Search results

1

Klub Indywidualnych Użytkowników Obiektów Zabytkowych

100%

Paździor M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1984

|

issue 4

307-308

2

Prof. dr hab. inż. arch. Wojciech Kalinowski (23.02.1919-18.04.1992)

100%

Konopka M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1992

|

issue 1-2

3-6

EN

Professor Wojciech Kalinowski, a celebrated expert on the history o f Polish towns, lecturer, eminent scholar and conservator o f historical monuments, died two years after retirement. He was wounded in September 1939, an inmate o f the concentration camps o f Sachsenhausen and Dachau, a soldier o f the Warsaw Uprising o f 1944 and prisoner o f war. Professor Kalinowski was a graduate o f the Department o f Architecture at Warsaw University. From 1946 he worked as an assistant to Professor Jan Zachwatowicz and in the years 1951-1969 was the scientific secretary and vice-director o f the Institute o f Town Planning and Architecture. From 1969 professor Kalinowski lectured in the Institute o f Historical Monuments and Conservation at the Mikołaj Kopernik University in Toruń, a post he held until death. In the 1970-1975 period he worked in the Institute o f History o f M aterial Culture at the Polish Academy o f Science and from 1975- to 1989 held the post o f director o f the Centre for the Documentation o f Monuments in Warsaw. His Ph.D. dissertation entitled „Industrial Architecture o f Textile Manufactures in the Kingdom o f Poland, 1815-1830" was presented in 1961 at Warsaw Polytechnic and the title o f doctor hab. was granted upon the basis o f „C ity Development in Poland up to mid-19th Century"published in the United States. In 1973 Wojciech Kalinowski was nominated professor. His scientific achievements include over 200 publications. The main topic o f his studies was the history o f towns in Poland, and in particular, town planning; he also dealt with architecture and especially wooden and industrial buildings, including sacral constructions. Numerous works were devoted to terminology, principles for the documentation o f monuments and the revalorization o f old towns. His historical-town planning study concerning Radom became a model work copied by his successors. Professor Kalinowski published many sources (including cartography) for nineteenth-century towns. In 1968 in a group work edited by E. Camasasco he presented the part pertaining to the history o f Polish towns; and entitled „Storia della casa". Professor Kalinowski was the author o f 30 historical studies concerning towns and the editor and co-author o f the first volume o f „The Monuments o f Town Planning and Architecture in Poland. Reconstruction and Conservation", entitled „H is to rical Towns" (Warsaw 1986). He also published valuable academic textbooks at the University o f Toruń dealing with the history o f towns and the principles o f their protection. Professor Kalinowski was an extraordinarily active lecturer; he spoke at Warsaw University (the Institute o f Art), The Technical University in Dresden, and acted as a guest lecturer in England, France, the United States and East Germany. He was a member o f ICOMOS from 1973, and took part in numerous conferences held in Ingelheim, Milan, Graz and Budapest where he presented his accomplishments and took an activité part in international cooperation for the protection o f the cultural heritage. He also gave a new impetus to the Centre for the Documentation o f Monuments in Warsaw. It was upon his initiative that a fu ll register o f architectonic monuments in Poland, some 600000, was inaugurated together with the inventory o f archeological sides and the publication o f „Spotkania z Zabytkami". Professor Kalinowski transformed the Centre from an archive devoted to documents into a centre for the organization o f scientific investigations concerned with the protection o f monuments. Thanks to his universal interests. Professor Kalinowski remained a precursor o f the protection o f the cultural heritage. He was an extremely well liked head o f an institution and an independent expert during the most difficult period o f censorship in Poland. He was a member o f the Society o f Polish Architects, the Society o f Polish Town Planners and an honorary member o f the Association o f the Conservators o f Monuments. Professor Kalinowski was awarded the Cavalier Cross o f the Polonia Restitute medal, and the Cross o f the Warsaw Uprising and in 1987 he received an award o f the first degree from the Minister o f Culture and A rt for his achievements in the domain o f the protection o f historical monuments and didactics.

3

Ochrona zabytków jako ograniczenie prawa własności rzeczy zabytkowej. Uwagi na tle orzeczenia ETPC w sprawie Połomscy przeciwko Polsce z dnia 29 marca 2011 r.

100%

Młynarska-Sobaczewska A.

Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego

|

2011

|

issue 2 (6)

187-205

PL

Artykuł omawia zagadnienie granic dopuszczalnej ingerencji w sferę wykonywania prawa własności nieruchomości, stanowiącej rzecz zabytkową i wskazuje – w ślad za orzeczeniem ETPC deficyt polskiej regulacji w tym zakresie, polegający na braku trybu wywłaszczenia lub przymusowego wykupu takiej nieruchomości, co powoduje, że cały ciężar ochrony dobra publicznego spoczywa na właścicielu takiej rzeczy. Stan ten, zdaniem Autorki jest nie tylko sprzeczny z wskazanym w omawianym orzeczeniu ETPC Protokołem 1 do Europejskiej Konwencji o Ochronie Praw Człowieka, ale także konstytucyjnymi gwarancjami ochrony własności i dopuszczalnej ingerencji ustawodawczej w jej wykonywanie.

EN

The article describes the issue of acceptable limits of interference in exercising of ownership of monuments. It indicates – following the ECHR judgment from 29 March 2011 (complaint no 33949/05) – that Polish legal order in this matter is not sufficient, because it doesn’t include procedure of expropriation (by compensation) or obligatory redemption in such situation, and it causes that all burden of historical and national heritage protection is on the owner of monument. This situation isn’t – in Author’s opinion – acceptable as contradictory to Protocol 1 to ECHR and also as unconstitutional, because it is not compliant to constitutional guarantees of ownership protection and limitating clause prescribed by art. 31 p. 1 of Constitution.

4

Finansowanie odnowy zabytków w Polsce przy wykorzystaniu pomocy UE

80%

Kubiszewska K.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2012

|

issue 3-4

59-74

EN

The role of historic heritage in market economy has got dual character. On the one hand historic heritage is the legacy of physical artifacts inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations and therefore they build the spirit of national pride and play social functions. On the other hand they can be recognized as market products which support economic development of regions and countries influencing following sectors of economy: tourism and investments. These are main reasons to preserve, conserve and protect historic objects. Although Poland can be characterized with various historic heritage, currently this heritage is in poor condition. Therefore the pressure should be put in this scope. The article discusses various ways of financing heritage reservation, taking into account EU funds.

5

Dziedzictwo drewnianej architektury w Polsce

80%

Szałygin J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2013

|

issue 1-4

281-298

EN

Temples occupy a special place in the history of wooden architecture in Poland. Wooden manor houses are an inherent feature of our landscape, too. Wood was also used in the construction of public utility buildings, mostly taverns and village inns, often featuring interregional style characteristics. There is also a great variety of wooden structures used for industrial and craft purposes in rural areas. Other examples of wooden architecture can be found in built-up areas of small towns, typologically corresponding to the requirements of the historical delineation of land parcels, as well as in summer resorts and spas dating back from the turn of the 19th century. Wooden buildings and structures are of course the most abundant in the country. Buildings made of timber were prevalent in rural areas until the late fifties of the 20th century. Since early sixties, however, the number of wooden buildings has been decreasing steadily, which is mostly attributable to devastation and to a lesser extent to modernization trends. As a result, the traditional timber construction industry has completely disappeared in many regions of Poland. The small percentage that has survived serves as a proof of its architectural value, constituting a one-of-a-kind wooden architecture heritage on a European and even on a global scale. In fact, the most important Polish contribution to the history and evolution of global architecture is associated with wooden architecture. Preservation of historical monuments and sites in Poland has been approached with concern for centuries and has a long history and tradition. Since the second half of the 19th century, preservation of memorabilia and objects from the past, which provide historical insights into the previous epochs and events, has been regarded as a moral obligation, in accordance with the principle that the most important values should be passed down not only within the family, but also as items of national heritage. The preservation and care of historical monuments was regulated by legislative means soon after Poland regained its independence in order to ensure legal protection for specific objects of national heritage. Public administration bodies were also established to perform tasks associated with the preservation of historical sites and buildings. Due to the huge scale of destruction after the Second World War, preservation of historical monuments was practically reduced to conservation (reconstruction) activities in several chosen urban centres. The interest of the then decision makers did not extent to historical buildings and sites in most cities and villages – especially those in the so-called recovered territories or those representing manor architecture formerly belonging to “class enemies”, industrial architecture, parks, gardens and cemeteries. Wooden buildings and structures were at the highest risk of being destroyed. The transition from conservation interventions to conservation planning is said to have taken place in the mid-fifties of the 20th century. Unfortunately, preservation of historical monuments, including wooden buildings of historical value, was underfunded. Most appropriations were allocated for the most precious and unique buildings and structures. The number of wooden buildings of historical value which have been destroyed or fallen into disrepair since the war is very large. The two existing pieces of legislation: the Act on the protection of cultural heritage assets and the Act on the protection and care of historical monuments and sites have not been effective in preventing their disappearance from our landscape. The protection of the remnants of wooden architecture in our cultural landscape should be given more focus in today’s conservation activities (mostly in situ measures) to preserve the largest possible number of wooden structures in their original state, because it is this authenticity that makes them so precious. To this end, the local carpentry culture and the local wooden construction traditions must be revived if wooden structures of historical value are to be restored in a professional way by properly qualified carpenters and contractors. Conservation plans should take advantage of the revival of interest in wood as a construction material in the last two decades. More and more houses are being designed with wood as the principal construction material or one of construction materials, drawing on the tradition of century-old regional forms and restoring harmony and visual balance of our landscape. This means that the heritage of Polish wooden architecture will be continued in a new dimension and in a new space, revealing the beauty and plasticity of this material and its technical potential, often not fully appreciated or known.

6

"Mały słownik ochrony zabytków", Mieczysław Kurzątkowski, Warszawa 1989 : [recenzja]

80%

Krzyżanowski L.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1990

|

issue 4

236

7

„Nie mogę się w cerkwi modlić, bo to takie ruskie”. Wkład duchownych rzymskokatolickich w zachowanie zabytków cerkiewnych na południu Polski

80%

Gronek A.

Latopisy Akademii Supraskiej

|

2017

|

vol. Cerkiew a asymilacja- swój i obcy

|

issue 8

179-186

RU

После насильственного перемещения православного и греко-католического населения в 1944–1946 гг. в СССР, и 1947–1950 г. в рамках акции «Висла» – в северные и западные земли Польши, заброшенные деревни официально перешли к государству. Коммунистические власти не были заинтересованы в сохранении храмов, которые находились в этих деревниях. Они были опустошены, разграблены, брошенные ветшали. О имущество греческо-католической церкви, которой государство официально не признавало, требовалa католическaя церковь. Постепенно, не без труда, она взяла на себя больше храмов, которые стали служить новым жителям перемещенных деревень. Кажется, что в те времена, это был единственный реальный способ спасти эти, иногда очень ценные, памятники. Их сохранениe в значительной степени зависело от мудрости, готовности и решимости священников. Имеются случаи преднамеренного разрушения старых храмов, их непрофессионального ремонта и реконструкции, но также известны примеры образцове. Мечислав Чехай, несомненно, принадлежал к таким благородным священникам, благодаря которым на юге польского государства многие церкви сохранились.

8

PRAWNOKARNE ASPEKTY OCHRONY DÓBR KULTURY REFLEKSJE NA TLE ZMIANY STANU PRAWNEGO

80%

Chlebowicz P.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2003

|

issue 3-4

122-126

EN

Despite the fact that the legal aspects of the protection of historical monuments comprise a separate and interesting domain, they remain on the peripheries of Polish legal sciences. The presented sketch deals with assorted problems of the protection of historical monuments perceived from the perspective of penal law. Apparently, the implementation of the statute of 23 July 2003 on the protection of, and care for historical monuments constitutes a convenient pretext for a survey of penal law institutions. The “new” statute appears to be better than its predecessor, i. e. the statute on the protection of cultural property; the same holds true for its penal elements, and the clarity of legal language deserves particular attention. The copious article 3 of the statute, which contains as many as 15 legal definitions, should considerably facilitate the application of the regulations of this normative act which, after al,l is a basic source of the rights and duties of the owners of historical monuments. An indubitable novelty is article 108 of the statute which re-introduces the misdemeanour of destroying or damaging a historical monument. It should be kept in mind that up to now the conservation services applied a legal foundation composed of article 288 paragraph 1 of the penal code, in connection with article 294 paragraph 3 of the penal code. The mentioned foundation of the charge produced numerous problems associated with its interpretation. After all, not every historical monument constitutes property of particular significance for culture. Moreover, penal cases concerning historical monuments are rather rarely encountered. The described construction was successfully applied in cases of the devastation of archaeological sites in the voivodeship of Warmia- Mazuria. A penal-legal analysis of the protection of cultural property should draw attention to the statutory symptoms of misdemeanours which occur in great numbers in the penal regulations of the statute. Taking into consideration the subjective criteria, the misdeeds are divided into two groups : the first encompasses regulations concerning everyone, and thus each person may become a subject of the misdemeanour, while the second deals only with the owners of historical objects. Essential significance is ascribed to the norms expressed in article 109 of the statute penalising the behaviour of the owner who has ignored securing the object. Finally, it is also worth indicating the executive regulations which define the manner of protecting the historical object. The sociological premise of the effectiveness of the regulations is the legal awareness of the addressees of the norms. Unfortunately, the level of the legal culture of Polish society is far from desired. This question remains particularly topical within the realm of the protection of national heritage.

9

Zasoby zabytków architektury oraz ich użytkowanie i ochrona w turystyce na podstawie badań w Sudetach

80%

Nowicki R. G.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2012

|

issue 3-4

75-88

EN

The purpose of this analysis is to determine the extent to which the objects of historical architecture in the Sudety Mountains and their foreland can be used by the tourist sector, and presenting against that background the image of tourism as a factor possibly contributive to protecting those monuments. The main method of research consisted in analysing documents: records of historical buildings, tourist publications (guides, maps) and the offers of local travel agencies. Also, research of archives relative to the assessed historical objects of architecture proved relevant, in addition to surveys conducted among local inhabitants of the Sudety Mountains and their foreland, tourists and managers of “tourist” historical objects. Research demonstrated that about 6% of all objects of historical architecture of this region are attributed to the tourist sector. Only 2% have been fully developed for economic purposes within the tourist industry. The historical monuments taken over by tourism have been adapted mainly for accommodation/ gastronomic functions, as well as culture and sports/leisure. Tourism has assimilated mainly those properties that did not require advanced repairs and renovations (ca 70% of assessed units); less objects were taken over that required extensive renovations (25% of assessed units). Research has highlighted the role of tourism as a protective factor in regard of historical objects, in general terms. Protection in this case applies to units that are carefully selected and deemed touristically attractive, it consists in preserving them in good condition thanks to their continuous use; its important element is also education associated with dissemination, providing access to, and reliable promotion of cultural heritage awareness.

10

Zarządzanie dziedzictwem kulturowym : nowa dziedzina nauczania akademickiego i badań naukowych

80%

Gutowska K., Zbigniew K.

MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne

|

2011

|

issue 6

51-72

PL

Zarządzanie dziedzictwem kulturowym to wyodrębniona część dyscypliny, zwanej zarządzaniem zasobami kulturowymi. Jej przedmiotem jest ochrona i wykorzystanie dla dobra publicznego dziedzictwa kulturowego, czyli wiążących nas z naszą przeszłością pozostałości i wspomnień, znajdujących się w krajobrazie, w sztuce, języku czy tradycjach. Ta dziedzina badań i działań praktycznych pojawiła się – równolegle – w Stanach Zjednoczonych Ameryki i w Wielkiej Brytanii w latach 70. XX wieku. Kluczową koncepcją zarządzania dziedzictwem kulturowym jest „zarządzanie zmianami”, w miejsce zapobiegania czy powstrzymywania zmian, stanowiącego cel tradycyjnie rozumianej ochrony dóbr kultury. Zmian powstrzymać nie można i nie należy, chodzi jednak o to, aby nie powodowały utraty wartości, które potencjalnie zawarte są w dziedzictwie kulturowym. Aby zrealizować tak sformułowany cel, zarządzający dziedzictwem kulturowym muszą dysponować wiedzą i umiejętnościami o charakterze inter- i transdysyplinarnym. Tradycyjna „ochrona zabytków” czy „dóbr kultury”, charakterystyczna dla etapu istnienia państw o scentralizowanej administracji, opierała się na wyspecjalizowanych służbach konserwatorskich, kompetencjach administracyjnych, dokonywaniu aktów władczych oraz eksperckich kryteriach ewaluacji zabytków i arbitralnych decyzjach co do ich losu. Współczesne „zarządzanie dziedzictwem kulturowym” opiera się natomiast na publicznej partycypacji w procesach konserwacji, wiedzy naukowej, negocjacjach i doradztwie, uwzględnianiu opinii różnych sektorów społeczeństwa i publicznym uzasadnianiu decyzji. Artykuł przedstawia prace badawcze oraz inicjatywy w zakresie nauczania zarządzania dziedzictwem kulturowym podejmowane od dziesięciu lat na Politechnice Warszawskiej i na Uniwersytecie Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego.

EN

Cultural heritage management is a distinct part of the wider discipline known as cultural resource management. Its purpose is to protect and wisely use - for the public benefit - the cultural heritage, which consists of memories and material remains, binding us to our past and found in the landscape, in art, language and traditions. This field of research and practical action emerged - simultaneously - in the United States and Great Britain in the seventies of the twentieth century. A key concept of cultural heritage management is a „management of change „, contrary to prevention of the changes, which is traditionally understood as the purpose of cultural preservation. While changes cannot, and should not be stopped, the cultural heritage management attempts at guiding and informing the decisions on these changes in such a way that they would not result in the loss of values, which potentially are included in the cultural heritage. To achieve the goal, the cultural heritage managers must dispose inter-and transdisciplinary knowledge and skills. The traditional „monument protection” or „protection of cultural assets”, which was characteristic for the phase of the existence of states with centralized administration, was based on specialized conservation services, on administrative competence, on acts of governmental authority, on expert evaluation criteria of historical monuments and sites, and on arbitrary decisions as to their fate. Today’s „management of cultural heritage” is based on public participation in the processes of conservation, on scientific knowledge, on negotiations and advice, on taking into account views from different sectors of society and on the public justification of decisions.The article presents the research and the teaching initiatives in respect to the management of cultural heritage, taken during last ten years at the Warsaw University of Technology and the University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw.

11

Rola zabytków w gospodarce – wybrane zagadnienia

80%

Kubiszewska K.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2014

|

issue 2

163-176

EN

The role of cultural heritage in market economy has got a dual character and cannot be restricted to its historic, artistic or scientific value. On the one hand, cultural heritage is the legacy of physical artefacts which are inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations and therefore they build the sense of national pride and have social functions. On the other hand, they can be recognized as market products which support economic development of regions and countries influencing sectors of economy, such as: tourism and investments. Historic artefacts as an element of tangible infrastructure influence an economic development. They can be defined as material resources which are characterised by special features and potential of economic growth. The main objective of the article is to present the role of cultural heritage in country’s economy. This role cannot be limited to its tourist attractiveness. The article is divided into three parts. The first one defines the cultural heritage from various perspectives. The second one addresses the theoretical issues of the problem. Based on the literature review, it presents a role the cultural heritage can play in the economy. The last part comprises examples, both from Poland and abroad, how the cultural heritage can influence the economy, in three perspectives: economic growth, tourism and employment. Translated by Katarzyna Kubiszewska

12

Swoboda decyzyjna organów państwowych na przykładzie klauzul generalnych w ustawie z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami

80%

Bernatek-Zaguła I.

Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego

|

2010

|

issue 4 (4)

103-124

PL

W niniejszym artykule autor zajmuje się zagadnieniem relacji jaka zachodzi pomiędzy konstytucyjną dyrektywą wynikającą z art. 7 Konstytucji RP, na podstawie którego organy władzy publicznej w Polsce działają wyłącznie na podstawie i w granicach prawa, a zasadą swobody decyzyjnej w prawie administracyjnym umożliwiającej niejednokrotnie bardzo szeroką interpretację ogólnych z natury rzeczy przepisów prawa.Rozważania czynione są na podstawie jednej ustawy, o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami, i w oparciu o ocenę zawartych w tym akcie normatywnym klauzul generalnych. W pierwszej części artykułu autor przedstawia rozważania z zakresu teorii zagadnienia klauzul generalnych, w kolejnej - zestawia te rozważania z konkretnymi przykładami klauzul generalnych w przepisach prawnych omawianej ustawy, dokonując przykładowej interpretacji ich zakresu pojęciowego, podkreślając jednocześnie, jak olbrzymią swobodę decyzyjną ustawodawca zakreślił organom stosującym omawianą ustawę. Mając na uwadze opisane przykłady klauzul generalnych i możliwe szerokie konsekwencje ich stosowania, na zakończenie artykułu autor przedstawia sposoby, mechanizm wypełniania klauzul generalnych treścią poprzez przedstawienie stosowania klauzul generalnych w praktyce na przykładzie orzecznictwa sądowego.

EN

In this article entitled the author discusses the relation between the constitutional directive specified in Art. 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland under which official authorities in Poland must act under and in compliance with law, on the one hand, and discretionary power in administrative law which fre- quently enables broad interpretation of legal regulations which are general in nature, on the other. The author presents his arguments on the basis of one act, the Historic Pres- ervation Act, and the analysis of its general clauses. In the first part of the article, the author addresses theoretical aspects of general clauses. In the second part, the author illustrates the theoretical concepts with specific examples of general clauses in the said Act and provides an exemplary interpretation of their meaning. The focus is placed on the extensive discretionary powers conferred by the legislator on the authorities applying the Act. Based on the provided examples of general clauses and possible extensive consequences of their application, the author concludes with description of methods and the mechanism of giving a more precise meaning to the general clauses by presenting their application in practice in judicial decisions.

13

O pomnikach historii dyskusji ciąg dalszy : w obronie "zabytku prawa"

80%

Konopka M.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2000

|

issue 2

191-193

EN

A response to the polemical text by J. Pruszyński. In Pomniki historii, nie wykorzystana szansa (The Monuments o f History, an Unexploited Chance, “Ochrona Zabytkow” 1999, no. 4) M. Konopka recalled the decree issued by the President of the Republic of Poland, establishing regions of special value, known as monuments of history. In his polemic, J. Pruszyński proclaims that the idea of monuments of history is legally unjustified since it reintroduces the harmful element of a classification of historical monuments in a situation when all are of equal rank. In the opinion of the polemist it is much more important for the Minister of Culture and National Heritage to obtain tax reductions for owners of monuments and greater funds for conservation. M. Konopka claims that monuments of history are a form of a choice which, in view of the absence of adequate means, is applied anyhow by the register of monuments and in different treatments o f assorted types of monuments according to their material and manner of execution. The Presidential decree should be implemented by means of an executive ruling issued by the Minister of Culture and National Heritage, which has never been presented. The debate thus pertains to the question whether to leave the moribund entry about monuments or to embark upon an attempt at discovering a form of their special treatment, mentioned in the Ministerls ruling.

14

"Ochrona zabytków w Polsce. Geneza, organizacja, prawo", Jan Pruszyński, Warszawa 1989 : [recenzja]

70%

Krzyżanowski L.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1990

|

issue 3

171-172

15

Era ochrony zabytków Jana Zachwatowicza

70%

Rymaszewski B.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1984

|

issue 2

118-122

16

Aktualne problemy prawne i finansowe ochrony zabytków w Polsce w dobie przekształceń ustrojowych państwa

70%

Dobosz P.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2000

|

issue 1

12-18

EN

The presented reflections encompass an analysis of the cu rren t Polish model of the protection of cultural heritage against the backdrop of a reform of administrative and territorial structures, introduced at the beginning of 1999. In a systemic interpre tation, the question of dividing the tasks o f the protection of historical monuments is associated with the establishment of two new units of territorial self- -g overnment (the county and the voivodeship) and a reform of the government administration at the voivodeship level, due to which the post of the voivodeship conservator of historical monuments, embedded in Polish tradition, was expanded under the supervision of the voivode by imposing executive tasks carried out, on the one hand, ex lege in the name of the voivode, who acts as an administrative organ; on the other hand, the conservator was granted distinct material-legal tasks, which he performs as a separate organ. In turn, the rank of the General Conservator of Historical Monuments became a political function, whose holder could become the object of decisions made by the ruling coalition; as a result, changes concerning the holder of this post are possible at any given time. Consequently, the function in question is not affected by the impact of civil service legislation norms. The author goes on to analyse other d e te rminants of the present-day Polish model of the protection of historical monuments, such as the state of social awareness, the disintegration of legislation concerning the p ro tection of cultural heritage by means of a separation of issues dealing with the protection of cultural property from the museum system, as well as a gradual “archaisation” of legislation pertaining to the protection of cultural property, whose basic resolutions date back to 1962, the financial conditions of the state, public-legal unions, i. e. units of territorial self-government and society, the subjectivisation of units, a reform of the administrative court system, etc. The above-presented text was read in 1999 at a ceremonial inauguration of the Little Poland Cultural Heritage Days, held in a manor house in Modlnica near Cracow, and organised by regional self-government authorities.

17

Pierwsza konferencja Międzynarodowej Rady Muzeów

70%

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1948

|

issue 2

49-51, 93

FR

L’article est un compte-rendu des problèmes touchant la protection des monuments et qui ont été traités lors de la première conférence de ICOM (International Council of Museums) à Paris, en juin-juillet courant.

18

Kształtowanie postaw społecznych ważnym zadaniem ochrony zabytków

70%

Daoulatli A.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1989

|

issue 1

28-30

EN

The problem of the participation of the society in the protection of monuments has been raised quite frequently. Its solution faces difficulties which flow from, i.a., a shortage of means and adequate programmes. The most efficient programme would be the one that would make an integral part of educational and cultural policy of the state. Historic monuments might play then the role which they deserve as witnesses of cultural identity. Without such approach and without trying to include the process of making the society sensitive to the protection of monuments into the process of general development of culture, it will not be possible to accomplish its participation. The process of educating the society should make use of latest achievements of social sciences and engineering (pictures, television, informatics) as well as of the experience in the creation of associations and societies grouping people around other problems of social life, e.g. ecological ones. The society must be interested in the protection of monuments not only emotionally but also materially (e.g. development of tourism). An important question is the ability of persuading. As yet there is no "type" of a conservator who would be able not only to interpret a message hidden in the monument and to preserve its material form but also to transmit this message to the others and to teach them to love those who are accused of being insensitive to the decay of historic structures.

19

Pijalnie wód mineralnych jako specyficzne dziedzictwo karpackich uzdrowisk. O ich prawnej ochronie oraz funkcjach w kontekście turystyki kulturowej

70%

Lizak A.

Turystyka Kulturowa

|

2016

|

issue 4

80-98

PL

Celem artykułu jest ukazanie pijalni wód mineralnych jako obiektów, których rola wykracza poza funkcję urządzeń lecznictwa uzdrowiskowego. Często bowiem pijalnie posiadają status zabytków lub dóbr kultury współczesnej oraz są centrami kulturalnymi miejscowości uzdrowiskowych, stanowiąc miejsce, gdzie odbywają się koncerty czy wystawy, gdzie promowany jest z jednej strony lokalny folklor, a z drugiej – kultura wysoka. W artykule zwrócono uwagę przede wszystkim na dwa aspekty. Po pierwsze, przeanalizowano na wybranych przykładach uzdrowisk karpackich spełnianie przez pijalnie kryteriów, pozwalających je zaliczyć w poczet zabytków (tj. m.in. wartość artystyczna, historyczna,); w tym zakresie zwrócono również uwagę na problematykę ich ochrony oraz na rolę, jaką odgrywa w tym zakresie polityka turystyczna i kulturalna jednostek samorządu terytorialnego różnego szczebla. Po drugie, w artykule skupiono się na praktycznej stronie zarządzania pijalniami wód mineralnych – wskazano przy tym konkretne przykłady inicjatyw, które czynią z nich miejsca atrakcyjne z punktu widzenia nie tylko turystyki zdrowotnej, ale też kulturowej.

20

Bilans korzyści i niedogodności : prywatny właściciel wobec decyzji o wpisaniu obiektu do rejestru zabytków

61%

Kulesza M.

MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne

|

2011

|

issue 7

201-207

PL

Referat stanowi próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy każdy obiekt warto i czy należy wpisywać do rejestru zabytków, postawione z punktu widzenia właściciela nieruchomości „z przeszłością”. Problem omawiam na przykładzie dworku w Hucie Mińskiej, pokazując trudności, z jakimi spotykają się jego właściciele i zmiany, jakich w tej nieruchomości dokonują, związane z koniecznymi naprawami oraz niezbędną modernizacją. Staram się sformułować realistyczne oczekiwania ze strony właściciela nieruchomości, która nie ma szans na wpisanie do rejestru zabytków, wobec urzędu konserwatorskiego i innych instytucji lub organizacji pozarządowych. Na zakończenie formułuję wnioski na temat bilansu zysków, a także strat (kłopotów, niedogodności i utrudnień), jakich może spodziewać się prywatny właściciel, gdyby (hipotetycznie) rozpoczął starania o status zabytku i taki status uzyskał.

EN

The paper presents an attempt to answer the question, whether every historic building is worth enlisting in the official registry of monuments, and whether - from the point of view of the owner of such property having its history – such form of legal protection is advantageous. Problem is being discussed on the example of manor house at Huta Mińska, showing difficulties which its owner meets and changes he makes in his property, connected with necessary repairs and modernization. I am trying to formulate realistic expectations towards conservator office and other institutions or non–governmental organizations, from the point of view of the owner of property, which has no chance to be included in the registry of protected monuments. At the end I am formulating conclusions involving balance of benefits and losses (troubles, inconveniences, difficulties), which private owner may expect, if – in a hypothetic situation - he made an effort to get legal status of monument for his building and obtained it.

Refine search results

Klub Indywidualnych Użytkowników Obiektów Zabytkowych

Prof. dr hab. inż. arch. Wojciech Kalinowski (23.02.1919-18.04.1992)

Ochrona zabytków jako ograniczenie prawa własności rzeczy zabytkowej. Uwagi na tle orzeczenia ETPC w sprawie Połomscy przeciwko Polsce z dnia 29 marca 2011 r.

Finansowanie odnowy zabytków w Polsce przy wykorzystaniu pomocy UE

Dziedzictwo drewnianej architektury w Polsce

"Mały słownik ochrony zabytków", Mieczysław Kurzątkowski, Warszawa 1989 : [recenzja]

„Nie mogę się w cerkwi modlić, bo to takie ruskie”. Wkład duchownych rzymskokatolickich w zachowanie zabytków cerkiewnych na południu Polski

PRAWNOKARNE ASPEKTY OCHRONY DÓBR KULTURY REFLEKSJE NA TLE ZMIANY STANU PRAWNEGO

Zasoby zabytków architektury oraz ich użytkowanie i ochrona w turystyce na podstawie badań w Sudetach

Zarządzanie dziedzictwem kulturowym : nowa dziedzina nauczania akademickiego i badań naukowych

Rola zabytków w gospodarce – wybrane zagadnienia

Swoboda decyzyjna organów państwowych na przykładzie klauzul generalnych w ustawie z dnia 23 lipca 2003 r. o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami

O pomnikach historii dyskusji ciąg dalszy : w obronie "zabytku prawa"

"Ochrona zabytków w Polsce. Geneza, organizacja, prawo", Jan Pruszyński, Warszawa 1989 : [recenzja]

Era ochrony zabytków Jana Zachwatowicza

Aktualne problemy prawne i finansowe ochrony zabytków w Polsce w dobie przekształceń ustrojowych państwa

Pierwsza konferencja Międzynarodowej Rady Muzeów