Strategy concept for the preservation of cultural heritage. Analysis of the existing policy in the field of conservation and regeneration of cultural heritage sites
Cultural and historical heritage ensures continuity in the transmission of emotionally significant information, encoding this information in artifacts and texts (that is, monuments) . The concept of "cultural heritage" includes, along with the material basis, the spiritual sphere, in which the stereotypes of the mass consciousness of society, its aspirations, ideology, and behavioral motivation are refracted. Along with the sign of universality, the cultural heritage is also characterized by the fact that usually the realization of its true meaning occurs only over time. The most objective assessment of the historical, scientific and artistic merits of cultural objects is given by social practice. Moreover, the more time separates the acts of creating cultural objects and their evaluation, the more highly valued these objects are, as a rule.
Thus, cultural values play a social role, are specially protected by law, serve as a link between different generations of people, are of a specific historical nature and act as a factor in the formation of the qualities necessary for society in a person. Therefore, their preservation cannot be only a museum problem. It must be solved by the combined efforts of state power, society and science.
The current legal acts classify as monuments those valuable historical and cultural objects that are registered or identified by state bodies for the protection of objects cultural heritage, in accordance with the relevant procedure, which underlies the entire system of protection of historical and cultural monuments. For objects included in the state Lists of historical and cultural monuments of federal or regional (local) significance, as well as in the Lists of newly discovered monuments, it is planned to draw up a passport with fixation of the property composition of the monument, its main technical data, subject value and maintenance regime, as well as the development a project of protection zones (as part of a buffer zone, a zone of development regulation and a zone of protected natural landscape), security obligations of users of monuments. These actions should ensure the conservation regime of the monument and the regulation of economic activities in areas adjacent to it.
The modern system of cultural heritage protection is dominated by the monumental approach, oriented towards static and managerially monostructural formations. However, the legal norms applied to individual objects are not sufficient to solve the legal problems of complex historical and cultural formations. Any immovable monument was created in a certain historical and natural environment and in its specific place, which means that its value and safety are determined not only by its physical condition, but also by the safety of the surrounding natural and historical background. The contradictions of modern legislation are especially clearly reflected in the practice of such specific entities as national parks, on the territory of which monuments of cultural and historical heritage are located, museum reserves, museum estates, palace and park ensembles, which include elements of the natural environment in the form of gardens, parks. , natural landscapes, etc. The management system for such objects is hampered by the contradictions that arise in the legal support of these measures and the inconsistency of the actions of economic entities and the established protection regimes. Thus, from the point of view of management, the natural and cultural components of these monuments are separated by departmental barriers. The organization of protection and management of such objects as parks and gardens is regulated by environmental legislation. If they are considered as objects of cultural heritage, then at best they are considered examples of landscape architecture. Meanwhile, their spiritual, mental components and socio-cultural significance are much more significant, which was brilliantly revealed by D.S. Likhachev in his works. Today, more than ever, the issue of developing an integrated approach to the management of historical, cultural and natural heritage resources is acute.
Until recently, there have been a number of complex, difficult to solve problems in the field of cultural heritage. Here are some of them:
The ongoing destruction of historical and cultural monuments, which has become catastrophic;
Violation of natural systems and increased economic exploitation of many historical and cultural territories;
Destruction of traditional forms of culture, entire layers of national culture;
Loss of unique and widespread folk crafts and crafts, arts and crafts;
Gap of cultural interaction between generations, as well as between different Russian territories.
The state policy for ensuring the safety of cultural heritage sites should be based on the recognition of the priority of preserving the historical and cultural potential as one of the main socio-economic resources for the existence and development of the peoples of the Russian Federation and implement an integrated approach to solving issues of state protection, direct preservation, disposal and use of cultural objects. heritage of all kinds and categories.
Preservation or rescue cultural property endangered should be ensured through the following means and specific measures:
1) legislation; 2) financing; 3) administrative measures; 4) measures for the preservation or rescue of cultural property (conservation, restoration);
5) penalties; 6) restoration (reconstruction, readaptation); 7) incentive measures; 8) consultations; 9) educational programs.
It should be noted that the post-industrial society in our electronic age has realized the high potential of cultural heritage, the need for its conservation and efficient use as one of the most important resources of the economy. The state policy in the field of cultural heritage preservation is no longer based on the traditional “protection from”, which provides for restrictive measures, but on the concept of “protection for”, which, along with protective restrictions, provides for the creation of optimally favorable conditions for investors who are ready to invest in the preservation of monuments. The main necessary condition safeguarding objects of cultural heritage is currently the improvement of state policy based on a comprehensive account of the composition and condition of cultural heritage objects, modern socio-economic conditions for the development of society, the real possibilities of authorities, local governments, public and religious organizations, other persons, features of national and cultural traditions peoples of the Russian Federation and many other factors. In addition, projects for the preservation of cultural heritage are being created. These projects have a different scale, and among them the following areas can be distinguished:
Preservation projects, mainly aimed at the restoration and conservation of objects subject to destruction.
Microfilming projects, i.e. transferring to film and distributing degradable books, newspapers and periodicals.
Cataloging projects, i.e. describing thousands of books and manuscripts and making them available.
Digitization projects, i.e. creation of virtual facsimile editions of books and newspapers, in some cases optical character recognition is used.
Research projects that represent in the digital environment both documentary sources and historical and cultural context.
Of particular importance is the involvement of the local population in projects for the preservation and use of the heritage of the region. This gives an additional impetus to the development of a renewed image of the region and the growth of the area's attractiveness in the eyes of potential residents and investors.
The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation established an autonomous non-profit organization "Russian Network of Cultural Heritage". In 2002, the first Russian project supported by the EU was launched. Cultivate-Russia is a network infrastructure project aimed at promoting cooperation between cultural organizations in Russia and Europe. Within the framework of this project, a series of 37 seminars and round tables was held, information was disseminated throughout Russia, an information website was launched, an international conference was held, 2 editions of CDs were released, and regional and international contacts were established.
An Internet portal "Culture of Russia" has been created, which is designed for the mass user (at present, only in Russian). The portal provides users with various sections of information on the culture of Russia throughout the history of its existence. In addition, there is already an Internet portal "Library of Russia", an information service of Russian museums.
For Russia, the “legal framework” for the protection of monuments is formed by:
Federal Law "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation". - M., 2002;
Regulations on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments. - M., 1982;
Instructions on the procedure for accounting, ensuring the safety, maintenance, use and restoration of immovable monuments of history and culture. - M., 1986;
Order of the Ministry of Culture of the USSR dated 01.24.1986 No. 33 "On the organization of zones for the protection of immovable monuments of history and culture of the USSR."
Separate norms aimed at regulating legal relations for the protection of cultural heritage are contained in the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, the Land Code of the Russian Federation, the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, the Federal Laws "On architectural activity in the Russian Federation", "On the privatization of state and municipal property", "On licensing certain types of activities”, legislation regulating budgetary relations.
The Decree of the Government of St. Petersburg dated November 1, 2005 No. 1681 “On the St. Petersburg Strategy for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage” proposes the following measures to achieve the main goals of restoration - “preservation and identification of the aesthetic and historical values of the monument”:
constant monitoring of all processes of destruction of the monument, the study of methods of suspension and causes of destruction processes;
creation of a database of information support for measures to identify objects of protection, providing monitoring of the use and technical condition of cultural heritage objects, the history of their restoration with photographic recording of the process;
promoting the quality of restoration work through exhibitions, competitions, etc.;
creation of a research center (restoration institute) for the development and implementation of modern restoration principles, norms and methods, new technologies that meet the specifics of the St. Petersburg heritage, assessment of the quality of materials and work, certification and training of specialists;
training of specialists in restoration and heritage protection in the system of specialized secondary and higher education based on city order;
encouragement of education (provision of grants, subsidies, subsidies, gratuitous loans), the creation of master classes that stimulate both highly qualified specialists and talented youth who want to master the secrets of craftsmanship;
strengthening educational and educational work aimed at educating worthy citizens of modern society and developing effective forms of counteracting manifestations of vandalism;
careful differentiation, establishment of norms and prices for all types of restoration work;
broad public awareness through the media, which should increase the dignity of the profession, the value and socio-economic significance of restoration and crafts, and, consequently, open up new prospects for employment and personal fulfillment;
careful differentiation of norms and prices for all types of restoration work. 4
With noticeable positive shifts in the analysis of the current situation in the field of conservation and management of cultural heritage objects that are in federal ownership, the property of the constituent entities of the federation and municipal property, there are still serious problems in this area:
The absence in the Russian legislation of a clear and systematic approach to the protection of cultural heritage sites;
Lack of a system in organizing the work of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites.
Emergency state of most cultural heritage sites. (According to the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation, out of 90 thousand cultural heritage objects protected by the state and more than 140 thousand identified cultural heritage objects, about half are in poor and emergency condition).
Lack of object-by-object certification of monuments and reliable information about the state (physical safety) of these objects.
Lack of funds for the reconstruction, restoration and maintenance of cultural heritage sites. (The funds allocated for the maintenance of these objects do not allow not only to maintain their current state, but are often insufficient even for the conservation of these objects, which in turn leads to their loss.)
The lack of elaboration of regulatory legal by-laws provided for by the Federal Law "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" of 2002, the lack of methodological documents.
It must be remembered that any loss of heritage will inevitably affect all areas of the life of present and future generations, lead to spiritual impoverishment, breaks in historical memory, and impoverishment of society as a whole. They cannot be compensated for either by the development of modern culture or by the creation of significant new works. The accumulation and preservation of cultural values is the basis for the development of civilization. Cultural heritage is a spiritual, economic and social potential of irreplaceable value. It nourishes modern science, culture, education, and is one of the most important resources of the economy. Our heritage is the main basis for national self-respect and recognition by the world community.
The process of protection and protection of cultural, historical and natural values should be based both on the study of the history of the formation of the security activities of the state, and on the legal framework developed and constantly changing in accordance with the requirements of the time.
Legal acts are based on the laws of a particular society, international acts that must be observed and promoted in society.
UDC 130.123
THOSE. Sivolap
St. Petersburg State University of Cinema and Television
TO THE QUESTION OF PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN RUSSIA: SOME ASPECTS OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM
At present, the highest potential of cultural heritage is recognized. The loss of cultural heritage will inevitably lead to spiritual impoverishment, breaks in historical memory. Since modern Russia is undergoing fundamental social, economic, spiritual changes, a deep study and comprehensive use of cultural heritage monuments is of particular importance.
Keywords: cultural heritage, historical memory, traditions, innovations, value orientations, preservation of historical and cultural heritage, monuments of history and culture.
At present, the highest potential of cultural heritage, the need for its conservation and efficient use as one of the most important resources of the economy, has been recognized. The loss of cultural heritage will inevitably lead to spiritual impoverishment, breaks in historical memory. Historical memory ensures the connection of generations, their continuity. It is the foundation of our consciousness. Value installations of memory act as traditions. Removing traditions from consciousness increases the tendency to perceive the falsification of our history. Society cannot exist without stereotypes and traditions. At the same time, reforms and transformations are also necessary for the development of society. During the period of "innovative explosion" there is a reassessment of values, there is a destruction of traditions.
For modern Russia, a deep study and comprehensive use of cultural heritage monuments is of particular importance, since we are experiencing fundamental social, economic, and spiritual changes. The study and preservation of cultural heritage is a necessary condition for preventing the process of destruction and destruction of Russia's national wealth. The development of historical heritage contributes to the preservation of the spirituality of the people, otherwise the true culture gives way to false values.
In the world science and the civilized community as a whole, the idea of natural and cultural heritage as a priority has matured. social value, which largely determines the parameters sustainable development. Positive experience has been accumulated in the preservation and use of heritage in order to ensure sustainable development.
Cultural heritage - objects and phenomena of the material and spiritual culture of peoples that have a special historical (including religious), artistic, aesthetic and scientific value to ensure the social continuity of generations. Spiritual (non-material) heritage - especially valuable objects not material culture peoples in uniform national languages, folklore, art, scientific knowledge, everyday skills, customs, traditions, religions of ethnic groups and other social groups.
Heritage makes it possible to present a unique value characteristic of the country within the framework of the development of world civilization, but at the same time it also represents a special part of it. resource potential. In this sense, heritage is part of the national wealth of the state (in the economic interpretation of this term) - the totality of material goods that society has and which ultimately determine the subsequent development and influence of this state on the world stage. Undoubtedly, the social significance of the historical and cultural heritage is understood and recognized quite widely.
The role of heritage is invaluable in the development of culture and education; it is dominant in determining the national identity of the country as a whole and its individual regions.
new Not only in the history of the Fatherland, but also in the life of every person, in the life of an individual family, school and city, events occur - large and small, simple and heroic, joyful and mournful. These events are sometimes known to many, and more often only a small group of people or individuals are led. People write diaries and memoirs for their own memory. Folk memory has been preserved for centuries through oral tales.
Monuments of history and culture are divided into movable and immovable. The former include archaeological finds, documents, books, works of art, household items, etc. Immovable monuments (various buildings, buildings, large engineering structures, monuments, works of garden and park art, etc.) are located in the open air. Immovable monuments of history and culture are an important part of the national cultural heritage of the Russian Federation. They are the main living evidence of the development of civilization and a true reflection of ancient traditions. Their active popularization contributes to mutual understanding, respect and rapprochement of peoples, leads to the spiritual unification of the nation on the basis of propaganda of common historical roots, awakens pride in the Motherland. Monuments of history and culture are especially valuable objects of the material and spiritual culture of peoples in the form of individual structures, their ensembles and memorial places, which have a special protection regime established by law.
Depending on the characteristic features and the specifics of their study, all monuments are divided into three groups: monuments of archeology, history, architecture and art. In practice, this division often turns out to be conditional, since many monuments act as complex, i.e. combine various typological features. In general, the period after which a historical and cultural work can be considered a historical monument has not yet been determined. Some scientists believe that the life of one generation is 30 years. The vulnerability of this position is that it requires a special annual review of a huge number of different structures and objects, which is very difficult and expensive. And the term “monument of modernity” accompanying such objects raises doubts, because the exact chronological framework modernity does not exist.
Monuments of history are subdivided according to types into monuments of the state and social structure, industrial and scientific activities, military history, etc. In accordance with this classification, historical monuments include: buildings in which important historical events took place; houses in which famous state, public and military figures, revolutionaries, prominent representatives of science and culture lived; industrial buildings and technical structures representing a certain stage in the development of industry, Agriculture, science and technology; fortifications that played a role in the defense of the Fatherland or reflected the level of development of military art; graves of prominent state, public and military figures, representatives of science and culture, soldiers and partisans who died in battles for their homeland, civilians killed by foreign invaders, and victims of political repression.
Historical monuments also include memorable places of outstanding events that have preserved their historical appearance. Often such memorable places are marked with a memorial sign (obelisk, stele, memorial plaque). At the same time, the monument itself is not a historical monument.
Among all monuments of history and culture, monuments of architecture and art are in the most advantageous position, while archaeological monuments are in a more difficult position: they are often plundered by self-styled "archaeologists". Yes, and scientific excavations sometimes almost completely destroy the archaeological site, because. the order and arrangement of objects and their individual fragments are violated. In addition, often such a monument simply crumbles in the hands, dies from the effects of an unfavorable environment. And yet, the majority of people have no doubts about the need to protect archaeological monuments, as well as monuments of architecture and art.
The situation is more complicated with historical monuments. The main difficulty is in identifying, studying and protecting historical monuments. Historical monuments, unlike monuments of architecture and art, do not always have a direct emotional impact on the viewer; when examining them, the so-called presence effect, a sense of belonging to the event, does not necessarily arise. Such monuments can be, for example, the house where a famous writer lived, or the remains of a defensive structure. Only with the help of documents and eyewitness accounts can they convey the atmosphere of the era, tell about the people and events of that time. But there are also such monuments of history, the meaning and significance of which at first glance are clear to everyone - these are, for example, the Peter and Paul Fortress, the Admiralty, the Smolny Institute in St. Petersburg, Detinets in Veliky Novgorod.
Thus, although far from unambiguous, all monuments of history and culture embody a tangible connection between the past and the present, the age-old experience and traditions of generations. Historical and cultural heritage has always been one of the most important means of shaping public consciousness and improving the spiritual life of people. Unfortunately, in the critical era that Russia is now experiencing, the importance of historical monuments as a means of educating the morality of the younger generation and a sense of respect for the memory and deeds of their ancestors, without which no civilized society can exist, has been largely forgotten.
Currently, there are approximately 150,000 cultural heritage sites of federal and regional significance in Russia. However, this number does not include identified objects of historical and cultural value, including archaeological sites. At the same time, historical and cultural monuments are often objects of immovable property, which imposes additional burdens on their owners and users in terms of conservation, use and access.
Unfortunately, when registering real estate transactions, the justice authorities do not always have information about whether these objects are historical and cultural monuments or whether they are associated with them. Therefore, certificates of right do not fix restrictions on the use of objects, which entails damage to historical and cultural monuments, up to their loss.
Unfortunately, a significant part of the monuments national history and crops have been destroyed, are in danger of being destroyed, or have been drastically reduced in value as a result of the direct or indirect impact of economic activity, as well as due to insufficient protection from the destructive effects of natural processes.
The severity of this situation is largely due to the sharp decrease in the last decade in the volume and quality of work to maintain monuments (repair, restoration, etc.), their increasingly widespread ownerlessness, a noticeable decrease in the overall effectiveness of state and public control in this area, as well as a decrease in financing. According to experts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the state of historical and cultural monuments under state protection is characterized by almost 80% as unsatisfactory. The problem of preserving monuments is extremely acute. wooden architecture. In the last few years alone, at least 700 immovable objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia have been irretrievably lost.
The state of most historical settlements is also assessed by experts as close to critical. Unjustified and in many cases illegal demolition of historical buildings and new construction in historical territories not only did not decrease, but became truly massive. This process is happening everywhere. This is especially noticeable in relation to wooden buildings. This problem is most acute in Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Ufa, Ulyanovsk and a number of other cities.
In many cases, the main threat to historical and cultural monuments is active commercial construction. The demolition of valuable but dilapidated buildings takes place primarily in order to obtain new construction sites in prestigious city centers, as a result of which the historic urban environment is being destroyed.
In large cities, massively reducing the number of genuine historical and cultural monuments by replacing them with more or less exact copies made from modern building materials.
The requirements of the Federal Law of June 25, 2002 No. 73-F3 "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" on the need to carry out cultural heritage objects scientific restoration with the involvement of restoration specialists for its implementation are often ignored, which leads to the replacement of repair and restoration work with work on the radical reconstruction of cultural heritage sites, including those associated with the construction of attics, redevelopment, construction of new floors and extensions. At the same time, the requirements for preserving the environment of heritage sites are ignored, the building regime on the territory of the monument and in protection zones is violated. Huge new buildings are being erected near many of them. St. Petersburg did not escape a similar fate.
It should also be borne in mind that the cultural and architectural heritage of Russia, especially in the so-called province, is still very poorly studied. We must not forget that for decades, almost entire epochs of the development of domestic architecture have not been studied, in particular, the architecture of the second half of XIX- beginning of XX century. and entire typological areas of construction: religious buildings, individual residential buildings, noble and merchant estates, etc.
A significant part of the objects, primarily estate complexes, turned out to be ownerless and abandoned to the mercy of fate. This has led to the fact that literally over the past decade, many estate complexes have turned into ruins.
Serious problems have also arisen in the field of identification, study, state protection and conservation of archaeological heritage sites. The problem of preserving archaeological heritage sites is the ever-increasing number of excavations by "black archaeologists", covering almost all regions of the country. One of the main reasons for the prosperity of "black archeology" can be considered insufficiently stringent measures to prevent violations and punish violators of the legislation on the protection of cultural heritage sites.
It should be emphasized that the negative processes described above in the field of cultural heritage were largely the result of interdepartmental disunity, inconsistency in the actions of some federal and regional authorities and local governments, and, no less important, the actual exclusion of the public from participation in decision-making in this area.
The physical condition of more than half of the country's historical and cultural monuments under state protection continues to deteriorate. According to experts, about 70% of total number monuments needs to take urgent measures to save them from destruction, damage and destruction as a result of the manifestation of various negative phenomena and processes, among which environmental ones play a special role.
For example, such an impact as air pollution by industrial facilities, vehicles and utilities contributes to the formation of a chemically aggressive environment and causes the destruction of natural building materials, as well as brickwork, paint layers, plaster, decor. Another important problem is the contamination of the territory of monuments with waste (household, construction, industrial), leading to the development of biodamages of building structures, disruption of surface water drainage and waterlogging of soils, and increased fire hazard.
Thus, the main necessary condition for ensuring the preservation of cultural heritage objects at present is the improvement of state policy based on a comprehensive account of the composition and condition of cultural heritage objects, modern socio-economic conditions for the development of society, the real possibilities of authorities, local governments, public and religious organizations, other persons, studying the peculiarities of the national and cultural traditions of the peoples of the Russian Federation and many other factors.
At the current stage of development of society, radical measures are needed that would correspond not only to the desires of individuals, but also to world standards.
The history of the protection of the cultural heritage of Russia has more than three centuries - during this period, security legislation was formed, a state security system was created, the main methodological principles for the protection of monuments were developed, and a national restoration school was formed.
The last decade, with its new economic and socio-political realities, has exacerbated a number of problems in the field of protection of antiquities, the solution of which is impossible without taking into account the experience of past years. One of these problems is the privatization of monuments and the formation of various forms of ownership of them.
Modern Russian cities are changing their appearance - new houses are being built, squares are being arranged, monuments are being erected, once lost monuments are being recreated. At the same time, the features of the architectural and historical environment are often ignored: houses of new architecture are being built that are in no way connected with Russian traditions, genuine unique objects are distorted and destroyed, and countless remodels are being built.
The cultural and natural heritage of Russia is actively involved in the global cultural space. The Russian cultural heritage will become a full-fledged part of the world heritage only when the Russian society realizes the need to preserve its national heritage and effective protection legislation is created in the country.
To date, significant experience has been accumulated in the revival and preservation of cultural heritage, but at the same time, serious problems are being revealed in this area: there is no clear and systematic approach to the protection of cultural heritage objects in Russian legislation; the conditions and procedure for the disposal of cultural heritage objects, the procedure for establishing, fulfilling requirements and restrictions on the preservation and use of cultural heritage objects, the procedure for monitoring the implementation of these requirements are not defined; there is no system in organizing the work of state bodies for the protection of cultural heritage sites. A huge number of cultural heritage sites are in disrepair. There are not enough funds not only for the reconstruction, restoration and maintenance of cultural heritage sites, but even for the conservation of these sites. Legal support for the protection of cultural heritage objects should provide for the legislative establishment of comprehensive requirements for a cultural heritage object, security obligations, as well as the establishment of responsibility.
The study of the activities of the public and state structures in the field of cultural heritage protection is dictated by the crisis situation in which the cultural heritage of Russia is located. Cultural heritage is the most important resource strategic development state, the bearer of traditions, norms and values of previous generations, serves as the basis for the self-identification of the people.
Civil society in modern Russia is in deep spiritual crisis, which is fully reflected in many areas of our lives. The decline of cultural values is especially noticeable among young people, who forget the original values of the Russian way of life and Russian mentality, strive to imitate alien Western culture. The younger generation is losing the moral foundations expressed in the ideas of the spiritual continuity of Orthodox culture and traditions in life and upbringing. From the ancients
times, Russian people were brought up on patriarchal values that formed moral qualities.
The significance of the preservation and regeneration of cultural and historical heritage for the development of both cities and the country as a whole is revealed by three main theses. First, the heritage carries the cultural and civilizational codes of the nation. The identity of both individual urban societies and the nation as a whole is based on it. The loss of heritage inevitably leads to the fact that society loses its support and roots, without which no development is possible. Outside this environment, the nation loses its intellectual and creative potential. For Russia, the preservation of material heritage carriers - monuments - is especially significant, since our historical and cultural memory is as objective as possible and does not exist without reference to the "small motherland".
Secondly, objects of cultural and historical heritage are an important asset of modern cities, which can be profitable and significantly affect their economic development. Now more and more countries are realizing the importance of "cultural rent". This is not only about the desire to redistribute tourist flows in their favor or increase the attractiveness of their real estate markets for foreign investors. Cultural and historical wealth, "branding" of cultural and historical heritage are increasingly being used as an effective tool for asserting leadership, the force that is necessary to promote national interests in the international arena. First of all, this is true for countries where a rich and world-famous cultural and historical heritage, along with education, high living standards and high technology, becomes the main competitive advantage in a globalizing world.
Over the past ten years, approaches to the definition of the concept of "cultural and historical heritage" have been significantly revised both by the most developed countries of the world and by international organizations (primarily UNESCO), whose competence includes the protection of historical and cultural heritage. At the same time, the principle of preserving the authenticity of the monument in the process of regeneration remains unshakable. In the event that the regeneration or restoration of a monument requires changes to its design, appearance, etc., all introduced elements must be separated from the original and clearly identified.
These provisions represent an ideal situation in the field of preservation of cultural and historical heritage. They are not fully implemented at the present time in any city in the world. Otherwise, the cities would turn into museums, unsuitable for normal life, nor for economic activity. At the same time, in developed countries, the policy in the field of heritage conservation and regeneration is based precisely on these principles. Moreover, in a number of countries, primarily in Europe, the regeneration and integration of cultural and historical heritage is increasingly seen as driving force development of historical cities in general.
The main conflict associated with the use of a broad understanding of the term “object of cultural and historical heritage” is the need, on the one hand, to find funds for the maintenance and restoration of numerous monuments (maintaining all heritage objects at one’s own expense is an impossible task for any state), and on the other hand, the other is to integrate heritage sites into economic life cities and put them into economic circulation. The world today uses four main ways of integrating monuments into the life of a modern city and introducing them into economic circulation: privatization of monuments with the imposition of encumbrances on private owners; development of heritage sites; development of cultural and educational tourism and creation of tourism products and brands on the basis of heritage sites; sale of the "aura" of historical and cultural heritage, when the attractiveness of historic cities and individual historic districts is used to increase the value of new real estate.
None of these methods can be considered ideal, each of them has its own significant drawbacks. If we talk about successful examples of the regeneration of heritage sites, then these methods are usually used in combination.
Privatization of historical and cultural monuments is one of the most common ways of capitalizing heritage sites and attracting private investment for their restoration and maintenance. It is important to note that the main task of the privatization of monuments is not to receive additional revenues to the state budget, but to free the state from the burden of restoration and maintenance of monuments and transfer the corresponding obligations to private owners. Restoration around the world costs an order of magnitude more expensive than new construction. Therefore, in addition to numerous restrictions on the use of privatized heritage sites, whole line economic incentives for owners of monuments - subsidies and benefits. Subsidizing can be carried out from various sources, both budgetary and from the funds of non-governmental organizations (commercial and non-commercial).
Development is no less widely used for the capitalization of heritage sites. De-velopment is the least sparing way of regenerating a heritage object, which carries significant risks of losing the authenticity of the monument. In Russia, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the state does not provide investors with any economic incentives to carefully handle the reconstructed monument and to preserve its authenticity. Under these conditions, the investor's efforts are usually aimed at finding ways to circumvent the severe restrictions imposed by Russian legislation on the protection of monuments, and not at their observance. And supervision over compliance with security legislation often turns into one of the sources of administrative rent. Protective legislation can work effectively only if the state acts according to the principle of "carrot and stick". At present, in the field of monument protection, the state mainly uses the “whip”. Development is most widely and successfully used to regenerate areas of ordinary historical residential and industrial buildings, which in itself are not a monument and have no independent cultural and historical value. In particular, we can mention the Jewelers' Quarter regeneration project implemented in Birmingham, dock and warehouse regeneration projects in London and Hamburg, numerous shopping street projects in historic areas, the Emscher Industrial Park project implemented in the Ruhr on the site of abandoned coal mines, and many others. In our country, there are also examples of successful development of historical industrial buildings: the Krasny Oktyabr factory and the Winzavod in Moscow.
In Italy, about 1.5 billion euros are annually attracted from private individuals, non-profit foundations and organizations for the restoration and maintenance of monuments. In the UK, about one third of all historic urban regeneration projects are funded by a national trust funded primarily by private contributions, with expertise and advice.
The modern Russian system of protection of monuments, both in terms of legislative support and approaches to financing, has retained the key features of the Soviet system, although compared to Soviet times, the state's ability to restore, maintain and restore tens of thousands of objects of cultural and historical heritage at its own expense is significantly decreased. According to expert estimates, at present, the amount of state funding allocated for the maintenance and restoration of monuments of federal significance alone is no more than 15% of what is needed. Approximately two thirds of the monuments of federal significance are in need of restoration.
A feature of Russia is the cultural and historical stress of the XX-XXI centuries, which resulted in the destruction of a huge layer of cultural and historical values (materials).
real, spiritual, mental), which deprives Russia of a huge potential both in the field of tourism development and in the field of patriotic education.
Adopted in 2002, the Federal Law “On Cultural Heritage Objects” allows, along with state ownership, private ownership of architectural monuments. But the privatization of heritage sites has not gained ground. The main obstacle to the entry into force of this provision of the law is the inseparability of federal and municipal ownership of monuments, the lack of an unambiguous definition of the subject of protection in the law, since it is not entirely clear which elements of the monument are covered by the protection regime. For example, is it possible to make changes to the interior and interior layout? Representatives of the public, a number of politicians express well-founded fears due to the fact that while maintaining the existing system of state protection of heritage sites, the privatization of monuments will only worsen the situation. These concerns are confirmed by current practice. Today, private and public organizations and institutions that occupy buildings with the status of a monument do practically nothing not only to restore them, but also to maintain them in good condition.
Although Russian legislation allows compensation from the state budget for part of the costs incurred by the owner or tenant, this rule practically does not work due to the fact that the necessary by-laws have not been adopted.
Another effective method commercialization of objects of cultural and historical heritage - tourism - is developing in Russia very slowly and unsystematically. In terms of its contribution to the global economy, the tourism market is comparable only to the oil market. The annual growth of investments in the tourism industry is about 35%. Tourism has become one of the most profitable businesses and today uses up to 7% of global capital.
In Russia, income from tourism does not exceed 3-4% of the total income of Russian cities. For comparison: in the income structure of such European capitals as Paris and London, tourism revenues exceed 50%. The development of domestic cultural and educational tourism is constrained by the following unresolved problems: the underdevelopment of transport and tourism infrastructure; limited solvent demand for domestic tourism; the poor condition of many Russian cities, primarily small, small, relative to such tourist centers as Florence or London, the number of world-class monuments.
In addition to inefficient economic integration, there is another key problem in the field of preservation of cultural and historical heritage, which is not related to the heritage sites themselves. The loss of the monument is a consequence of the lack of desire to preserve it. In Russia, there is no clearly formulated and generally recognized concept of heritage, that is, a clear understanding of the role heritage objects play for the fate of the country, in the modern city, and why exactly they need to be preserved. The current difficult situation with the protection of monuments is largely due to the fact that Russian society has largely lost its cultural and historical identity. For the most part, Russian society does not see the heritage itself behind individual objects of cultural and historical heritage, is not able to perceive those cultural and historical codes that are carried by preserved monuments in particular and the urban environment in general.
At the state level, there is no clear developed concept of urban development. The policy in the field of monument protection is only one of the elements of the state's urban planning policy, which at the federal level does not have the status of a separate priority area of state policy as a whole.
The purposeful activity of state institutions in the field of protection and preservation of cultural heritage, the transmission of traditional values to new generations contributes to the self-identification of the nation.
By the beginning of the XXI century. in the Russian state policy, the inability to preserve the full-fledged cultural heritage of the country is manifested. The state is currently unable to ensure the proper preservation of monuments. The active position of civil institutions, civil society as a whole gives grounds to supplement the role of the state in the preservation of cultural heritage and become its equal partner.
Cultural heritage is the most important national resource that has the function of maintaining stability, is a factor in the self-identification of the national society, especially important in the period of social and political transformation of society. The state system for the protection of cultural heritage in the Russian Federation is in the process of post-reform changes and is experiencing serious structural and functional difficulties, which result in crisis phenomena in the implementation of state policy in the field of protection of cultural heritage objects.
The current situation is bad with the establishment of requirements for the procedure and conditions for insuring objects of cultural heritage. The current situation dictates the need for a legislative establishment of compulsory insurance of both the cultural heritage objects themselves and the civil liability of their owners (users).
The complexity of the above problems requires a comprehensive, systematic approach to their solution and immediate action to apply economic mechanisms to the protection of cultural heritage.
In addition, there is an urgent need to develop and adopt a set of legal acts that ensure the attraction of budgetary and especially non-budgetary funds in the development of a system for the protection of cultural heritage sites. In this regard, it is very important to ensure the accelerated development of tourism, as well as charity, since in the modern world it becomes more and more necessary to show that the Russian cultural heritage has such a material form and spiritual basis that it provides a worthy place for the country in the post-industrial civilized world.
The protection of cultural heritage is a global problem of our time, along with environmental, demographic and other problems. Cultural heritage is a spiritual, cultural, economic and social capital of unique value, which is the basis for national identity, self-respect, pride and recognition by the world community.
Bibliographic list
1. Alexandrov, A.A. International cooperation in the field of cultural heritage / A.A. Alexandrov. - M. : Prospekt, 2009. - 176 p.
2. Arnautova Yu.A. Culture of memory and history of memory / Yu.A. Arnautova // History and memory. - M., 2009. - S. 47-55.
3. Vedenin, Yu.A. Basic provisions of the modern concept of cultural heritage management / Yu.A. Vedenin, P.M. Shulgin // Heritage and Modernity: Information Collection. - M., 2002. - Issue. 10. -S. 7-18.
4. Gordin, V.E. The role of the sphere of culture in the development of tourism in St. Petersburg / V.E. Gordin // St. Petersburg: the multidimensionality of cultural space. - St. Petersburg. : Levsha, 2009. - S. 3-4
5. Gordin, V.E. Cultural tourism as a city development strategy: search for compromises between the interests of the local population and tourists / V.E. Gordin, M.V. Matetskaya // St. Petersburg: the multidimensionality of cultural space. - St. Petersburg. : Levsha, 2009. - S. 42-51.
6. Dracheva, E.L. Economy and organization of tourism: international tourism / E.L. Dracheva, E.B. Zabaev, I.S. Ismaev. - M. : KNORUS, 2005. - 450 p.
7. Ivanov, V.V. Introduction to historical sociology / V.V. Ivanov. - Kazan, 2008.
8. Historical consciousness: the state and trends of development in the conditions of perestroika (results of a sociological study): information bulletin of the Center for Sociological Research of the AON. - M., 2010.
9. Senin, V.S. Organization of international tourism: textbook / V.S. Senin. - M. : Finance and statistics, 2004. - 400 p.
10. Status and prospects for the development of tourism in the CIS: materials of the X annual Intern. scientific-practical. conf. May 31, 2007 / ed. N.F. Ivanova. - St. Petersburg. : Ed. SPBAUE, 2007. - 307 p.
11. Halbvaks, M. Collective and historical memory / M. Halbvaks // Emergency reserve. -2007. - No. 2-3. - S. 8-27.
12. Khmelevskaya, Yu.Yu. On the memorization of history and the historicization of memory / Yu.Yu. Khmelevskaya // Century of memory, memory of the century. - Chelyabinsk, 2009. - S. 475-498.
Reviewer - N.A. Zhurenko, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor, St. Petersburg State University of Cinema and Television.
Kruglikova Galina Alexandrovna,The problem of preserving the historical and cultural heritage in modern conditions has become particularly relevant. History is the history of people, and each person is an accomplice in the existence of the past, present and future; the roots of a person are in the history and traditions of the family, their people. Feeling our involvement in history, we care about preserving everything that is dear to the memory of the people.
It should be emphasized that at present, interest in monuments, anxiety for their fate is no longer the property of individual specialists and disparate public groups. The sharp decline in the Russian economy, the loss of spiritual ideals aggravated the already disastrous situation of science and culture, which affected the state of the historical and cultural heritage. Now the head of state, local authorities are constantly addressing the problem of preserving cultural heritage, emphasizing the need to take measures to prevent the loss of monuments. The policy of spiritual revival proclaimed by the government, in case of loss of the continuity of the best traditions of culture, cannot be fully implemented without the preservation and revival of the historical and cultural heritage.
In historical science, there is a process of rethinking assessments, experience, lessons, overcoming one-sidedness; Much attention is paid to unexplored and little-studied problems. This fully applies to the state policy on cultural heritage. Culture has been and remains a historical heritage. It includes those aspects of the past that continue to live in the present in an altered form. Culture acts as a phenomenon of active social impact on social practice, expressing the essential interests of mankind, and is one of the most important areas for understanding human existence.
Cultural heritage is a broad and multifaceted concept: it includes both spiritual and material culture. The concept of " cultural heritage» is associated with a number of other categories of cultural theory (cultural values, traditions, innovation, etc.), but has its own scope, content and meaning.
In the methodological sense, the category "cultural heritage" applicable to the processes taking place in the field of culture. The concept of inheritance presupposes a theoretical understanding of the patterns of succession and a conscious action in the form of an assessment of the cultural values created by previous generations and their creative use. But the process of spiritual production is characterized by a variety of relations inherent in it, and for this reason the culture of each new formation finds itself in the necessary succession connection with the totality of the relations of spiritual exchange and consumption that have arisen earlier.
Cultural heritage is always considered from the point of view of the possibilities of its practical application by the relevant social groups (classes, nations, etc.), entire generations of people, therefore, in the process of cultural inheritance, something is preserved and used, and something is changed, critically reviewed or is completely discarded.
It is also necessary to turn to the analysis of the concept, without which the category cannot be defined. "cultural heritage", namely, to the concept of "tradition". Tradition acts as “a system of actions that are passed down from generation to generation and form the thoughts and feelings of people, caused in them by a certain public relations» .
Since development proceeds from the past to the present and from the present to the future, on the one hand, traditions always live in society, in which the experience of previous generations is concentrated, and on the other hand, new traditions are born, which are the quintessence of experience from which they will draw knowledge for future generations.
In each historical epoch, humanity critically weighs the cultural values it has inherited and supplements, develops, enriches them in the light of new opportunities and new tasks facing society, in accordance with the needs of certain social forces that solve these problems in terms of both scientific and technical, as well as social progress.
Thus, the cultural heritage is not something immutable: the culture of any historical epoch always not only includes the cultural heritage, but also creates it. The cultural ties that are emerging today and the cultural values being created, growing on the basis of a certain cultural heritage, tomorrow will themselves turn into constituent part cultural heritage for the next generation. The widespread rise of interest in historical and cultural monuments requires an understanding of the essence of cultural heritage in all its connections and mediations, and an attentive attitude towards it.
E.A. Baller defines it as “a set of connections, relations and results of material and spiritual production of past historical eras, and in a narrower sense of the word, as a set of cultural values inherited by mankind from past eras, critically mastered, developed and used in accordance with objective criteria for social progress.
International documents note that “the cultural heritage of the people includes the works of its artists, architects, musicians, writers, scientists, as well as the work of unknown masters folk art and the whole set of values that give meaning to human existence. It covers both material and non-material, expressing the creativity of the people, their language, customs, beliefs; it includes historical sites and monuments, literature, works of art, archives and libraries.”
According to the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture, the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation is material and spiritual values created in the past, as well as monuments and historical and cultural territories and objects that are significant for the preservation and development of the identity of the Russian Federation and all its peoples, their contribution to world civilization.
Thus, the introduction of the concept cultural heritage” has played a positive role in establishing a new paradigm applicable to all categories of immovable objects of historical and cultural significance.
The question of the relationship between culture and society may seem trivial. It is clear that one does not exist without the other. Culture cannot be outside society, and society cannot be outside culture. What is the problem? Both culture and society have a single source - labor activity. It contains both the mechanism of culture (social memory, social inheritance of people's experience), and the prerequisites for the joint activity of people, generating various areas social life. The status of culture in society, ideas about its state, ways of preserving and developing are always in the process of formation. And a society can be understood not only from an analysis of its political and socio-economic "biography", but certainly from an understanding of its cultural heritage.
One of the most important determinants of the development of culture is ideology, which expresses the social and class characteristics of certain elements of culture. It acts as the social mechanism through which any social community subordinates culture to itself and through it expresses its interests. The ideological influence leads to an appropriate state policy in the field of culture, expressed in its institutionalization (the creation of an education system, libraries, universities, museums, etc. in society).
The most complete is the definition of cultural policy as “an activity related to the formation and coordination of social mechanisms and conditions for cultural activity of both the population as a whole and all its groups, focused on the development of creative cultural and leisure needs. As mechanisms for the formation and coordination of the conditions of cultural activity, administrative, economic and democratic conditions are distinguished.
One of the paradoxes of today's cultural situation is the concentration of enterprising, bright, talented ascetics of culture on one side of the cultural life of society, and funds, buildings, legal rights in the form of cultural institutions and bodies - on the other.
The result of this confrontation is a social order, which is an important regulator not only of the constitution of monuments, but also of their preservation. This is the order of society, adjusted to historical and cultural traditions, state priorities.
Particularly effective is the manifestation of public interest in the protection of historical and cultural heritage as an integral part of the ecology of culture, on the basis of which not only public opinion is formed, but also protective measures are carried out. Thus, the preservation of cultural heritage becomes a civic action in which the people take an active part.
Public interest and social order influence the creation of an idea of what is a monument of history and culture on the scale of a locality, region, country as a whole. Thus, the preferences that have developed among different peoples and national groups are taken into account.
After the October Revolution, the problems of protecting cultural property began to occupy a large place in the activities of the Soviet government and the party. Adoption of fundamental legislative acts - Decrees of the Council of People's Commissars "On the nationalization foreign trade» (April 22, 1918), which prohibited trade by private individuals; "On the Prohibition of the Export and Sale of Items of Special Artistic and Historical Importance Abroad" (October 19, 1918); "On registration, registration and protection of monuments of art, antiquity, administered by individuals, societies and institutions" (October 5, 1918), as well as the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee "On the registration and protection of monuments of art, antiquity and nature" (7 January 1924) clearly expressed the essence of the policy of the Soviet government in relation to the cultural and historical heritage. An important step was the formation of a network of state bodies in charge of the preservation and use of historical and cultural heritage.
The state has always tried to put the protection of monuments under its control and direct it in the right direction. In this regard, the Soviet government could not but pay attention to the fact that most of the monuments taken into account in the first years of Soviet power were religious buildings. Thus, in 1923, of the three thousand immovable monuments registered in the RSFSR, more than 1,100 were examples of civil architecture, and more than 1,700 were religious. This disparity grew rapidly. Two years later, out of the six thousand recorded immovable monuments, more than 4,600 were cult and only a little more than 1,200 were civil buildings.
On the one hand, the Soviet government took measures to save objects that had historical and cultural significance. On the other hand, the famine relief campaign of 1921–1922 had a pronounced political and anti-church character. It was decided to hold in each province a week of agitation for the collection of church valuables, and the task was to give this agitation a form alien to any struggle against religion, but entirely aimed at helping the starving.
The meeting of the Politburo was reflected in an article in the Izvestia newspaper dated March 24, 1922. The article proclaimed the determination to confiscate church property everywhere, and announced a serious warning to anyone who planned any disobedience to the authorities. This was how public opinion was prepared regarding the seizure of church property and the authority of the authorities to take any action. Now any discontent could be interpreted as resistance, as a manifestation of counter-revolution. Consequently, the authorities received the right to protect their own interests, and by all available means and to justify any of their actions by the interests of the people and the desire to maintain the rule of law.
The Ural region was among the first in terms of the number of seized valuables. In the secret order of the Ekaterinburg Provincial Committee of the RCP (b), the county committees of the Communist Party were ordered to take quick, energetic and decisive action. “Withdrawal,” it said, “is subject to absolutely everything that can be realized in the interests of the state (gold, silver, stones, embroidery), no matter what these values are. Any talk about leaving things "necessary for the performance of religious rites" should be avoided, because for this it is not necessary to have things made of valuable metals.
For example, in Yekaterinburg and the county, from the beginning of the seizure until June 2, 1922, the Gubernia Financial Department received: silver and stones - 168 pounds 24 pounds, copper - 27 pounds, gold with and without stones - 4 pounds. In the districts of the Ekaterinburg province, the churches lost 79 pounds of silver and stones and 8 pounds of gold.
According to official statistics (note that the source refers to 1932), as a result of the seizure of valuables across the country, the Soviet state received about 34 pounds of gold, about 24,000 pounds of silver, 14,777 diamonds and diamonds, more than 1.2 pounds of pearls, more than a precious stones and other values. It is safe to say that the number of items seized was much higher.
In the course of the ongoing events, gross violations of the law and regulations, the temples lost what was created by Russian masters of several generations. Having proclaimed the goal of building a democratic classless society, the ideological confrontation was brought to a disastrous absurdity, which led to the denial of universal spiritual values. The protection of monuments in the country was put under strict control by creating a single state centralized all-encompassing system for managing scientific, museum, and local history institutions.
Since the 1920s the state began to systematically destroy and sell cultural property. This was determined by the policy of the party and government in connection with the need for imports and the limited export funds and foreign exchange reserves. A course was taken to give the sphere of spiritual life a secondary role in comparison with material production. As an example of the attitude towards the historical and cultural heritage of representatives of the state authorities of that time, one can cite the words of the chairman of the Moscow City Executive Committee, N.A. Broken - better. They broke the Kitaygorod wall, the Sukharev tower - it became better ... ".
Ideology had a powerful impact on the worldview and worldview of people, on their social health. Characteristically, even many specialists in the museum business agreed with the sale of valuables abroad, not considering that it caused irreparable damage to the culture of the country. This is confirmed by the minutes of the meeting at the Office of the Commissioner of the People's Commissariat of Education on the issue of allocating valuables for export, which took place on January 27, 1927. and educational work of museums. Philosophers (Hermitage): In connection with the changed policy on the allocation of export goods, the entire museum fund should be revised. With the exception of a small number of items needed for central museums, the entire museum fund can be transferred to the export fund.
It is not possible to give even an approximate number of art and antiquity items taken out of the USSR in the late 1920s. The following example is indicative: "The list of jewels and art products exported to Germany" in 1927 occupies 191 sheets. It lists the contents of 72 boxes (2348 items in total). According to Robert Williams, in the first three quarters of 1929 alone, the Soviet Union sold 1,192 tons of cultural property at auction, and 1,681 tons in the same period in 1930.
Mass sale of cultural property since the late 1920s was logical, since it was a reflection of the mentality of the Soviet society of that period and its attitude to the pre-revolutionary historical past.
In the course of atheistic propaganda and an anti-religious campaign, thousands of churches, chapels, monasteries were closed, demolished, converted for economic needs, and the church utensils that were in them were also destroyed. As an example, we can cite the minutes of the meeting of the commission for closing churches in Sverdlovsk dated April 5, 1930: out of 15 objects considered, 3 were sentenced to demolition, while the rest had to be adapted for a library, a club of pioneers, a sanitary and educational exhibition, and children's a nursery, a dining room, etc. Another example: the church of the Verkhotursky Monastery, closed in 1921, after a short time being used as a club for military infantry courses, was used in 1922 as a dumping point, and then completely abandoned.
Bell ringing was banned in many cities; bells were everywhere removed and melted down in foundries "in favor" of industrialization. So, in 1930, the workers of Perm, Motovilikha, Lysva, Chusovoy, Zlatoust, Tagil, Sverdlovsk and other cities proclaimed: “The bells are to be melted down, it’s enough to mumble in them and lull us with a ringing. We demand that the bells not honk and stop us from building a new and happy life» .
As a result, the system of protection of monuments was destroyed as superfluous, it was replaced by monumental propaganda, which soon took on ugly forms both in terms of its scale and artistry. In the late 1920s - 1930s. the nihilistic approach to the creations of the past triumphed. They were no longer recognized as having any spiritual value for the builders of a socialist society. Thus, the monuments of the centuries-old history and culture of the people turned into sources of funds and non-ferrous metal, were used for household purposes without regard to their historical and cultural value.
The phenomenon called Soviet culture”, arose as a result of the implementation of the Bolshevik cultural policy. It embodied the relationship and interaction of the three subjects of cultural life - the authorities, the artist and society. The authorities purposefully and intensely - in accordance with the postulates of the Bolshevik cultural policy - tried to put culture at their service. So the “new” art (“faithful assistant to the party”) carried out a social order under the supervision of the same party - it formed a “new person”, a new picture of the world, pleasing to the communist ideology.
The protection of monuments is a struggle for a correct understanding of history, for the public consciousness of the broad masses of the people inhabiting the historical and cultural space.
It is curious that this position is theoretically not questioned even today. In the central and local press the shortcomings that still exist in the work on the preservation of architectural monuments of history and culture are widely discussed. In particular, there are criticized (and very sharply) the facts of a dismissive attitude towards the unique structures of the past. The damage inflicted on the monuments of antiquity and their protection, in whatever form it manifests itself - whether as a result of neglect, in the form of direct destruction of buildings of the past, or through aesthetic humiliation - this is damage to the national culture of the people.
In a society divided into social strata, where there is no unity of views on history and social processes, there are always different approaches to the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, since it has cognitive and educational functions.
Monuments of history and culture are endowed with cognitive functions, since they are materialized facts of past historical events or bear traces of the impact of historical events. As a result, the monuments contain certain historical information (or aesthetic, if they are works of art). Thus, monuments of history and culture are sources of historical and aesthetic knowledge.
Monuments are endowed with educational functions because, having visibility and high attractiveness, they are a source of strong emotional impact. Emotional sensations, together with historical and aesthetic information, actively influence the formation of knowledge and social consciousness of the individual. The combination of these two qualities makes monuments a powerful means of pedagogical influence, the formation of beliefs, worldview, motivation of actions and, ultimately, one of the factors that determine public consciousness and behavior.
Public interest in monuments of history and culture is one of the forms of man's eternal desire to search for a higher principle, a universal measure. It follows from this that interest in traditions is a manifestation of the spiritual beginning of the individual, his desire to enrich his own culture and the culture of society as a whole. This interest is projected mainly in the plane of preservation and consumption of cultural heritage.
The multilayer nature of such public interest is obvious. It grows out of the many goals pursued by people who come into contact with cultural heritage.
Let us point out some of these goals: to know the past (to join history); sensually perceive the experience and life of previous generations; get aesthetic and emotional satisfaction from acquaintance with historical and cultural objects; satisfy natural curiosity and inquisitiveness. More serious goals: to preserve the memory, master and pass on the traditions of the past, protect the historical and cultural heritage as an integral part of the ecology of culture.
Today they talk and write a lot about the revival of Russia, but everyone understands it in their own way. It is necessary to decide in relation to one's historical and cultural heritage, to understand what can be in demand in the current situation, to understand the relationship between traditions and innovations on Russian soil, and to determine their optimum. Historical and cultural heritage is closely interconnected with historical memory as a special mechanism, a system of preservation and transmission in the public consciousness of the most important events, phenomena, processes of history, and the activities of prominent historical figures. However, historical memory is not only an intellectual and moral phenomenon. It, among other things, is embodied in the material results of human activity, which, alas, tend to perish.
Thus, in recent times, a reasonable and realistic cultural policy, a well-thought-out strategy for the development of culture, has acquired particular importance. The goal of cultural policy is to make people's lives spiritually rich and multifaceted, to open wide scope for revealing their abilities, to provide opportunities for familiarization with culture and various forms of creative activity. The human being is at the center of politics.
In the recommendations on the participation and role of the masses in cultural life, adopted by UNESCO, it is said that the main task of modern cultural policy is to provide at the disposal of the largest possible number of people a set of tools that contribute to the spiritual and cultural development. Cultural policy is faced with the task of ensuring intellectual progress, so that its results become the property of every person and harmonize the cultural relations of people.
As a prerequisite for the implementation of a meaningful state cultural policy, one can consider the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On especially valuable objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation", in accordance with which the State Expert Council under the President of Russia was created.
It is impossible not to recognize the need to revive national dignity, respect for one's own traditions as the most important task of state cultural policy. As a first step in this direction, we can recommend expanding access to genuine culture and education for large groups of the population. In the meantime, the movement is going in the opposite direction - the sector of free education is shrinking, the contacts of the population with culture are declining, a large-scale westernization of the spiritual life of Russia is taking place - through television, radio, the movie screen, education, language, clothing, etc.
The neglect of legal problems in the field of culture is noted: “despite the abundance of existing legal acts, today we are forced to state that there is no single regulatory framework for ensuring activities in the field of culture that adequately reflects its needs, the specifics and diversity of features, nuances inherent in managed objects, there is no equal degree neither for creative workers, nor for institutions and organizations.
What can we say about the “consumption” of valuables, if people see only 5% of the entire wealth of the museum fund in Russia? Everything else lies under a bushel, and, apparently, much of what is there, no one will ever see.
One of the main reasons for the confusion is, in our opinion, the fact that the Bolshevik and then the communist ideology abolished all previous culture. The current timelessness is precisely due to the loss of value, cultural landmarks.
There are probably enough reasons to understand that the values of culture have yet to acquire the status of true in the public mind.
The culture of each nation exists and manifests itself as a cultural heritage and cultural creativity. Subtract one of the terms - and the people will lose the possibility of further development. The cultural heritage of a people is the criterion of its national identity, and the attitude of the people to their own cultural heritage is the most sensitive barometer of their spiritual health and well-being.
The priorities of the legal support of the state cultural policy are the creation of new opportunities for initiation into the culture of subcultural groups of the population and the elimination of the gap between elite and mass culture on the basis of legal guarantees of social protection for all creators of cultural values, regardless of cultural and educational level and socio-demographic characteristics.
Yes, the greatest artistic values have been left to us. And these monuments are our glory and pride, regardless of their original cult purpose. Like ancient temples and gothic cathedrals, they are a universal property.
Age-old vaults do not collapse by themselves. They are destroyed by indifference and ignorance. Someone's hands sign the order, someone's hands plant dynamite, someone calmly, intrepidly contemplates all this and passes by. I would like to note: in the matter of protecting monuments, our national pride and glory, there are no and cannot be outsiders. Caring for the past is our duty, human and civic.
Cultural policy actually forms the living space in which a person lives, acts and creates. Such is the process of interaction: politics is interested in culture as a means of humanizing its pragmatic decisions, and culture is interested in politics as a link with the life of man and society.
Culture is always acquired at a high cost. Yes, much has not been preserved that today, of course, would be recognized as cultural heritage. But is it right to speak in this case of a catastrophic loss of cultural heritage?
A new approach to understanding the value of historical and cultural monuments should, to a certain extent, relieve the stress that arises when thinking about the lost heritage. The movement in support of the ecology of culture is growing every day, which makes it possible for the public to effectively control the preservation of cultural heritage. And, finally, the human factor, which is now given paramount importance, is becoming a true guarantor of the intensification of public interest in historical and cultural monuments in all their diversity and uniqueness.
The historical continuity of the development of culture, embodied in monuments, and the awareness of their living connection with modernity, are the main motives for the social movement in defense of cultural heritage. Monuments of history and culture are carriers of a certain historical meaning, witnesses of the people's fate, and therefore serve to educate generations, preventing national forgetfulness and depersonalization.
Bibliographic list
1. Baller E.A. Social progress and cultural heritage. M., 1987.
2. Volegov Yu.B. The state of legal support in the sphere of culture and in the system of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation // Landmarks of the cult. politicians. 1993. No. 1.
3. Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policy // Cultures: Dialogue of the Peoples of the World. UNESCO, 1984. No. 3.
4. Diagnostics of socio-cultural processes and the concept of cultural policy: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk, 1991.
5. Law of the Russian Federation of December 9, 1992: Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture. Sec. I. Art. 3.
6. Kandidov B. Famine of 1921 and the Church. M., 1932.
7. Kumanov E. Thoughts of the artist. Sketches in disturbing tones // Architecture and construction of Moscow. 1988. No. 3.
8. Mosyakin A. Sale // Ogonyok. 1989. No. 7.
9. Enlightenment in the Urals. 1930. Nos. 3–4.
10. Center for Documentation of Public Organizations of the Sverdlovsk Region, f. 76, op. 1, d. 653.
At the RISS, experts discussed the study, preservation and development of historical and cultural territories in the context of the strategic tasks of Russia's spatial development
In the strategic planning documents of the Russian Federation, the issues of the progressive development of the country, as well as strengthening its competitiveness in the world, are increasingly linked to the tasks of spatial development and the preservation of the national cultural, historical and natural heritage of Russia.In March 2018, in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly, the President put forward the idea of deployment of a large-scale program for the spatial development of Russia, including the development of cities and other settlements, doubling spending for this purpose over the next six years .
On September 20 and 26, RISS hosted round tables on such topical issues as"Study, preservation and development of historical and cultural territories of the European part of Russia" And"Russia in the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Abroad".
A representative pool of Russian experts from a number of specialized organizations took part in the discussion of this topic:Moscow Architectural Institute;public movement "Arhnadzor"; Directorate of the International Cultural Forum; Institute of Linguistics RAS; Institute for Social Policy, National Research University Higher School of Economics; NPO Energy, Urban Planning and Strategic Development NIIPI General Plan; Analytical agency "Center"; Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences; architectural company RTDA LLC. Among the participants in the discussion were representativesRussian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage. D.S. Likhachev and the House of Russian Abroad named after Alexander Solzhenitsyn, as well as expertsInternational Research Center (ICCROM) and the International Council for the Conservation of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
Head of the Center for the Study, Preservation and Development of Historical and Cultural Territories (TSISIRKT)O.V. Ryzhkov, Speaking about the goals and objectives of the Center of the RISS structural subdivision, established in April 2018, he emphasized the difficulty of implementing a dual task: on the one hand, to preserve, on the other, to develop. In order to develop approaches to solving this problem, namely the preservation and reproduction of historical and cultural identity as a factor in the socio-economic development of territories and the enhancement of human capital, competent specialists gathered at RISS.
It is clear that this complex issue cannot be exhausted by one or two discussions. A long and thoughtful conversation, an exchange of opinions, and discussions are ahead. Acquaintance with the directions and results of research is required, as well as with the accumulated experience of organizations and institutions working in the field of studying and preserving the historical and cultural heritage of small towns and settlements.The task of the Center and these "round tables" is to create a new expert platform within which it would be possible to systematically discuss these problems by leading Russian experts and state representatives.
During the events, a number of topical issues were raised, including:
– development of regional programs for the preservation and use of cultural heritage using foreign experience in organizing recreational and event tourism in historical cities (N.V. Maksakovskiy, National Research University Higher School of Economics);
– formation of a comfortable environment in historical settlements following the results of the All-Russian competition among small historical towns (M.V. Sedletskaya , Agency "Center");
– development of a conceptual apparatus (“historical city”, “historical settlement”, “historical territory”, etc.) as a tool for more accurately attributing objects to historical territories and determining their boundaries (N.F. Soloviev, Deputy Director of IIMK RAS).
The experts were also provided with important information about the activities of ICCROM in Russia (N.N. Shangina, member of the Council of ICCROM, Chairman of the Council of the Union of Restorers of St. Petersburg), as well as about actual problems facing the Russian ICOMOS committee and the Russian heritage protection system as a whole (N.M. Almazova, VVice-President of the National Committee of ICOMOS of Russia, Vice-President of the Union of Restorers of Russia). Speech by the head of the Center for World Heritage and International Cooperation Research Institute. D.S. LikhachevN.V. Filatova was devoted to international cooperation in the field of heritage protection, in particular, the efforts of the Russian Federation to preserve Orthodox monasteries in Kosovo; activities of employees of the Research Institute. D.S. Likhachev in Syria.
ZHead of the Department of International and Interregional Cooperation of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russian AbroadE.V. Krivova reported on the areas of work of the House of Russian Diaspora. And the deputy director of the Research Institute. D.S. LikhachevE.V. Bahrevsky presented a guide to the history and culture of Russia in Japan prepared by the Heritage Institute and drew the attention of the participants round table the need to study foreign countries the influence of not only Russian culture, but also the culture of other peoples of Russia.
In general, the participants of the expert meetings came to the conclusion that it is necessary to exchange experience and coordinate the work of organizations and institutions dealing with the problems of historical and cultural heritage on a regular basis in order to increase the efficiency of this work and reduce the risk of duplication. The importance of strengthening control over construction and restoration work in historical settlements was emphasized in order to preserve the local cultural identity. In this regard, it is advisable to assess the prospects for creating a working group of the expert community on the revival, conservation and development of historical and cultural territories.
Message of the President to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018:Kremlin. en/ events/ president/ news/56957
Culture Preservation
They form the living environment of a person, they are the main and indispensable conditions for his existence. Nature is the foundation, and culture is the very building of human existence. Nature ensures the existence of man as a physical being., being a "second nature", makes this existence properly human. It allows a person to become an intellectual, spiritual, moral, creative person. Therefore, the preservation of culture is as natural and necessary as the preservation of nature.
The ecology of nature is inseparable from the ecology of culture. If nature accumulates, preserves and transmits the genetic memory of a person, then culture does the same with his social memory. Violation of the ecology of nature is a threat genetic code man, leads to his degeneration. Violation of the ecology of culture has a destructive effect on the existence of a person, leading to his degradation.
Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage represents in fact the main mode of existence of culture. What is not included in the cultural heritage ceases to be culture and eventually ceases to exist. During his life, a person manages to master, transfer into his inner world only a small fraction of the cultural heritage. The latter remains after him for other generations, acting as the common property of all people, of all mankind. However, it can only be so if it is preserved. Therefore, the preservation of cultural heritage to a certain extent coincides with the preservation of culture in general.
As a problem, the protection of cultural heritage exists for all societies. However, it is more acute for Western society. The East in this sense differs essentially from the West.
History of the Eastern World was evolutionary, without radical, revolutionary breaks in gradualism. It rested on continuity, centuries-honored traditions and customs. Eastern society quite calmly moved from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, from paganism to monotheism, having done this back in Antiquity.
All of its subsequent history can be defined as "the eternal Middle Ages." The position of religion as the foundation of culture remained unshakable. The East moved forward, turning its gaze back to the past. The value of cultural heritage was not questioned. Its preservation acted as something natural, self-evident. The problems that arose were mainly of a technical or economic nature.
History of Western society, on the contrary, was marked by deep, radical breaks. She often forgot about succession. The transition of the West from Antiquity to the Middle Ages was tumultuous. It was accompanied by significant large-scale destruction, the loss of many achievements of Antiquity. The Western "Christian world" was established on the ruins of the ancient, pagan, often literally: many architectural monuments of Christian culture were erected from the ruins of destroyed ancient temples. The Middle Ages, in turn, was rejected by the Renaissance. The new era was becoming more and more futuristic. The future was the highest value for him, while the past was resolutely rejected. Hegel declared that modernity pays all its debts to the past and becomes indebted to nothing.
The French philosopher M. Foucault proposes to consider the Western culture of the New Age from the point of view of radical shifts, outside the principles of historicism and continuity. He singles out several eras in it, believing that they do not have any common history. Each era has its own history, which immediately and unexpectedly "opens" at its beginning and just as suddenly, unexpectedly "closes" at its end. The new cultural epoch owes nothing to the previous one and does not transmit anything to the next one. History is characterized by "radical discontinuity".
Since the Renaissance, religion in Western culture has been losing its role and significance, it has been increasingly pushed to the sidelines of life. Its place is taken by science, the power of which is becoming more complete and absolute. Science is primarily interested in the new, the unknown, it is turned to the future. She is often indifferent to the past.
History of Russian culture more western than eastern. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but it was also accompanied by sharp turns and discontinuities. Its evolution was complicated by the geopolitical position of Russia: being between the West and the East, it tossed and torn between the western and eastern paths of development, not without difficulty finding and asserting its originality. Therefore, the problem of attitude and preservation of cultural heritage has always existed, sometimes becoming quite acute.
One of those moments was time of Peter 1. With his reforms, he sharply turned Russia to the West, sharply exacerbating the problem of attitudes towards its past. However, for all the radicalism of his transformations, Peter did not at all strive for a complete rejection of Russia's past, of its cultural heritage. On the contrary, it is under him that the problem of protecting cultural heritage for the first time appears as quite conscious and extremely important. It also takes concrete practical measures to preserve cultural heritage.
So, at the end of the XVII century. by decree of Peter, measurements are made and drawings of ancient Buddhist temples in Siberia are taken. Quite remarkable is the fact that in the years when stone construction was prohibited in Russia - in addition to St. Petersburg - Peter issued a special permit for such construction in Tobolsk. In his decree, he notes on this occasion that the construction of the Tobolsk Kremlin is not aimed at defense and military operations, but at showing the greatness and beauty of Russian construction, that the creation of a road leading through Tobolsk to China means the road to the people who are and should be forever friend of Russia.
Started by Peter I finds continuation and under Catherine II. It issues decrees on measurements, research and accounting of buildings of historical and artistic value, as well as on drawing up plans and descriptions of ancient cities and on the preservation of archeological monuments.
Active attempts to take into account and protect monuments of antiquity and nature were made by the leading figures of Russia already in the 18th century. Some of them are successful.
In particular, archival data testify that in 1754, residents of Moscow and nearby villages and villages appealed to St. Petersburg to the Berg Collegium with a complaint and demands to take measures to protect them from disasters brought by ironworks built and being built in Moscow and around her. According to numerous authors of the appeal, these plants lead to the destruction of forests. scare away animals, pollute rivers and harass fish. In response to this request, an order was issued to withdraw and stop the new construction of ironworks for 100 miles in a circle from Moscow. The term for the withdrawal was set at one year, and in case of failure to comply with the order, the factory property was subject to confiscation in favor of the state.
Attention to the protection of natural and cultural heritage increased significantly in the 19th century. Along with private decisions, which were in the majority, general state resolutions regulating construction and other activities were also adopted. As an example, we can point to the binding Construction Regulations adopted in the 19th century, which prohibited the demolition or repair, leading to the distortion of buildings erected in the 18th century, as well as the decree on awarding the Order of Vladimir I degree to persons who planted and raised at least 100 acres of forest.
An important role in the protection of natural and cultural heritage was played by public, scientific organizations: Moscow Archaeological Society (1864), Russian Historical Society (1866), Society for the Protection and Preservation of Monuments of Art and Antiquity in Russia (1909), etc. At their congresses, these organizations discussed the problems of protecting historical and cultural heritage. They were engaged in the development of legislation on the protection of monuments, raised the issue of creating state bodies for the protection of cultural and historical values. Among these organizations, the activities of the Moscow Archaeological Society deserve special mention.
This Society included not only archaeologists, but also architects, artists, writers, historians, and art critics. The main tasks of the Society were the study of ancient monuments of Russian antiquity and "protecting them not only from destruction and destruction, but also from distortion by repairs, extensions and restructuring."
Solving assigned tasks. The society created 200 volumes of scientific works, which contributed to a deep understanding of the exceptional value of the national historical and cultural heritage and the need to preserve it.
No less impressive were the practical results of the Society's activities. Thanks to his efforts, it was possible to preserve the ensemble of the Manor on Bersenevskaya Embankment and the buildings of Kitay-Gorod in Moscow, fortifications in Kolomna, the Assumption Cathedral in Zvenigorod, the Church of the Intercession on Perli, the Church of Lazar of Murom in Kizhi and many others.
Along with the study and preservation of monuments, the Society made a significant contribution to promoting the achievements of Russian culture. In particular, on his initiative, a monument was erected to the outstanding Russian educator, pioneer printer Ivan Fedorov (the author is the sculptor S. Volnukhin), which still adorns the center of Moscow. The authority of the Moscow Archaeological Society was so high that almost nothing was done without its knowledge and consent. If something was started and threatened any monument, then the Society intervened resolutely and put things in order.
At the beginning of the XX century. in Russia Basic laws have already been developed on the protection of monuments of art and antiquity, on the protection of nature and on the organization of natural and historical reserves. The draft law on the protection of ancient monuments in Russia (1911) and N. Roerich's pact on the need for an international solution to the issue of protecting cultural property were published. It should be emphasized that Roerich's pact was the first document in world practice that raised this issue to a global problem. This pact was adopted by the League of Nations only in 1934, having received the not entirely fair name - the "Washington Pact".
The adoption of the law "On the Protection of Monuments in Russia" was prevented by the First World War. True, its adoption could be problematic, since in the original version it affected the rights of private property, including an article on the "compulsory alienation of immovable monuments of antiquity that are in private possession."
After the October Revolution the situation with the preservation of cultural heritage has deteriorated sharply. The Civil War that followed the revolution resulted in the destruction and looting of a huge number of monuments within the country, as well as the uncontrolled export of cultural property abroad. The workers and peasants did this out of revenge and hatred for their former oppressors. Other social strata participated in this for purely selfish purposes. Saving the national cultural heritage required energetic and decisive measures from the authorities.
Already in 1918, decrees of the Soviet government were issued with legislative force on the prohibition of the export and sale of objects of special artistic and historical significance abroad, as well as on the registration, registration and preservation of monuments of art and antiquity. Particular attention is paid to the protection of monuments of landscape art and historical and artistic landscape. It should be noted that such legislative provisions on monuments of landscape gardening and landscape art were the first in the world practice. At the same time, a special state body for museums and the protection of monuments is being created.
The measures taken have yielded positive results. For four years only in Moscow and Moscow region registered 431 private collection, 64 antique shops, 501 churches and monasteries, 82 estates were examined.
Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 inflicted Soviet Union huge damage. The Nazi invaders deliberately and purposefully destroyed the most valuable architectural monuments and plundered works of art. The ancient Russian cities of Pskov, Novgorod, Chernigov, Kyiv, as well as the palace and park ensembles of the suburbs of Leningrad, were especially hard hit.
Their restoration began even before the end of the war. Despite severe hardships and enormous difficulties, society found the strength to revive the historical and cultural heritage. This was facilitated by a government decree adopted in 1948, according to which measures aimed at improving the protection of cultural monuments were significantly expanded and deepened. In particular, now cultural monuments included not only free-standing buildings and structures, but also cities, settlements or parts of them that have historical and urban planning value.
From 60-X gg. protection of cultural monuments is carried out in close interaction and cooperation with international organizations and the world community. Let us note that our experience is widely reflected in such an international document as the "Venice Charter" adopted in 1964, devoted to the preservation of monuments of culture and art.
Back to top 70s The protection of cultural and natural heritage is already fully recognized by the world community as one of the global problems of our time. On the initiative UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage Committee The Convention for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Humanity (1972) and the Recommendation for the Preservation of Historic Ensembles (1976) were adopted. The result was the creation of a system of international cultural cooperation, which was headed by the said Committee. Its responsibilities include compiling a list of outstanding monuments of world culture and assisting participating States in ensuring the preservation of relevant sites.
To this list made: Moscow and Novgorod Kremlins; Trinity-Sergius Lavra: Golden Gate, Assumption and Demetrius Cathedrals in Vladimir; the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and the Stair Tower of the Chambers of Andrei Bogolyubsky in the village of Bogomolov; Spaso-Efimiev and Pokrovsky monasteries; Cathedral of the Nativity; Bishops' chambers in Suzdal; Church of Boris and Gleb in the village of Kideksha; as well as the historical and architectural ensemble on the island of Kizhi, the center of St. Petersburg, etc.
In addition to assistance in the conservation and protection of monuments, the Committee also provides assistance in their study, providing sophisticated equipment and experts.
In addition to those mentioned, the International Council for the Preservation of Historic Sites and Historical Monuments (ICOMOS) also works in close cooperation with UNESCO. founded in 1965 and bringing together specialists from 88 countries. Its tasks include protection, restoration and conservation of monuments. On his initiative, a number of important documents aimed at improving the security business around the world have recently been adopted. These include the Florence International Charter for the Protection of Historic Gardens (1981); International Charter for the Protection of Historic Sites (1987): International Charter for the Protection and Use of the Archaeological Heritage (1990).
Among non-governmental organizations, it is worth highlighting International Center research in the field of conservation and restoration of cultural property, known as the Rome Center - ICCROM, whose members are 80 countries, including Russia.
The main problems and tasks in the preservation of the cultural heritage of Russia
In our country, two organizations currently play a leading role in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage. The first is the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK; founded in 1966, is a voluntary and public organization, implements the programs "Russian Estate", "Temples and Monasteries", "Russian Necropolis". "Russian Abroad". Society publishes in 1980 the magazine "Monuments of the Fatherland".
The second is the Russian Cultural Foundation, established in 1991, which finances a number of programs and projects, including the Small Towns of Russia program. In order to strengthen the scientific side of security affairs, the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage was established in 1992. Its tasks include the identification, study, conservation, use and promotion of cultural and natural heritage.
In 1992, the Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property was established to settle mutual claims between Russia and foreign states.
Among the most important tasks and the matter of preserving cultural heritage is the revival of religious roots, the religious beginning of Russian culture, restoration of the important role of the Orthodox Church.
At present, the view of religion as something completely obsolete and obsolete is being reviewed everywhere. Religion and the Church again occupy a worthy place in the life and culture of our society. Man is characterized by an irresistible desire for the sublime and absolute, for that which surpasses himself and the limits of existence. This need is best met by religion. Hence its amazing vitality and the rapid restoration of its place and role in human life. This is not about the fact that culture is once again becoming religious in the full sense. This is impossible. Modern culture as a whole is still secular and rests mainly on science and reason. However, religion is again becoming an important and integral part of culture, and culture is restoring its historical ties with religious origins.
In the West, the idea of reviving the religious roots of culture became relevant in the 70s. - along with the emergence of neoconservatism and postmodernism. Later, it becomes more and more powerful. Russia has much more reason to hope for the revival of the religious principle in its culture.
Many Russian philosophers and thinkers, not without reason, speak of "Russian religiosity". According to N. Danilevsky, its innateness and depth were manifested in the very acceptance and rather rapid spread of Christianity in Rus'. All this happened without any missionaries and without any imposition on the part of other states, by means of military threats or military victories, as was the case with other peoples.
The adoption of Christianity took place after a long internal struggle, from dissatisfaction with paganism, from a free search for truth and as a need of the spirit. The Russian character most fully corresponds to the ideals of Christianity: it is characterized by alienation from violence, gentleness, humility, respect, etc.
Religion was the most essential, dominant content of ancient Russian life, and later formed the predominant spiritual interest of ordinary Russian people. N. Danilevsky even speaks about the chosenness of the Russian people, bringing them closer in this respect to the peoples of Israel and Byzantium.
Similar thoughts are developed by Vl. Solovyov. To the already named features of the Russian character, he adds peacefulness, the rejection of cruel executions, and concern for the poor. The manifestation of Russian religiosity Vl. Solovyov sees in a special form of expression by a Russian person feelings for his homeland. A Frenchman in such a case speaks of "beautiful France", of "French glory". The Englishman lovingly pronounces: "Old England." The German talks about "German loyalty". A Russian person, wishing to express his best feelings for his homeland, speaks only of "Holy Rus'."
The highest ideal for him is not political and not aesthetic, but moral and religious. However, this does not mean complete asceticism, complete renunciation of the world, on the contrary: "Holy Rus' demands a holy cause." Therefore, the adoption of Christianity does not mean a simple memorization of new prayers, but the implementation of a practical task: the transformation of life on the basis of true religion.
L. Karsavin points to another property of a Russian person: "For the sake of the ideal, he is ready to give up everything, to sacrifice everything." According to L. Karsavin, the Russian person has a “feeling of the holiness and divinity of everything that exists”, like no one else he “needs the absolute”.
Historically, Russian religiosity has found a variety of manifestations and confirmations. Khan Batu, having placed Rus' in vassalage, did not dare to raise his hand to the faith of the Russian people, to Orthodoxy. He, apparently, instinctively felt the limits of his power and limited himself to the collection of material tribute. spiritually
Rus' did not submit to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, survived and, thanks to this, regained its full freedom.
In the Patriotic War of 1812, the Russian spirit played a decisive role in achieving victory. To an even greater extent, he showed himself in the Great patriotic war 1941-1945 Only unprecedented fortitude of spirit allowed the Russian people to endure truly deadly trials.
The Russian people accepted the ideals of communism largely due to the fact that they perceived them through the prism of the ideals of Christianity, Christian humanism. N. Berdyaev convincingly reflects on this.
Of course, Russia in its history has not always strictly followed the Christian path, it has also allowed serious deviations. Sometimes in it holiness and villainy turned out to be side by side. As Vl. Solovyov, there were both the pious monster Ivan IV and the true Saint Sergius in it. The Russian Orthodox Church was not always on top. She is often accused of that she allowed herself to be subjugated to secular power, starting with Peter I - the tsarist, and then the communist. Russian theology is reproached for being inferior to Catholic theology in theoretical terms.
Indeed, the Russian Orthodox Church was deprived of freedom for centuries, was under the strict control of the authorities. However, this is not her fault, but a misfortune. For the sake of the unification of Rus', she herself in every possible way contributed to the strengthening of her statehood. But it turned out that the state power, having become absolute, subjugated the power of the absolute.
Russian theology was indeed not very successful in theory; it did not offer new proofs for the existence of God. However the main merit of the Russian Orthodox Church is that she was able to preserve Orthodox Christianity. This alone atones for all her other sins. The preservation of Orthodoxy as true Christianity gave Moscow grounds to claim the title of "Third Rome". And it is precisely the preservation of Christianity that makes it possible to hope for the revival of the religious principle in Russian culture, for the spiritual recovery of the Russian people.
This is facilitated by the extensive restoration and renovation of churches and monasteries in recent years. Already today in most settlements of Russia there is a temple or a church. Of particular importance is the restoration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Even more important is the adoption of the law on freedom of conscience. All this creates the necessary conditions for each person to find their way to the temple.
The situation is very favorable for monasteries. Despite the destruction and misadventures that took place in the past, more than 1200 monasteries have survived, of which about 200 are currently active.
The beginning of monastic life was laid by the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra - the monks Anthony and Theodosius. From the 14th century the center of Orthodox monasticism becomes the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, founded by the great Sergius of Radonezh. Among all the monasteries and temples, it is the main Shrine of Orthodoxy. For more than five centuries, the Lavra has been a place of pilgrimage for Russian Christians. The St. Daiil Monastery also deserves special mention - the first monastery in Moscow, founded by Prince Daniel, son of Alexander Nevsky, which is today the official residence of the patriarch.
Russian monasteries have always been important centers of spiritual life. They had a special attractive force. As an example, it is enough to point to the monastery of Optina Pustyn, which was visited by N. Gogol, F. Dostoevsky. J1. Tolstoy. They came there to drink from the purest spiritual source. The very existence of monasteries and monks helps people to endure the hardships of life more easily, because they know that there is a place where they will always find understanding and consolation.
An exceptionally important place in the cultural heritage is occupied by Russian estates. They took shape in the second half of the 11th century. - 19th century These were "tribal", "noble nests". There were thousands of them, but dozens remained. Some of them were destroyed during the revolution and the Civil War. The other part has disappeared from time and desolation. Many of the surviving ones - Arkhangelsk, Kuskovo, Marfino, Ostafyevo, Ostankino, Shakhmatovo - have been turned into museums, reserves and sanatoriums. Others are less fortunate and need urgent help and care.
The role of Russian estates in the development of Russian culture was enormous. In the XVIII century. they formed the basis of the Russian Enlightenment. Thanks in large part to them in the 19th century. became the golden age of Russian culture.
The way of manor life was closely connected with nature, agriculture, centuries-old traditions and customs, the life of peasants and common people. The elements of high culture are rich libraries. beautiful collections of paintings, home theaters - organically intertwined with elements of folk culture. Thanks to this, the split, the gap between the Europeanized culture of the upper stratum and the traditional culture of the Russian people, which arose as a result of the Petrine reforms and was characteristic of capitals and large cities, was largely removed. Russian culture regained its integrity and unity.
Russian estates were living springs of high and deep spirituality. They carefully preserved Russian traditions and customs, the national atmosphere, Russian identity and the spirit of Russia. One can say about each of them in the words of the poet: “There is a Russian spirit. It smells of Russia there. Russian estates played an important role in the fate of many great people of Russia. The Russian estate had a beneficial effect on the work of A.S. Pushkin. In the estate of Khmelite, Smolensk region, A.S. Griboedov, and later the idea of "Woe from Wit" was born. The Vvedenskoye estate in Zvenigorod had great importance for the life and work of P.I. Tchaikovsky, A.P. Chekhov.
Russian estates opened the way to the heights of art for many talented nuggets from the depths of the Russian people.
The remaining Russian estates represent the visible and tangible past of Russia. They are living islands of genuine Russian spirituality. Their restoration and preservation is the most important task in the preservation of cultural heritage. Its successful solution will be facilitated by the re-created "Society for the Study of the Russian Estate", which existed in the 1920s. (1923-1928).
The task of preserving Russian estates is closely related to another equally important task - revival and development of small towns in Russia.
Currently, there are more than 3 thousand of them with a population of about 40 million people. Like estates, they embodied a truly Russian way of life, expressed the soul and beauty of Russia. Each of them had a unique, unique look, their own lifestyle. For all their modesty and unpretentiousness, small towns were generous with talents. Many great writers, artists and composers of Russia came out of them.
At the same time, for a long time, small towns were in oblivion and desolation. The active, creative and creative life, they increasingly turned into a remote province and a backwater. Now the situation is gradually changing, and small towns are coming back to life.
Comprehensive programs have been developed for the revival of the historical and cultural environment of such ancient Russian cities as Zaraysk, Podolsk, Rybinsk and Staraya Russa. Of these, Staraya Russa has the most favorable prospects. F.M. lived in this city. Dostoevsky and preserved his own house. This city also has a mud resort and historical monuments. All this allows Staraya Russa to become an attractive tourist, cultural and health center. Proximity to Novgorod will enhance its cultural significance.
Approximately the same expects the rest of the mentioned cities. The experience accumulated in their revival will serve as the basis for the development of renovation projects for other small towns in Russia.
A special place in the protection of cultural heritage is occupied by folk arts and crafts. Together with folklore they constitute folk culture which, being the most important part of the entire national culture, expresses its originality and originality with the greatest force. Russia has long been famous for its magnificent products of artistic crafts and crafts.
Among the oldest of them is a Russian wooden toy, the center of which is Sergiev Posad. It was here that the world-famous matryoshka was born. The same ancient is the Kholmogory bone carving. Using the technique of low relief, Kholmogory bone carvers create unique works of decorative art - combs, goblets, caskets, vases. Khokhloma painting has a no less long history. It is a decorative painting with a floral pattern on wooden products (dishes, furniture) in red and black tones and gold.
The miniature has become widespread in Russia. One of its famous centers is located in the village. Fedoskino, Moscow region. Fedoskino miniature - oil painting on papier-mâché lacquerware. The drawing is done in a realistic manner on a black lacquer background. Similar to Fedoskino Palekh miniature, which is tempera painting on papier-mâché lacquerware (boxes, caskets, cigarette cases, jewelry). It is characterized by bright colors, a smooth pattern, an abundance of gold.
Gzhel ceramics - products made of porcelain and faience, covered with blue painting, received well-deserved fame in Russia and abroad.
The arts and crafts mentioned, as well as other arts and crafts in general, continue their life and activity, although with varying degrees of success and confidence in the future.
However, they all need serious help. Many of them require significant reconstruction, the result of which should be the creation modern conditions labor for folk craftsmen and creators. Some of them need to be revived and restored. The fact is that over time these trades and crafts have undergone significant changes: they were too modernized. The themes and plots were changed, the technology was broken, the style was distorted.
In general, the protection of cultural heritage in the modern world is becoming more complex and acute. This issue requires constant attention. Without exaggeration, we can say that the level of development of the culture of a particular people should be judged by how it relates to its cultural heritage. By preserving the past, we prolong the future.
