Search results

1

DZIEDZICTWO KULTURY — EUROPEJSKIE, NARODOWE CZY WŁASNE?

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1999

|

issue 4

403-406

EN

The concept of the cultural heritage used and even abused in statements made in politics, the press and scientific publications, usually denotes historical monuments. The author of the article proposes a concise presentation of his views concerning this type of legacy and so-called cultural goods, part of which deserve to be described as cultural evil. It would be difficult to consider, for example, the Palace of Culture and Science, foreign monuments and traces of the partitions or occupation to be national property or legacy. In conclusion, the author claims that national identification is threatened by the deprivation of culture; on the other hand, the deprivation of a nation means that culture becomes a collection of relics and incomprehensible rituals.

2

"Ochrona zabytków sztuki kościelnej" : uwagi na marginesie monografii ks.prof. Janusza St. Pasierba

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1996

|

issue 3

336-341

3

Państwowa służba konserwatorska : uwagi de lege ferenda

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1991

|

issue 4

285-287

EN

The authors of the ammendment to the law „Concerning the Protection of Cultural Goods" (15 February 1962), passed in 1990 by the Seym of the Polish Republic, assumed that it would be provisional although it contains many solutions necessary for the state conservation services to supervise and protect the monuments entrusted to them. The preparation of projects for the ammendment was conducted in a situation when the division of competences between the government and self-government administration remained insufficiently regulated. This is why the duties of the owners and usufructuaries were formulated in a general manner, although they are of decisive importance for the existence of historical monuments. A serious gap in the regulation is the retention of the existing organizational system of services for the protection of monuments at the level of voivodships; only the name was changed. Despite the fact that the Minister of Culture and Art is at present empowered to nominate and dismiss the Voivodship Conservators of Monuments, and to determine the structure of the State service for the Conservation of Monuments, the latter remains a weak and ineffective organization. The conservation services hold a special place in the system of state administration. The nature and value of the property entrusted to them as well as the variety of legal, organizational and material activity jointly described as protection, are the reason why they should be appropriately expanded and organized so that the obligations placed upon the services by the law would not become fiction. An acquaintanceship with the regulations shows that the work of the conservator demands from him not only improved professional knowledge as regards architecture, the history of art, archeology, and construction technology, but also administrative efficacy and a knowledge of law and organization. The majority of conservators as a rule was, and still is, unable to meet these requirements. As a result, the following questions must be taken into consideration in the course of a further legal regulations of the conservation of monuments: 1. the system of the state conservation services; 2. professional requirements; 3. conservation specialization (promotion); 4. decision-making rights; 5. cooperation, and 6. legal advice. The above remarks which are the outcome of many years of specialization in conservation and museum work as well as research into systems prevalent in Europe, should be treated as an expression of concern for the preservation of the cultural heritage in the best possible state and as a voice in a discussion concerning the further improvement of an appropriate law.

4

Redakcja "Ochrony Zabytków"

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1996

|

issue 4

431

5

Kolegium Ekspertów ds. Zabytków i Dzieł Sztuki oraz Centralnego Laboratorium Zabytków

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1991

|

issue 4

287-289

EN

In connection with political and economic changes, a growing interest in works of art and monuments as well as the forseeable liberalization of the principles of their export outside the Polish Republic, it became necessary to bring into being an institution which would determine the historical, artistic, scientific and cultural and in concrete cases, material value mentioned in the legislation dealing with the protection of cultural goods. The most correct solution would be to establish a Bo a r d of Ex p er t s in M o n u m e n t s and A r t w o r k s working alongside the Minister. This body would be composed of the most outstanding and professionally active representatives of museums and conservation, but should not include mor than twenty persons. The first task ought to establish: 1. lists of specializations calling for separate experts; 2. qualification requirements and methods of testing them; 3. conditions for inclusion into the list of experts, the list itself and cases of relegation from it; 4. the rights and obligations of the experts. In order to publish information regarding the value and features of the monuments (antiques) it is necessary to issue and illustrated and well-edited catalogue of monuments and artworks currently on the market. This publication could be published by the Centre for the Documentation of Monuments, whose library should be supplemented with catalogues from abroad. The entire undertaking would, of course, call for a separate D e p a r t m e n t of Pr i ces and M ar k e t С o n d i t о n, and a publishing house more efficient than the existing one. In view of the fact that an expert is not always able to determine the authenticity of the given object and that research equipment is scattered in museum, the heretofore Workshops for the Conservation of Monuments and police laboratories, it seems correct to consider the possibility of founding (for example, within the Institute of Conservation) a C en t r a l L a b o r a t o ry of Mo n u m e n t s . Such a laboratory, outiftted with equipment would enable material, photographic and physico-chemical analyses and other operations which are the foundation for estimating authenticity, conservation advise as well as the establishing of the worth of monuments. It would act upon the basis of commissions from state conservation services, public institutions, experts and private persons. The financing of the work of the expert does not call for special means other than the ones which up to now were assigned for various purchases. The expert opinions would be issued at total (or reduced) prices according to principles analoguous to all other opinions of this sort. Finally, it is suggested that the Board of Experts and the Department of Prices ana Market Conditions would be subjected to the supervision of the Minister of Culture and Art, a justified concept since at present the practical possibility of the management (protective administration) of monuments is still illusory.

6

Tradycja i postęp : ochrona zabytków na wsi

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1992

|

issue 1-2

31-36

EN

After World War II the phenomenon described by ethnologists as nativeness i. e. a bond between the inhabitants of villages, small towns or a given region with the cultural past, customs and traditions has been subjected to an intentional obliteration. The war produced the greatest contemporary population migrations, especially in Poland, while the political premises of the land reform and the „liquidation of the economic basis of landowners" did not solve the problems of individual peasant farmsteads but caused an enormous wastage of buildings - historical monuments, palaces, manorhouses, farm buildings, parks, cemeteries and traditional village constructions. The resolution issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Land Reform, issued in connection with a decree of the PKWN (Polish Committee of National Liberation) (6 September 1944) „took over" lands which became state property, together with buildings, their facilities and objects which not only served the purposes of production but also possessed artistic, scientific or museum value. Both legal acts did not protect against devastation or plunder but outright accelerated and encouraged them. Of the almost 5 million wooden buildings listed in 1953 by the State Insurance Enterprise, at least 10 per cent possessed great historical value, but the majority were destroyed since they provided building material (e. g. windmills). A temporary list of historical manors made in 1947 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reform included over 20 000 buildings althought did not take into consideration manorhouses built after 1855. As many as 90 per cent of these objects were subsequently utilized as storehouses, temporary housing and offices of production cooperatives, and of a total of 10 203, 9 533 were liquidated by 1956, a fact which was connected with unpunished devastation, plunder and destruction of property. The next years witnessed losses numbering up to a thousand objects annually, usually buildings of high cultural and artistic rank. When speaking about tradition, we have in mind ail that which was handed down to us by previous generations, both the products of material culture such as buildings, spatial arrangements and roads, as well as technology of production which is not always correctly regarded as outdated. It is indispensable to determine the apparently obvious connection between tradition and contemporaneity, monuments and progress. A monument constitutes material testimony of past human activity. Regardless of the time of its origin, its type or frequency of occurence, and artistic character, it remains a document of our history. It is quite easy to falsify history but it is much worse to destroy documents and deprive us of the right to call ourselves a nation with a thousand year-old statehood and culture. The present-day ammendment to the law regarding the protection of cultural objects and museums, binding since 1962, defines monuments as „national wealth" and declares that: „State and selfgovernment bodies are obliged to guarantee legal, organizational and financial conditions" for their protection while it is the duty of owners and utilizers to „maintain the cultural objects belonging to them in a proper state". Inasmuch as a generally understood cultural object is every item, „mobile or immobile, old or contemporary, and of importance for cultural heritage and development, owing to its historical, scientific or artistic value", legal protection is due only to those objects which are listed in the register of monuments or are part of museum or library collections as well as all others as long as their historical merits are obvious. A certain danger is concealed in protecting objects „whose historical character is obvious". It is important to ascertain who is able to determine the historical nature of a given object in accordance with that criterion. At the moment, regulations make it possible for the selfgoverning bodies to nominate conservators of monuments at the level of a county or town; this opportunity must not be wasted especially considering that it is precisely in small towns and villages that social protection of monuments was effective. I would like to propose a rural/ urban conservator who remains in contact with the voivodship conservation services and museums; he would not enjoy any direct legal or decision-making privileges, but his conclusions, observations or reports would have to be taken into account by the local self-government. The „production-oriented" nature of the heretofore economic model has concealed from the authorities of a given terrain the perspective of other forms of profiting from an individual and unique landscape, climate and folklore, as well as the tourist, leisure and spa possibilities and the ensuing network of hotel, refreshment, entertainment and sport facilities. The governing bodies of villages or small towns should become aware of the original and distinct nature of their local tradition. It is not great projects of reconstructing monuments but daily concern for the property entrusted to them, often in the form of uncomplicated restoration work, which would enable their retention. The protection of rural monuments, apart from praiseworthy cultural undertakings for the future, is a chance for the development of those localities which were not given such an opportunity by poorly progressing agriculture, and were deprived of it by an uncontrolled growth of the local industry, often ecologically onerous. It is the local authorities which must notice this chance before it is too late.

7

Regulacja ustawowa ochrony zabytków

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1985

|

issue 1

28-31

EN

The Law of 1962 on the Protection of Cultural Property has been drawing the attention of specialists for years. Its amendment is necessary for various reasons including social, economic and administrative ones that cause its ill-adjustment to the needs of practice. The author's intention is to bring to Readers' attention the most important points of the d iscussion on the draft of the amended Law. Such problems as relations between goods of culture, their protection and environmental control, establishment of origin and value are being taken into consideration. Certain aspects of the ownership of the objects (immobiles) entered onto the list of monuments have also been discussed. The weakness of the 1962 Law in practice is, i.a., caused by the lack of a precise description of rights and obligations as a separate regulation of the protection and museology, of owners and authorities, especially in a decision-making process. According to the author, the actions carried out in the field of protection have an administrative nature and therefore call for more efficient procedural instruments existing in the form of the Code of the Administrative Procedure, together with the Supreme Administrative Court’s control. Without a possibility of their implementation, even the best laws cannot help to save the relics of our past for fu ture generations — concludes the author his view expressed in a general discussion on the amendment of the 1962 Law

8

Organizacja ochrony zabytków w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1988

|

issue 2

75-85

EN

The development of the organization of monuments’ protection in Poland took place in the conditions different from those found in other European countries due to the lack of the country’s own statehood in the period from 1795 to 1918. The lack of state services and administration of culture caused the unique social movement in this matter. Thus, when discussing the organization of monuments’ art and conservation in Poland one should pay attention to a social genesis of protective measures and, in particular, to the activity of the Society fo r the Protection of Monuments of the Past (1906—1914). The au tho r of this study presents a document from 1909, which can be considered to be the first programme for monuments’ protection. He analyses also the first Polish law on the protection of monuments, namely the decree of October 31, 1918. A characteristic feature of this decree was to protect a possibly wide number of objects th a t date back not only to old past but also to the most recent days, the treatment of the protection of immovable cultural property as being inseparably linked with the environment (landscape) as well as a rather broad scope of powers of a dm in istrative bodies — district conservators. Of importance is also the fact that protection covered historic structures irrespective of whether or not they were recorded in a monuments’ register, just as the recording — as a condition of p ro tection — would have deferred indispensable measures. The quoted names of first d is tric t conservators show, on the one hand, th a t these posts were taken by individuals, previously active as volunteers; on the other hand, they remind th a t many of them, well-known from th e ir later works on the theory of conservation, history of arts, recording and museology, began their a ctivities as conservators. The next analyzed legal act is the law on the protection of monuments, changing the 1918 decree, proclaimed when the organization of state administration at a central and fie ld level became the fact. A very specific legal construction conditioning not only protection but also the recognition of a given object as a historic monument upon the decision of the state a u th o rity was caused by a te n dency to cover with protection only some groups of objects, in the first place those of pure Polish descent. The fu rth e r part of the study is devoted to organizational and legal situation of museums. All Polish museums came to life eith e r by the nationalization of private collections a ccording to the will of th e ir owners or thanks to donations and bequests. At the same time, the organization o f museums le ft much fo r improvement; it was not homogenous and had limited material and technical means a t its disposal. Still a n o th e r problem of basic importance to an effective protection o f monuments was the recording of historic resources, carried out throughout the entire the work of twenty-year period. Activities of administration complemented s c ie n tific organizations, and especially Department of Polish Architecture and the History of Arts at Warsaw Technical University, employing and train in g many outstand ing specialists in the field of conservation. The not widely-known problem was the revindication of monuments which had been grabbed by Austria, Prussia and Russia ravaging Poland for 150 years. In some cases they were included into public or private collections of those states; some of them were eith e r da maged or stored in inappropriate conditions. A t a peace conference Poland called fo r the return of the objects which had been taken over either by private persons or by in vading powers, in some cases as an repression ac t as a result of national uprisings. The revindication from the te rritories annexed, by Prussia and Austria had never been done in practice, while a detailed regulation of the problems covered by the Riga Treaty from 1921 made possible to regain major part of monuments taken by the Russians. A ttention should be drawn to the activities of Polish associatio n s in Russia. They carried out the recording of Polish historic monuments and th e ir subsequent revindication. A rich and eventful history of the organization o f monuments’ protection in Poland remains rather unknown due to the damage of archival materials during the 2nd World W a r; hence, it seemed necessary to quote a t least some basic published articles on the organization of conservation and monuments’ protection.

9

POMNIKI HISTORII JAKO KATEGORIA PRAWNA

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1999

|

issue 4

418-422

EN

In 1994 a decree issued by the President of the Republic of Poland recognised fifteen complexes as historical monuments, which consequently may be included in the World Heritage List. The author questions the purposefulness of this solution, and recalls that the evaluative classification, applied more than thirty years ago and listing monuments representative on a global scale, incurred enormous damage by acting as a directive enumerating what could be destroyed, and not protected, in the first place. The article draws attention to the fact that although certain historical buildings were conserved and rebuilt in the People’s Republic of Poland, there was no legal protection of monuments. Sheer habit and a lack of legal training suggested to conservators solutions that are worthless or outright harmful from the viewpoint of protection. The author also recollects that it is not “global” significance, but ties with local history which are decisive for merits which he describes as patriotic, and which constitute an index of the cultural identity of a given nation.

10

OCHRONA ZABYTKOWYCH ZAPISÓW FONOGRAFICZNYCH

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1999

|

issue 2

189-193

EN

The article considers gramophone and phonograph recordings of the „standard type” (78 rpm), made in 1878- 1945 with acoustic and electric systems. Such recordings should be protected primarily for historical reasons in their capacity as musical illustrations of the epoch in which they were produced. Wartime devastation, the flow of time and ordinary mechanical usage are the reasons why the majority of recordings from 1890-1918 are unique; later recordings are also often represented by single examples. The situation is not much better as regards so-called talking machines. The author draws attention to the fact that Poland has no phonographic museums, and that the resources of the National Library, the Museum of Technology and music museums are haphazard. Furthermore, museum and conservation courses do not include a phonographic specialisation, and protection regulations remain far from perfect. The presented study is dedicated to Prof. Janusz Łętowski (1939-1999), outstanding musicologist and lawyer.

11

Stan i potrzeby regulacji prawnej ochrony zabytków w Polsce

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1996

|

issue 3

292-301

EN

This report concerns the state of the legal protection of historical monuments and the trends of new regulation. It contains definitions and an enumaration of protected property; the author describes cultural heritage and discusses complications producted by political and territorial changes in Poland (a considerable part of the historical monuments remained in the former Eastern Territories of the prewar Polish Republic, while German cultural property in Silesia and Pomerania was assumed by the postwar Polish state). The transformations which took place after 1989 have made in both necessary to treat historical monuments from the point of view of their value, and to respect ownerships. Plans are made for a regulation of problems heretofore ignored by existing regulations: the trade, export and import of art objects. An important part of the project is composed of regulations concerning the financial participation of the state as regards the protection of monuments, implemented in the form of tax alleviations and subsides. Finally, the author mentions various forms of responsibility for contravention (misdemeanours) against the protection of historical monuments.

12

Muzea. Muzealnictwo. Prawo muzeów

100%

Pruszyński J.

Santander Art and Culture Law Review

|

2015

|

issue Numer 1

9-40

EN

The paper presents the author’s views on the museum as an institution and museums in general as a set of problems connected with their organisation and operation and relevant laws and regulations which apply to such areas as: cultural heritage and cultural awareness and their significance in cherishing memory, tradition and a sense of community, as well as issues related to museum ethics and the education of the professional staff working in museums. The development of museums since antiquity is presented, together with the main world collections gathered over centuries, and the circumstances in which they were created and sometimes destroyed is described, including the legal regulations that have governed them. In this context, the specifics of the working of museums established on Polish territory during the partitions of the 19th century and, in particular, their functioning in occupied Poland during two world wars are discussed, with particular focus on the irreparable losses suffered by Polish culture in the 20th century. The process of the unlawful takeover of those museums by the state after the second world war together with all its consequences such as a disregard for the traditional autonomy of museums, or the taking away of many collections from their legitimate private owners which led to the disappearance of local identities and the cultural awareness of society have also been described, followed by a critical analysis of legal regulations governing museums in Poland today.

13

Towarzystwo Opieki nad Zabytkami Przeszłości

100%

Pruszyński J.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1987

|

issue 4

335-336

Refine search results

12 Ochrona Zabytków

1 Santander Art and Culture Law Review

13 Pruszyński J.

1 2015

3 1999

3 1996

1 1992

2 1991

1 1988

1 1987

1 1985

DZIEDZICTWO KULTURY — EUROPEJSKIE, NARODOWE CZY WŁASNE?

"Ochrona zabytków sztuki kościelnej" : uwagi na marginesie monografii ks.prof. Janusza St. Pasierba

Państwowa służba konserwatorska : uwagi de lege ferenda

Redakcja "Ochrony Zabytków"

Kolegium Ekspertów ds. Zabytków i Dzieł Sztuki oraz Centralnego Laboratorium Zabytków

Tradycja i postęp : ochrona zabytków na wsi

Regulacja ustawowa ochrony zabytków

Organizacja ochrony zabytków w dwudziestoleciu międzywojennym

POMNIKI HISTORII JAKO KATEGORIA PRAWNA

OCHRONA ZABYTKOWYCH ZAPISÓW FONOGRAFICZNYCH

Stan i potrzeby regulacji prawnej ochrony zabytków w Polsce

Muzea. Muzealnictwo. Prawo muzeów

Towarzystwo Opieki nad Zabytkami Przeszłości