Intangible cultural heritage is a key concept in contemporary cultural studies, referring to practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, and skills that are recognized by communities as part of their cultural heritage ( UNESCO, 2003). Unlike tangible cultural heritage, intangible cultural heritage is dynamic in nature and is continuously recreated by communities in response to their environment, social interactions, and historical experiences. Therefore, it should not be understood merely as a set of traditions passively inherited, but rather as living cultural practices that continuously evolve within changing social contexts ( Blake, 2015; Kurin, 2004). Recent studies also emphasize that intangible cultural heritage should be understood as a living and adaptive system that is continuously negotiated within contemporary societies ( Bortolotto, 2010; Hu et al., 2024; Pérez-Gandarillas, 2024; Su et al., 2019).

In the development of academic scholarship, intangible cultural heritage is no longer viewed solely as an object of preservation, but as a social construction that involves processes of interpretation, negotiation, and representation ( Bortolotto, 2010; Harrison, 2013; Smith, 2006). This perspective highlights that what is defined as “heritage” is not neutral; rather, it is shaped through power relations, cultural policies, and specific social and political interests. In this sense, heritage is actively produced through discourse and practice, rather than simply inherited from the past ( Smith, 2006). Consequently, safeguarding intangible cultural heritage is not only concerned with maintaining the continuity of cultural practices, but also with how cultural meanings are produced, mediated, and represented across different contexts ( Akagawa & Smith, 2019). Recent empirical research further shows that heritage practices are increasingly influenced by global cultural dynamics, digital transformation, and interdisciplinary approaches ( Chen et al., 2022; Hu et al., 2024).

Furthermore, in the context of globalization and modernization, intangible cultural heritage faces a range of challenges, including shifting social values, the commodification of culture, and changes in the functions of rituals within society ( Akagawa & Smith, 2019; Kurin, 2004; Logan, 2012). Contemporary studies also indicate that digital transformation and globalization processes significantly affect how cultural heritage is preserved and transmitted, often leading to reinterpretation and hybridization of cultural practices ( Ioannides et al., 2021; Qiu et al., 2022; Zabulis et al., 2021). On the one hand, preservation efforts are increasingly important for ensuring cultural sustainability; on the other hand, these processes may also transform the original meanings and functions of cultural practices. This tension reflects the complex relationship between preservation and transformation in contemporary heritage practices ( Blake, 2015). Therefore, the study of intangible cultural heritage cannot be separated from an analysis of dynamics of change, adaptation, and processes of cultural representation in contemporary societies.

Cultural documentation constitutes a crucial aspect of efforts to safeguard intangible cultural heritage, particularly in the face of social change and technological development. In contemporary scholarship, documentation is no longer understood as a passive process of recording; rather, it is regarded as an active practice that plays a significant role in organizing, storing, and transmitting cultural knowledge to future generations ( Cameron & Kenderdine, 2007; Khan et al., 2018; Kurin, 2004). This is especially important given that intangible cultural heritage is inherently non-material and heavily dependent on social practices and collective memory, making it vulnerable to transformation or even disappearance in the absence of systematic documentation ( Kurin, 2004). Recent studies further emphasize that documentation practices are central to sustaining cultural continuity, particularly in rapidly changing societies ( Hu et al., 2024; Su et al., 2019).

With the advancement of digital technologies, cultural documentation practices have undergone significant transformation through processes such as digitization, database development, and cultural information systems. Studies suggest that digital documentation enables broader storage and dissemination of cultural knowledge; however, it also introduces challenges related to representation, interpretation, and cultural context ( Dou et al., 2018; Ioannides et al., 2021). In addition, research indicates that digital technologies not only preserve cultural heritage but also reshape how it is accessed, experienced, and interpreted by wider audiences ( Bekele et al., 2021; Rahaman et al., 2019; Zabulis et al., 2021). In this context, documentation functions not only as a tool for preservation but also as a medium that mediates the relationship between culture, technology, and society.

Furthermore, a number of studies emphasize that cultural documentation is not neutral, as it inherently involves processes of selection, interpretation, and the construction of cultural representation ( Giaccardi, 2012)vv. Documentation, particularly in visual and digital forms, plays a significant role in shaping how cultural practices are understood and represented within broader contexts. From a contemporary perspective, digital documentation also raises critical questions regarding authenticity, ownership, and the transformation of cultural meaning in mediated environments ( Jones, 2017; Pandey & Kumar, 2020; Zabulis et al., 2021). Therefore, the documentation of intangible cultural heritage is not solely concerned with preservation, but also with the production of meaning and cultural representation in contemporary society.

Cultural representation constitutes a significant aspect in the study of cultural heritage, particularly in understanding how cultural practices are produced, interpreted, and communicated across various social contexts. From a cultural studies perspective, representation is not understood as a neutral reflection of reality; rather, it is a process of meaning construction through language, symbols, and media ( Hall, 1997). Therefore, any form of cultural documentation, especially those based on visual media, inherently involves processes of selection and interpretation that shape how a culture is understood by broader audiences. Recent studies further highlight that representation plays a crucial role in shaping public understanding of cultural heritage, particularly in mediated and digital contexts ( Smith & Waterton, 2009; Waterton & Smith, 2010; Waterton & Watson, 2015).

Within the context of visual culture, media such as documentary film, photography, and digital platforms play a crucial role in representing cultural practices. Visual representation functions not only as a tool of documentation but also as a medium that constructs cultural narratives and meanings through specific visual choices, narrative structures, and perspectives ( Pink, 2013)vv. Empirical research in visual and digital heritage studies suggests that media technologies significantly influence how cultural experiences are framed, accessed, and interpreted by audiences ( Champion, 2020; Ioannides et al., 2021; Rahaman et al., 2019). In addition, studies in visual anthropology and media research emphasize that images and visual narratives are not neutral representations but are embedded within cultural, political, and epistemological frameworks ( Banks, 2018; Banks & Ruby, 2011). Consequently, visual documentation cannot be separated from interpretation, as every cultural representation is inevitably influenced by the perspective of its creator.

Furthermore, in contemporary studies, cultural representation through visual media is closely linked to issues of authenticity, power, and the construction of cultural identity. Several studies indicate that representation processes can reinforce, transform, or even simplify particular cultural meanings, depending on how such cultures are selected and presented ( Rose, 2016). In addition, recent scholarship highlights that digital and visual representations may reshape cultural meanings through processes of mediation, recontextualization, and audience interaction ( Bekele et al., 2021; Jones, 2017; Zabulis et al., 2021). In the context of intangible cultural heritage, this becomes especially significant, as visual documentation not only records cultural practices but also contributes to shaping collective understandings of those practices. Thus, the study of cultural documentation cannot be detached from an analysis of visual representation as a process of meaning-making within contemporary society.

The findings of this study indicate that the Tabuik ritual functions not merely as a cultural practice but also as an existential framework for understanding the origins of life, loss, and the continuity of human meaning. One of the key elements of this ritual is the Maambiak Tanah procession, which symbolically represents the origin of human life from the earth.

This symbolic meaning becomes particularly significant when connected to the personal experience of the character Participant 1, who undergoes the loss of a father figure as the foundation of his existence. The interrelation between ritual symbolism and personal experience suggests that loss is not solely an individual emotional condition but is mediated through cultural symbolic systems. This is reflected in Participant 1’s statement that he felt “lost since his father’s passing,” indicating that the experience of loss is not only emotional but also existential in nature. In this context, the earth as a symbol of origin does not merely signify the beginning of life but also embodies notions of separation and human limitation.

Furthermore, these findings demonstrate that the experience of loss within personal narratives can be understood as part of a broader structure of meaning embedded in cultural practices. The Tabuik ritual provides a symbolic framework that enables individuals like Participant 1 to interpret loss as part of the cycle of life, rather than as a fragmented or isolated experience. Thus, personal experience does not stand alone but is interconnected with collective narratives transmitted through cultural traditions.

Within the process of documentation, these symbolic meanings undergo transformation through the construction of visual narratives. The Maambiak Tanah procession is not only documented as a ritual event but is also represented as a metaphor for Participant 1’s experience of loss. This narrative choice demonstrates that documentation is not neutral; rather, it actively shapes the relationship between collective memory and individual experience.

Thus, the relationship between origin and loss emerges as a thematic foundation that reveals the intersection of ritual, personal experience, and visual representation. These findings affirm that cultural documentation does not merely record cultural practices but also contributes to constructing an existential understanding of life, loss, and meaning within contemporary society.

The findings of this study indicate that grief experienced by adolescents in this context tends not to be expressed openly, but rather internalized and lived through in private spaces. Grief is not manifested through explicit emotional expressions in public settings; instead, it appears in the form of silence, withdrawal, and deep internal reflection.

This is evident in Participant 2’s statement that he “has never truly been able to accept the loss,” suggesting that experiences of loss are not always verbally articulated but are embodied through implicit and internal emotional processes. In this context, the grief experienced by Participant 2 and other adolescents is not solely individual but is also shaped by social and cultural norms that regulate how emotions are expressed. The tendency to conceal grief can be understood as part of the internalization of social values that position certain emotional expressions as something to be controlled. Consequently, grief does not emerge as a shared collective experience but rather as a personal experience that is endured silently.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that private spaces such as bedrooms, beaches, and other personal environments become significant sites for the expression of grief. Within these spaces, individuals like Participant 2 have the freedom to reflect on their experiences of loss without social pressure. This suggests that grief does not disappear but instead transforms into a more reflective and introspective experience.

In the process of documentation, this silenced grief is not represented in a dramatic manner but through subtle visual approaches and contemplative narrative structures. The decision to avoid explicit emotional displays becomes a representational strategy that reinforces the understanding of grief as a complex experience that cannot always be directly expressed. Thus, documentation does not merely capture grief but actively shapes how it is interpreted by the audience.

These findings affirm that grief in adolescence is not merely an emotional response to loss but constitutes a social and cultural experience shaped by norms, spatial contexts, and representational processes. Therefore, silenced grief can be understood as an alternative form of expression that reflects the interplay between individual experience, social structures, and practices of cultural documentation.

The findings of this study indicate that adolescent life in this context is closely shaped by intergenerational expectations, particularly those originating from parents and the surrounding social environment. These expectations are associated with educational choices, career paths, and life trajectories considered ideal. In many cases, adolescents are confronted with pressures to follow predetermined paths that do not necessarily align with their personal interests or aspirations. This is reflected in the experience of the character Queen, who states that she feels “obliged to follow choices that have already been determined, even though they are not what I want,” revealing a tension between individual agency and familial expectations.

In this context, adolescent identity is not formed autonomously but emerges through a process of negotiation between personal desires and the social structures that shape them. The pressure to fulfill family expectations can be understood as part of a social mechanism through which values, norms, and aspirations are transmitted across generations. This conflict is also evident in other characters who experience uncertainty in making life decisions, positioned between personal aspirations and strong familial demands.

These findings become increasingly significant when connected to the cultural practice of Tabuik, which also involves the intergenerational transmission of values and roles. The involvement of traditional leaders (Tuo Tabuik) in preserving and continuing the ritual reflects how culture is sustained through robust social structures. In this regard, a parallel can be drawn between the transmission of cultural values within the Tabuik ritual and the transmission of expectations in adolescent life, both of which require the continuity of values across generations.

In the process of documentation, the tension between expectations and identity is represented through narratives that implicitly depict the characters’ internal conflicts. Rather than presenting explicit resistance, the representation emphasizes reflection and meaning-making processes undertaken by the characters. This demonstrates that documentation is not merely a neutral recording of social reality but actively constructs narratives about how individuals negotiate their identities within the context of social and cultural pressures.

Thus, these findings affirm that intergenerational expectations constitute a significant factor in shaping adolescent experiences and identities. The process of identity negotiation occurs not only at the individual level but is also embedded within broader social structures and cultural practices. Therefore, cultural documentation functions as a medium that not only represents these tensions but also reveals the dynamic relationship between individuals, families, and culture within contemporary society.

The findings of this study indicate that responsibility, within this context, is not merely understood as a normative concept but as a practice enacted through the body and everyday activities. In the Tabuik tradition, responsibility is manifested through the physical engagement of community members, including the construction of the Tabuik, collective labor, and participation in ritual processes. In this sense, responsibility functions not only as a social obligation but also as a lived cultural practice transmitted across generations.

This dimension of responsibility as an embodied practice is also reflected in adolescent life, particularly in the experience of Participant 3, who actively contributes to the family economy through trading activities.

Participant 3 expresses that he “must continue to carry out his responsibilities, even when circumstances are not always easy,” indicating that responsibility is not merely a matter of choice but an integral part of self-formation and maturation. In this context, responsibility emerges as a concrete experience enacted through action rather than as an abstract value. The relationship between ritual practice and everyday life reveals a parallel between responsibility in cultural contexts and responsibility in personal life. While in the Tabuik ritual responsibility is realized through collective labor and devotion to tradition, in adolescent life it takes the form of effort, work, and personal sacrifice. Thus, responsibility can be understood as a practice that connects individuals to their communities while bridging the present with cultural heritage.

In the process of documentation, this dimension of responsibility is represented through visualizations that emphasize movement, labor, and bodily engagement. Such representations do not merely present final outcomes but also foreground the processes and dynamics involved. This demonstrates that documentation plays an active role in presenting responsibility as an embodied practice one that is physically experienced and enacted rather than merely symbolically represented.

These findings affirm that responsibility operates as a practice that connects ritual, everyday life, and processes of cultural representation. Responsibility is not only transmitted as a value but is enacted through concrete actions that shape both individual and collective experiences. Therefore, cultural documentation does not merely record these practices but also reveals how responsibility is lived as part of cultural continuity in contemporary society.