Development of the territory within the framework of the preservation of cultural heritage. Preservation of cultural heritage is a priority national project

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 launching a large-scale spatial development program in 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 on the current problems facing the Russian Committee of ICOMOS 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.

WHead 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 round table participants to the need to study in foreign countries the influence not only of Russian culture, but also of 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 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

This idea is discussed in the Government of the Russian Federation. The decision should be made before the end of 2016.

"Guardians of the Legacy"

The preservation of cultural heritage can become a priority national project of Russia. Currently, the Government of the Russian Federation is considering proposals from the federal Ministry of Culture to include the "Culture" direction in the list of the main directions of the country's strategic development. The concept provides for implementation in 2017-2030. priority projects "Preservation of cultural heritage" and "Culture of the small Motherland".

According to our information, the concepts of these projects are expected to be presented in December 2016 at the International St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. If the project receives government support (it is expected that a decision should be made before the end of 2016), the issue will be submitted for discussion by the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects.

Tasks and meanings

The project developers relied on the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy approved by the presidential decree, as well as on the current National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, according to which culture is one of the strategic national priorities.

Basic principle priority project "Preservation of cultural heritage" declared "Preservation through development": "Improving the accessibility of cultural heritage, cultural and economic development of territories, education and spiritual development of citizens based on cultural heritage."

The project is intended, according to the idea of ​​the initiators, to solve the following tasks:

Identification, inclusion in the state register and cataloging of objects of cultural heritage;

Improving the state protection of cultural heritage sites;

Conducting scientific research in the field of heritage conservation and development of scientific and project documentation;

Restoration, conservation and adaptation of cultural heritage sites based on comprehensive programs using foreign experience and best practice;

Creation of a modern domestic restoration industry;

Organization of service and profitable use of cultural heritage, increasing its accessibility for the population;

Popularization of cultural heritage, including with the use of modern information technologies;

Development of cultural tourism based on the use of restored and put into cultural circulation objects of cultural heritage;

Assistance in the development of a mass volunteer and volunteer movement for the preservation of cultural heritage;

Legal, financial and personnel support for the processes of preserving cultural heritage.

The project is planned to be implemented in 3 stages: 2017 - Q1 2018; Q2 2018 - 2024; 2025 - 2030

According to the concept, at the first stage, additional state budget expenditures will not be required, and at the 2nd and 3rd stages in the field of cultural heritage preservation, additional funding in the amount of 30 billion rubles is planned (including from income from restored and put into cultural and economic circulation of monuments - " with a total area of ​​400,000 sq. m annually”).

Global context

Judging by the concept of the project, its initiators are well aware that the importance of preserving the national cultural heritage goes far beyond the specialized industry. The project developers have carefully studied the latest European experience, in particular, the announcement by the European Union of 2018 as the Year of European Cultural Heritage and the presentation in June 2016 in the European Union of the Strategy for the Development of the Cultural Dimension of Foreign Policy, which meets the most important priority of the European Commission - strengthening the position of the European Union as a global player. The documents of the European Commission emphasize the importance of preserving the cultural heritage of Europe not only to promote cultural diversity, develop tourism, attract additional investment, introduce new management models and increase the economic potential of the territories, but also to form and “promote” a “common European identity”.

In this context, the initiators of the project conclude, “it is obvious that Russia, being a country with a large number of cultural heritage sites and its own national code, is also interested in preserving cultural heritage sites, since they constitute a visible memory and the basis for subsequent development.”

Regional aspect

The project is planned to be implemented primarily in the regions of Russia with a “high density of cultural heritage sites”: Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Bryansk, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kaluga regions, as well as in certain regions of the Caucasus and South Siberia. According to our information, the role of "pilot regions" is prepared by experts for the Tver and Kostroma regions.

Particular attention should be paid - in order to preserve not only heritage sites, but also the cities and settlements themselves, which, according to the fair assessment of the authors of the project, is in itself a national strategic task. The territorial planning of the project implementation will be coordinated with the system plans of the Ministry of Economic Development for the development of social infrastructure in the regions. When implementing the project, the Ministry of Culture plans to coordinate efforts with the Ministry of Economic Development, the Federal Property Management Agency, the Ministry of Construction, the Ministry of Labor and other federal departments.

Plans and indicators

According to the calculated indicators of the priority project "Preservation of cultural heritage", the share of monuments, information about which , by the end of 2016 should reach 70%, in 2017 - 80%, and from 2019 should be 100%.

From 2019 it is expected restore and introduce"for profitable use" of cultural heritage - 400 thousand square meters. m annually.

Volume extrabudgetary funding“Measures for the preservation of cultural heritage sites” are planned to be increased by 60 times over 15 years. In 2016, it should amount to 1 billion rubles, in 2017 - 5, in 2018 - 8, in 2019 - 10, in 2020 - 15, in 2021 - 20, in 2022 - m - 25, in 2023 - 30, in 2024 - 35, and in 2030 - 60 billion rubles.

At the same time, the volume of attracted extra-budgetary funds from 2018 should significantly exceed the volume of similar state budget investments. For comparison, the project concept assumes them as follows: 2016 - 6.9 billion rubles; 2017 - 8.5; 2018 - 8.1; 2019 - 7.6; 2020 - 9.3; 2021 - 8.9; 2022 - 8.3; 2023 - 10.2; 2024 - 9.8; 2030 - 9.1 billion

Indeed, the project also additional, starting from 2019, funding preservation of monuments from the federal budget - 30 billion rubles each. annually.

In general, towards the end of 2030, it will be extremely interesting to discuss the state of affairs and urgent prospects with the initiators of the project.

For the "Heritage Keepers" the idea of ​​the priority project "Preservation of cultural heritage" is commented

Alexander Zhuravsky, Deputy Minister of Culture of Russia:

Preservation of heritage must be recognized as a priority for socio-economic development

It seems extremely important that culture should appear among the priority areas that are considered at the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects. After all, culture - along with the military-industrial complex, nuclear energy and space - is the area in which Russia globally competitive.

The sphere of culture in Russia needs not just investment, it needs strategic development and competent project management. If this is not done, it will gradually lose its competitiveness.

Any country, its citizens are distinguished by a special cultural, civilizational type. If the preservation and development of culture, its competitiveness does not become a strategic priority for the state, then sooner or later the country, civilization loses its identity, eroded by more competitive civilizations. Today we are witnessing how the European civilization is experiencing difficulties with the socio-cultural adaptation of the arriving migratory communities. Including because for the "new Europeans" European culture does not seem native, attractive and strong. The crisis of pan-European political integration coincided with an almost official recognition of the failure of the European project of multiculturalism.

Therefore, today Europe, in search of a reliable foundation for its civilizational identity, turns to culture, and, first of all, to its cultural heritage. It is in it, and not in supranational political institutions, that European civilization regains (or attempts to acquire) its own identity. That is why 2018 has been declared the Year of European Cultural Heritage in Europe.

We have a lot in common not only with the East. We and Europe have a lot in common, and, above all, in a cultural sense, in terms of cultural heritage. Let us recall at least Aristotle Fioravanti, let us recall the Italian architects of Russian classicism. Even commonplace historical comparisons - "Russian Venice", "Russian Switzerland", etc. – talk about how much of our culture is rooted in the common European heritage. At the same time, there were periods when European culture influenced us to a greater extent, and there were periods when Russia influenced other European cultures. Literature, theatre, ballet, performing arts. And even in architecture, especially if we talk about the contribution of the Russian avant-garde. Therefore, we also need to realize culture, the preservation of cultural heritage as a priority for the socio-economic development of our country.

Moreover, we have something to rely on: the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy were approved by presidential decree, and this year the Strategy of State Cultural Policy was adopted. We propose, as part of the implementation of these strategic documents, to introduce the preservation of cultural heritage among the priority projects, to move in this area to real project management, which will allow us to solve many problems that have formed over two decades in the foreseeable future. This also applies to the reform of the restoration industry, and changes in legislation, and changes in the field of historical and cultural expertise, and the introduction of effective foreign experience, and changes in mental approaches to cultural heritage. A new class of managers of complex restoration projects is needed, who understand not only restoration, but also the economics of culture, urbanism, and modern adaptive technologies.

Everywhere in the world we observe the processes of valorization, capitalization of cultural heritage, active use of this resource in economic processes, in the development of territories and regions. 40% of the construction market in Europe is the work with historical buildings. And in our country, monuments are still perceived as a "unprofitable asset." The status of an object of cultural heritage reduces the investment attractiveness of the object of restoration. Until now, conditions have not been created, including tax ones, for large-scale attraction of investors and patrons to the restoration sphere, as is done in a number of foreign countries with a comparable cultural heritage.

According to experts, the total investment required to bring tens of thousands of Russian cultural heritage sites to a satisfactory condition is about 10 trillion rubles. It is clear that there are no such funds. And even if they magically suddenly appeared, then there are no restoration capacities and such a number of restorers to effectively use these funds. Thousands of monuments simply can't wait until their turn comes or when the appropriate funds and capacities appear.

Hence, it is necessary to change the system of heritage management. We need systemic actions that can radically change the situation. It is not normal when 160,000 monuments “hang” on the state budget, it is not normal when expensive real estate, which once adorned our cities, is in a deplorable or even ruined state. The primary task is not even to increase budget investments, but to create civilized market of cultural heritage objects, with various forms of public-private partnership, which can be attended by a philanthropist, investor, entrepreneur. We often like to compare ourselves to the USA. So, in the USA, for example, the key philanthropist in the field of culture is not the state (it accounts for only about 7% of total spending on culture), and not the money of large corporations and billionaires (about 8.4%), but individual donations ( about 20 percent), charitable foundations (about 9%) and income from endowment funds (about 14%), which are also formed from private or corporate income. I am not calling for a reduction in state support for culture, on the contrary. But I believe, following the experts in this field, that it is necessary to form a multi-channel system for financing culture in general and the preservation of cultural heritage, in particular, at a more systematic level.

At the same time, it is necessary not to mechanically increase funding for the sphere of heritage conservation, but to properly manage resources and regroup them. There is a need for public consolidation in the matter of preserving the national heritage, combining the efforts of the state with public organizations, with volunteer movements through which young people can be involved in the preservation of heritage, explaining to them its significance. And, of course, fundamental work is needed to popularize the cultural heritage, which puts before us all the task of expanding educational activities in this area.

To solve all these problems, we consider it necessary formation of the Project Office on the basis of AUIPIC, which will both generate projects in the field of cultural heritage preservation and organize their implementation. It is necessary to show the effectiveness of this approach, to carry out pilot projects related to heritage in a number of regions, and to create a model for effective management in this area. These should be start-up projects that stimulate investment activity, the development of small and medium-sized businesses, and the creation of new jobs. Another project office - "Roskultproekt" - is being created to implement other priority projects in the field of culture, to carry out analytical and design activities, as well as to monitor the state cultural policy.

And, of course, I repeat, it is necessary to popularize our heritage, to clarify its deep, ontological meaning as an integral part of the national cultural code.

The Ministry of Culture sent relevant materials to the Government justifying the need to consider culture as another (twelfth) priority area, and “Preservation of Cultural Heritage” as a priority project. The project will be presented in December at the International St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. We hope that this initiative will be supported in one form or another. We expect a decision to be made by the end of 2016.

Oleg Ryzhkov, Head of the Agency for the Management and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments (AUIPIK):

Why do we have the Academy of the FSB, but not the Academy of Heritage Keepers?

The national project "Preservation of cultural heritage" from the very beginning should rely on specific projects implemented in the regions. The idea to make the preservation of cultural heritage the driving force behind the economic and social development of several regions of Russia was suggested to us by experts consulted by the Ministry of Culture. There are regions with an extremely high concentration of cultural heritage sites, and this resource must be exploited. The involvement of monuments in the economic and tourist circulation should give a positive impetus to the regional economy: in addition to creating additional jobs, replenishing the tax revenue base and developing tourism, heritage preservation will increase the investment attractiveness of the region. Experts recommend the Tver and Kostroma regions as pilot regions, but, of course, the project is designed for implementation in all heritage-rich regions of the North-West and Central Russia.

The purpose of the project is to the preservation of cultural heritage has taken a worthy place in the economic system of the country. Now everyone “uses” the heritage resource, but does not adequately invest in it in return. For example, the tourism industry actively exploits heritage resources - but does it invest in it? The regions already receive income from the development of small and medium-sized businesses related to heritage - but does heritage receive worthy investments from regional budgets?

The national project will give investment priorities, create a situation where regions and local communities will not passively wait for someone to come and start saving their monuments, creating points of economic growth - and they themselves will start doing it. It is necessary to invest in the basic resource, in heritage and not to the businesses that operate it.

Of course, the project has an ideological component: it is necessary to change people's attitude to the heritage of their region, their small homeland, their country - as to their heritage. This, from my point of view, is the education of patriotism, not abstract appeals, but real projects in which local communities should be involved.

Undoubtedly, the popularization of the architectural heritage, work on its preservation - as a scientific, innovative, creative activity - should be a significant part of the information policy of the federal media, primarily television.

From our point of view, a certain restructuring of the heritage administration system will also be required. Emphasis should be shifted from the "protection" of the heritage to its "preservation". Naturally, not by weakening security and state control as such, but by embedding these tools in a systemic state policy.

It is necessary, of course, to create professional personnel training system for the field of heritage conservation, a system of scientific and educational institutions. Why do we have, for example, the Higher School of Economics, the Academy of the Federal Security Service, but no Higher School or the Academy of Heritage Keepers? Abroad to train such professionals - in France, for example, out of 600 applicants for places in state heritage protection agencies, only 20 people are selected. And then after that they have to undergo special training for another 18 months, and only then they are “allowed” to the monuments. In European countries, there is a whole specialized branch of science - Heritage Science, dedicated to cultural heritage and its preservation, including with the help of the latest physics, chemistry, and microbiology.

AUIPIK we consider as a kind of polygon of the national project. Already today, projects are being implemented and developed at our facilities, in which approaches to the preservation of heritage are being worked out as part of the strategy for the development of territories and regions.

We have begun, for example, to work with Ingushetia on the extremely promising project "Cultural Landscape of Dzheirakh-Ass", which will make this reserve a point of growth for the republican economy.

We have a very interesting project in Uglich, where on the basis of the historical Zimin mansion and the adjacent territory, we expect to create a Handicrafts Center with Fair Square, which will combine museum and educational functions with shopping and entertainment in its activities. And at the same time, to increase the tourist attractiveness of the city in various ways, up to recreating the technology for the production of Russian glass beads of the 13th century, known from excavations.

We continue to work on the project in Peterhof, which involves not only the restoration of a complex of architectural monuments, but also the reconstruction of the national Russian riding school as an intangible cultural heritage. We are working on this together with the specialists of the French Equestrian Heritage Council - they are very enthusiastic about this undertaking.

An interesting project is taking shape in the industrial in the Tambov region, where we plan not only to restore the preserved buildings, but to revive this estate as a functioning economic complex, which will give impetus to the development of the entire territory.

Top photo: Volunteer work day to rescue the flooded church of the Krokhinsky churchyard (XVIII century) in the Vologda region.

Today, a large amount of Russia's cultural heritage is under threat. As a result of the growth of cities, the development of economic activity, part of the cultural heritage has lost its former value, and part has simply been destroyed irretrievably.

In the modern post-industrial era, humanity began to think about its future. Today, all the fragility of the situation is realized, the total dependence on the cultural and natural heritage, which acts as a resource for the further successful development of society.

The coming era puts forward new requirements for a person, his awareness, his special attitude to the environment and national heritage. Therefore, such global structures for the protection of cultural and natural heritage as UNESCO are being created. In every country today there are organizations that protect the national cultural heritage. Russia is no exception. But the efforts that Russia is making today to protect cultural heritage are not enough.

The current state of cultural and historical monuments of Russia

According to experts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the state of cultural and historical monuments, which are under state protection, is extremely unsatisfactory. Approximately 70% of them need urgent restoration work to prevent their destruction. Among them are famous architectural complexes:

• Kremlins of Veliky Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan;
• monuments of white-stone architecture of the Vladimir region;
• Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in the Vologda region and many others.

Monuments of wooden architecture cause serious concern because of the fragility of their material. In the period from 1996 to 2001 alone, approximately 700 immovable objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia were irretrievably destroyed.

The state of monuments of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia can be represented as a percentage as follows:

• 15% of monuments are in good condition;
• 20% of the monuments are in satisfactory condition;
• 25% of the monuments are in poor condition;
• 30% of the monuments are in disrepair;
• 10% of monuments are ruined.

The demolition of historical sites and the erection of modern buildings in their places is a problem of modern society. Therefore, the architectural, urban heritage of Russia is literally in a catastrophic state. For example, in Tobolsk, almost all the wooden and stone buildings of the Lower City are already in the last stages of destruction.

Here you can name many cities in Russia where historical monuments and cultural monuments are specially demolished, destroyed from time to time or restored in a modern manner, even those that are under state protection as architectural monuments.

First of all, this is due to the commercial side of the issue. In the second - with a lack of funds for their restoration and other necessary work to preserve them.

Remark 1

It should be especially noted here that the historical and cultural (architecture, urban planning) heritage of Russia is still very poorly studied. This is especially true for provincial building complexes, individual architectural monuments in the outback of Russia.

Also, entire epochs of the development of domestic architecture have not been studied at all, in particular the architecture of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, and entire areas of construction: places of worship, individual residential buildings, noble and merchant estates, and more. This state of affairs leads to the irretrievable loss of unique monuments of history and culture.

Modern problems of protection of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia

Today, a number of problems have been identified in the field of protection of the natural and cultural heritage of Russia. Consider the most significant:

1. It is necessary to amend the Russian legislation in order to improve it in the field of protection and use of Russia's natural and cultural heritage.
2. It is necessary to determine the boundaries of the territories and the mode of use of lands that have objects of cultural and historical heritage.
3. It is necessary to approve the list of objects and protection zones by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
4. A significant number of objects of natural and cultural
5. heritage do not have a registered owner.
6. It is necessary to include objects of natural and cultural heritage
7. to the state cadastral register.
8. Objects of archaeological, historical, ethnographic value are subjected to unauthorized excavations.

At the same time, numerous violations of the current legislation on the protection and protection of the historical and cultural heritage of the Russian Federation have been recorded today. Here are the most common ones:

1. Violation of laws regulating relations related to the identification, accounting, conservation and use of natural and cultural heritage objects (on registering cultural heritage objects; on establishing the boundaries of territories, zones of protection of natural and cultural heritage objects; failure to formalize and fail to fulfill security obligations; failure to provide information about cultural heritage sites, etc.).
2. Violation of laws is recorded in various activities aimed at financing natural and cultural heritage sites.
3. Violation of laws on the protection of natural and cultural heritage in the process of urban planning and landscaping.
4. Violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating relations related to the use of objects of natural and cultural heritage.

The low level of compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in this area is primarily due to the intersectoral management structure, which leads to interdepartmental friction, inconsistency in the actions of various subjects of government.

Cultural and historical heritage largely forms the mentality, the continuity of humanitarian values ​​and preserves traditions. The objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation are a unique value for the entire multinational people of the Russian Federation and are an integral part of the world cultural heritage. At the same time, the cultural and historical heritage of cities is one of the resources for the spiritual and economic development of Russia. The preservation of cultural and historical heritage is the basis for the further development of society, it is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country. “Everyone is obliged to take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, to protect historical and cultural monuments,” the Constitution of the Russian Federation says (Article 44.3). However, the physical condition of more than half of the monuments of history and culture of Russia under state protection continues to deteriorate and is characterized in our time as unsatisfactory. Monuments of nature, history and culture of Russia make up a significant share in the cultural and natural heritage of the world, make an important contribution to the sustainable development of our country and human civilization as a whole, which predetermines the highest responsibility of the Russian people and the state for preserving their heritage and passing it on to future generations. Currently, there is a problem of both the preservation of cultural heritage and its relevance. The cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia is in a difficult state. Today, the destruction of historical and cultural monuments is observed, only about 35% is in good or satisfactory condition. All this leads to the loss of cultural interaction between generations and the destruction of national culture. In this regard, the reconstruction of historical monuments, the support of local traditions and customs, and the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of Russian cities is a necessary requirement for their revival and demand. And the use of cultural heritage as a priority resource will contribute to the socio-economic development of these cities. At present, the low level of tourist attractiveness of the cultural and historical heritage of Russian cities does not contribute to the formation of conditions for their conservation and sustainable development. State protection of cultural heritage objects is one of the important branches of the socio-economic development of cities. The loss of cultural values ​​is irreplaceable and irreversible. The accumulation and preservation of cultural values ​​is the basis for the development of civilization. One of the urgent tasks of the national policy in the field of cultural heritage is to overcome the backlog of the Russian Federation in the field of using heritage from many countries of the world, its wide inclusion in the concept of sustainable development of both individual regions and the country as a whole, improving organizational, economic and legal mechanisms for preserving and use of cultural heritage sites. The basis of the historical, cultural and natural potential of Russia is made up of objects of cultural and historical heritage, for example, such as historical settlements, estate museums, museum reserves, national and natural parks, nature reserves and others located in different parts of Russia and attracting tourists. It is in such cities that traditions, cultural and historical values ​​and sights are preserved, there are the most favorable organizational, managerial and other prerequisites for the preservation, adaptation, development and use of objects of cultural and historical heritage for tourism purposes and, as a result, giving them a new impetus in the social - economic development. Therefore, the use of the tourist potential of cultural and historical heritage sites will contribute to the sustainable development of Russian cities. All over the world, cultural heritage sites and cities rich in architectural, historical and cultural monuments are becoming places of active visits for an increasing number of tourists. Accordingly, it is necessary to combine the tourism business with the preservation and restoration of numerous objects of cultural and historical heritage, while at the same time getting rid of destroyed and abandoned historical buildings, monuments, etc. The Western world has accumulated a very extensive experience in regulating the relationship between the tourism industry and objects of cultural and natural heritage at the national (state) and local levels, as a result of which objects are not only preserved, but also revived, acquiring new aspects of their existence, use and development. This is achieved through the application of a set of legislative, organizational and information measures, as well as new technologies, as a result of which parties interested in preserving heritage sites receive the necessary incentives and support in organizing tourist and recreational and sightseeing and educational activities. As a result, an increasing number of cities and cultural sites are benefiting economically from tourism and directing the proceeds to the preservation of cultural and historical heritage sites, while increasing the number of jobs and expanding opportunities for additional income generation for the local population. The development of the tourism industry in the Russian Federation is closely related to the active policy of preserving the cultural heritage of the peoples of our country, which acts as a significant economic resource. Orientation to historical and cultural wealth is becoming one of the real opportunities for the long-term social and economic development of a number of regions and cities of the country. The complex of cultural and historical heritage is a specific and very important economic resource of the region, it can and should become the basis of a special branch of specialization, one of the promising areas for the implementation of social policy and the development of the local economy, an important factor in spiritual life. Thus, on the basis of the use of cultural heritage, it is possible to build effective social strategies aimed at overcoming poverty and ensuring the sustainable development of Russian cities. At the same time, the trends of globalization have clearly manifested themselves in the field of cultural heritage. The modern world creates a whole system of threats and challenges in relation to cultural heritage. In the context of dynamic and ever more accelerating development, physical cultural resources are in danger of complete or partial destruction if they are not included in these processes. Even such a positive trend as the development of tourism, in the absence of proper control by the authorities, can cause significant harm to heritage sites. Threats to heritage also lurk in the results of economic development, industrial development of new territories, new urban development programs in which entire neighborhoods are reconstructed or rebuilt, military conflicts, environmental pollution. Therefore, we can conclude that the preservation of cultural and historical heritage is a condition for the sustainable development of cities. One of the mechanisms of socio-economic development of Russian cities is the development of the tourism industry in cities with cultural and historical heritage, since the development of tourism will lead to the preservation and updating of these objects. However, an important condition for the implementation of these activities is the presence of control by the authorities and the public to preserve objects of cultural and historical heritage, and not their exploitation for the sake of achieving only economic benefits.

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 certain social 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 become an integral part of the cultural heritage inherited by the new 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 works of unknown masters of 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 that give rise to various spheres of 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. The adoption of fundamental legislative acts - the Decrees of the Council of People's Commissars "On the Nationalization of 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 of 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 throughout the country, the Soviet state received about 34 poods of gold, about 24,000 poods of silver, 14,777 diamonds and diamonds, more than 1.2 poods of pearls, more than a pood of 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 do not honk and do not interfere with us 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 of preserving 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.

The recommendations on the participation and role of the masses in cultural life, adopted by UNESCO, say that the main task of modern cultural policy is to provide the greatest possible number of people with a set of tools that promote 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.