Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 10

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  dobro kultury
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

PRAWNA OCHRONA DÓBR KULTURY W HISZPAŃSKICH MUZEACH PAŃSTWOWYCH

100%
Ławicka A.
Muzealnictwo
|
2018
|
vol. 59
48-53
PL
Dobra kultury stanowią perłę w koronie Hiszpańskiego Dziedzictwa Historycznego, objętą najwyższym poziomem ochrony przyznawanym na gruncie prawa zarówno ogólnopaństwowego, jak i autonomicznego. Muzea państwowe stanowią instytucje nie tylko obejmujące pod swoimi skrzydłami najbardziej znaczące dziedzictwo kulturowe, ale same niejako całościowo są dobrem kultury. Artykuł ma na celu przybliżenie struktury prawa ochrony dziedzictwa historycznego w Hiszpanii, określenie miejsca muzeum w tym systemie, zadań stawianych przed muzeami, a także kwestii zarządzania nimi.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kierunek naszej ochrony zabytków

86%
Rymaszewski B.
Ochrona Zabytków
|
1978
|
issue 4
215-220
EN
A popularization and publicistic campaign to protect historic monuments in Poland is carried oat on a large scale. The work done in the field o f monuments’ protection is now much bigger than ever before, although one could think otherwise when considering critical opinions found in press, television and radio. The thing is that in previous years publicists aimed at displaying achievements and not criticism. Moreover, the subject o f conservators’ interest has been extremely broadened to include objects dating from the second half o f the 19th century and the beginnings o f the 20th, and even from the inter-war period. An intensified rate o f building in Poland, and also a great increase in new space automatically changes quantitative relations between „the new” and „the old”. An impetus o f modern investments creates occasional collisions when modernness enters protected zones, and because o f that it is necessary to deviate from passive protection, based on a ban only, in favour o f active protection characterized by solutions offered. This requires a close link between thinking and humanistic and technical knowledge. Favourable conditions are being created by a fully formed all-Poland organizational system. It combines closely actions o f the Ministry o f Culture and Arts and other departments, Voivodship Conservators o f Historic Monuments with museums, Workshops o f Historic Monuments’ Conservation, „Desa”, Centre o f Monuments’ Documentation and field Offices o f Monuments’ Research and Documentation. It also links research undertakings with practical ones carried out by higher schools, scientific and research institutes, museums, etc. A conducive role is played by a long-standing principle o f regarding museums as links in monuments’ protection working under special conditions. Following changes in an administrative division o f the country there has occurred a marked increase in conservation services as well as a wider involvement o f museums in works on protection. At present, there are in Poland 49 Voivodship Conservators o f Historic Monuments, 5 Municipal and 36 Voivodship Offices o f Monuments’ Research and Documentation. Apart from that, four museum directors perform functions o f conservation authorities with regard to architectonic complexes, folk culture, technology, etc. In 1976 the Conservator General initiated a country-wide programme o f protecting cultural values and develpoing museums. Basing on guidelines set out by the Main Board o f Museums and Historic Monuments’ Protection, Voivodship Conservators o f Monuments presented in 1977 their voivodship programmes. The programmes were then assessed by Voivodship Councils o f Cultural Values’ Protection; in 1978 they will be confronted and made precise in regional and specialistic groups (e.g. those engaged in ethnographic parks, old-towi complexes, monuments o f water engineering, etc.). In conservation practice each decision should be accompanied b) a doubt whether we wish to display a historic monument in its old or present condition. It is not possible to set out one and univocal principle o f procedure. Only to some extent it may be replaced by flexibility and a rule that values o f any monument and its environment should be examined thoroughly prior to any physica1 undertaking. A programme o f protection should also be treated as a principal guideline only, based on an assessment o f the state o f possession and a specification o f probable possibilities o f its use. One o f the main interests o f conservation services in Poland b a traditional care for old-town centres. A need to reconstruct whole complexes, bom as a result o f great devastations, brought about a cooperation between many specialists. The specific approach to programmes, based on broad studies, to mention only historic, archaeological or architectonic research works and closely linked with spatial development, gave rise to the principle o f complexity, o f which the „Polish conservation school” boasts. In the last two years it was possible to work out restoration programmes for more than 70 towns. The programmes were presented in 1977 at two all-Poland sessions at Rzeszów and Toruń. The hitherto experience shows that restoration programmes should be assessed from two points o f view: functional and spatial, from both a historic and modern standpoint. Against a wide-spread opinion that all monuments have to be rebuilt and that a notion o f „historic ruins” is only a condition o f waiting for the next stage o f execution, it is thought now to secure the so-called „premanent ruins” , provided that the condition o f the object, i.e. devastation in per cent, or its age do not qualify it for restoration. Monuments o f the history o f technics are also covered by protection; there is even a programme o f protecting technical monuments and developing relevant museology. A number of active protectors o f monuments shows also an upward trend. A few-years-old campaign o f appropriating historic buildings for rest houses, carried out already for a number o f years, as well as the 1976 competition for the best user o f historic building cultivate a sense o f cultural needs in the society and contribute directly to increasing the interest o f various social circles in the protection of historic buildings.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Gdański Ośrodek Ochrony Dóbr Kultury - geneza koncepcji, założenia programowe

86%
Domańska H., Kruszelnicki Z., Wolska E., Wolski J., Zeidler M.
Ochrona Zabytków
|
1978
|
issue 3
161-167
EN
A guideline for activities in the field of the protection and schaping of cultural life in Gdańsk voivodship was provided by the resolution o f the plenary session o f the Voivodship Committee of the P.Z.P.R. (the Polish United Workers’ Party). The session was held in 1972 and it concerned the main trends for the development of culture in Gdańsk voivodship until the year o f 1980. When executing a work program adopted at the session there arose a conception to set up the Gdańsk Centre for the Protection of Cultural Values as a conservation body o f scientific and research nature. The idea was brought into life in June 1975 on the foundations of the Office for the Research and Documentation o f Historic Monuments in Gdańsk voivodship, in existence since 1970. The newly-opened Centre found its seat in a historic Turret of Anchorers’ (Baszta Kotwiczników). In future the seat will be moved to the granary of „Mały and Duży Groddeck” at Chmielna street. As the guidelines for its work the Gdańsk Centre for the Protection o f Cultural Values has adopted two programs. The program minimum assumes a full recording of monuments in Gdańsk voivodship. A starting point for this program was a very long experience and output o f the people and organizations involved in the problem. The program maximum envisaged the expansion of the earlier program with research and experimental studies aimed at an overall elaboration of historic monuments conceived, in the broad sense, as „cultural values”. According to the definition adopted temporarily by the research team o f the Centre, a cultural value is a set of objects that have a definite value, function, date o f the origin, style and that are the product o f human wilful activities in a creative process. The cultural value is an integral part of both universal culture and of the culture of a specific community and proves its development at a given historical stage. The „value” conceived in that sense is a testimony to the history o f the nation and has a great cognitive value for present generations. Being a genuine reflection o f the social existence, its civilisation and ideology, the cultural value is a factor affecting, i.a., the awareness o f a contemporary man, for whom the knowledge of manifestations o f culture in the past helps to get to know and to comprehend the present age. The notion of „cultural value” is inseparably linked with two other concepts, namely „cultural heritage” (i.e. cultural legacy of the bygone society) and „cultural environment”. The latter concept denotes groups o f people producing cultural values and also places in which the value is created and with which it is inseparably connected. And it is that second aspect o f the problem, conceived in the broadest sense, that makes the focus o f interests and research works carried out by the Gdańsk Centre for the Protection of Cultural Values. Hence, the term „cultural environment” covered landscape including all natural and man-made elements. The following sections have already been set up for the full execution of the adopted programs: the Team of the Monuments Research and Documentation Workshop, the Team o f the Conservation Workshop for Works o f Art, Documentation Department, Servicing Workshops, Independent Post for Building and Investment, Independent Post for Defence and Protection of Historic Monuments as well as Finance and Administration and Economic Department. The departments group experts in different fields, to mention only architects, art and architecture historians, engineers. They also maintain a close contact with research workers and cultural organizations in the Baltic Coast and in the country.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Na przełomie

86%
Stankiewicz J.
Ochrona Zabytków
|
1975
|
issue 2
93-110
EN
A good deal of essential problems with which are faced the Polish scientific and cultural circles dealing with protection of historical monuments have been listed within the present article. The main emphasis, however, was laid upon und in detail discussed were the following questions: the advancing endangerments to settling environments as a consequence of new conditions of the „standardized production” of new housing estates; the definition of the term „historical monument” or „cultural heritage” ; the unfavourable results of'verifying the cultural property through its classification; the approach of representatives of various scientific disciplines to cultural property; the problems of a corporate considering of groupings of historic buildings and, finally - the problems of staffing as well as those of organization. A particular emphasis was laid by the author upon importance of problems related to protection of settling environment by stressing the fact that the Polish experts have at their disposal a number of well developod methods basing on the corporate investigations carried out by specialists from many scientific areas. The introduction of such investigations into a wide practice should prove highly helpful while establishing the outlines that in their turn would constitute an essential element in preparing of the general and detailed plans and at working out of housing programmes. The author hopes that it will namely be the historians and conservators who will choose the spatial settings deserving to be safeguarded and at the same time demanding the determining of nature and extent of the necessary or permissible rehabilitation and modernization. While advancing the above requirements he puts the question about our readiness to carry out the aforo- -mentioned tasks and expresses his doubts and objections. Among these objections quite essential, in the author’s view, role is being played by terminology. The term „zabytek” (a historical monument in Polish) while in use in other languages suggests a sizeable object of monumental character whereas in Polish it is composed of two parts, namely a prefix „za”, pointing to something coming from the past and „byt” , eonstituing an arch definition. In the above connection the term „zabytek” (a monument, historical monument) is strongly emphasising the ancientness of an object which in the author’s view confines its comprehension range. The author refers to the Polish Law on the Protection of Cultural Property of 1962 wdiere the term „historical monument” is being used as one alternating with „cultural property” . From the above fact two features are resulting, unfavorable for the protection of cultural property, namoly interpretation stating that as the „monuments” are to be considered only the cultural property subjected to legal protection and, furthermore, the identify of terms „monument” and an object whose main quality is its age. According to the author a lot of confusion and harms have been caused by classifying verification of cultural property or cultural heritage consisting of architectural objects or historic buildings which has led to demolition of objects classified to lower categories or even those in higher categories. The register of historic buildings is covering only sporadic buildings dating from the 19th and 20th centuries that under the eyes of community only quite recently are acquiring the qualities of cultural property under protection. A strong criticism was expressed by the author with respect to touring maps containing classifications of the separate historical monuments an a general statement made by him that in the community’s consciousness more and more firm becomes the view about the apparent worthlessness of what is forming the basic tissue of historical settings. The Law mentioned above lists eleven groups of objects or their groupings that may form the subject of protection. It must be added, however, that each of these groups forms a basic for the separate area of knowledge. The above division results into different methods of investigation and, furthermore, is connected with various institutions, professional associations, displays, etc. It has been stated by the author that the prevailing majority of groups to wrhom is classified the cultural property in this country is to be found within the groupings and enclosed systems and so, for instance, a single grouping may be composed of cultural property representing the above 11 classes; thus the separate elements of that grouping will be diasipated in registrations which the situation does not favour a corporate protection. In the course of his further considerations the author characterizes the approach the experts from the various fields of science may have to a given object and he states that the most „corporate” in its nature approach is shown by graduates from the Institute of Connoisseur - ship and Conservation, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń. It is required by the author that the aesthetical values of cultural property be not indentified with assessments made on conventional basis of investigations carried out by art historians and architects and that the classifying verifications be made on the basis of a full and objective overall distinction. As an essential problem is considered by the author that of settlement groupings of high rank arising from richness of historical and social traditions and both spatial systems and forms. As particularly unsatisfactory are to be considered conditions of the traditional rustic buildings. It is suggested by the author that in each ethnographic region at least one grouping of rustici buildings should be selected with a reservation accompanying it. With regard to the historic urban centres in the years 1969—1970 the criteria for estimating of historic buildings have changed; thus, for instance, to such buildings are now being counted those with architectural forms that developed during the 19th and early 20th century but as deserving consideration should also be handled the town plans, the outskirts or the workers’ housing quarters and the like, dating back to those times. It is proposed by the author to stop the publication of registers or catalogues of historic buildings and to focus on systematic investigations supplying the background for the renewed, but this time carefully planned and wide registering action. The problems of staffing have also been dealt with by the author who pointed to quantitative insufficiencies of the appropriately trained personnel able to undertake the tasks associated with protection and preservation of cultural property. While speaking about such personnel he has in mind a number of suitably specialized experts e.g. twon planners, architects or civil engineers who with the problems from the ange of cultu al property protection would be made acquainted in the course of their academic training. However, that their activities could prove affective it is indispensable to establish a suitable organizational system of their work with no place for an excessively extended administration, but quite opposite — with the conservation services supported by a suitable scientific and research as well as technical background. In this connection it is suggested by the author to establish the Voivodship Centres of Cultural Property Protection subordinated to Voivodship Conservators and responsible for carrying out the tasks associated with preparing of documentation and other research activities. While summarizing his considerations the author presented the directions of the necessary research activities, organizational and legal measures, these form the field of training and finally those in publishing range that all taken together could lead to changes in protection of cultural property in Poland.
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Wraki statków-mogił wojennych jako zabytki podlegające szczególnej ochronie

86%
Gadecki B.
Ochrona Zabytków
|
2014
|
issue 2
109-117
EN
Three shipwrecks which sunk at the end of the Second World War are classified as war graves. These are the “Wilhelm Gustloff”, the “Goya” and the “General von Steuben”. These shipwrecks are also historical monuments and are protected under provisions of criminal law, which are contained both in the Act on the Protection of Monuments and the Guardianship of Monuments and in the Penal Code. Currently applicable laws protect shipwrecks against damage or destruction, profane, theft. Also in order to protect the property aboard war graves and to protect the environment the Maritime Office in Gdynia and the Maritime Office in Słupsk have forbidden diving within 500 meters of these wrecks.
6
Content available remote

Administracyjnoprawna regulacja ochrony dóbr kultury w Polsce – stan prawny de lege lata

72%
Sokólska T.
Opolskie Studia Administracyjno-Prawne
|
2011
|
vol. VIII
11-32
EN
The article deals with the problem of administrative-legal regulations behind the protection of cultural goods, and its goal is to analytically present the protection of this type of property in the Polish law. The fundamental legal act that regulates the question of protection of monuments in Poland is the Act on protection of monuments and care of monuments of 23 July 2003 (Journal of Laws, No. 162, item 1568 with subsequent amendments), the text of which (according to the legal state of 5 June 2010) makes the basis for the present synthetic framework of the subject and for characterizing the changes introduced by the amendment of 18 March 2010.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ochrona Znaku Polski Walczącej

72%
Gadecki B.
Ochrona Zabytków
|
2016
|
issue 2
55-68
PL
Znak Polski Walczącej składający się z liter P i W tworzących kotwicę jest jednym z najbardziej rozpoznawalnych symboli Powstania Warszawskiego. Znak ,,Polska Walcząca” został przyjęty w 1942 r. przez Armię Krajową. Znak ten jest obecnie chroniony przez prawo (ustawa o ochronie Znaku Polski Walczącej). Artykuł zmierza do objaśnienia dogmatycznych aspektów wykroczenia zawartego w art. 3 ust. 1 ustawy o ochronie Znaku Polski Walczącej. Artykuł 3 ust. 1 tej ustawy reguluje wykroczenie znieważenia Znaku Polski Walczącej: kto znieważa Znak Polski Walczącej podlega karze grzywny. W artykule objaśniono także znaczenia następujących pojęć: ,,Znak Polski Walczącej”, ,,zabytek”, ,,dobro kultury”. Autor przedstawia także proces legislacyjny.
EN
The Polish Fight Symbol composed of letters P and W stylized as anchor is one of the most recognizable symbols of the Warsaw Uprising. Symbol of “Fighting Poland” was adopted in 1942 by the Home Army. The said symbol is now protected by law (the Act on protection of the Polish Fight Symbol). This article aims to examine dogmatic aspects of the misdemeanor specified in Article 3 paragraph 1 of the Act on protection of the Polish Fight Symbol. Article 3 paragraph 1 regulates misdemeanor of profaning the Polish Fight Symbol: Anyone who profanes the Polish Fight Symbol is liable to a fine. Examined herein is also the meaning of the following terms: “Polish Fight Symbol”, “historical monument”, “cultural property”. The author also describes the legislative process.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Restitution of Polish cultural property – de lege lata remarks and basis for system evaluation. Contribution to the discussion

72%
Landmann T.
Scientific Journal of the Military University of Land Forces
|
2020
|
vol. 52
|
issue 4(198)
820-831
PL
Celem artykułu jest przestawienie stanu prawno-faktycznego restytucji polskich dóbr kultury oraz wskazanie na wybrane, interesujące wątpliwości, problemy i kwestie sporne związane ze stosowaniem obowiązującego prawa. Analizę oparto na przepisach prawnych, najnowszym piśmiennictwie i statystykach skuteczności restytucji dóbr kultury w Polsce w latach 2011-2017. Postawiono tezę, że w Polsce nie udało się wypracować spójnego systemu restytucji dóbr kultury, zarówno przed uchwaleniem, jak i na tle stosowania ustawy o restytucji narodowych dóbr kultury. Regulację można traktować, jako istotny sposób pobudzenia zmian oraz zwiększenia rangi problematyki restytucji dóbr kultury. Restytucja polskich dóbr kultury w latach 2011-2017 to proces złożony, napotykający na szereg problemów. Przyjęcie ustawy o restytucji narodowych dóbr kultury, mimo licznych głosów krytycznych, może stanowić ważny impuls rozwojowy ze względu na liczne trudności w skutecznym egzekwowaniu idei restytucyjnej w Polsce w ostatnim okresie.
EN
The article aims to present the legal and factual state of restitution of Polish cultural property and point out selected, interesting doubts, problems, and disputable issues related to applying the current law. The analysis is based on legal regulations, the latest literature, and statistics on the effectiveness of restitution of cultural property in Poland in 2011-2017. The thesis was put forward that a coherent system of restitution of cultural property, before the adoption and against the background of application of the Act on Restitution of National Cultural Assets, has not yet been developed in Poland. The regulation can be treated as an essential way to stimulate change and increase the importance of the restitution of cultural assets. Restitution of Polish cultural property in the years 2011-2017 is a complex process, encountering various problems. The adoption of the Act on the Restitution of National Cultural Assets, despite numerous critical voices, may constitute a critical developmental impulse due to numerous difficulties in the effective enforcement of the restitution idea in Poland recently.
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Criminal law and practical approaches to fighting crime in the area of protection of cultural property as an element of forming the cultural security of the Third Polish Republic

72%
Landmann T.
Scientific Journal of the Military University of Land Forces
|
2019
|
vol. 51
|
issue 2(192)
238-252
PL
W artykule przyjęto za cel przedstawienie przepisów prawno-karnych, a także faktycznych rezultatów walki z przestępczością w dziedzinie ochrony dóbr kultury w Polsce od początku XXI wieku. Postawiono tezę, zgodnie z którą prawno-karna ochrona dóbr kultury pozostaje kluczowym determinantem kształtowania bezpieczeństwa kulturowego III RP. Przeprowadzona analiza dowiodła, że skuteczne kształtowanie bezpieczeństwa kulturowego III RP zależy od zapewnienia właściwej ochrony dóbr o szczególnym znaczeniu dla kultury. Działania w tej sferze bezpieczeństwa kulturowego wpisują się w postulat ochrony dziedzictwa kulturowego. Ważnym aspektem działań państwa jest formułowanie oraz stosowanie przepisów prawa karnego. Zaprezentowane argumenty pozwalają stwierdzić, że praktyka przeciwdziałania i zwalczania przestępczości wymierzonej w dobra kultury w III RP na początku XXI wieku zależała w dużej mierze od aktywności policji i straży granicznej.
EN
The objective of the article is to present criminal law provisions and also the actual effects of fighting crime in the area of protection of cultural property in Poland since the beginning of the 21st century. A thesis has been formulated, according to which the protection of cultural property arising from the criminal law remains the key determinant of forming the cultural security of the Third Polish Republic. The conducted analysis shows that the effective forming of cultural security of the Third Polish Republic depends on ensuring the appropriate protection for the property of special significance for culture. Actions taken in this area of the cultural security fit with the postulate of protecting the cultural heritage. An important aspect of actions undertaken by the state is to formulate and apply the criminal law provisions. On the basis of the presented arguments it can be stated that at the beginning of the 21st century the practice of counteracting and fighting crime against cultural property in the Third Polish Republic depended to a significant extent on the activity of the Police and the Border Guard.
10
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ochrona i konserwacja zabytków architektury na Węgrzech

58%
Kanclerz F.
Ochrona Zabytków
|
1965
|
issue 2
49-57
FR
De nombreux monuments historiques se trouvent sur le te rrito ire de la Hongrie contemporaine. Ils relèvent de diverses époques depuis ceux dans les anciennes provinces romaines, en Pannonie et Transleithamie, datant du I-e r au Vl-ème siècle de n. e. Le Moyen-Age, époque des Arpades laisse en héritage de nombreux châteaux et églises, tandis que les époques ultérieures se manifestent par d’autres monuments religieux e t civils, notamment par un rich e apport d ’architecture bourgeoise. Le patrimoine de la Hongrie a souffert de d estructions fréquentes et parfois totales. Les invasions ta rta re s du XIII-e siècle, l'occupation des Turcs aux XVI-e e t XVII-e siècles, en tra în en t la ruine des monuments d ’époques antérieures. L ’étendue de ces destructions fu t élargie par une action d ’Etât intenté e su r l’o rd re de l’empereur autrichien au début du XVIII-e siècle e t ayant pour but de démolir entièrement les vieux bâtiments tels que châteaux et fortifications. En résultat, les plus anciens vestiges de la culture hongroise ne présentèren t bientôt q u ’un amas de débris e t lamentables ruines. La protection des monuments fu t entreprise en Hongrie en 1866 par la Commission Centrale Hongroise pour la protection des biens nationaux. On procéda alors à l’élaboration d’un règlement de base et on créa des institutions chargées de son application. Dans la première période de cette activité, seuls les vestiges les plus anciens étaient pris en considération (env,. 50 monuments) en laissant de côté, comme c’é tait d’usage d’ailleurs à cette époque, les monuments historiques d’époques plus récentes notamment du baroque e t du classicisme. Des modifications importantes fu ren t apportées à la législation relative à la sauvegarde des monuments, après l’année 1945, compte tenu de l’étendue des destructions subies p a r le patrimoine historique .au cours de la dernière guerre mondiale. En 1949 fu t votée la nouvelle loi concernant la protection •des monuments. Un In stitu t National fu t constitué .auprès du Ministère du Bâtiment pour la protection des monuments. L ’In stitu t sus-mentionné est compétent pour les projets, la direction et la ré a lisation des trav a u x de conservation. Les recherches scientifiques, notamment les fouilles archéologiques, la popularisation des idées sur la nécessité de la protection des biens culturels, le contrôle sur l’opportunité des adaptations des monuments aux b e soins de la vie contemporaine, fu ren t confiés au Ministère de l’Education. Il nous faut souligner a cette occasion la haute valeur des trav au x de r e cherches effectués par les archéologues, qui ont p a rticipé de cette façon à la protection des monuments. Le relevé des oeuvres d’architecture protegees par la loi compte env. 12.000 monuments, dont en viron 2.000 possèdent une valeur spéciale au point de vue historique, artistique e t architectural, 9.000 (env.) constituent des vestiges de l’histoire e t env. 1000 un élément de valeur dans l’apperçu général d ’une ville ou d ’un village. Parmi les critères de valorisation sont prises en considération les conditions matérielles, historiques (y compris la valeur spéciale des objets du culte) et esthétiques. Les formes et les règles de la conservation ne fu ren t arrêtées définitivement qu’a p rès des recherches complexes et variées auxquelles sont soumis les ensembles résidentiels et les centres urbains. En fin de compte, les monuments historiques furent inscrits dans le plan des aménagements spaciaux avec toutes les conséquences favorables qui en résultent. La protection des monuments et la réalisation des trav a u x de conservation, est mise en pratique, en premier lieu par l ’In s titu t de la Protection des Monuments. Son activité concerne d’abord les monuments les plus anciens, exigeant un programme de conservation compliqué. Des groupes de spécialistes sont constitués pour la réalisation de ces tr a vaux, à base d ’un devis de réalisation, donc ne jouant pas le rôle d ’un bureau d ’entreprises. Car on a pris pour règle générale que la protection des monuments fa it partie d ’activité culturelle et ne peut être conçue comme une entreprise de construction profitable. Le programme des trav au x de conservation se divise généralement en trois étapes: fouilles archéologiques et recherches historiques concernant l’oeuvre architecturale, protection des parties dévoilées du monument, avec projet et devis, trav a u x de conservation et de construction. Le traitem en t de conservation doit tenir compte des règles suivantes: 1. Conservation des vestiges „in situ ”. 2. Reconstruction des parties manquantes du monument pour des fins didactiques. 3. Adaptation du monument aux besoins de la vie contemporaine. Ces règles concernent surtout les châteaux en ruines, les palais etc. Toutefois un principe général s’impose: le devoir de conserver au monument au ta n t d’authenticité que possible, tout en adm ettant une modernisation rationnelle en vue des besoins de la vie contemporaine. Les réalisations suivantes, effectuées au cours des années récentes peuvent être considérées comme exemplaires: — église romane du XlI-e siècle à Ecserpuszta où la ru in e est conservée avec de très légères reconstructions; une partie de la ruine destinée au „lapida rium” recouverte par des toits de protection de construction légère. L’ensemble fut adapté à des fins touristiques, vu que le monument se trouve sur l’itinéraire du littoral du Balaton. — Château de Vârgesztes en ruine, érigé de pierre (XV-e—XVI-e siècle) où, après un tra item e n t de conservation, fu t aménagé un refuge touristique. Ces trav au x de conservation sont effectués avec une adaptation minime aux exigeamces modernes. Le caractère original des fortifications médiévales est mis en valeur en ne nuisant pas, pour autant, à son caractère de ruine romantique. — Château élevé en pierre à Nagyvâzsony (XlV-e— XVI-e siècle). Après avoir enlevé une couche épaisse de débris, on procéda à la conservation des fra g ments des murs du rez-de-chaussée. La chapelle fu t reconstruite en partie ainsi que la barbacane en employant un style n eu tre pour les parties rajoutées.. La tour qui constitue l’élément le plus ancien de cet édifice, fu t reconstruite e t aménagée en musée.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.