Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Cantu in paghjella"

Le Cantu in paghjella est une pratique traditionnelle corse de chants polyphoniques, qui a été reconnue par l’UNESCO comme Patrimoine Culturel Immatériel (PCI) et inscrit en 2009 sur la Liste de Sauvegarde d’urgence. Le Cantu in paghjella, combinant trois registres vocaux masculins, représente un pilier de la culture corse et se chante a cappella dans diverses occasions festives, sociales et religieuses. Le principal objectif du projet I-Treasures est de développer une plate-forme ouverte et extensible pour fournir un accès aux ressources du PCI, permettre l’échange de connaissances entre chercheurs et contribuer à la transmission des savoir-faire rares des trésors humains vivants, par l’apprentissage de chants traditionnels, comme le Cantu in paghjella. Nous présentons dans cet article, le travail effectué avec les chanteurs sur la capture et la transmission de ce type de chant à plusieurs voix. Nous aborderons les technologies permettant de sauvegarder et de transmettre le chant polyphonique corse et comprenant une étude préalable à la mission de collectage afin de recueillir des témoignages pertinents des chanteurs traditionnels sur les différents aspects de leurs pratiques et techniques vocales. Il y sera fait une présentation sur l’utilisation de notre nouveau système de capture de données à l’aide d’un casque multi-capteurs qui permet l’enregistrement simultané de voix multiples et la synchronisation de données acoustiques et articulatoires. Nous verrons comment ce travail peut contribuer aux initiatives locales visant l’amélioration de l’accès aux données sonores, mais aussi aux mesures de sauvegarde d’urgence de l’UNESCO.

1. Alivizatou, M. (2019). Digital intangible heritage: Inventories, virtual learning and participation. Heritage & Society, 12(2–3), 116–135. 2. Billett, S. (2009). Conceptualizing learning experiences: Contributions and mediations of the social, personal, and brute. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(1), 32–47. 3. Bonilla, C. M. (2014). Racial Counternarratives and L atina Epistemologies in Relational Organizing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(4), 391–408. 4. Britain, T. (2007). How We Are: Photographing Britain. 5. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer Engagement: Conceptual Domain, Fundamental Propositions, and Implications for Research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511411703 6. Budge, K. (2017). Objects in focus: Museum visitors and Instagram. Curator: The Museum Journal, 60(1), 67–85. 7. Budge, K., & Burness, A. (2018). Museum objects and Instagram: agency and communication in digital engagement. Continuum, 32(2), 137–150. 8. Callanan, M. A., & Oakes, L. M. (1992). Preschoolers’ questions and parents’ explanations: Causal thinking in everyday activity. Cognitive Development, 7(2), 213–233. 9. Callanan, M., Cervantes, C., & Loomis, M. (2011). Informal learning. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(6), 646–655. 10. Cameron, F. (2003). Digital Futures I: Museum collections, digital technologies, and the cultural construction of knowledge. Curator: The Museum Journal, 46(3), 325–340. 11. Cokley, J., Gilbert, L., Jovic, L., & Hanrick, P. (2016). Growth of ‘Long Tail’in Australian journalism supports new engaging approach to audiences. Continuum, 30(1), 58–74. 12. Cole, M., & Consortium, D. L. (2006). The fifth dimension: An after-school program built on diversity. Russell Sage Foundation. 13. European Commission. (2015). i-Treasures: intangible cultural heritage of the past available through advanced modern technologies. 14. Fitts, S., & McClure, G. (2015). Building Social Capital in Hightown: The Role of Confianza in L atina Immigrants’ Social Networks in the New South. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 46(3), 295–311. 15. Francesca, P. (2017). Final Report on User Requirements: Identification and Analysis. 16. Gade, R. (2009). Event Culture - The Museum and Its Staging (Kopenhagen, 6-7 Nov 09). 17. Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal, 29(13), 1465–1474. 18. Gillard, P. (2002). Cruising through history wired. Museums and the Web 2002. 19. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization among black children (Vol. 618). Indiana University Press. 20. Hamma, K. (2004). The role of museums in online teaching, learning, and research. First Monday. 21. Henchman, M. (2000). Bringing the object to the viewer: Multimedia techniques for the scientific study of art. 22. Herrgott, C. (2016). Cantu in paghjella: Patrimoine Culturel Immatériel et nouvelles technologies dans le projet I-Treasures. Port Acadie: Revue Interdisciplinaire En Études Acadiennes/Port Acadie: An Interdisciplinary Review in Acadian Studies, 30, 91–113. 23. Howell, R., & Chilcott, M. (2013). A sense of place: re-purposing and impacting historical research evidence through digital heritage and interpretation practice. International Journal of Intangible Heritage, 8, 165–177. 24. King, L., Stark, J. F., & Cooke, P. (2016). Experiencing the digital world: The cultural value of digital engagement with heritage. Heritage & Society, 9(1), 76–101. 25. Lomb, N. (2009). Dip circle used to study the earth’s magnetic field at Parramatta Observatory. 26. Majors, Y. J. (2015). Shoptalk: Lessons in teaching from an African American hair salon. Teachers College Press. 27. Marty, P. F. (2008). Museum websites and museum visitors: digital museum resources and their use. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 81–99. 28. Moqtaderi, H. (2019). Citizen curators: Crowdsourcing to bridge the academic/public divide. University Museums and Collections Journal, 11(2), 204–210. 29. Müller, K. (2013). Museums and virtuality. In Museums in a digital age (pp. 295–305). Routledge. 30. Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. 31. O’Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(6), 938–955. 32. O’Neill, R. (2017). The Rise of the Citizen Curator: Participation as Curation on the Web. University of Hull. 33. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (2000). The lore and language of schoolchildren. New York Review of Books. 34. Pallud, J. (2017). Impact of interactive technologies on stimulating learning experiences in a museum. Information & Management, 54(4), 465–478. 35. Pallud, J., & Straub, D. W. (2014). Effective website design for experience-influenced environments: The case of high culture museums. Information & Management, 51(3), 359–373. 36. Pozzi, F. (2017). Final Report on User Requirements: Identification and Analysis. Unpublished I-Treasures Project Report. 37. Proctor, N. (2010). Digital: Museum as platform, curator as champion, in the age of social media. Curator: The Museum Journal, 53(1), 35. 38. Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutiérrez, K. D., & Erickson, F. (2016). The organization of informal learning. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 356–401. 39. Schugurensky, D. (2000). The forms of informal learning: Towards a conceptualization of the field. 40. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1973). Cognitive Consequences of Formal and Informal Education: New accommodations are needed between school-based learning and learning experiences of everyday life. Science, 182(4112), 553–559. 41. Song, M., Elias, T., Martinovic, I., Mueller-Wittig, W., & Chan, T. K. Y. (2004). Digital heritage application as an edutainment tool. Proceedings of the 2004 ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Virtual Reality Continuum and Its Applications in Industry, 163–167. 42. Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O’Gorman, K. (2014). Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism Management, 42, 321–329. 43. Tan, B.-K., & Rahaman, H. (2009). Virtual heritage: Reality and criticism. 44. Tarlowski, A. (2006). If it’s an animal it has axons: Experience and culture in preschool children’s reasoning about animates. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 249–265. 45. Tate. (2007). How We Are Now at Tate Britain Museum. 46. Taylor, J., & Gibson, L. K. (2017). Digitisation, digital interaction and social media: embedded barriers to democratic heritage. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 23(5), 408–420. 47. UNESCO. (2011). What is Intangible Cultural Heritage? 48. Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. MIT press. 49. Wenger-Trayner, E., Wenger-Trayner, B., & W.-T. (2015). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. 50. Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press. 51. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). sage.

Notre étude vise à comparer la doïna et le cantu corsu, des chants traditionnels qui traitent de thèmes universels comme l’amour, la nostalgie, le travail, l’oppression sociale ou la mort au sein deux sociétés agropastorales. Grace aux travaux de chercheurs contemporains impliqués dans la préservation de ces créations et de leurs valeurs culturelles, le cantu in paghjella comme la doïna intègrent en 2009 le patrimoine immatériel de l'UNESCO.Les multiples formes de chant corse (polyphoniques et monodiques) couvrent l'ensemble des aspects de la vie. De notre point de vue, le type cantu in paghjella peut être caractérisé notamment par le fait qu'il est chanté a capella par des hommes alors que la doïna est une monodie interprétée dans la solitude par des hommes et des femmes.À travers cette étude, nous mettons en relief des similitudes et des différences, des convergences et des divergences entre ces deux chants.On note aujourd'hui que la chanson corse constitue une manière de préserver et de transmettre la langue corse ou privilégie la voie de poitrine. On remarque aussi qu'en Corse, l'univers de la mort a une place plus importante que dans la chanson roumaine. Ces aspects font partie des divergences les plus significatives.À propos de similitudes et outre les thèmes communs, notons que ces deux chants sont pratiqués sur des territoires isolés (géographiquement pour la Corse et linguistiquement pour la Roumanie). Durant des millénaires, les chansons de différentes régions et dialectes ont été véhiculées avec l'aide de bergers transhumants, la musique et le texte étant toujours transmis simultanément. Aujourd'hui et pour plusieurs raisons (exode rural ou médiatisation parfois déconnectée du contexte), le chant authentique risque de disparaître sans la mise en œuvre d'un véritable processus de patrimonialisation
Our study aims at comparing the doïna and the cantu corsu, traditional songs that deal with universal themes such as love, nostalgia, work, social oppression or death in both agro-pastoral societies.Thanks to the work of contemporary researchers involved in the preservation of these creations and their cultural value, the cantu in paghjella like the doïna became part of the intangible heritage of UNESCO in 2009.The multiple forms of Corsican singing (polyphonic and monodic) cover all aspects of life. From our point of view, the cantu in paghjella can be characterized in particular by the fact that it is sung a capella by men while the doïna is a monody performed in solitude by men and women.Through this study, we highlight similarities and differences, convergences and divergences between these two types of songs.Today we note that the Corsican song constitutes a way of preserving and transmitting the Corsican language or favors the chest voice. We also notice that in Corsica, the universe of death has a more important place than in the Romanian song. These aspects are among the most significant differences.Regarding similarities and in addition to the common themes, let us note that these two types of songs are practiced in isolated territories (geographically for Corsica and linguistically for Romania). For millennia, songs from different regions and dialects have been passed on with the help of transhumant shepherds, with music and lyrics always being transmitted simultaneously. Today and for several reasons (rural exodus or media coverage sometimes disconnected from the context), authentic singing risks disappearing without the implementation of a real process of heritage development