At RISI, experts discussed the issues of studying, preserving and developing historical and cultural territories in the context of strategic tasks of spatial development of Russia
In the strategic planning documents of the Russian Federation, issues of the progressive development of the country, as well as strengthening its competitiveness in the world, are increasingly linked to the tasks of spatial development and preservation of the national cultural, historical and natural heritage of Russia.In March 2018, in the annual Message Federal Assembly The President put forward the idea of rolling out a large-scale program for Russia's spatial development, including the development of cities and other populated areas, doubling spending on these goals over the next six years.
On September 20 and 26, RISI hosted round tables on such current topics How“Study, preservation and development of historical and cultural territories of the European part of Russia” And"Russia in conservation cultural heritage abroad."
A representative pool of Russian experts from a number of specialized organizations took part in the discussion of this topic:MArchI;public movement "Arkhnadzor"; Directorate of the International Cultural Forum; Institute of Linguistics RAS; Institute of Social Policy, National Research University Higher School of Economics; NPO energy, urban planning and strategic development NIIPI General Plan; Analytical agency "Center"; Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences; architectural company RTDA LLC. Among the discussion participants were representativesRussian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage named after. D.S. Likhachev and the House of Russian Abroad named after Alexander Solzhenitsyn, as well as expertsInternational Research Center (ICCROM) and the International Council for the Conservation of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
Head of the Center for the Study, Preservation and Development of Historical and Cultural Territories (CISiRICT)O.V. Ryzhkov, speaking about the goals and objectives of the Center of the structural division of RISI, created in April 2018, he emphasized the difficulty of implementing a dual task: on the one hand, to preserve, on the other, to develop. To develop approaches to solving this problem, namely the preservation and reproduction of historical and cultural identity as a factor in the socio-economic development of territories and the increase in human capital, competent specialists gathered at RISI.
It is clear that this complex issue cannot be exhausted by one or two discussions. There will be a long and thoughtful conversation, exchange of opinions, and discussions. It is required to become familiar with the directions and results of research, as well as with the accumulated experience of organizations and institutions working in the field of studying and preserving the historical and cultural heritage of small towns and settlements.The task of the Center and these round tables is to create a new expert platform within which a systematic discussion of these problems by leading Russian experts and government representatives would be possible.
During the events, a number of topical issues were raised, including:
– development of regional programs for the conservation and use of cultural heritage using foreign experience organization of recreational and event tourism to historical cities (N.V. Maksakovsky, National Research University Higher School of Economics);
– creating a comfortable environment in historical settlements based on the results of the All-Russian competition among small historical towns (M.V.Sedletskaya , agency "Center");
– development of a conceptual apparatus (“historical city”, “historical settlement”, “historical territory”, etc.) as a tool for more accurately classifying objects as historical territories and determining their boundaries (N.F. Solovyova, Deputy Director of IHMC RAS).
The experts were also provided with important information about the activities of ICCROM in Russia (N.N. Shangina, member of the ICCROM Council, Chairman of the Council of the Union of Restorers of St. Petersburg), as well as current problems facing the Russian ICOMOS Committee and the Russian heritage protection system as a whole (N.M. Almazova, VVice-President of the National Committee of ICOMOS of Russia, Vice-President of the Union of Restorers of Russia). Speech by the head of the Center for World Heritage and International Cooperation of the Research Institute named after. D.S. LikhachevaN.V.Filatova was devoted to issues of international cooperation in the field of heritage protection, in particular the efforts of the Russian Federation to preserve Orthodox monasteries in Kosovo; activities of employees of the Research Institute named after. D.S. Likhachev in Syria.
ZHead of the Department of International and Interregional Cooperation of the House of Russian Abroad named after Alexander SolzhenitsynE.V.Krivova reported on the directions of work of the House of Russian Abroad. And Deputy Director of the Research Institute named after. D.S. LikhachevaE.V.Bakhrevsky presented a guide to the history and culture of Russia in Japan prepared by the Heritage Institute and drew the attention of the round table participants to the need to study in foreign countries the influence of not only Russian culture, but also the culture of other peoples of Russia.
In general, the participants in the expert meetings came to the conclusion that it is necessary to exchange experience and coordinate the work of organizations and institutions dealing with issues of historical and cultural heritage on a regular basis in order to increase the efficiency of this work and reduce the risks of duplication. The importance of strengthening control over construction and restoration work in historical settlements was emphasized in order to preserve local cultural identity. In this regard, it is advisable to assess the prospects for creating a working group of the expert community on the revival, preservation and development of historical and cultural territories.
Address of the President to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018:kremlin. ru/ events/ president/ news/56957
The cultural and historical heritage largely shapes the mentality, the continuity of humanitarian values and preserves traditions. Objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation represent a unique value for the entire multinational people of the Russian Federation and are an integral part of the world cultural heritage. At the same time, the cultural and historical heritage of cities is one of the resources for the spiritual and economic development of Russia. Cultural preservation - historical heritage- the basis for the further development of society; it is the constitutional duty of every citizen of the country. “Everyone is obliged to take care of the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, to protect historical and cultural monuments,” says the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 44.3). However, the physical condition of more than half of the historical and cultural monuments of Russia under state protection continues to deteriorate and is characterized in our time as unsatisfactory. Monuments of nature, history and culture of Russia make up a significant share in the cultural and natural heritage of the world, making a major contribution to the sustainable development of our country and human civilization as a whole, which predetermines the highest responsibility of the Russian people and state for preserving their heritage and passing it on to subsequent generations. Currently, there is a problem of both the preservation of cultural heritage and its relevance. The cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia is in a difficult state. Today there is destruction of historical and cultural monuments; only about 35% are in good or satisfactory condition. All this leads to the loss of cultural interaction between generations and the destruction national culture. In this regard, the reconstruction of historical monuments, support of local traditions and customs and the preservation of the historical and cultural heritage of Russian cities is a necessary requirement for their revival and relevance. And the use of cultural heritage as a priority resource will contribute to the socio-economic development of these cities. Currently, the low level of tourist attractiveness of the cultural and historical heritage of Russian cities does not contribute to the creation of conditions for their conservation and sustainable development. State protection of cultural heritage sites is one of the important sectors of the socio-economic development of cities. The loss of cultural property is irreplaceable and irreversible. The accumulation and preservation of cultural values is the basis for the development of civilization. One of the urgent tasks of domestic policy in the field of cultural heritage is to overcome the lag of the Russian Federation in the use of heritage from many countries of the world, its widespread inclusion in the concept of sustainable development of both individual regions and the country as a whole, improvement of organizational, economic and legal mechanisms for preservation and use of cultural heritage sites. The basis of the historical, cultural and natural potential of Russia is made up of objects of cultural and historical heritage, for example, such as historical settlements, estate museums, museum reserves, national and natural parks, nature reserves and others, located in different parts of Russia and attracting tourists. It is in such cities that traditions, cultural and historical values and attractions are preserved, there are the most favorable organizational, managerial and other prerequisites for the preservation, adaptation, development and use of cultural and historical heritage sites for tourism purposes and, as a consequence, giving them a new impetus in social -economic development. Therefore, using the tourism potential of cultural and historical heritage sites will contribute to the sustainable development of Russian cities. Around the world, cultural heritage sites and cities rich in architectural, historical and cultural monuments, are becoming places of active visitation for an increasing number of tourists. Accordingly, it is necessary to combine the tourism business with the preservation and restoration of numerous cultural and historical heritage sites, while simultaneously getting rid of destroyed and abandoned historical buildings, monuments, etc. IN Western world A very extensive experience has been accumulated in regulating at the national (state) and local levels the relationship between the tourism industry and objects of cultural and natural heritage, as a result of which the objects are not only preserved, but also revived, acquiring new aspects of their existence, use and development. This is achieved through the use of a set of legislative, organizational and information measures, as well as new technologies, as a result of which parties interested in the preservation of heritage sites receive the necessary incentives and support in organizing tourist, recreational and excursion and educational activities. As a result, an increasing number of cities and cultural sites are benefiting economically from tourism and using the resulting revenue to preserve cultural heritage sites, while increasing the number of jobs and expanding income opportunities for local people. The development of the tourism industry in the Russian Federation is closely connected with the active policy of preserving the cultural heritage of the peoples of our country, which acts as a significant economic resource. Focus on historical and cultural wealth is becoming one of the real opportunities for the long-term social and economic development of a number of regions and cities of the country. The complex of cultural and historical heritage is a specific and very important economic resource of the region; it can and should become the basis of a special branch of specialization, one of the promising directions for the implementation of social policy and the development of the local economy, and an important factor in spiritual life. Thus, based on the use of cultural heritage, it is possible to build effective social strategies aimed at overcoming poverty and ensuring sustainable development of Russian cities. At the same time, undoubtedly, globalization trends have clearly manifested themselves in the field of cultural heritage. The modern world creates a whole system of threats and challenges in relation to cultural heritage. In conditions of dynamic and increasingly accelerating development, physical cultural resources are at risk of complete or partial destruction if they are not included in these processes. Even such a positive trend as the development of tourism, in the absence of proper control by the authorities, can cause significant harm to heritage sites. Threats to heritage also lie in the results of economic development, industrial development of new territories, new urban development programs, during which entire neighborhoods are reconstructed or rebuilt, military conflicts, and environmental pollution. Therefore, we can conclude that the preservation of cultural and historical heritage is a condition for sustainable urban development. One of the mechanisms for the socio-economic development of Russian cities is the development of the tourism industry in cities with cultural and historical heritage, since the development of tourism will lead to the preservation and updating of these objects. However, an important condition for the implementation of these measures is the presence of control on the part of authorities and the public to preserve cultural and historical heritage sites, and not exploit them for the sake of achieving only economic benefits.
Today, a large amount of Russia's cultural heritage is under threat. As a result of the growth of cities and the development of economic activity, part of the cultural heritage has lost its former value, and part is simply destroyed irrevocably.
In the modern post-industrial era, humanity has begun to think about its future. Today we realize the fragility of the situation, the total dependence on the cultural and natural heritage, which acts as a resource for the further successful development of society.
The coming era puts forward new demands on man, his awareness, his special attitude towards environment and national treasure. Therefore, global structures for the protection of cultural and natural heritage, such as UNESCO, are being created. In every country today there are organizations that protect national cultural heritage. Russia is no exception. But the efforts that Russia is making today to protect cultural heritage are not enough.
The current state of cultural and historical monuments of Russia
According to experts Russian Academy Sciences, the state of cultural and historical monuments that are under state protection is extremely unsatisfactory. Approximately 70% of them require urgent restoration work to prevent their destruction. Among them are well-known architectural complexes:
- Kremlin of Veliky Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan;
- monuments of white stone architecture of the Vladimir region;
- Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery in the Vologda region and many others.
Monuments wooden architecture cause serious concern due to the fragility of their material. In the period from 1996 to 2001 alone, approximately 700 immovable objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia were irretrievably destroyed.
The state of the monuments of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia can be presented in percentage terms as follows:
- 15% of monuments are in good condition;
- 20% of the monuments are in satisfactory condition;
- 25% of monuments are in unsatisfactory condition;
- 30% of monuments are in disrepair;
- 10% of the monuments are ruined.
Demolition of historical objects and construction of modern buildings in their place is a problem modern society. Therefore, the architectural and urban heritage of Russia is literally in a catastrophic state. For example, in Tobolsk, almost all the wooden and stone buildings of the Lower Town are already in the last stages of destruction.
Here we can name many Russian cities where historical monuments and cultural monuments are deliberately demolished, destroyed over time, or restored in a modern manner, even those that are under state protection as architectural monuments.
First of all, this is due to the commercial side of the issue. Secondly, there is a lack of funds for their restoration and other necessary work to preserve them.
Note 1
It should be especially noted here that the historical and cultural (architecture, urban planning) heritage of Russia is still very poorly studied. This especially applies to provincial building complexes and individual architectural monuments in the outback of Russia.
Also, entire eras of the development of domestic architecture have been practically completely unstudied, in particular the architecture of the second half of the 19th century- the beginning of the 20th century, and entire areas of construction: places of worship, individual residential buildings, noble and merchant estates and more. This state of affairs leads to the irretrievable loss of unique historical and cultural monuments.
Modern problems of protecting the cultural and historical heritage of Russia
Today, a number of problems have been identified in the field of protection of the natural and cultural heritage of Russia. Let's look at the most significant ones:
- It is necessary to amend Russian legislation in order to improve it in the field of protection and use of the natural and cultural heritage of Russia.
- It is necessary to determine the boundaries of territories and the regime of land use that have objects of cultural and historical heritage.
- It is necessary to approve the list of objects and protection zones by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
- A significant number of natural and cultural objects
- heritage do not have a registered owner.
- It is necessary to include objects of natural and cultural heritage
- to the state cadastral register.
- Objects of archaeological, historical, and ethnographic value are subject to unauthorized excavations.
At the same time, today numerous violations of the current legislation on the protection and protection of the historical and cultural heritage of the Russian Federation have been recorded. Here are the most common ones:
- Violation of laws regulating relations related to the identification, recording, preservation and use of natural and cultural heritage objects (registration of cultural heritage objects; establishment of boundaries of territories, zones of protection of natural and cultural heritage objects; failure to register and non-fulfillment of protective obligations; failure to provide information about cultural heritage sites, etc.).
- Violations of laws are recorded in various activities aimed at financing natural and cultural heritage sites.
- Violation of laws on the protection of natural and cultural heritage sites in the process of urban planning and landscaping.
- Violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating relations related to the use of natural and cultural heritage sites.
The low level of compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in this area is due, first of all, to the intersectoral management structure, which leads to interdepartmental friction and inconsistency in the actions of various governing entities.
Preservation of culture
They form the living environment of a person; they are the main and indispensable conditions of his existence. Nature constitutes the foundation, and culture is the very building of human existence. Nature ensures the existence of man as a physical being., being a “second nature”, makes this existence actually human. It allows a person to become an intellectual, spiritual, moral, creative person. Therefore, the preservation of culture is as natural and necessary as the preservation of nature.
The ecology of nature is inseparable from the ecology of culture. If nature accumulates, preserves and transmits a person’s genetic memory, then culture does the same with his social memory. Violation of the ecology of nature poses a threat to the human genetic code and leads to its degeneration. Violation of the ecology of culture has a destructive effect on human existence and leads to its degradation.
Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage represents in fact the main way of existence of culture. What is not part of the cultural heritage ceases to be culture and ultimately ceases to exist. During his life, a person manages to master and transfer into his inner world only a small share of cultural heritage. The latter remains after him for other generations, acting as the common property of all people, of all humanity. However, it can only be such if it is preserved. Therefore, the preservation of cultural heritage to a certain extent coincides with the preservation of culture in general.
As a problem, the protection of cultural heritage exists for all societies. However, it faces Western society more acutely. The East in this sense differs significantly from the West.
History of the Eastern World was evolutionary, without radical, revolutionary breaks in gradualism. It rested on continuity, centuries-honored traditions and customs. Eastern society quite calmly moved from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, from paganism to monotheism, having done this back in Antiquity.
Its entire subsequent history can be defined as the “eternal Middle Ages.” The position of religion as the foundation of culture remained unshakable. The East moved forward, turning its gaze back to the past. The value of cultural heritage was not questioned. Its preservation acted as something natural, a matter of course. The problems that arose were mainly of a technical or economic nature.
History of Western Society, on the contrary, was marked by deep, radical breaks. She often forgot about continuity. The transition of the West from Antiquity to the Middle Ages was turbulent. It was accompanied by significant large-scale destruction and the loss of many achievements of Antiquity. The Western “Christian world” was established on the ruins of the ancient, pagan, often literally: many architectural monuments of Christian culture were erected from the rubble of destroyed ancient temples. The Middle Ages, in turn, were rejected by the Renaissance. The new era was becoming more and more futuristic. Highest value for him the future appeared, while the past was resolutely rejected. Hegel declared that modernity pays off all its debts to the past and becomes obligated to it.
The French philosopher M. Foucault proposes to consider Western culture of the New Age from the point of view of radical shifts, outside the principles of historicism and continuity. He distinguishes several eras in it, believing that they do not have any common history. Each era has its own history, which immediately and unexpectedly “opens” at its beginning and just as immediately, unexpectedly “closes” at its end. A new cultural era owes nothing to the previous one and conveys nothing to the subsequent one. History is characterized by “radical discontinuity.”
Since the Renaissance, religion in Western culture has been losing its role and significance; it is increasingly being pushed to the margins of life. Its place is taken by science, whose power is becoming more complete and absolute. Science is primarily interested in the new, the unknown; it is oriented toward the future. She is often indifferent to the past.
History of Russian culture more similar to Western than Eastern. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but it was also accompanied by sharp turns and disruptions of continuity. Its evolution was complicated by the geopolitical position of Russia: finding itself between the West and the East, it rushed, torn between the Western and Eastern paths of development, not without difficulty finding and asserting its identity. Therefore, the problem of attitude and preservation of cultural heritage has always existed, sometimes becoming quite acute.
One of these moments was time of Peter 1. With his reforms, he sharply turned Russia towards the West, sharply exacerbating the problem of attitude towards its past. However, for all the radicalism of his reforms, Peter did not at all strive for a complete rejection of Russia’s past, its cultural heritage. On the contrary, it was under him that the problem of protecting cultural heritage first appeared as fully realized and extremely important. It also takes specific practical measures to preserve cultural heritage.
So, at the end of the 17th century. By decree of Peter, measurements were taken and drawings were made of ancient Buddhist temples in Siberia. Very noteworthy is the fact that during the years when stone construction was prohibited in Russia - in addition to St. Petersburg - Peter issued a special permit for such construction in Tobolsk. In his decree on this occasion, he notes that the construction of the Tobolsk Kremlin is not aimed at defense and military operations, but at showing the greatness and beauty of Russian construction, that the creation of a road leading through Tobolsk to China means the road to the people who are and should be forever friend of Russia.
What Peter I started finds continuation and under Catherine II. It issues decrees on the measurements, research and registration of buildings of historical and artistic value, as well as on the drawing up of plans and descriptions of ancient cities and on the preservation of archaeological monuments.
Active attempts to record and protect ancient and natural monuments were made by leading figures in Russia already in the 18th century. Some of them achieve success.
In particular, archival data indicate that in 1754, residents of Moscow and nearby villages and hamlets turned to the Berg College in St. Petersburg with a complaint and demands to take measures to protect them from the disasters brought by ironworks built and under construction in Moscow and around it. According to numerous authors of the appeal, these factories lead to the destruction of forests. scare away animals, pollute rivers and kill fish. In response to this petition, an order was issued to withdraw and stop new construction of iron factories 100 miles around Moscow. The deadline for withdrawal was set at one year, and in case of failure to comply with the order, the factory property was subject to confiscation in favor of the state.
Attention to the protection of natural and cultural heritage significantly intensified in the 19th century. Along with private decisions, which were the majority, general state regulations were adopted regulating construction and other types of activities. As an example, we can point to the mandatory Building Charter, adopted in the 19th century, which prohibited demolition or repairs leading to the distortion of buildings erected in the 18th century, as well as to the decree awarding the Order of Vladimir, 1st degree, to persons who planted and raised at least 100 acres of forest.
An important role in the protection of natural and cultural heritage was played by public, scientific organizations: Moscow Archaeological Society (1864), Russian Historical Society (1866), Society for the Protection and Preservation of Monuments of Art and Antiquity in Russia (1909), etc. At their congresses, these organizations discussed the problems of protecting historical and cultural heritage. They were developing legislation on the protection of monuments, raising the issue of creating state bodies for the protection cultural-historical values. Among these organizations, the activities of the Moscow Archaeological Society deserve special mention.
This Society included not only archaeologists, but also architects, artists, writers, historians, and art critics. The main tasks of the Society were the study of ancient monuments of Russian antiquity and “protecting them not only from destruction and destruction, but also from distortion by repairs, additions and reconstruction.”
Solving assigned tasks. The society created 200 volumes of scientific works, which contributed to a deep understanding of the exceptional value of the national historical and cultural heritage and the need to preserve it.
No less impressive were the practical results of the Society’s activities. Thanks to his efforts, it was possible to preserve the ensemble of the Estate on Bersenevskaya Embankment and the buildings of Kitay-Gorod in Moscow, fortifications in Kolomna, the Assumption Cathedral in Zvenigorod, the Church of the Intercession on Perli, the Church of Lazarus of Murom in Kizhi and many others.
Along with the study and preservation of monuments, the Society made a significant contribution to the promotion of the achievements of Russian culture. In particular, on his initiative, a monument was erected to the outstanding Russian educator, pioneer printer Ivan Fedorov (author - sculptor S. Volnukhin), which still adorns the center of Moscow. The authority of the Moscow Archaeological Society was so high that practically nothing was done without its knowledge and consent. If something started and threatened any monument, the Society decisively intervened and restored proper order.
At the beginning of the 20th century. in Russia Basic laws have already been developed on the protection of monuments of art and antiquity, on the protection of nature and on the organization of natural and historical reserves. The “Draft Law on the Protection of Ancient Monuments in Russia” (1911) and N. Roerich’s pact on the need for an international solution to the issue of protecting cultural property were published. It should be emphasized that The Roerich Pact was the first document in world practice that raised this issue to a global problem. This pact was adopted by the League of Nations only in 1934, receiving the not entirely fair name - “Washington Pact”.
The adoption of the law “On the Protection of Monuments in Russia” was prevented by the First World War. True, its adoption could be problematic, since in the original version it affected private property rights, including an article on the “forced alienation of immovable ancient monuments in private ownership.”
After October Revolution The situation with the preservation of cultural heritage has sharply worsened. The Civil War that followed the revolution resulted in the destruction and looting of a huge number of monuments within the country, as well as the uncontrolled export of cultural property abroad. The workers and peasants did this out of revenge and hatred for their former oppressors. Other social strata participated in this for purely selfish purposes. Saving the national cultural heritage required energetic and decisive measures from the authorities.
Already in 1918, decrees of the Soviet government were issued with legislative force on the prohibition of the export and sale abroad of objects of special artistic and historical significance, as well as on the registration, registration and preservation of monuments of art and antiquity. Special attention is devoted to the protection of monuments of landscape art and historical and artistic landscapes. Let us note that this kind of legislative provisions on monuments of gardening and landscape art were the first in world practice. At the same time, a special state body for museum affairs and monument protection is being created.
The measures taken have yielded positive results. Over four years, 431 were registered in Moscow and the Moscow region alone private collection, 64 antique shops, 501 churches and monasteries, 82 estates were examined.
Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 applied Soviet Union huge damage. The Nazi invaders deliberately and purposefully destroyed the most valuable architectural monuments and plundered works of art. The ancient Russian cities of Pskov, Novgorod, Chernigov, Kyiv, as well as the palace and park ensembles of the suburbs of Leningrad, were especially hard hit.
Their restoration began even before the end of the war. Despite severe hardships and enormous difficulties, society found the strength to revive the historical and cultural heritage. This was facilitated by a government decree adopted in 1948, according to which measures aimed at improving the protection of cultural monuments were significantly expanded and deepened. In particular, now cultural monuments included not only separate buildings and structures, but also cities, settlements or parts of them that have historical and urban planning value.
From 60-X gg. The protection of cultural monuments is carried out in close interaction and cooperation with international organizations and the world community. Let us note that our experience is widely reflected in such an international document as the “Venice Charter” adopted in 1964, dedicated to the issues of preserving monuments of culture and art.
Back to top 70s The protection of cultural and natural heritage is already fully recognized by the world community as one of the global problems of our time. On the initiative World Cultural and Natural Heritage Committee of UNESCO The Convention for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Humanity (1972) and the Recommendation for the Conservation of Historical Ensembles (1976) were adopted. The result was the creation of a system of international cultural cooperation, headed by the mentioned Committee. His responsibilities include compiling a list of outstanding monuments of world culture and providing assistance to participating states in ensuring the safety of relevant objects.
To this list entered: Moscow and Novgorod Kremlins; Trinity-Sergius Lavra: Golden Gate, Assumption and Demetrius Cathedrals in Vladimir; Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and the Staircase Tower of the Chambers of Andrei Bogolyubsky in the village of Bogomolovo; Spaso-Efimiev and Pokrovsky monasteries; Nativity Cathedral; Bishops' Chambers in Suzdal; Church of Boris and Gleb in the village of Kideksha; as well as the historical and architectural ensemble on the island of Kizhi, the center of St. Petersburg, etc.
In addition to helping to preserve and protect monuments, the Committee also provides assistance in their study, providing sophisticated equipment and experts.
In addition to those mentioned, the International Council for the Conservation of Historic Sites and Historical Monuments, ICOMOS, also works in close cooperation with UNESCO. founded in 1965 and uniting specialists from 88 countries. Its tasks include the protection, restoration and conservation of monuments. On his initiative, a number of important documents have recently been adopted aimed at improving security throughout the world. These include the Florence International Charter for the Protection of Historic Gardens (1981); International Charter for the Protection of Historic Sites (1987): International Charter for the Protection and Use of the Archaeological Heritage (1990).
Among non-governmental organizations, the International Center for Research in the Field of Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, known as the Rome Center - ICCROM, whose members are 80 countries, including Russia, should be highlighted.
The main problems and tasks in preserving the cultural heritage of Russia
In our country, two organizations currently play a leading role in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage. The first is the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK; founded in 1966, is a voluntary and public organization, implements the programs “Russian Estate”, “Temples and Monasteries”, “Russian Necropolis”. “Russian Abroad”. The society publishes 1980 magazine "Monuments of the Fatherland".
The second is the Russian Cultural Foundation, created in 1991, which finances a number of programs and projects, including the Small Towns of Russia program. To strengthen the scientific side of security affairs, the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage was created in 1992. Its tasks include identifying, studying, preserving, using and popularizing cultural and natural heritage.
In 1992, the Commission on the Restitution of Cultural Property was formed in order to resolve mutual claims between Russia and foreign states.
Among the most important tasks in preserving cultural heritage is the revival of religious roots, the religious origin of Russian culture, restoration of the important role of the Orthodox Church.
Currently, the view of religion as something completely outdated and outdated is being revised everywhere. Religion and the Church are once again occupying a worthy place in the life and culture of our society. Man is characterized by an irresistible desire for the sublime and absolute, for that which exceeds himself and the limits of existence. This need is best satisfied by religion. Hence its amazing vitality and rapid restoration of its place and role in human life. The point here is not that culture is once again becoming religious in the full sense. This is impossible. Modern culture generally still remains secular and rests primarily on science and reason. However, religion is again becoming an important and integral part of culture, and culture is restoring its historical ties with religious origins.
In the West, the idea of reviving the religious roots of culture became relevant in the 70s. - along with the emergence of neoconservatism and postmodernism. Later it becomes more and more powerful. Russia has much more reason to hope for a revival of the religious principle in its culture.
Many Russian philosophers and thinkers, not without reason, talk about "Russian religiosity". According to N. Danilevsky, its innateness and depth were manifested in the very acceptance and fairly rapid spread of Christianity throughout Rus'. All this happened without any missionaries and without any imposition from other states, through military threats or military victories, as was the case among other nations.
The adoption of Christianity occurred after a long internal struggle, from dissatisfaction with paganism, from a free search for truth and as a need of the spirit. The Russian character most fully corresponds to the ideals of Christianity: it is characterized by non-violence, gentleness, humility, respect, etc.
Religion constituted the most essential, dominant content of ancient Russian life, later forming the predominant spiritual interest of ordinary Russian people. N. Danilevsky even speaks of the Russian people being chosen by God, bringing them closer in this regard to the peoples of Israel and Byzantium.
Similar thoughts are developed by Vl. Soloviev. To the already mentioned features of the Russian character, he adds peacefulness, refusal of cruel executions, and concern for the poor. Manifestation of Russian religiosity Vl. Solovyov sees a special form of expression by Russian people of feelings for their homeland. The Frenchman in such a case speaks of “beautiful France”, of “French glory”. The Englishman lovingly pronounces: “old England.” The German talks about “German loyalty.” Russian man wanting to express his best feelings to the homeland, speaks only of “Holy Rus'”.
The highest ideal for him is not political or aesthetic, but moral and religious. However, this does not mean complete asceticism, complete renunciation from the world, on the contrary: “Holy Rus' demands a holy deed.” Therefore, accepting Christianity does not mean simply memorizing new prayers, but the implementation of a practical task: transforming life on the principles of true religion.
L. Karsavin points out another quality of the Russian person: “For the sake of an ideal, he is ready to give up everything, sacrifice everything.” According to L. Karsavin, Russian people have a “sense of the holiness and divinity of everything that exists,” like no one else, they “need the absolute.”
Historically, Russian religiosity has found a variety of manifestations and confirmations. Khan Batu, having made Rus' a vassal, did not dare to raise his hand to the faith of the Russian people, to Orthodoxy. He apparently instinctively sensed the limits of his power and limited himself to collecting material tribute. Spiritually
Rus' did not submit to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, survived and thanks to this regained complete freedom.
In the Patriotic War of 1812, the Russian spirit played a decisive role in achieving victory. In yet to a greater extent he proved himself in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Only unprecedented fortitude allowed the Russian people to withstand truly deadly trials.
The Russian people accepted the ideals of communism largely due to the fact that they perceived them through the prism of the ideals of Christianity and Christian humanism. N. Berdyaev thinks about this convincingly.
Of course, Russia in its history did not always strictly follow the Christian path; it also allowed serious deviations. Sometimes holiness and villainy were side by side in her. As Vl. notes. Soloviev, there were both the pious monster Ivan IV and the true saint Sergius in it. The Russian Orthodox Church was not always at its best. She is often reproached for this. that she allowed herself to be subordinated to secular power, starting with Peter I - tsarist and then communist. Russian theology is reproached for being theoretically inferior to Catholic theology.
Indeed, the Russian Orthodox Church was deprived of freedom for centuries and was under strict control of the authorities. However, this is not her fault, but her misfortune. For the sake of the unification of Rus', she herself contributed in every possible way to strengthening its statehood. But it turned out that state power, having become absolute, subjugated the power of the absolute.
Russian theology was indeed not very successful in theory; it did not offer new evidence of the existence of God. However the main merit of the Russian Orthodox Church is that she was able to preserve Orthodox Christianity. This alone makes up for all her other sins. The preservation of Orthodoxy as true Christianity gave Moscow the basis to claim the title of “Third Rome”. And it is precisely the preservation of Christianity that allows us to hope for the revival of the religious principle in Russian culture, for the spiritual recovery of the Russian people.
This is facilitated by the widespread restoration and renovation of churches and monasteries in recent years. Already today, most settlements in Russia have a temple or church. Of particular importance is the restoration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. The adoption of a law on freedom of conscience is even more important. All this creates the necessary conditions for each person to find his own way to the temple.
The situation is very favorable for monasteries. Despite the destruction and misfortunes that took place in the past, more than 1,200 monasteries have survived, of which about 200 are now active.
Monastic life began with monks Kiev-Pechersk Lavra- Reverends Anthony and Theodosius. Since the 14th century the center of Orthodox monasticism becomes the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, founded by the great Sergius of Radonezh. Among all the monasteries and temples, it is the main Shrine of Orthodoxy. For more than five centuries, the Lavra has been a place of pilgrimage for Russian Christians. The Holy Monastery of St. Daniel also deserves special mention - the first monastery in Moscow, founded by Prince Daniil, the son of Alexander Nevsky, which today is the official residence of the patriarch.
Russian monasteries have always been important centers of spiritual life. They had a special attractive power. As an example, it is enough to point to the Optina Pustyn monastery, which was visited by N. Gogol and F. Dostoevsky. J1. Tolstoy. They came there to drink from the purest spiritual source. The very existence of monasteries and monks helps people endure the hardships of life more easily, because they know that there is a place where they will always find understanding and consolation.
An extremely important place in the cultural heritage is occupied by Russian estates. They took shape in the second half of the 16th century. - XIX century These were “ancestral”, “ noble nests" There were thousands of them, but there are dozens left. Some of them were destroyed during the revolution and the Civil War. The other part has disappeared from time and neglect. Many of the surviving ones - Arkhangelskoye, Kuskovo, Marfino, Ostafyevo, Ostankino, Shakhmatovo - have been turned into museums, nature reserves and sanatoriums. Others are not so lucky and need emergency help and care.
The role of Russian estates in the development of Russian culture was enormous. In the 18th century they formed the basis of the Russian Enlightenment. Largely thanks to them in the 19th century. became the golden age of Russian culture.
The way of life on the estate was closely connected with nature, agriculture, centuries-old traditions and customs, and the life of peasants and common people. Elements of high culture are rich libraries. beautiful collections of paintings and home theaters were organically intertwined with elements of folk culture. Thanks to this, the split, the gap between the Europeanized culture of the upper layer and traditional culture of the Russian people, which arose as a result of Peter’s reforms and is characteristic of capitals and large cities. Russian culture was regaining its integrity and unity.
Russian estates were living springs of high and deep spirituality. They carefully preserved Russian traditions and customs, the national atmosphere, Russian identity and the spirit of Russia. One can say about each of them in the words of the poet: “There is a Russian spirit there. It smells like Russia there.” Russian estates played an important role in the fate of many great people of Russia. The Russian estate had a beneficial influence on the work of A.S. Pushkin. The Khmelite estate in the Smolensk region hosted early years A.S. Griboyedov, and later the idea of “Woe from Wit” was born. The Vvedenskoye estate in Zvenigorod was of great importance for the life and work of P.I. Tchaikovsky, A.P. Chekhov.
Russian estates opened the way to the heights of art for many talented nuggets from the depths of the Russian people.
The remaining Russian estates represent a visible and tangible past of Russia. They are living islands of genuine Russian spirituality. Their restoration and preservation is the most important task in preserving cultural heritage. Its successful solution will be facilitated by the re-established “Society for the Study of the Russian Estate,” which existed in the 20s. (1923-1928).
Closely related to the task of preserving Russian estates is another equally important task - revival and development of small towns in Russia.
Currently there are more than 3 thousand of them with a population of about 40 million people. Like the estates, they embodied the truly Russian way of life and expressed the soul and beauty of Russia. Each of them had a unique, unique appearance, their own lifestyle. For all their modesty and unpretentiousness, small towns were generous with talent. Many great writers, artists and composers of Russia came from them.
At the same time, for a long time, small towns were in oblivion and desolation. The active, creative and creative life, they increasingly turned into remote provinces and outbacks. Now the situation is gradually changing, and small towns are coming to life again.
Comprehensive programs have been developed for the revival of the historical and cultural environment of such ancient Russian cities as Zaraysk, Podolsk, Rybinsk and Staraya Russa. Of these, Staraya Russa has the most favorable prospects. F.M. lived in this city. Dostoevsky and preserved it own house. This city also has a mud resort and historical monuments. All this allows Staraya Russa to become an attractive tourist, cultural and health center. Its proximity to Novgorod will enhance its cultural significance.
Roughly the same thing awaits the other cities mentioned. The experience gained from their revival will serve as the basis for the development of projects for the renewal of other small towns in Russia.
A special place in the protection of cultural heritage is occupied by folk arts and crafts. Together with folklore, they constitute folk culture, which, being the most important part of the entire national culture, most powerfully expresses its originality and originality. Since ancient times, Russia has been famous for its magnificent arts and crafts products.
Among the oldest of them is the Russian wooden toy, the center of which is Sergiev Posad. It was here that the world famous nesting doll was born. Kholmogory bone carving is just as ancient. Using low-relief techniques, Kholmogory bone carvers create unique works decorative art - combs, cups, caskets, vases. Khokhloma painting has an equally long history. It is a decorative painting with a floral pattern on wooden products (dishes, furniture) in red and black tones and gold.
Miniature painting has become widespread in Russia. One of its famous centers is located in the village. Fedoskino, Moscow region. Fedoskino miniature - oil painting on papier-mâché lacquerware. The drawing is done in a realistic manner on a black lacquer background. The Palekh miniature, which is a tempera painting on papier-mâché lacquerware (boxes, caskets, cigarette cases, jewelry), has something in common with Fedoskino. It is characterized by bright colors, smooth pattern, abundance of gold.
Gzhel ceramics - products made of porcelain and earthenware, covered with blue painting - have gained well-deserved fame in Russia and abroad.
These, as well as other arts and crafts in general, continue their lives and activities, although with varying degrees of success and confidence in the future.
However, they all need serious help. Many of them require significant reconstruction, the result of which should be the creation modern conditions labor for folk craftsmen and creators. Some of them need revival and restoration. The fact is that over time, these trades and crafts have undergone significant changes: they have been too modernized. The themes and plots were changed, the technology was disrupted, and the style was distorted.
In general, the protection of cultural property in the modern world is becoming increasingly complex and pressing. This problem requires constant attention. Without exaggeration, we can say that the level of cultural development of a particular people should be judged by how it relates to its cultural heritage. By preserving the past, we prolong the future.
This idea is being discussed in the Government of the Russian Federation. The decision must be made before the end of 2016
"Keepers of the Legacy"
The preservation of cultural heritage can become a priority national project in Russia. Currently, the Government of the Russian Federation is considering proposals from the Federal Ministry of Culture to include the “Culture” direction in the list of main directions of the country’s strategic development. The concept provides for implementation in 2017-2030. priority projects “Preservation of cultural heritage” and “Culture of the small Motherland”.
According to our information, the concepts of these projects are expected to be presented in December 2016 at the International St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. If the project receives support from the Government (it is expected that the decision should be made before the end of 2016), the issue will be submitted for discussion to the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects.
Objectives and meanings
The project developers relied on the “Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy” approved by the presidential decree, as well as on the current “National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation”, according to which culture is one of the strategic national priorities.
The basic principle priority project “Preservation of cultural heritage” stated “Preservation through development”: “Increasing the accessibility of cultural heritage sites, cultural and economic development territories, education and spiritual development of citizens based on cultural heritage.”
The project is designed, according to the initiators, to solve the following tasks:
Identification, inclusion in the state register and cataloging of cultural heritage objects;
Improving state protection of cultural heritage sites;
Conducting scientific research in the field of heritage conservation and developing scientific and design documentation;
Restoration, conservation and adaptation of cultural heritage sites based on comprehensive programs using foreign experience and best practices;
Creation of a modern domestic restoration industry;
Organization of maintenance and profitable use of cultural heritage sites, increasing its accessibility for the population;
Popularization of cultural heritage, including using modern information technologies;
Development of cultural tourism based on the use of cultural heritage objects restored and put into cultural circulation;
Promoting the development of a mass volunteer and voluntary movement for the preservation of cultural heritage;
Legal, financial and personnel support for the processes of preserving cultural heritage.
The project is planned to be implemented in 3 stages: 2017 – 1st quarter of 2018; Q2 2018 – 2024; 2025 – 2030
According to the concept, at the first stage no additional expenditures from the state budget will be required, and at stages 2 and 3 in the field of cultural heritage conservation, additional funding in the amount of 30 billion rubles is planned (including from income from monuments restored and introduced into cultural and economic circulation - “ with a total area of 400 thousand square meters annually").
Global context
Judging by the concept of the project, its initiators are well aware that the importance of preserving the national cultural heritage goes far beyond the scope of a specialized industry. The project developers very carefully studied the latest European experience, in particular, the announcement by the European Union of 2018 as the Year of European Cultural Heritage and the presentation in June 2016 in the European Union of the Strategy for the development of the cultural dimension of foreign policy, which meets the most important priority of the European Commission - strengthening the position of the European Union as a global player. The documents of the European Commission emphasize the importance of preserving the cultural heritage of Europe not only for promoting cultural diversity, developing tourism, attracting additional investments, introducing new management models and increasing the economic potential of territories, but also for the formation and “promotion” of a “pan-European identity.”
In this context, the initiators of the project conclude, “it is obvious that Russia, being a country with a large number of cultural heritage sites and its own national code, is also interested in preserving cultural heritage sites, since they constitute a visible memory and the basis for subsequent development.”
Regional aspect
The project is planned to be implemented primarily in the regions of Russia with a “high density of cultural heritage sites”: Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Bryansk, Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Kaluga regions, as well as in certain regions of the Caucasus and Southern Siberia. According to our information, the role of “pilot regions” is destined for experts in the Tver and Kostroma regions.
Particular attention should be paid – with the aim of preserving not only heritage sites, but also the cities and settlements themselves, which, according to a fair assessment of the project’s authors, is in itself a national strategic task. Territorial planning for the implementation of the project will be coordinated with the system plans of the Ministry of Economic Development for the development of social infrastructure in the regions. When implementing the project, the Ministry of Culture plans to coordinate efforts with the Ministry of Economic Development, the Federal Property Management Agency, the Ministry of Construction, the Ministry of Labor and other federal departments.
Plans and indicators
According to the calculated indicators of the priority project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage”, the share of monuments, information about which , by the end of 2016 should reach 70%, in 2017 – 80%, and from 2019 should be 100%.
From 2019 it is expected restore and introduce“for profitable use” of cultural heritage objects - 400 thousand square meters. m annually.
Volume off-budget funding“measures for the preservation of cultural heritage sites” are planned to increase 60 times over 15 years. In 2016 it should be 1 billion rubles, in 2017 - 5, in 2018 - 8, in 2019 - 10, in 2020 - 15, in 2021 - 20, in 2022 - m – 25, in 2023 – 30, in 2024 – 35, and in 2030 – 60 billion rubles.
At the same time, the volume of attracted extra-budgetary funds from 2018 should significantly exceed the volume of similar state budget investments. For comparison, the project concept assumes them as follows: 2016 – 6.9 billion rubles; 2017 – 8.5; 2018 – 8.1; 2019 – 7.6; 2020 – 9.3; 2021 – 8.9; 2022 – 8.3; 2023 – 10.2; 2024 – 9.8; 2030 – 9.1 billion
True, the project also involves additional funding starting from 2019 preservation of monuments from the federal budget - 30 billion rubles each. annually.
In general, towards the end of 2030 it will be extremely interesting to discuss the state of affairs and current prospects with the initiators of the project.
For “Keepers of Heritage” comment on the idea of the priority project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage”
Alexander Zhuravsky, Deputy Minister of Culture of Russia:
Preservation of heritage must be recognized as a priority of socio-economic development
It seems extremely important that culture should appear among the priority areas that are considered at the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Strategic Development and Priority Projects. After all, culture - along with the military-industrial complex, nuclear energy and space - is the sphere in which Russia globally competitive.
The cultural sector in Russia not only needs investment, it needs strategic development and competent project management. If this is not done, it will gradually lose its competitiveness.
Any country and its citizens are distinguished by a special cultural and civilizational type. If the preservation and development of culture and its competitiveness does not become a strategic priority for the state, then sooner or later the country or civilization loses its identity, which is eroded by more competitive civilizations. We are seeing today how European civilization is experiencing difficulties with the sociocultural adaptation of arriving migrant communities. Particularly because for the “new Europeans” European culture does not seem native, attractive and strong. The crisis of pan-European political integration coincided with the almost official recognition of the failure of the European project of multiculturalism.
Therefore, today Europe, in search of a reliable foundation for its civilizational identity, turns to culture, and first of all, to its cultural heritage. It is in it, and not in supranational political institutions, that European civilization rediscovers (or tries to find) its own identity. That is why 2018 has been declared the Year of European Cultural Heritage in Europe.
We have a lot in common not only with the East. We have a lot in common with Europe, and, above all, culturally, in terms of cultural heritage. Let us at least remember Aristotle Fioravanti, let us remember Italian architects Russian classicism. Even common historical comparisons - “Russian Venice”, “Russian Switzerland”, etc. - talk about how much of our culture is rooted in a common European heritage. At the same time, there were periods when European culture influenced us to a greater extent, and there were periods when Russia influenced other European cultures. In literature, theater, ballet, performing arts. And even in architecture, especially if we talk about the contribution of the Russian avant-garde. Therefore, we also need to understand culture and the preservation of cultural heritage as a priority direction in the socio-economic development of our country.
Moreover, we have something to rely on: the Fundamentals of State Cultural Policy were approved by presidential decree, and this year the Strategy of State Cultural Policy was adopted. We propose - as part of the implementation of these strategic documents - to introduce the preservation of cultural heritage among the priority projects, to move in this area to real project management, which will allow us to solve in the foreseeable future many problems that have arisen over two decades. This applies to the reform of the restoration industry, and changes in legislation, and changes in the field of historical and cultural expertise, and the introduction of effective foreign experience, and changes in mental approaches to cultural heritage. A new class of managers of complex restoration projects is needed, who understand not only restoration, but also cultural economics, urban planning, and modern adaptive technologies.
Everywhere in the world we observe processes of valorization, capitalization of cultural heritage, active use of this resource in economic processes, in the development of territories and regions. 40% of the construction market in Europe is work with historical buildings. But in our country, monuments are still perceived as “unprofitable assets.” The status of a cultural heritage site reduces the investment attractiveness of a restoration project. Conditions, including those of a tax nature, have not yet been created for the large-scale attraction of investors and philanthropists into the restoration sector, as has been done in a number of foreign countries with comparable cultural heritage.
According to experts, the total amount of investment required to bring tens of thousands of Russian cultural heritage sites into satisfactory condition is about 10 trillion rubles. It is clear that there are no such funds. And even if they suddenly magically appeared, there are no restoration capacities and no such number of restorers to use these funds effectively. Thousands of monuments simply cannot wait until their turn comes or when the appropriate funds and capacities become available.
Hence, it is necessary to change the heritage management system. We need systemic actions that can radically change the situation. It’s not normal when 160 thousand monuments “hang” on the state budget, it’s not normal when expensive real estate that once adorned our cities is in a deplorable or even ruined state. The primary task is not even to increase budget investments, but to create civilized market of cultural heritage objects, with various forms of public-private partnership, which can be attended by a philanthropist, investor, or entrepreneur. We often like to compare ourselves with the United States. So, in the USA, for example, the key philanthropist in the field of culture is not the state (it accounts for only about 7% of total expenditures on culture), and not the money of large corporations and billionaires (about 8.4%), but individual donations ( about 20 percent), charitable foundations (about 9%) and income from endowment funds (about 14%), which also come from private or corporate income. I am not calling for a reduction in government support for culture, on the contrary. But I believe, following the experts in this field, that it is necessary at a more systemic level to form a multi-channel system of financing culture in general and the preservation of cultural heritage in particular.
At the same time, what is needed is not a mechanical increase in funding for heritage conservation, but competent management of resources and their regrouping. Public consolidation is needed in the matter of conservation national heritage, combining the efforts of the state with public organizations, with volunteer movements, through which it is possible to involve young people in the preservation of heritage and explain to them its significance. And, of course, fundamental work is needed to popularize cultural heritage, which sets all of us the task of expanding educational activities in this area.
To solve all these problems, we consider it necessary formation of the Project Office on the basis of AUIPK, which will generate projects in the field of cultural heritage conservation and organize their implementation. It is necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach, implement heritage-related pilot projects in a number of regions, and create a model of effective management in this area. These should be “start-up” projects that stimulate investment activity, the development of small and medium-sized businesses, and the creation of new jobs. Another project office - "Roskultproekt" - is being created to implement other priority projects in the field of culture, to carry out analytical and project activities, as well as monitor state cultural policy.
And, of course, I repeat, it is necessary to popularize our heritage, to clarify its deep, ontological meaning as an integral part of the national cultural code.
The Ministry of Culture sent relevant materials to the Government justifying the need to consider culture as another (twelfth) priority area, and “Preservation of cultural heritage” as a priority project. The project will be presented in December at the International St. Petersburg Cultural Forum. We hope that this initiative will be supported in one form or another. We expect that the decision will be made before the end of 2016.
Oleg Ryzhkov, head of the Agency for the Management and Use of Historical and Cultural Monuments (AUIPK):
Why do we have the FSB Academy, but not the Academy of Heritage Guardians?
The national project “Preservation of Cultural Heritage” should, from the very beginning, rely on specific projects implemented in the regions. The idea of making the preservation of cultural heritage the engine of economic and social development in several regions of Russia was suggested to us by experts with whom the Ministry of Culture held consultations. There are regions with extremely high concentrations of cultural heritage sites, and this resource must be taken advantage of. The involvement of monuments in economic and tourist circulation should give a positive impetus to the regional economy: in addition to creating additional jobs, replenishing the tax revenue base and developing tourism, heritage preservation will increase the investment attractiveness of the region. Experts recommended the Tver and Kostroma regions as pilot regions, but, of course, the project is designed for implementation in all heritage-rich regions of the North-West and Central Russia.
The point of the project is to the preservation of cultural heritage has taken its rightful place in the country’s economic system. Now everyone is “using” the heritage resource, but they are not investing in it adequately in return. For example, heritage resources are actively exploited by the tourism industry - but does it invest in it? Regions already receive income from the development of small and medium-sized businesses related to heritage - but does heritage receive worthy investments from regional budgets?
The national project will give investment priorities and create a situation where regions and local communities will not passively wait for someone to come and start saving their monuments, creating points of economic growth - but will begin to do this themselves. You need to invest in the basic resource, in the heritage, and not to the businesses that exploit it.
Of course, the project has an ideological component: it is necessary to change people’s attitude towards the heritage of their region, their small homeland, their country - as their property. This, from my point of view, is the education of patriotism, not by abstract calls, but by real projects in which local communities should be involved.
Of course, popularization architectural heritage, works to preserve it - as scientific, innovative, creative activity– should be a significant part of the information policy of federal media, primarily television.
From our point of view, a certain restructuring of the administration system in the field of heritage will be required. The emphasis must shift from “protecting” heritage to “preserving” it. Naturally, not by weakening security and state control as such, but by integrating these tools into systemic government policy.
It is necessary, of course, to create professional training system for the field of heritage conservation, a system of scientific and educational institutions. Why do we have, for example, the Higher School of Economics, the FSB Academy - but not High school or the Academy of Heritage Guardians? Abroad to train such professionals – in France, for example, out of 600 applicants for positions in state heritage protection agencies, only 20 people are selected. And then after this they must undergo special training for another 18 months, and only then are they “allowed” to the monuments. In European countries there is a whole specialized branch of science - Heritage Science, dedicated to cultural heritage and its preservation, including with the help of the latest physics, chemistry, and microbiology.
We consider AUIPIC as a unique national project site. Already today, projects are being implemented and developed at our sites in which approaches to preserving heritage are being developed as part of the strategy for the development of territories and regions.
For example, we have begun working with Ingushetia on the extremely promising project “Cultural Landscape of Dzheirakh-Ass,” which will make this reserve a point of growth for the republican economy.
We have very interesting project in Uglich, where, on the basis of the historical Zimin mansion and the adjacent territory, we expect to create a Center for Handicrafts with Fair Square, which will combine museum and educational functions with shopping and entertainment in its activities. And at the same time increase the tourist attractiveness of the city - in different ways, up to the reconstruction of the production technology of Russian glass beads of the 13th century, known from excavations.
We continue to work on the project in Peterhof, which involves not only the restoration of a complex of architectural monuments, but also the reconstruction of the national Russian riding school as an intangible cultural heritage. We are working on this together with specialists from the French Equestrian Heritage Council - they were very enthusiastic about this undertaking.
An interesting project is taking shape in the industrial
in the Tambov region, where we plan not only to restore the surviving buildings, but to revive this estate as a functioning economic complex, which will give impetus to the development of the entire territory.
Header photo: volunteer cleanup to save the flooded church of the Krokhinsky churchyard (18th century) in the Vologda region.
