Why should we preserve architectural monuments? Why is it necessary to preserve historical buildings in cities? Styles in landscape architecture
Already in ancient times, rulers were well aware of the influence of monumental structures on the consciousness and psyche of people. Monuments with their grandeur give an emotional charge, inspire respect for the history of their country, and help preserve a significant past. They are designed to instill in citizens a sense of pride in their ancestors. Sometimes monuments are erected to living people who have distinguished themselves in something good. Very little time will pass, and there will be no living eyewitnesses of the Great Patriotic War. The presence of a monument that tells about the feat of the Russian people will allow descendants not to forget about these years. In any settlement of our country you can find stone evidence of this cruel time. Between monuments and society there is invisible connection. The historical and cultural environment, of which monuments are a part, influences the formation of the worldview of every resident. In addition, historical and cultural monuments are information that is needed to predict future processes. Science, using archaeological material such as monuments, not only restores what happened in the past, but also makes predictions. In architectural terms, monuments help organize space and act as the visual center of public space. For an objective understanding of cultural and historical processes in society, it is important to preserve monuments. The attitude towards them is determined by society’s position towards its past and can manifest itself in ignorance, care and deliberate destruction. This depends on many factors - on the level of education and culture of the population, the dominant ideology, the state’s position towards its cultural heritage, the political structure, and the economic state of the country. The higher the education, culture, economy of a society, the more humane its ideology, the more conscious it is of its historical and cultural heritage.
There are so many monuments in the world! Grateful humanity erected majestic structures in honor of deceased just rulers, brilliant musicians and poets. In prehistoric times, heads of state did not want to wait for their own death and built monuments to themselves during their lifetime. Monuments are placed in cemeteries and in the center of city squares. Why do people do this in all countries and at all times?
Humanity began betting at the dawn of civilization. Scientists are still finding ancient stone sculptures created by primitive sculptures and still raising questions and disputes about what or who they are. One thing does not cause controversy - all images of fictional or real creatures had cult significance. The first monuments were created as objects of worship; magical supernatural powers were attributed to them. Later magical power began to be vested in deceased leaders and respected members of tribes and ancient communities. People began to create monuments to perpetuate and exalt. This function continues in . Statues depicting generals, rulers of states or great writers can be seen in any country. Grateful descendants pay tribute to the talents or heroism of their great compatriots. But in the history of mankind, monuments were erected not only to the dead, but also to living people. The cult of a living person and his deification were especially pronounced in Ancient Egypt. The pharaohs built tombs for themselves and erected their statues next to those of their many gods. This tradition was later picked up by emperors in the ancient world. Monuments to them were erected during their lifetime, and the emperors could enjoy divine honors and glorification of their merits even before their inevitable departure to another world. However, the passion for exalting their own person among the greats of this world can still be observed today. Lifetime monuments were erected to Kim Ser-in, Stalin, Turkmenbashi Niyazov, Mao, and the full list is not limited to these names. As a rule, the initiative to build monuments to the person being glorified came from that person himself or his faithful associates. The presence of monuments to living people is considered by many sociologists as one of the proofs of an unhealthy society and a totalitarian system in the country. With the development of society, monuments became more and more diverse. Not only people, but also animals began to receive the honor of being immortalized in bronze and marble. There are memorials to rescue animals who died in service. For example, in Paris there is a monument to St. Bernard Barry, who saved the lives of people caught in an avalanche. In Japan you can see a monument to canine fidelity. It was erected in honor of the dog Hachiko, who for several years came to the station every day and waited for the arrival of his deceased owner. In many European cities, there has recently been a tendency to install unusual and funny monuments. In Washington there is a monument to people standing in line, in Bratislava you can see a monument to a plumber sticking his head out of a sewer hatch, and in Paris you can take a photo next to a monument to a finger. Such structures do not carry any important social function, they are made to create a mood, decorate the city and attract the attention of tourists to it. Human memory is short, life goes on as usual and new heroes constantly appear. Monuments do not allow humanity to forget about the most important milestones in its history, about people and events that we would like to always remember.
As can be seen from the previous presentation, the content of the concepts of “architectural monument” and “restoration” has changed over time. These concepts, having emerged relatively late, were interpreted differently depending on the philosophical, artistic and other ideas of each individual period. At the same time, they tended to become more complex, enriched due to more and more multilateral consideration of the connections arising between architectural work past and the world of modern man.
In different European countries, the terms “monument”, “historical monument”, “architectural monument” are used to designate what we call an architectural monument. In our country in the past the term “monuments of antiquity and art” was used, and currently the concept of “architectural monument” is included in more general concept“historical and cultural monuments”, or, even more broadly, “ cultural heritage" These terms reflect the dual value of the buildings that we classify as monuments—historical and artistic. To imagine the full significance of monuments for modern people, such a division is still not enough, since each of these two main aspects of the value of monuments is far from elementary, representing a very complex combination of various aspects.
Thus, historical value manifests itself not only in the cognitive plane, but also in the emotional plane. The fact that this building is a witness to events either very distant or significant for the history and culture of a given area, country or humanity as a whole, gives it special significance in the eyes of contemporaries. This side of the value of old buildings is reflected in the recognition by existing legislation of a special category of monuments - the so-called “historical monuments”. Historical monuments may include buildings that have no architectural or artistic value and are of interest only as a reminder of certain historical events or persons. However, this special value no less often extends to artistically valuable buildings included in state lists under the heading of “architectural monuments.” Thus, the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, built by Aristotle Fioravanti during the formation of the Russian national state, is not only an outstanding monument of architecture, but also the most important monument to the formation of Russian statehood. The ensemble of Tsarskoe Selo is inextricably linked with the names of Pushkin and many other figures of Russian culture and is valuable for modern people this memory is no less than high artistic merits. A special category is represented by structures erected in memory of a specific event (triumphal arches, obelisks, monument temples, etc.).
In cognitive terms, the historical value of a monument is expressed primarily in the fact that it serves as a carrier of information about the past, i.e. historical source. This information is multifaceted and manifests itself in very different areas, which allows us to consider the monument as a specific and complex historical source. From the point of view of historians, direct evidence from monuments about the social structure of society is of primary interest. Thus, on the enormous scale of southern Russian churches of the 10th-11th centuries, rising among small wooden and wood-earth buildings, the essential features of the social structure of Kievan Rus were clearly revealed.
The specificity of architecture as an art, which includes engineering and technical aspects, allows us to see in works of architecture a direct reflection of the level of development of production forces: the embodiment of engineering knowledge, a product material production. The typological features of the surviving buildings of the past carry precious information about the everyday life of distant eras. From this point of view, the ancient structure is considered as a monument material culture. But since architecture is to the same extent an art that operates in ideological and figurative language, monuments serve as the most important historical evidence of the ideology and spiritual culture of various eras.
Not being a fine art, architecture does not express ideas in such a direct form as painting or sculpture, therefore, in architectural monuments, for the most part, one can find a reflection of the most general features of the worldview of any historical period. However, this expression can be extremely strong and vivid. Suffice it to recall the Byzantine temple or gothic cathedral. The information provided by monuments as works of art is also very diverse. For example, Romanesque construction technology of buildings in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' of the 12th century. and the similarity of their sculptural decoration with Western monuments provide important historical evidence of the cultural connections of this era and the migration of artels of builders and sculptors characteristic of the Middle Ages.
It is quite clear that all of the listed aspects of the significance of the monument as a historical source are valid when considering not only the parts of the monument dating back to the time of its origin, but also all later layers, each of which multifacetedly reflects the features of its historical era.
No less obvious is the presence of artistic value in architectural monuments. The works of architects of the past, be they buildings of the ancient, medieval period or modern times, are capable of causing a keen aesthetic experience in modern people. Previously, this aspect prevailed in the assessment of ancient buildings as monuments, although the concept of artistic and, accordingly, the criteria applied to individual buildings changed significantly. Classicism was based on the idea of the existence of unshakable, timeless laws of beauty, comprehended by reason and embodied in patterns ancient art. When applied to specific monuments, this meant recognizing the right to such a title only for buildings of classical antiquity and removed the question of the significance of the layers of subsequent eras. Romanticism was more flexible in evaluating works of the past as monuments, transferring this concept to later eras and to manifestations of national stylistic characteristics. At the same time, however, the poeticization of individualism, and especially the artistic and creative personality, characteristic of romanticism, gave rise to a tendency to see in the monument not so much a given historical specificity, but rather the author’s intention behind it, distorted by time and even perhaps not yet embodied. Polemicizing with the romantics, supporters of archaeological restoration, without denying the artistic value of the monument, nevertheless highlighted the historical value, the significance of the monument as a document. At present, the prevailing desire is to see in a monument the unity of the artistic and the historical, which in reality cannot always be clearly separated.
The modern approach to considering the artistic significance of a monument is based on the position that a monument always exerts its emotional and aesthetic impact in a certain context. First of all, this is the context of modern culture, which includes the developed attitude towards art in general and the art of the past in particular. The historicism of thinking inherent in the consciousness of people of our century allows us to perceive phenomena related to very different artistic systems much more widely and flexibly than was the case in the past. The world of a modern cultured person includes mandatory knowledge of examples of art from different countries and eras, with which he involuntarily compares the work being evaluated. The assessment of an architectural monument inevitably includes associations associated with taking into account phenomena familiar to us, relating not only to architecture, but also to literature, painting, music and other forms of art. This determines the complexity of the aesthetic perception of the monument as a work of architecture, and our perception cannot claim to be adequate to the perception of contemporaries of its creation, which took place in a different context and included a different range of associations.
But the monument not only fits into the context of modern culture. A truly existing monument, with all the changes and additions accumulated during its centuries-old life, can itself be considered as a context in which artistic elements from different periods are combined. Reconstructions, additions and even losses do not always lead to the destruction of the monument as an artistic whole, sometimes modifying it, creating a new whole with new aesthetic qualities. The Moscow Kremlin with its towers topped 200 years after their construction with tall stone tents is no longer a work of 15th-century architecture, nor is it a work architecture XVII century, and a unique alloy artistic elements of both centuries, and in some parts of a later time. Rastrelli's Winter Palace with later interiors from the Classical era, despite the loss of the author's interior decoration, despite the difference in styles, is an artistically integral structure, the image of which is built on a complex system of interaction of elements from different periods. The examples given are the most obvious, but there are also many other buildings that have undergone one or another change in later years of its existence, parts of different times and styles enter into certain relationships with each other, which ultimately determine the unique individuality of each monument. This applies to both outstanding buildings and so-called ordinary buildings. Later layers should be assessed not only as having or not having artistic significance in themselves, but also as elements included in the overall artistic system monument. In this regard, not only changes made by human hands turn out to be significant, but also those that bear traces of the destructive effects of time. Thus, the ruins of an ancient structure have enormous aesthetic expressiveness, different from that which this structure had many centuries ago. Traces of the long existence of a monument, the so-called patina of time, not only obscure and distort information about a work of art from the distant past, but also carry their own emotional information about the life of the monument in time, which is an important component of its present-day aesthetic perception.
For an architectural monument as a work of art, there is another context outside of which to consider it, according to modern concepts, unacceptable. This is the context of its architectural and natural environment, the environment that the monument forms and on which, in turn, its artistic perception largely depends. The context of the environment is no less subject to transformation over time than the context of the monument itself. Changes in material conditions and social image People's lives inevitably affect the appearance of their environment. The older the monument, the less, as a rule, the character of its modern surroundings corresponds to what existed during the period of its creation. This is especially evident in large cities involved in the process of urbanization. Irreversible changes take place even where, it would seem, there are no radical redevelopments or reconstructions. The appearance of asphalt instead of wooden or stone paving, the installation of modern street lighting, and the introduction of urban vehicles actively influence the perception of both the environment and the individual monument. The natural environment of the monuments is by no means stable: trees are growing, the landscape is constantly changing.
Changes in the architecture of an individual structure occurred in parallel with changes in its surroundings. Later layers of the monument reflect this connection in various ways. Many alterations of ancient buildings were dictated by compositional considerations caused by changes in the nature of the relationship between the monument and its surroundings. Thus, the appearance of tall onion domes on the Kremlin cathedrals is certainly associated with a general change in the silhouette of the Kremlin, in particular, with the superstructure of the towers. In turn, the appearance of high hipped tops on the towers was largely due to a change in the urban planning situation, the transformation of the Kremlin from the fortified center of Moscow, surrounded by a relatively small suburb with low buildings, into the central ensemble of a large and densely built-up city. The color scheme of the Kremlin ensemble also changed: the motley combination of red-brick and white colors of the central cathedral group with the inclusion of polychrome gave way to the predominance of a monochromatic white color, which corresponded to a larger urban planning scale. This kind of compositional connections must be taken into account when assessing the monument artistically.
In addition to the compositional connections between the layers of the monument and the elements of its surroundings, there are connections of a stylistic order. Both the alterations of the monument and the change of buildings around it, not always connected by obvious compositional dependence, were carried out to a certain extent synchronously, due to which the monument received layers that, to one degree or another, corresponded to the style of the new elements of its surroundings. Sometimes they tried to completely bring the architectural language of the monument to the character of the architecture of the new period, sometimes they limited themselves to individual additions that introduced new stylistic features into the architecture of the building. As a result, very complex combinations of stylistic order arose between the monument and its architectural environment, far from the embodiment of any one style. The complexity of such relationships does not mean the absence of artistic unity. During the long life of a monument and its surroundings, a harmony of a higher order is sometimes created. Of course, completely different situations are possible and actually occur, when it is not an artistic connection that arises, but an irreconcilable dissonance. In this area, as in others, individual assessment is required based on a comprehensive consideration of various aspects.
This complex understanding of the aesthetic nature of the monument is largely due to the inherent modern worldview historicism of consciousness, manifested not only in the sphere of theoretical thinking, but also in the artistic and emotional sphere.
The main purpose of carrying out any work on an architectural monument is to extend its life as a structure of multifaceted value. Most directly this task comes down to conservation, i.e. to a set of measures aimed at protecting or strengthening a structure in its existing form. Conservation is unanimously recognized as the main type of work that should be carried out on monuments.
An important condition for extending the life of a monument is its active inclusion in the life of modern society. This goal is achieved in two ways: through the emphatic identification of the artistic and historical value of the monument (restoration) and through endowing it with a practical function (adaptation).
Unlike conservation, restoration (the literal translation of the term into Russian means “restoration”) involves making certain changes to the structure, dictated by the awareness of its special significance as a monument. Because of this, restoration is always a violation of the existing system of relationships. Therefore, it is usually considered as an exception, subject to a number of restrictions.
One of the main theoretical premises on which modern ideas about restoration are based is the recognition that the artistically valuable object that determines its direction is not the creative plan of the ancient master, but the monument existing in our time with its losses, later additions and established connections with architectural and spatial environment. The old system of ideas, according to which restoration was understood as a new adequate embodiment of the plan, is completely rejected. The idea of a repeated creative act, in which the restorer is identified with the creator of the work being restored, is an illusion that does not take into account the huge difference in the artistic perception of the masters of past eras and modern people. The restorer does not act on the ideal artistic image monument, but on its material structure. The monument in its reality appears as a keeper of artistic and historical information, which can, however, be present in it not only explicitly, but also in a hidden form, as if potentially. The intervention of a restorer can reveal the hidden part of this information, at best - with more or less exhaustive completeness. Taking an example from a related field, we can recall ancient icon, preserving the remains of ancient painting under a late entry. It is this pictorial layer revealed by the restorer that has the value of the monument, and not the original intention of the icon painter.
From the position that restoration is focused on a given existing structure, and not on a design, it follows that its goal should not be either a return to the original appearance, or the recreation of a later, but also lost, appearance (the so-called “restoration at the optimal date” ), but the maximum disclosure of the artistic qualities of the monument that has come down to us and its historically valuable features. Artistic qualities are understood in the sense mentioned above, i.e. they include the entire context of the artistic relationships that arose between the original parts of the structure and later layers, as well as between the monument and the historical architectural and spatial environment.
For the same reason, it is fundamentally not allowed to erect parts of the structure that were not implemented at the time, even if they were part of the author’s probable intention. This position remains valid not only when the original plan is reconstructed by guesswork (as was often the case in the restoration practice of the 19th century), but also when we have seemingly indisputable materials in the form of author’s drawings. There are many examples of how the final formation of the architectural appearance of buildings of the past occurred during the construction process, when the architect himself clarified and revised the previously drawn up project. This is confirmed, in particular, by a comparison of the design drawings of Bazhenov and Kazakov with the buildings of the Tsaritsyn palace complex erected under their leadership. The unrealized version of the project retains independent significance for us as a monument to the artistic thought of its era, but only the actually embodied work can be considered as an architectural monument and as an object of restoration.
Modern theory establishes a fundamentally different attitude towards layers than that which took place during the period of dominance of stylistic restoration. They are recognized not only for their own historical and artistic value as independent works reflecting the peculiarities of the culture of their time, but also for their role as components of the monument as a whole. They not only darken, distort the original artistic design structures (according to previous ideas, predominantly, if not the only valuable), but also capable of complicating and enriching the artistic structure of the monument. The Venice Charter clearly indicates that the purification of the monument from complicating layers and the unity of style are rejected as final goal restoration.
Recognition in theory of the value of later layers should not be dogmatically perceived as the need to preserve any additions to the monument. Late plaster covering an ancient painting, a faceless utilitarian extension to the facade, the latest laying of an arched passage are not only not carriers of artistic information, but in the most literal sense they obscure and distort what is valuable that is actually present in the monument. The Italian Charter of 1931 characterized this kind of stratification as “devoid of meaning and meaning.” Of course, the differences between valuable and valueless layers are not always completely obvious, and a carefully balanced differentiated assessment of each individual case is necessary.
Another general requirement for restoration is maximum preservation of authenticity. Authenticity is important from many perspectives. An ancient structure, replaced by a new copy, loses its value as a historical witness of the past, retaining only the value of a visual illustration. It no longer exists as a monument of material culture. But even as a work of art, a copy cannot claim to be adequate to the original, no matter how perfectly it is executed. Moreover, an indispensable condition for full perception work of art the viewer becomes aware of its authenticity. Partial loss of authenticity, which to one degree or another is almost inevitable during restoration, is also sensitive. This, first of all, results in a special attitude towards replacing damaged building elements. In contrast to the usual repair and construction practice, preference should be given to special strengthening methods, and only in extreme cases is the replacement of original material allowed, which should be considered a necessary evil. This general proposition is true to varying degrees in different cases. It is not indifferent whether we are talking about a centuries-old building or a relatively recent construction, about the most artistically active elements of the monument - carved details, paintings, ordinary wall masonry or hidden structures. The more historical or artistic information a particular element of a monument contains, the more obligatory the requirement of maintaining authenticity becomes.
Recognition of the importance of authenticity imposes restrictions not only on the replacement of dilapidated elements, but also on new additions made to the monument during restoration, which should not have the nature of falsification. A fundamental solution to the problem was suggested by theorists of archaeological restoration at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries: the use of a system of techniques for artificially identifying new inclusions, the so-called signature. But since the distinction between the original parts of a monument and restoration additions is carried out due to one degree or another of violating the integrity of its perception, determining the methods and measures of signification is far from a simple problem. In each individual case, an individual approach to the system for identifying restoration additions should be developed based on the specific situation.
Even if the signature is conscientiously carried out, new additions made during restoration, depending on their quantitative relationship with the surviving ancient elements, can have a negative impact on the perception of the monument as a whole, “compromise” it as a genuine work of antiquity. To prevent this undesirable effect from occurring, it is necessary that the original prevail over the restoration in the monument, and not vice versa. In the practical implementation of this requirement, it is important, however, to take into account what we mean by a monument: a fragment of an ancient building, a structure as a whole, an architectural ensemble. Depending on this, the same action of the restorer can be considered unacceptable, legal, or even necessary. Thus, a significant restoration of one of the symmetrical wings of the estate, bordering on its complete reconstruction, if considered only in relation to this wing, would probably be a violation of the norms of restoration in its modern understanding; at the same time, when correlated with the restoration of the estate as a whole, it will turn out to be just as legitimate as the restoration of the lost column of the portico. Thus, the inclusion of the assessment of the monument in the ensemble and urban planning context can lead to expanding the scope of possible restoration solutions, while allowing us to remain within the framework of the previously formulated general principles of restoration.
The possibility of restoration additions is also limited by the condition of the reliability of the reconstruction, which must be based on a strict documentary basis. According to the Venice Charter, restoration should stop where the hypothesis begins. Documentation of restoration has two sides. First of all, this is proof of principle, confirming that this element of the monument really existed and existed in the exact edition provided for by the restoration project.
However, even with an impeccable fundamental justification for restoration, determining the size, pattern, texture of the lost element is possible only with one degree or another of approximation. The construction culture of the past, based on artisanal production methods, is characterized by deviations from the ideal geometric shape and individual interpretation of each individual detail. Fixation drawings also have a lesser or greater, but in any case, a finite degree of accuracy. From this point of view, the documentary justification for restoration always remains relative, and the criterion for the admissibility of recreating lost elements is not absolute accuracy, but only relative accuracy, the degree of which depends on the conditions of visual perception. The idea of a monument as a real structure forces us to give preference to direct material remains over all other types of sources when assessing the documentary basis for restoration. On a par with them, data from fixation performed in accordance with modern standards of scientific research can be placed. But in all cases, a comparison of the entire complex of materials remains a prerequisite.
Invading the existing system of artistic relationships in order to identify certain important qualities of a monument, the restorer is obliged to carefully weigh what the new artistic whole created as a result of restoration will be. In this case, it is necessary to take into account the integrity of the perception of the monument, taken separately, and its connection with the architectural and spatial environment. In this regard, restoration includes elements not only scientific analysis, but also creativity. The means available to the restorer for achieving a new artistic unity are relatively limited, but they should not be underestimated. First of all, this is a correctly found relationship between the measure of disclosure and reconstruction. Much in the perception of the monument also depends on the skillful use of modern elements introduced into the monument, serving to ensure safety, fill gaps, etc. The height and projection of the roof, the design of the joinery, and the color scheme, in cases where they are not clearly determined by the actual restoration requirements, should be used as a means of creating artistic harmony.
The provisions stated above fix only the most general principles restoration. Almost all theoretical works in this area note that monuments and cases of restoration have an infinite variety that does not allow a dogmatic approach. Therefore, there is not and cannot be a set of strict requirements that the restorer must mechanically comply with. Restoration should be considered as a specific creative process. At the same time, making a decision on the fate of the monument cannot be entrusted to the judgment of one person, no matter how highly qualified he may be, but is confirmed by an authoritative circle of specialists.
Every city in the world has its own architectural face. Cities built several hundred years ago can boast of something that modern, young cities do not have: their history and unique architectural appearance, a certain special spirit, imprint of people and events characteristic of this particular place. Arriving in a resort or historical city, we begin our walks from the historical center, from the “old town”. Vintage not big houses, narrow streets, local color... No one goes anywhere to look at residential areas or identical panel high-rise buildings. High-rise buildings are interesting only where they really impress with their grandeur: in the emirates, New York, Shanghai, for example. That is why it is so important to preserve what already exists, what has come to us from the past, what has a history, a special unique aesthetics and uniqueness. For yourself, your self-awareness, for the continuity of generations, to preserve the beauty of the past. Cities that understand this become attractive to tourists and loved by their own residents. Many times in Ufa and other Russian cities I heard words of admiration from foreigners about our historical and architectural monuments, in particular, wooden architecture.
There is an opinion: wooden houses have a short life, and there is no point in restoring them, because... They don't have long to live. However, scientists from Tomsk State University, together with scientists from Stuttgart and Darmstadt, conducted a study of one of the wooden monuments of federal significance in the city of Tomsk and found that the service life of this wooden building, which is over 100 years old, can be up to 400 years with proper operation. What then can we say about stone architectural monuments, if with proper care wooden buildings can last up to 400 years?
The oldest surviving wooden monument in Russia, the Church of the Deposition of the Robe from the village of Borodava, erected in 1485 and moved to the city of Kirillov, stood practically without restoration until 1950, and after restoration it is now in excellent condition. More than 500 years!
So it is not true to say that the age of hundred-year-old wooden houses has already passed. They can and should be preserved, the only question is proper care and restoration.
In Europe, the attitude towards historical and architectural monuments is much more careful; they honor and are proud of their history and protect its architectural heritage. Probably many people watched the program “Heads and Tails,” where they showed houses in Lithuania, in Vilnius. These houses are very reminiscent of those in Ufa, and cost more than a million dollars, because it's cultural heritage.
Houses in Vilnius
In Norway and Finland, only objects of national importance are restored exclusively from the state budget (in Finland there are only 200 of them), and the rest, as a rule, are preserved through the joint efforts of the owners and the state. In the Bulgarian city of Nessebar and the Finnish Rauma, included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, 600 wooden monuments are preserved each, and in the Swedish Bergen - 40.
In the ancient city of Finland, Rauma, blocks of wooden historical buildings have been preserved. Old Raum is the largest historical wooden town in the Nordic countries. In total there are about 600 buildings from the 18th and early 19th centuries, most of which are privately owned. A mechanism for providing state assistance to building owners for their repair and restoration has already been worked out. Usually, state aid is 40% of the cost of work.
To support the conservation and development of Old Rauma, the Old Rauma Foundation was created, which raises funds for the preservation and development of the old city, and also offers loans for the renovation of historical buildings at central bank rates.
Old Rauma, Finland
Trondheim, Norway 
This indicates a respectful attitude towards architectural monuments both from the state and from the people themselves, whose private property is the majority of these houses.
But in Russia there are successful examples of the preservation and restoration of historical and architectural monuments.
Like, for example, in Tomsk. The city, founded in 1604, is home to 500 thousand people. The uniqueness of the historical heritage of Tomsk lies in the preservation of tracts of urban wooden buildings dating back to the 19th-20th centuries.
In total, there are about 3 thousand wooden buildings and structures in Tomsk. Of these, about 1.5 thousand are objects that have historical, architectural value or form the historical environment as background buildings. The program for the preservation and revival of wooden architecture in Tomsk and the Tomsk region, which originated as a civil initiative, then taken under the patronage of Governor Victor Kress and received the status of an official document 5 years ago, includes 701 objects. For comparison: in the Bulgarian city of Nesseber and the Finnish Rauma, included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, 600 wooden monuments are preserved, in the Swedish Bergen - 40. Thus, in the number of preserved wooden buildings, Tomsk is ahead not only of domestic Vologda and Irkutsk, but also of the world centers of wooden architecture. Although, of course, there are problems here too.
Since 2005, about sixty wooden buildings have been restored. About 380 million rubles were spent on this from the budget. At the same time, there was no separate budget item for the restoration of wooden houses. The money came out little by little. Another 70 million were raised from investors and another 20 million from the federal budget.
And here’s the case: the Sapozhnikvov House, a monument of wooden architecture in Tomsk, was resettled, set on fire several times and finally burned completely - the day after the completion of the Russian-German summit and the departure of VIPs from Tomsk. The public then created a big scandal with a rally near the burned house and a letter that collected one and a half thousand signatures. Ufa has almost twice as many residents, but when Archprotection collected signatures for the preservation of architectural monuments, there were only about 200 of them. Maybe we, as residents of our city, need to become less indifferent to our cultural heritage? After all, there is still something to save. Some corners of the city have remained almost the same as 100 years ago, and there are still wonderful monuments of wooden architecture.
Mikhailovsky E.
In scientific and specialized literature, the concept of “architectural monument” has hardly been analyzed. In the “Regulations on the Protection of Cultural Monuments”, published 20 years ago, to clarify what should be understood as architectural monuments, a simple list of all kinds of buildings and structures 1 is given, from which we can conclude that everything ever built must be protected. But no explanation was given why. In a number of subsequent resolutions and instructions, the wording is more refined, but also not complete. Despite the need to expand the basic concept, objective criteria for recognizing a building as a “monument” have not yet been developed at all. The only seemingly indisputable criterion—chronological—was not included in the instructions. In practice, therefore, there are cases when even a building of the 12th (!) century (the Church of the Annunciation in Vitebsk) was doomed to demolition without any hesitation.
The ambiguity of the concept itself, as well as for many of the public significance of architectural monuments, often leads to various errors during restoration work.
The development of this issue is necessary not only from a narrowly professional - historical-architectural point of view, but also much broader and deeper - from a general philosophical position, from the position of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. Unfortunately, we have to admit that philosophers and specialists in problems of aesthetics and culture completely ignore these, from their point of view, “applied” problems of aesthetics and, despite the wide, nationwide interest in architectural monuments, do not pay attention to these issues. Their philosophical elaboration is all the more necessary because sometimes one has to deal with an opinion that generally denies the existence of the very concept of “architectural monument” and seeks to replace it objectively existing reality the subject’s attitude towards it, his personal experience 2.
The above determined the need to begin research at the intersection of two specialties and consider essentially philosophical issues from the positions of an architect-restorer and an architectural historian, believing that possible responses to this article will help, on the one hand, to correct its possible shortcomings, and on the other hand, to study the problem generally on a scientific and philosophical basis.
In connection with the protection and restoration of architectural monuments, the following questions constantly raise bewilderment: why, given the nationwide love and deep interest of the people in architectural monuments, judgments are sometimes made that works of architecture of past centuries have no significance for the present? What, after all, are “architectural monuments” and do they really exist or do we simply consider them as such out of habit? If architectural monuments still need to be preserved, then what is their meaning and what is their significance for society? Does the art of the past, in particular architecture, have only historical, i.e. scientific significance, or does it also have aesthetic significance and represent artistic value for the broadest masses? Should modern urban planning take into account the need to preserve architectural monuments, or should they be left only when they do not bother anyone? And many other questions.
Among the numerous characteristics that are given to architectural monuments and cultural monuments, one should not forget the most important, primordial one, namely the fact that this object is an object of memory. This is the first side public value ancient buildings, which we want to celebrate here.
What is the role of physical monuments in the life of society? Let's take a simple example.
If the works of architecture of ancient Rome had not reached us as material monuments, obviously, interest in antiquity in the 15th-16th centuries. would have received a much more limited character and architecture (like culture in general) would not have acquired the appropriate incentives for development in the direction known to us.
The example of Greece is interesting and very instructive. In the middle of the 15th century. Greece was captured by the Ottoman Empire. The question of the wholesale extermination of the Greek people was repeatedly raised, and the Chios massacre shows that these were not empty threats.
At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. were open fabulous masterpieces ancient greek architecture. Publications about them by French and English researchers made a stunning impression on their contemporaries. Revived in the public consciousness, Greece and its ancient culture were on everyone’s lips. The philhellenism movement began to spread widely (in England, Germany, the USA, Austria, France). Donations were collected for the fight for the liberation of the enslaved country. Numerous groups of volunteers were formed and sent to the battlefields. At the head of one of these detachments, the famous Byron arrived in Greece in 1823, and died here. Having received strong support in world public opinion, the country and people were saved. In 1830 Greece became an independent state. It is not surprising that the first act of the independent Greek government was the symbolic restoration of one of the fallen columns of the Parthenon.
There is no people in the world and no culture that could develop without “monuments”, that is, without concrete recording of certain stages of development, and in this sense there is no fundamental difference between the “Book of Exodus” and the “Wailing Wall” or between the French Chronicles and Notre Dame Cathedral.
In our century, roads are equally important to everyone, the temples of ancient India, the Pyramid of Cheops, the Cologne Cathedral, and the Church of John the Baptist in Tolchkov are equally significant and valuable.
Material monuments thus have an extremely great importance in the progress of society and people, as well as humanity as a whole. Among them, the most durable and, if only for this reason alone, the most significant are architectural monuments. They speak even “when both songs and legends are already silent” 3.
However, the frequent statements that only particularly outstanding buildings and structures created by great people should be recognized as “architectural monuments” are completely inappropriate. Nevertheless, the fate of individual monuments is very different, and it is not possible to preserve everything that has been created by humanity over thousands of years of its development. The question of what and how should be preserved from what has come down to us lies on a different plane.
The social significance of architectural monuments is not limited, however, to their role as material monuments noted above.
Architectural monuments are forever attached to the earth - they are a very significant part of the artificial environment created by man, in which only he can exist and develop. Consequently, architectural monuments are a specific and very important component of the general, broad and great concept of the Motherland. This is one of the most valuable aspects of the public significance of architectural monuments. In this sense, architectural monuments act as incentives for patriotism. And in this function, as in the function of material monuments, architectural monuments appear not in the form of their most significant, unique examples, but in an even order of ordinary buildings, ordinary structures of different eras and centuries.
Architectural monuments often also perform a kind of artistic and figurative function of “symbolic reminder”. The “symbolic reminder” function closely connects this, as a rule, outstanding architectural monument with specific phenomena public life, the environment, and the monument begins to determine the uniqueness and, as it were, the very soul of this or that place.
There are many examples of this. A person who has visited Vilnius remembers acute feeling the constant presence in the city, wherever this person is, of Gediminas' castle on a high mountain. This castle, although it has long since been largely destroyed, defines the bright, unforgettable originality of this city, which invariably emerges in the mind at the mere mention of it. The same can be said about the Admiralty in Leningrad. In addition to its historical, historical-architectural and urban planning significance, it is so closely connected with the image of the city that it invariably comes to mind as soon as it is discussed.
Individual, especially outstanding architectural monuments, due to certain historical events, connections and associations, cease to play the role of “monuments” proper (of a specific era) and begin to be perceived in the minds of the people as direct symbols of the people themselves, their statehood, historical mission, etc. Thus, during the heyday of the Novgorod Veche Republic, the St. Sophia Cathedral was a symbol of Novgorod, a symbol of the republic itself: “Where is Sophia, there is Novgorod!” - the Novgorodians said then. The Spasskaya Tower of the Moscow Kremlin has become a kind of symbol these days Soviet state. “Stare Miasto” in Warsaw became a symbol of the revived Poland, etc. This is also one of the most valuable features of the public significance of architectural monuments, at least the most outstanding of them. The social significance of architectural monuments as an ideological and educational tool is very great. They serve a great purpose: raising the general culture of the masses to a higher level, instilling in them a sense of pride in their people, their achievements, their art, instilling in them artistic taste, a love of historical knowledge, etc.
In their role as “material monuments,” in addition to their noted significance as incentives for progress, architectural monuments also carry out their direct function as a historical source. In this function, architectural monuments actively participate in the process of cognition carried out by each person.
The boundaries and forms of the process of human cognition of the surrounding reality have changed significantly over thousands of years of human development.
For primitive man Only the present, his current activity, mattered. At best, the process of cognition could then extend to the recent past and the near future 4 . IN medieval culture the idea of time as a rectilinear vector arose, in which the present was only a point separating the past from the future 5 . At this level of culture, with a changed social consciousness, the process of cognition also began to extend to the past. (However, remnants of the desire to exclude the past from the process of knowledge are found even in our time.)
The process of historical knowledge is perhaps the basis of all social and human sciences. Architectural monuments play a huge role in this process. The famous French archaeologist and writer, founder of the French state protection of architectural monuments L. Vitae called them one of the best means for research, for historical criticism 6. This idea was further developed by the greatest Russian historian at the turn of the 20th century. I. E. Zabelin, who wrote: “... Everything that has been preserved from the former life of mankind... all this could have been preserved only under the guise of monuments... Each monument is... a witness, an eyewitness of the great, in the infinite variety of a single a matter called creativity... Only through a detailed description and investigation of all these venerable remnants of antiquity will we achieve the opportunity to clarify our history for ourselves” 7.
The social significance of architectural monuments in this regard is infinitely diverse and great, in their significance as genuine historical sources, equally important for history in its own meaning, and for the history of culture, life, construction and architecture, art, archeology, ethnography, for the history of social relations and class struggle.
It should be noted that the assertion that is often put forward is unfounded that architectural monuments as sources of knowledge may be needed by scientists, but are not needed by the average person or broad sections of the people. But Aristotle also noted that “acquiring knowledge is very pleasant not only for philosophers, but also for other people” 8 .
Architectural monuments are of great importance for another form of knowledge - for the knowledge of the sensory, since they are works of art and have the power of an emotional, aesthetic impact on a person. Although the specificity of artistic knowledge of the world around us is significantly different from the specificity of scientific knowledge, its boundaries and forms are also historically determined and the phenomenon of including the past in the sphere of artistic knowledge was determined, in general, at the same stage of historical development of mankind as for scientific knowledge.
Artistic knowledge of the past was especially developed during the Renaissance, when large sections of society acquired the ability to admire the works of art of the ancients. This determined a significant leap in the development of universal human culture. At that time, however, this appeal of artistic knowledge to the past had only a limited, selective character. In our time, the general cultural level has risen higher, and it has assumed a comprehensive character.
The Soviet viewer is equally capable of aesthetic perception of ancient Egyptian sculpture, and the buildings of the Athens Acropolis, and the statues of the Naumburg Cathedral, and the paintings of Raphael, and the works of Russian classicism. But in the sphere of artistic knowledge, as well as scientific knowledge, even in our time one can note attempts to exclude from consideration the recent, and even more so the distant past. The fight against these relics is still ongoing.
There are often people, even among architects, who consider it possible to remove the art of past centuries, including architectural monuments, from the field of artistic knowledge, and limit the aesthetic perception of the “advanced” person exclusively to the art and architecture of our time.
The social significance of architectural monuments, determined by their artistic merits and ability to aesthetically influence a person, is exceptionally great. Here they act as direct and very active factors of cultural progress. Karl Marx noted that an object of art—and every other product as well—creates an audience that understands art and is capable of enjoying beauty. The preservation of objects of art, in this case architectural monuments, is, therefore, one of the most important prerequisites for the development of culture.
The aesthetic impact of architectural monuments on humans is multifaceted. Architecture, like other arts, reflects its time. By perceiving the figurative side of architectural creativity, the viewer receives a clear idea of the corresponding era - he perceives it freshly and clearly. Just as in other arts, in architecture the viewer also perceives eternally valuable, not associated with a specific period, achievements of the creative spirit, the significance of which is eternal. The process of perceiving these enduring values provides an intense emotional impact of an architectural monument on a viewer of any century.
The concept of “beauty” in architecture is still waiting for its researcher. It is possible that it is close to the three theses that one of the philosophers, paraphrasing Aristotle, defined as: integrity or perfection, due proportion or consonance and clarity 9 . But one way or another, the viewer’s contemplation of the beauty objectively present in an architectural monument (his knowledge of this beauty) significantly enriches spiritual world person, endows him with a new, more elevated worldview, a new system of figurative concepts and ideas.
This aspect of the public value of listed buildings is associated with outstanding works of architecture. It requires conservation of an ancient building or its highly skilled restoration.
The actual aesthetic side of the artistic impact of architectural monuments seems much more complex. Aesthetic perception of art monuments. architecture, their impact on our feelings, the emotions determined by this can be associated with a number of reasons, determined, in turn, not only by the monument itself and its qualities, but also by a person’s attitude towards it, in other words, by the spiritual world of the viewer himself as a member of society.
When we talk about the actual aesthetic impact of architectural monuments on the viewer, we first of all mean the feeling of beauty they evoke. Among the numerous characteristics of the concept of “beautiful,” we would like to note here the one that brings “beautiful” closer to the aesthetic ideal, i.e., the one that is probably reflected with sufficient completeness in the famous statement of N. G. Chernyshevsky “... beautiful that being in which we see life as it should be according to our concepts” 10.
Noting that a person imagines an aesthetic ideal as something that, according to our concepts, life (or an object in general) should be, but what it is not yet, N. G. Chernyshevsky came very close to the usual formula of the viewer, who, when perceiving an object, does not engages, of course, in philosophical reasoning, but intuitively, unconsciously perceives “beautiful” as, say, “better than he himself”, or “better than he could imagine”, and at the same time as the best for which he himself strives 11.
In such an intuitive, but socially determined idea of beauty, there is always the presence of two other adjacent, albeit distinct concepts: “progressive” and “new”, to some extent unexpected, unimaginable. Thus, “beautiful” is perceived as aesthetic, correlated with social progress.
The words of N. G. Chernyshevsky are addressed to the objects of life around us as such. When they talk about the perception of beauty in art, the expression: “better than myself, what I strive for” can only characterize the first stage of aesthetic perception. For this stage, the viewer is primarily interested in “what” the work of art depicts or represents. And it is precisely for this stage that the accompanying concepts of “novelty” and “progressiveness” are so essential. These concepts, by the way, always provide, at this stage of aesthetic perception, a prevailing recognition of the art of our time compared to the art of the past, as long as they meet social needs.
But in relation to objects of art, there is also, as it were, a second stage of aesthetic perception of beauty, when the idea (intuitive, of course) “better than I could imagine” is also joined by the idea (in a conditional, simplified form, of course) “better than I could ever do it even if I were an artist.” From this position begins the perception of art itself in a cultural monument, in its inextricable and equivalent synthesis of form and content, its perception as a work of art. Here, naturally, the idea of art means the whole complex set of issues related to this: image, composition, skill and technique. Here, along with what is presented, how it is executed is also of significant importance.
At this stage of his aesthetic perception, the viewer, as an individual and as a member of society, is already equally or almost equally capable of admiring the art of both modern times and past centuries. He becomes a “connoisseur of art.”
Speaking about the aesthetic perception of “beautiful” in architectural monuments, we naturally mean mainly outstanding architectural monuments, outstanding as works of art.
The aesthetic value of architectural monuments is not limited, however, to the sense of beauty. When contemplating ancient works of art, it usually gives pleasure to perceive their antiquity, to look at stones worn out over thousands of years, feeling the pride of a person who is able to create on eternal times, and feel, in general, the same distance between the real and the ideal as when perceiving the “beautiful,” but in the opposite aspect: the viewer, as a potential creator of a work of architecture, associates the idea of the “ideal” with himself, and the idea of the “ideal” with the monument. "real".
Ancient monuments as an object of aesthetic perception make it clear why for the viewer, in general, it makes no difference whether there is an outstanding or ordinary architectural monument in front of him, although an outstanding building is aesthetically more complete.
Ancient monuments that are perceived aesthetically do not require restoration, since ruins are sometimes perceived even more acutely than entire buildings. Taking into account this peculiarity of the perception of ancient monuments, conservation work should be carried out primarily on them.
In the aesthetic perception of architectural monuments, another feeling plays a significant role - the feeling of pride in a human creator who, from the chaos of amorphous building materials, can create a perfect and complete whole, an aesthetically valuable mass and a space that has never existed before. In this aesthetic complex, architectural monuments are able to act, as Gorky put it, “on the feelings and mind as a force that arouses in people surprise, pride and joy at their ability to create” 12.
This aesthetic complex, which can be conditionally called the complex of creativity, is especially aggravated in outstanding buildings, while ordinary buildings, as a rule, have almost no influence. In this case, a complete restoration of architectural monuments is required.
It is not possible here to consider the various sociological aspects of the problem - their complexity is so great that it would require a separate article on these issues. But, probably, one of them cannot be omitted, which has a comprehensive significance and determines the use of architectural monuments for mass recreation and enhancement of culture.
Any works of art - literature, music, painting, architecture - in the process of artistic perception (in addition to everything that has been said) introduce a person into a different, unusual world for him - into a world of a different scale, rhythm, color, proportions, connections, structure. This transition to another world gives a person the intense psychological relaxation he needs, providing complete rest and at the same time the active mobilization of his intellectual and creative forces for further activities. The massive display of architectural monuments, the accumulation of them, produces a particularly strong impression and provides a particularly strong release. This, to a certain extent, explains for many the incomprehensible and seemingly mysterious attraction of hundreds of thousands of people to the quiet, narrow streets of old Tallinn, to ancient Suzdal, to the remote quarters of Khiva and Samarkand.
This, to a certain extent still superficial, analysis of some aspects of the social significance of architectural monuments allows us to find an approach to defining what should actually be understood as an architectural monument. (Other aspects of it can, of course, be considered, for example, the role of architectural monuments in the formation of national cultures and traditions, their value for the country’s economy, etc.)
Thus, the essential determining factors for an architectural monument as such are: its role as a “material monument,” i.e., a stimulus for progress, its significance as a historical source and its aesthetic value.
Material monuments can be not only architectural monuments, but also other products of human activity, and there is no significant difference in the impact of their different types on humans. Therefore, while recognizing the extremely important role of architectural monuments in this function, we must still take into account that it is not their significance that is leading in the definition of the basic concept. The same should be said about the role of architectural monuments as “historical sources”. In the second case, many people are inclined, however, to consider the definition of architectural monuments as historical sources to be the main component of the concept, since the history of art itself is unthinkable without the presence of its monuments. But in the end, we must still admit that the main component of the concept of “architectural monument” from those listed is its ability to have an emotional impact on the viewer, its artistic value, since the specifics of the aesthetic impact of architectural monuments differ significantly from the specifics of other types of art and other “monuments”.
So, an “architectural monument” should be recognized as any “work of architecture” (i.e., a creative concept embodied in an appropriate form), valuable at the same time as a “historical source” and possessing the properties of a “material monument,” i.e., a stimulus for progress. This work of architecture may have an objectively inherent beauty, but it may not have it. But this work of architecture must certainly have the ability to have an aesthetic impact on a socially determined viewer, that is, it must arouse in a person a sense of beauty, or a sense of creativity, or at least an aesthetic perception of antiquity, or all three together.
In accordance with these main determinants of an “architectural monument” and what was said earlier, one can appear before us (and remain) both in the form of ruins, and in the form of a building that has received numerous (but artistically valuable) layers or changes, and in the form of a solid, finished building. the original concept of the work (Exchange in Leningrad, etc.).
Although the leading definition of the concept itself, as said, is the artistic significance of architectural monuments, in each specific building any of these three main definitions may prevail.
Thus, in the St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, if all three components are present in it, the main thing, obviously, is its meaning as a “material monument” (its meaning as a “historical source” is weakened by later layers), the Golden Gate in Kyiv is valuable primarily as a “historical source”, The Admiralty in Leningrad is primarily as a “work of architecture,” etc.
The problems of protecting architectural monuments are very complex, and when the question arises of preserving something built earlier or demolishing it, it is necessary to carry out “ natural selection" But it should be emphasized with particular insistence that determining, for example, the artistic significance of a particular building of past centuries is only possible for a scientist, since the above-mentioned features of the building in many cases turn out to be hidden under later layers and are discovered only as a result of research, which is usually preceded by the study of literary sources and necessary archival research.
It is even more difficult to determine the artistic merits of a newly built building, when perceiving which the feeling of “novelty” usually drowns out all the accompanying sensations, and often obscures or even distorts the perception of “beauty”. As an example, it can be noted that only after 30-35 years were we able to truly, maturely appreciate both the aesthetic significance of some buildings of the 20s, and their role as stimuli for progress, that is, as “material monuments.” It is much more difficult to establish the value of a particular building as a “historical resource.”
At the same time, restore the architectural monument destroyed “by mistake”, at least in its aesthetic value, in its meaning of “historical source” and “material monument”, is no longer possible. But in its didactic meaning, in the sociological aspect, and also when a given building is only part of a significant whole - an ensemble or a large urban planning plan - in all such cases it can be restored and replaced with a copy, even if it is completely destroyed.
Based on the foregoing, it becomes obvious with what high degree of general culture and responsibility the relevant institutions, like the designing architects and urban planners themselves, should approach the decision of the fate of every ancient building they encounter along the way. The classification of an architectural monument, i.e. its inclusion in the state lists, is only part of a large complex and painstaking process of protecting architectural treasures, is only one of its stages, establishing a comprehensive and scientifically based public recognition of the inviolability of an already studied and researched building. The classification determines that unshakable minimum of surviving structures of the past, which should not be endangered under any circumstances. The task of an educated, cultural and creatively gifted architect is to be able to include in the composition of the reconstructed parts of the city architectural monuments that are valuable in at least one of their three most important qualities.
So, we have established that an architectural monument is any “work of architecture”, which at the same time has significance as a “historical source” and as a “material monument”. But what should be understood by “work of architecture”?
A work of architecture is not always just a building, but also its connections with the surrounding space, surrounding buildings, and the landscape. At the same time, this is the natural landscape itself (plantings, squares, gardens, parks), organized by man and adapted to his needs. Thus, a work of architecture can be a street, a square, and sometimes an entire district of the city. Thus, undoubtedly, the center of Leningrad, the Old Town in Tallinn, etc. are a work of architecture, complete and artistically complete.
Already from the Renaissance, when projects of ideal cities arose, an idea was formed not only of individual ensembles, but also of the whole city as a work of architecture. And we really know examples of such “works of architecture” - artistically organized, aesthetically complete, perfect creations of urban art, on the creation of which many generations of architects consistently worked - these are Venice, Florence, Paris, etc. Such complete creations of the creative genius of man are also , of course, must be protected.
Protecting a city as an “architectural monument” poses very difficult tasks for the architect, and this aspect of urban planning is often overlooked. At the same time, it is necessary to value and preserve not only the old buildings, but also the planning network, the ancient core of the city, etc. For example, when designing the reconstruction of Minsk, a big mistake was that the ancient city center - Zamchishche - was not included in the design planning or landscape means that the Nemiga River, known since ancient times, and the ancient streets of this ancient city were forgotten 13.
Architecture, as an artificial environment created by man, is conquering more and more spaces from nature and capturing more and more new territories. But this is a process not only of territorial growth, but also of creative development of the concept, which must be taken into account when talking about the city as a whole.
In past centuries, architecture developed relatively slowly. Each of the new styles added a small number of buildings and ensembles to the city, and their construction itself lasted long enough for the architect to find extra-left forms and techniques for coordinating and compositionally linking the new with the old. The development of architecture in the hands of a talented master is associated with the addition and development of what was created before, as Quarenghi, Rossi, Zakharov and other brilliant architects did. In our time, trying to preserve wonderful, original works that enhance the beauty of the city (which are both its historical center and ancient areas), we need to focus on creating ensembles or artistically complete complexes of new and ancient areas of historically valuable cities. This is required not only by simple protection and protection of previously created values, but also artistic principles and the requirements of architecture itself as a phenomenon of art.
1 Instructions on the procedure for accounting, registration, maintenance and restoration of architectural monuments. M., 1949.
2 To a certain extent, this idea is carried out in V. Glazychev’s article “The Monument Within Us.” " decorative arts USSR", No. 135, 1969, pp. 16-18; even more - in his article “Central Russian Disneyland”. Both articles, however, are written in sociological rather than philosophical terms.
3 N.V. Gogol. Poly. collection soch., vol. 6, M, 1952. page 64.
4 A. Ya. Gurevich. Time as a problem in the history of culture. "Questions of Philosophy", No. 3, 1969, p. 106.
5 Ibid., p. 115.
6 L. Vitet. Monographie de l'eglise Notre Dame tie Novon Paris, 1845, p. 2 etc.
7 I. E. Zabelin. History and antiquities of Moscow. M., 1867, p. 29.
8 “Ancient thinkers about art.” 2nd ed. M, 1938, p. 153.
9 According to Aristotle: order, proportionality and certainty. Metaph. XIII, 3, 1078 a, 34.
10 N. G. Chernyshevsky. Poly. collection soch., t. 2, 1949, p. 40.
11 What is meant here is not an abstract, but a socially determined viewer, that is, a subject who expresses in his actions and judgments not only his “I”, but through him the dominant social consciousness of his era.
12 M. Gorky. Selected literary critical articles. M., 1941, p. 297.
The preservation of historical and cultural heritage sites has long been declared a task of national importance.
The preservation of historical and cultural heritage sites has long been declared a task of national importance. However, examples of successful “adaptation” of old buildings to modern context are still rare. How to put historical buildings into business and economic circulation and motivate the owners to care and diligently? This question is relevant for all regions of Russia. And everyone is looking for their own way.
The object must live
According to the regional department of cultural heritage, there are more than 2 thousand historical, cultural and archeological monuments in the Ulyanovsk region. On state security There are about 1.5 thousand cultural and historical monuments and 500 archaeological monuments. Moreover, 80% of buildings recognized as cultural heritage sites are privately owned. And of the remaining 20%, regional and municipal property account for approximately the same amount - 10% each.
How to use these buildings? What needs to be done to ensure that they are preserved and restored, without disturbing their visual perception and basic characteristics, thereby not damaging the object of protection? Questions more painful than each other. Two positions: “keep them out” and “encourage” them - have coexisted for a long time and with varying victories. However, recently the dominant point of view is that preserving an object of historical heritage means maintaining it and using it wisely.
I am for the architectural monument to live and for this building to be used. Including for economic purposes. If a building is not used, it begins to collapse,” says department director Sharpudin Khautiev.
And he continues:
I am often surprised by comments on social networks, on the pages of online publications, when they write: what right did they have to sell an architectural monument? Monuments of history and culture are the same real estate objects. They can be rented, sold, donated, or inherited. The question is: how to use them? Of course, we prohibit placing production in a cultural heritage site: if machines are installed in a building that is more than a hundred years old, vibration will lead to its gradual destruction. We are also very careful about the objects in which the points are located Catering. We have special control over these. But we do not impose bans on businesses. We simply say what can be done and what cannot be done. And we make sure to include this in the security obligations.
However, business is very careful in acquiring buildings included in the register of historical and cultural heritage sites. And a modern sign of a crisis economy is the abandonment of these objects - with reference to strict and financially intensive security regulations.
Khautiev's counterarguments are quite reasonable. Any building requires maintenance and repair, it good condition needs to be supported. But if you own an architectural monument, then in addition to you, the state also takes care of your property. It is interested in ensuring that these objects are preserved, and therefore in ensuring that the owner takes measures to preserve the unique object that he owns.
Question - how much does it cost to keep a building in good condition? And is it always necessary to hold out to the last, defending the right of an ancient house to exist?
Who needs it, special status
Disputes between historians, architects, developers and townspeople over the preservation of the historical appearance of Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk either subside or flare up with new strength. Sometimes developing into conflicts, victories in which go to each side with varying degrees of success. Does the city benefit from this in principle? There is no clear answer to this question.
They demolished a practically completed four-story residential building next door to Livchak’s “Teremok”, they did not allow the construction of the Marriott hotel next to the Church of All Saints on Minaev Street - this is from the recent past. We lost entire pieces of the historical streets of Radishchev and Krasnogvardeiskaya -
from the modern, but already the past. For example, where the regional children's hospital stands, there were two historical buildings that belonged to the photographer Gorbunov. Many family photos of Simbirsk and Ulyanovsk residents were taken here. What is more important - to preserve these two houses or to build a modern hospital? This question is hardly rhetorical.
Starting from the corner of Krasnogvardeyskaya and ending with the turn to Goncharova, to Plastov Boulevard, there was also ordinary development,” says Olga Sveshnikova, chairman of the board of the Ulyanovsk branch of VOOPiK. - But ordinary does not mean bad. There were two or three monuments, but they were there. The main thing is that the line was saved. Once you remove one or two houses from this line, the meaning of preservation is immediately lost. Just like the famous Teremok. Additions appeared, but two or three historical buildings remained. So what?.. Or take the house where Dmitry Ulyanov lived. It was protected as historical. The owners live in Kazakhstan and come to Ulyanovsk periodically. And they can’t sell the house, because the sale comes with the burden of security, and they can’t maintain it, since it’s a big expense. You look at the house, all warped, and think: maybe it’s better that it doesn’t exist?..
And townspeople, including interested entrepreneurs, recall the failed pedestrian streets in modern Ulyanovsk. The intention to close part of Karl Marx Street from the intersection with Goncharova Street to Karamzinsky Square from traffic was, perhaps, a project. But the Federation pedestrian street could take place. The first attempts to implement this project are almost 20 years old. At that time, many historical buildings were still preserved in the Federation, and the business located here was ready to invest both in the repair of facades and in its conceptual development - with a tourist and entertainment focus.
Today there is an object of regional significance - the landmark “Fair Quarter”. The project was developed by the architectural studio "Simbirskproekt". In fact, a place of interest is one integral monument of history and culture, within which certain urban planning regimes are permitted. However, this is where everything has stalled for now.
There are boundaries, regimes are defined, but in order to fill it all inside, we need at least some kind of big concept, in the development of which museum workers, architects, art historians, and tenants should participate, says Olga Sveshnikova. - Not yet.
Meanwhile, there is an interesting experience from Samara. At the Moscow Urban Forum in October, Vitaly Stadnikov, the former chief architect of this city, and now the deputy dean of the Higher School of Urbanism, spoke about it:
We once created the public organization “Samara for the People” -
to help residents of the historical part register ownership of the land, because this is the only protection against the construction of any objects there... In fact, a mechanism for creating alternative development programs for the territories has matured. A master plan for the historical part of Samara is currently being developed. As a result, we managed to enter the strategic planning group, and this is a law of the city of Samara, adopted until 2025. And through this group of so-called spatial development, a mechanism has emerged for projecting solutions that are developed in an alternative way.
The principle of "carrot" and "stick"
In the Ulyanovsk region there is an interdepartmental working group to combat illegal development on the territory of places of interest.
And what about promoting the legal inclusion of historical buildings in modern business circulation?..
Of course, we understand perfectly well that the principle of business is making a profit. Entrepreneurs need to demolish a rotten one-story house and build a multi-story building with a large area. There is a “stick” for violators (serious penalties), but there must also be a “carrot,” said the director of the Middle Volga branch of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Institute “Spetsproject”” at a meeting of the “DO” round table.
restoration" Yuri Kozlov. - After all, in fact, sometimes it is more profitable to destroy an object than to carry out repair and restoration work.
Both entrepreneurs and historians agree with Yuri Kozlov’s proposal to introduce tax and other benefits for owners of cultural heritage sites if they invest money in their preservation. However, despite the fact that the federal law on cultural heritage objects will soon be 20 years old, a clear mechanism of preferences has not been developed.
Such a mechanism could well be a public-private partnership; fortunately, there is already a regional law on PPP in Ulyanovsk and a federal law. For example, a concession agreement: an entrepreneur undertakes the responsibility for restoring a cultural heritage site, and the building is provided to him by the city (if it is municipal property) for rent at a minimum fixed price, taking into account all repair costs. At the end of the agreement, the building must be returned to the city. If the parties do not agree to extend the contract.
Today, the city of Cherepovets talks about an example of such agreements. Without forgetting to emphasize that these are the first concession agreements in Russia that were concluded with the aim of restoring a cultural heritage site. Are they the first? Just take my word for it.
In Ulyanovsk, according to a similar scheme, ten years ago it was returned to active life building on Goncharova Street, 50. It was reconstructed and restored by the Ulyanovsk-GSM company: it improved its conditions and preserved the historical appearance of the city. To this day, when it comes to a successful example of the “integration” of commercial structures into the historical environment, most business owners and officials remember this particular object.
Meanwhile, a rather attractive mechanism has been proposed for federal property. In September, a decree of the Government of the Russian Federation came into force, which makes it possible to hand over objects of historical and cultural heritage requiring restoration into private hands for 49 years for one ruble.
A huge block of federal monuments, thousands and thousands, are in deplorable condition! Now, thanks to this resolution, if you have repaired it, you can do whatever you want there, you can develop a business there. Forty-nine years is two generations. Almost eternal possession,” Russian Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky said at the September congress of restorers in Kazan.
However, we are talking about a conditional price: one ruble is the starting price of the auction, as a result of which the real rental price will appear. It is clear that the standard contract will spell out the conditions for terminating the contract if the tenant does not fulfill his obligations. The criteria for an object being in unsatisfactory condition are defined by another government decree.
But, we repeat, this is a decision for federal property. What about regional and municipal?
The Department of the Ulyanovsk Region for Cultural Heritage says that together with district administrations, the issue of selling architectural monuments at the minimum price was discussed, but with the condition that the new owners will invest in the preservation of these objects and sign security obligations. The initiative did not take root. First of all, because such objects are interesting not in the outback, but in large cities, where they can actually do business.
According to regional patterns?
However, the first measures of regional support have already appeared. In 2014, the Government of the Ulyanovsk region adopted a resolution to provide subsidies to reimburse costs associated with the preservation of cultural and historical heritage sites of regional significance. Individuals, public and non-profit organizations, and individual entrepreneurs can count on state support. To do this, a number of conditions must be met. Restoration project or repair work must be agreed with the regional Ministry of Art and Cultural Policy. The contractor must be an organization that has the appropriate license from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation
(there are 15 of them in Ulyanovsk). The contractor's requirements must be open and understandable (an estimate must be provided). The fact of payment for work must be documented. And then 50% of the cost of the work performed is reimbursed by the state.
This measure has already been appreciated by the Simbirsk Metropolis of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Regional Spiritual Administration of Muslims of the Ulyanovsk Region. With individuals it is more difficult. The owners of buildings recognized as historical heritage sites are often elderly and low-income people. Payment after the fact is unacceptable for them: they can bear the costs of project documentation, repair and restoration “according to the rules” they are simply not able to do. Therefore, in 2016, the region plans to approach the situation differently - not to reimburse costs, but to provide funds in advance.
“My greatest fear is that such objects in the regions are doomed to destruction,” says Sharpudin Khautiev. - Therefore, it is very important for us that people live there and preserve these buildings.
A person lives in a house and wants to preserve it for posterity,” says Olga Sveshnikova. - For example, a wooden house with interesting beautiful decor, the author of the project is also known. The owner maintains its historical appearance with his own efforts. But once a building is put under protection, as an object of cultural heritage, a security obligation is concluded with the owner. And from now on he is obliged to carry out any repair and restoration work through projects and examinations, which requires a lot of money. I sometimes think: perhaps this legislation is designed for reputable cities in terms of historical heritage -
St. Petersburg, Pskov, Vologda, Vladimir, where considerable funds are allocated from the state budget for the preservation of cultural heritage, including the restoration of immovable monuments.
By the standards of the capital, our objects are more “modest”, but this is our history, our monuments, and we must preserve them.
Everything related to the protection of cultural heritage sites has already been adopted at the legislative level, experts say. It's time to think about supporting those who own them. It is impossible to equate all objects classified as historical and cultural monuments, as well as the requirements for these objects. The price categories of buildings located in Moscow and, say, in the Sengileevsky district of the Ulyanovsk region vary significantly. The income of the people who live in these buildings also varies.
The protection and preservation of objects of historical and cultural heritage is regulated by Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On objects of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of peoples Russian Federation"from 06.25.2002. Legislation classifies objects older than 100 years as archaeological monuments. Architectural monuments include buildings that are at least 40 years old. A historical monument can be younger than 40 if it is associated with a famous person or is of a memorial nature.
For those who live in the village, these houses are usual place residence, and it is impossible to drive them into a dead end with strict restrictions and encumbrances, -
Sharpudin Khautiev believes. - In my opinion, there is a big gap in the legislation. There must be a different approach to these people. We need to think about serious measures to stimulate them, about how we can help them. Bringing to justice a person who lives on one pension, fining him - sometimes the hand does not rise. He will simply leave this property; he does not need such a house. And then what will happen to the building?
How to work with the cultural environment
There is one more question “on topic”: how successful are attempts to preserve the environment through pseudo-historical remakes? At city planning councils, conflicts of opinion often arise regarding the central part of the city. And it concerns not so much the preservation of historical heritage as the architectural appearance of new objects.
If you look at modern architecture, which tries to claim historicity, there are no good examples. Neither in the center of Ulyanovsk, nor in the city in general. In the country it is, but somehow it didn’t happen in Ulyanovsk,” Sergei Frolov, deputy chairman of the Ulyanovsk branch of the Union of Architects of Russia, is categorical.
The dominant view in much of the architectural community is that every building should be of its time. Pseudo-historical remakes often cause nothing but rejection.
In Russia there are quite striking examples of such “historicism,” notes Sergei Frolov. - I was struck by the picture in Moscow’s Pykhov-Tserkovny Proezd. The neoclassical building by Mikhail Filippov, with columns, balusters, cornices - it seems beautiful. But when the gaze slid to the right to the real Stalinist Empire style - everything fell into place! Simple, natural architecture outshines modern patterns - a living classic! I think, modern building must speak modern plastic language. This could be a modest glass façade that will highlight a historical heritage site. There is no need to play hide and seek with him, you need to have your own face.
Everyone who is interested in preserving historical heritage must, first of all, work with the cultural environment, with the formation of citizens’ interest in historical and cultural monuments, an understanding of their value and significance, according to the Union of Architects. Unfortunately, rich people still have no desire to show off not just an expensive, beautiful house, but the fact that this house has some cultural layers, historical layers. And business structures for the most part consider housing in historical buildings not an advantage for business, but a burden.
We need to somehow introduce a fashion for living in a historical building, for working in a historical building,” says Sergei Frolov. - So that a person, setting up an office in such a building, not only sees problems and burdens, but feels connected to the culture of the nobility or to some layer of historical heritage. So that it would be cool and prestigious.
Of course, this process is slow. But we need to start small. The Ulyanovsk branch of the Union of Architects of Russia, for example, held a series of lectures on urban planning in October. For everyone.
The architectural school of Sergei Kangro has been operating on the basis of the construction lyceum in Ulyanovsk for the third year. And excursions to the architectural monuments of Simbirsk-Ulyanovsk, organized by creative space“The Quarter” on the site of the museum courtyard of the Goncharov House has become a real event today
this summer.
Several years ago, at one of the DO round tables, there was a proposal to make Ulyanovsk, following the example of Moscow and St. Petersburg, a Historical Heritage Day. What it is. People who are in historical buildings understand the prestige of this building for their business. Once a year, the doors open - it doesn’t matter whether it’s a construction company, a treasury office or a bank - and everyone is invited on a tour. The owners tell guests about their building, its history, and how they carry out continuity. Historical Heritage Day can be designated as a single day in the city. Or everyone would choose this day for themselves. The proposal seemed interesting, but Historical Heritage Day never entered the business and cultural life of Ulyanovsk.
However, residents of the city and anyone interested in its history and architecture should know that you can visit any object of historical and cultural heritage that is of interest.
The security obligation for each such facility stipulates: to ensure unimpeded access to the building for everyone on specified days or hours. This is done to popularize the historical heritage.
With any appeal from citizens who are not indifferent to their history and architecture, we coordinate all actions with the owner and provide access to the building they would like to visit, the Department of Cultural Heritage told DO.
Lyudmila Ilyina
Photo: S. Larin
