?" It was published in the Heritageable Network Web page^x, in communication channels of MuRe^xi and presented in classrooms and virtually.

The slogan is summarized in few points that give precise indications about how to access the geo-referencing program to be used, Google Earth in a specific case. It explains also hot to be in the place of interest in a virtual way and hoe to indicate in the satellite image a heritageable point, associating, associating digital resources that best express it or describe it: photos, videos, sounds, words, drawings. The slogan also explains how to save the information (in the format .kmz or .kml) and where to send it, it is complemented with a tutorial that is a demonstration of the use of Google Earth tool.

Each participant was able to individually map the information. The files were received in a centralized way, assembled in a single map, and published complied in Google Maps, to be consulted online. It would have been more complex to do real time mapping, if direct access to the map had left open, in that case it would have been possible to subtract, accidentally or voluntarily, the information of others. In this phase, centralising the reception of the information allowed the creation of a filter and the pertinence control of the same.

Tracking the heritage sites was taken to a global scope and was placed in a virtual space, from specific geographical contexts (places of residence, frequentation, summer houses or transit places). The documents and records of perceptions and subjective assessments concerned real geographical environments, considered patrimonial by their physical and historical value, environmental, experiential, relational, symbolic, affective or, in some cases, corresponding to aesthetics of abandonment (Table 1).

Heritageable mapping best results were achieved when the participants previously received an introduction to the social digital cartography and had an aesthetic sensibility. The teachers who accompanied them stimulated the students; the disciplinary field in which the invitation was generated to participate was for example architecture or plastic arts^xii influenced the mapping. The topics associated with the mapping revealed the dominance of subjectivities, the affective and emotional legacy of the corporeal experience, significant in relation to the territory.³⁸ There valuations, invisible and imaginary landscapes, fragility of historically discriminated genres, victims of explicit or symbolic violence, memories of urban modernity, among other aspects appear. Issues such as the relationship between body and city, the generation of content from everyday life and the drift identities emerge. Likewise, the creation of works that "crystallize" experiences that transcend the mere encounter of materiality’s (the physical body and the material city), and that make evident the tensions in struggle of invisible forces, of immaterial cultural patrimonies, identities and imaginaries that make up expressions and diverse meanings of the heritageable.

For the same project^xiii an analogous mapping exercise was carried out with a focal group of inhabitants in the Pardo Rubio territory, this time based on data and stories, memories, individual and community experiences of the territory. The mapping generated analogous data, then transformed into digital.

The geo-reference tool used offers benefits and stimulates challenges that oscillate between aesthetic and analytical views. The geo-location offer an objective context to the mapped subjectivity of the information made, with the possibility to navigate the places covered by the Google street view application Earth and Google Map at ground level or between urban streets.

The previous statement supports challenges towards the development of technologies build on the structure of big data, all of these in the frame of the heritageable studies. The management of joint alphanumeric and spatial data enable cross information from different sources, from structure data (quantitative, measurable, technical, etc.) to non-structure data (perceptions, qualitative data, subjective information, facts from artistic practices).

This allows the spatial analysis of the heritage and the heritageable - in the logic presented in the previous sections - and generates important advantages. For example, the development of territorial protection and safeguard plans based on social agreements, which for their design and implementation require collaborative processes. These agreements are configured from the recognition, the creative and participatory inventory of patrimony assets. The joint management of data from structured and non-structured sources also facilitates forms of self-awareness, agency and social appropriation by the carrier community, for self-management projects, territorial values and local development. In fact the research aims to restore the historical processes, the authenticity and the veracity of the socio-cultural and territorial transformation. It also aims to encourage and move the community and public decisions exert an aesthetic power to generate resonance and interdisciplinary.

The visualization, analysis and recording of structured and unstructured data, for the digital cartography of the patrimony could require the support of innovative and interactive technologies more powerful than those used in this first phase of research. Especially considering that thanks to the network the number of user could increase that means managing big data. However, what is relevant here is to find the insight of such a complex process and that is part of understanding the non-evident needs, this represents the true challenge of the research.

Towards the innovation of the usual world

"Social innovation does not refer to a specific sector of the economy, but to innovate in the creation of products and social results regardless of where they are born."³⁹

Hypertext and transmedia narratives constructions, supported by geographic information systems fed in a co-elaborative way, are a path towards conceptual and social innovation. The device described here, which materialized in the maps of the heritageable constructed practices (artistic, aesthetic and social), goes beyond the technical mapping system that has made it possible. It represents a social innovation when the aesthetic and cognitive knowledge about the patrimony can permeate both the academic world and the ordinary world, which has in fact been articulated in research, making it possible to excavate, reveal and understand less evident needs to trigger processes of subjectivities. A pioneering component is in what was said above, which is identified with the first phase of the Wheatley and Freize emergency model.³⁹ This is based on alliances for social change, related ideas, self-interest, personal benefits and fluid membership, factual foundations of the heritageable network. These aspects have also been present in the process of activating the observatories of the patrimony and in the geo-reference mapping of the heritageable. The pioneering component of our device is also identified with the "idea to impact" of Abreu model developed based on Young Foundation,³⁹ according to which, inspirations and diagnosis represent the first phases of a process of social innovation.

To visualize, to excavate, to name the heritageable is precisely, paraphrasing Abreu, the effort to talk about the less evident and map it; evidence hidden that transcends mere quantitative or statistical analysis by blockages, dissatisfactions, dislocations, to emerge through empathy, through word of mouth, chance, personal motivations, desires and problems.³⁹ In this first stage the artistic practices of the device are in the common logic of the two models mentioned before, we throw facts, stories and experiences. They allow us to dig into the most hidden dimension and into the collective consciousness, emerging the deeper, associated with the blind spot of Otto Scharmer.⁴⁰ The circulation of these practices permeates both the sphere of popular habitat and the system of contemporary art, especially when their products of creation are taken into a museum environment according to a new idea of ​​ museograph.^xiv Likewise, they combine fields of scientific knowledge (environmental psychology, environmental engineering, human geography, urbanism, industrial design, new technology in art, even the creative and cultural industries, which could represent an economic opportunity for the inhabitants in popular habitat). The device allows investing, in the sense of changing or adjusting priorities, combining sources of funding for both scientific research and artistic creation, both equally important in the defence of the heritageable.^xv

The information and feedback that the device of the patrimony can provide for social innovation in the everyday world, emphasizes the individual, the experience and the results that this entails. It enables small transformations in the social organization of the communities, in the human, the personal and the individual. It also facilitates collaboration, cooperation in networks based on trust, user participation in the design of products and services, in sustainable businesses applied to the social sector (NGOs, cooperatives) to positively solve competitions and conflicts. As it is a device that facilitates accessibility to territories and communities, as well as to the cultural heritage of the usual world, it enables territorial marketing dynamics. For that reason it represents a potentiality but also a risk, since the device is not exempt from promoting scenarios of transformation that without the respect of the principles, the fundaments of the heritageable concept itself, and of the concrete utopia concept that it entails (co-elaboration, co- design, mediation or antagonisms among locals), could act in the territory generating a paradox where, instead of leading to innovation, it encourages the aggression of territories and gentrification, leaving the field to "smart and selfish" individuals⁴¹ interested more in the monopoly rent than in the protection and safeguarding of the cultural heritage as spaces of hope.^42‒48

^vAssuming mainly the educational variables, namely: the transitive, the receptive, the conceptual, the contextual, the investigative, the procedural, the constructive and finally the relational (Fontal Merillas 2016).

^viElaborated based in (Fracasso, Aperador and Cabanzo 2018).

^vii The implementation of GIS is one of the main alternatives in the search for territorial solutions, since the spatial of data allows the visualization of information that may be of interest for public entities, as well as for private entities and the community in general (Solano Mayorga, Cedeño Montoya and Moraga Peralta 2009). The socially constructed space is based on the experiences of the people. It is consolidated as a conceived space - integrating the built processes of social bases, experiences associated with culture and society - and as a lived space - reflecting the way in which the individual has lived and experienced their territory, making this an individual imaginary that can have a collective articulation of their social environment (Lefebvre, 1991 cited by (Barrera Lobatón 2009) .The spatial representations can of course be contrasting, especially if we consider that there are technical views and writings, from government institutions, which can distort The Internet does not change the basic nature of Geographic Information Systems, the difference is that they are online and therefore "every day millions of people access geographic information" (Harder 1998). Geographic information, supported by technological advances and the web, are a tool that allows navigating through a virtual world, represented by geographical variables (reliefs, hydrography, forestry coverage) and social, and cultural aspects, which acquire a qualitative value from the cartographic perspective and its diversity of contents.

^viii See L. Fracasso and S. Mesa. "Patrimony and patrimony: comparative perspectives of valuation". V International Seminar Cultural Heritage Management. University of Boyacá 4, October 5, 2018 Tunja

^ix Cultural Ring. MuRe project. MuRe Section 1.6 "Co-Creation in Network" of September 5, 2017.

^x www.reddelopatrimoniable.com

^xiCultural Ring Latin America Europe Web Museum Project MuRe. MuRe Transmission of section n. 6.

^xiiTo this end, the artistic residencies have revealed an empowerment of research-creation that generates social innovation See the case of Holos. In the framework of the congress V SIIMI - International Symposium of Inovação em Mídias Interativas, which will take place between 09 and 11 May 2018, at UFG, in Goiânia.

^xiiiWe refer to the project Popular habitat and artistic creation: generatin a dispositive for the analysis of the heritagable in an urban border area. (Cod. 2017204/UAN) The researchers team is formed by: Liliana Fracasso Ph.D main researcher; UAN co-researchers: Master René Vidal Esp., Yanine González Ph.D, David Aperado (PhD candidate), Stephanie Piedrahita, young researcher; UEB co-researcher: Francisco Cabanzo Ph.D y Glenda Torrado, Master.

^xivDe Marcha Colective, 2015

^xvTo this point the art residencies have revelealed as a encouregment of research-creation, which generate social innovation. In the context of the V SIIMI congress – Simpósio Internacional de Inovação em Mídias Interativas, that took place between the 9^th and the 11^th of May of May of 2018, in the UFG, in Goiânia.

None.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

None.

1. Prats L. The cultural heritage concept. Politics and Society. 1998;27:63‒76.
2. Lisocka‒Jaegermann B. Cultural heritage, identity and territroy: research problems. Space and Development. N.o 16. 2004:8‒25.
3. Palacio DC, Van Der Hammen MC. Heterogeneous Networks of heritage. Historic centre and Cordoba wetlands cases, Bogota (Colombia). NETWORKS Hispanic Magazine for the social networks analysis. 2007;13(1).
4. Palacio DC, Van Der Hammen MC, Thierry L. The construction of the heritage as a place: a case study in Bogota. Antipoda. 2009;8:61‒85.
5. Cantón Arjona Valentina. The heritage schooling: educating for and with the heritage: second part. Teachers Mail n. 2013;207:45‒56.
6. Cantón Arjona Valentina. The heritage schooling: educating the heritage. Third part. Teachers Mail n.ro. 2013;208:34‒45.
7. Cantón Arjona Valentina. The heritage schooling: educating for and with the heritage: first part. Teachers Mail n. 2013;206:42‒51.
8. Soja EW. Post‒metropolis. Critic studies about the cities and the regions. Dreams Traficant’s. 2008.
9. Cacciari Massimo. The City. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili; 2010.
10. Arango Escobar, Gilberto. An aesthetic view of the popular architecture. In Formal Expression of the spontaneous housing. City and Habitat Series. Bogota: Neighbourhood workshop. 2004;11:59‒73.
11. Magnaghi A. Il territorio degli abitanti. Società locali e autosostenibilità. Zanichelli. 1998.
12. UPN Ajusco. Memory and Philosophy of the forgotten. Samuel Arriarán Cuéllar. 2018.
13. Leavy P. Method Meets Art. Arts‒Based Research Practice. New York: The Guilford Press; 2009.
14. De Bruyne Paul, Pascal Gilsen. Community art: the Politics of Trespassing. Amsterdam: Valiz; 2011.
15. Muff K. The Collaborator: a co‒creative stakeholder engagement process for solving complex problems. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing Limited; 2014.
16. Stephenson MO, Tate AS. Arts and Community Change: Exploring Cultural Development Policies, Practices, and Dilemmas. New York: Routledge; 2015.
17. Mouffe C. Artistic Practices and antagonistic democracy. Barcelona: Museu d’Art Contemporani de Barcelona, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. 2007.
18. Fracasso Liliana. The "heritageable": concrete utopias, atistic practices and popular habitat and ancestral contemporary habitat. In: Benach N, Zaar MH, Vasconcelos MP, Editors. Junior, Utopias and the building of the future society. Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona; 2016.
19. Fracasso Liliana, Ortiz Bernal Y. Artistic practices as process of territory in the Cruces Neighbourhood. In: Pasuy W, Editor. Architecture and contemporary urbanism in historic centres. Bogota: Unisalle; 2017:84‒95.
20. Fracasso Liliana, Ortiz Bernal, Yenny. The non‒intervention and the eloquence of the empty urban in the Minuto de Dios. En W. P. alt, Contemporary interventions in territories with history. Bogotá: La Salle University. 2018.
21. Cabanzo Francisco, Moncada Leonor, Fracasso Liliana. Experiential design of a ludic dispositive to impulse a diffuse museum model of the ancient art and the ancestry roads in the rural municipalities of Choachi and Facatativa. En W. Pasuy Archiniegas, Contemporary interventions in territories with history. Bogota: La Salle University; 2013.
22. Amaral Lilian. Artistic Cartographies. San Paulo: Fundação Memorial da América Latina; 2016
23. Amaral Lilian. Migrant Patrimonies: geo‒politics and transit identities. In: Huerta RLR, Editor. Migrant Patrimonies. Valencia: Universitat de Valencia; 2013.
24. Khanna P. Geography: mapping the global network revolution. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson; 2016.
25. Martin Barbero J. Cultural mess and identity palimpsests. In: Cubides HL, Editors. Living fast. Young people, cultural territories and new sensibilities. Bogota; Colombia: Central University, Siglo del; 1998.
26. Martín Barbero J. What do we understand for heritage? 1998.
27. Martín Barbero J. PortalGC UB. 2008.
28. Martín Barbero J. The Heritage re‒invention of Latin America. From Portal Iberoamericano of Cultural Management. Open classrooms. 2008.
29. Martín Barbero J. The heritage reinvention of Latin America. 2010.
30. Martín‒Barbero J. Globalization as a cultural key: a look to Latin America. Montreal, Canada: Bogues Globalisme et Pluralisme International Symposium. 2002.
31. Martín‒Barbero J. Heritage: the future that lives memory. Agreement Andres Bello, We are heritage, social appropriation of the heritage. No. 1. 1999:13‒14.
32. Bloch Ernst. Hope principle. Madrid: Ed Aguilar; 1977.
33. Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. California: Sage Publications; 1979.
34. Latour B. Science in action. How to follow scientist and engineers through society. Strattford: Open University Press; 1987.
35. Fontal Merillas O. Heritage Education: retrospective and prospective for the next decade. Pedagogic Studies XLII No. 2016;2:415‒436.
36. Hernández García I. Aesthetic of the possible worlds: immersion to the artificial life, the arts and the urban practices. Bogota: Pontificia Javeriana University. 2016.
37. García López, Edwin. Fabian. A world to learn, schooling without schools. a (ESE), Collaborative self‒learning (AC) and education in family (EF). Bogota: Nacional University of Colombia. 2011.
38. Sabadell L. Bodyscapes (doctoral dissertation). Lluis Sabadell Artiga Doctorat Humantats 2005‒07. Professor: Antoni Mari Juny; 2008.
39. Abreu Quintero, Jose Luis. Social Innovation: Concepts and Layers. Daena International Journal of Good Conscience.2011;6(2):134‒148.
40. Scharmer O. Theory U: Leading from the Future as it Emerges. Cambridge, USA: The Society for Organizational Learning; 2007.
41. Harvey David. Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution. Madrid: Ediciones Akal; 2012.
42. Barrera Lobatón Susana. Thinking on Participative geography information and social cartography. Geography Notebooks: Geography Colombian Magazine. 2009;18:9–23.
43. Escobar Ticio. The art myth and the town myth. Aspects of popular art. Buenos Aires: Paidos Editorial; 2016.
44. Fracasso Liliana, Aperador David, Cabanzo Francisco. Digital interactive cartogrpahy of the heritageable: from the sttory to the fact and vice versa. Proceedings of the V International Symposium on Innovation in Interactive Media Rocha, Cleomar (Org). Goiânia: Media Lab/UFG. 2018.
45. Harder Christian. Serving Maps on the Internet. Geographic Information on the World Wide Web. Environmental Systems Research Institut. 1998;130.
46. Heidegger M. Build, habitat and think. Fotocopioteca n; 2014:39.
47. Hernández García J. Aesthetic and popular habitat. AISTHESIS n. 41. 2007.
48. Solano Mayorga MA, Cedeño Montoya JC, Moraga Peralta BC. History and evolution of the geographical systems of information in Costa Rica. Central America Geography Magazine. 2009;2:43.