Search results

1

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

100%

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.

2

Czy ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach dojrzała do nowelizacji : artykuł dyskusyjny

75%

Sieroszewski W.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1971

|

issue 3

163-172

EN

Analysing the Act of February 15, 1962 covering the problems of cultural property protection and museums in view of experiences gathered during nine years elapsed from the date of its coming into force the author expresses an opinion that, considering the problem from a general viewpoint, though it has satisfactorily wiithstood the test of practical application and considerably contributed to stabilization and to making the protection of cultural property in this country more efficient some of its detailed provisions, no doubt, require corrections and amendments. Remarks made by the author to particular articles of the Act in question are listed below. Above all the article 4 seems to him to be inconsistent and even conflicting with some others elsewhere in the text (e.g. articles 18 and 4*1). He also advances c ritical opinions as to the definition of „an evident historical monument” considering it as being not precise enough and thus causing misunderstandings and controversial interpretations. Furthermore, commenting the article 6 concerning the „monuments of history”, the author suggests the abolition of their compulsory inscription in the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Care in accordance with provisions of the Hague Convention of 1954 since the stipulations accompanying this particular provision practically make it impossible ,at all to declare a monument as „a monument of history”. The author also suggests the need to define more precisely in the Act itself or in regulations issued on its basis by the Minister of Culture and Art the responsibilities of historical monument conservators at the district and town levels (article 8) and, in addition, to include to th e Act provisions with respect to voivodship offices of historical monument documentation which, although already put into being, have not up to now been provided with ,an unquestionably legal basis for the ir activities (proposed article 8 a). It also seems to the author to be necessary to call a new advisory body assisting the Minister of Culture and Art able to replace the freshly abolished Council of Culture and Art (article 10). To protect the sites of archaeological interest the author proposes to include them provisionally to the Register of Historical Monuments. On completion of excavations and examination of cultural s tra ta and with the relics found transferred to a respective museum such a reg istration should automatically be cancelled (article 1/6). Other proposals regard the augmenting the au th o rities of conservators to enable them to make examinations of alleged cultural property at any place it can be found which th e procedure has been made difficult according to existing provisions requiring from conservator to agree previously this examination with the owner of cu ltu ral property (article 18). At the isame time, however, th e author declares himself for confining the number of cases and reducing the time of temporary requisition of cultural property endangered by destruction, damage or illicit exportation. This temporary requisition could, for instance, last three years and a fte r th a t period the cultural property should be alienated or returned to its owner or user (article 37). With regard to collections (article 55 and the next ones) the author proposes to reserve to the Minister of Culture and Art the right tp define precisely what requirements should be fulfilled by a collection th a t it could be considered as one in accordance with provisions of the Act, and also how it can be augmented and managed by the owner. In addition to 'the above, the author puts forward a number of proposals aimed a t harmonizing the Act’s provisions with Other acts published a fte r its coming into force and particularly with an uniform te x t of th e Building Repair and Reconstruction Act in its version from il968 (article 32), the Code of Civil Laws from 1964: (article 24) and the Code of Criminal Laws from 1969 (articles 73—> 79) and also at enabling to adapt to provisions of the Convention of 1969 referring to measures that should be undertaken to prevent the illicite imports, exports and tran sfe rs of cultural property (new articles 76 a, b, and c).

3

Pomniki historii

75%

Fijałkowski W.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

1994

|

issue 3-4

239-243

EN

On 22 September 1994 — the last day of the Days of European Heritage held in Poland — fifteen towns, complexes and historical objects of particular merit for national culture were recognised by the President of the Polish Republic, at the request of the Minister of Culture and Art, as monuments of history. This first Polish list of monuments selected among a hundred candidates includes the historical urban complexes of Gdańsk, Kazimierz Dolny, Krakow, Toruń, Warsaw, Wrocław and Zamość, the mediaeval castle complex in Malbork, the monastic-defensive complex of Jasna Gora in Częstochowa and the cathedral-defensive complex in Frombork, the cathedral in Gniezno as well as architectonic-archeological and technical monuments — the prehistoric defensive settlement in Biskupin, the neolithic mine in Krzemionki Opatowskie, the early mediaeval castle- town in Ostrow Legnicki and the twelfth-century salt mine in Wieliczka.

4

Czy Kazimierz Dolny jest pomnikiem historii?

63%

Wieczorek A.

MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne

|

2020

|

issue 34

59-84

PL

Pozostaje bezspornym, że Kazimierz Dolny ma szczególne wartości dla kultury, a tym samym spełnia wymagania stawiane obiektowi, który chce się uznać za pomnik historii. Niestety, regulacje dotyczące ochrony zabytków: decyzje z 1966 r. i z 1983 r. o wpisie do rejestru zabytków oraz zarządzenie Prezydenta RP z 1994 r. w sprawie uznania za pomnik historii Kazimierza Dolnego budzą szereg wątpliwości natury merytorycznej i prawnej – nie wiadomo czy obowiązują. Taka sytuacja wywołuje konflikty pomiędzy mieszkańcem Kazimierza Dolnego a władzami, w szczególności wojewódzkim konserwatorem zabytków. Dla zapewnienia Kazimierzowi Dolnemu odpowiedniej ochrony konserwatorskiej należy doprowadzić do wyeliminowania z obrotu prawnego ww. decyzji z 1966 r. i z 1983 r. oraz zarządzenia z 1994 r. Następnie powinno zostać wydane rozporządzenie Prezydenta RP w sprawie uznania za pomnik historii, które w sposób jednoznaczny określi przedmiot i zasady ochrony. Wydanie rozporządzenia trzeba poprzedzić badaniami, które w sposób jednoznaczny wskażą obszar podlegający ochronie oraz co i dlaczego na tym obszarze należy chronić. Artykuł należy traktować jako apel o likwidację chaosu prawnego dotyczącego zabytków. W podobnej sytuacji jak Kazimierz Dolny jest kilkanaście obiektów, które uznano za pomniki historii zarządzeniami Prezydenta RP wydanymi w 1994 r. Ochrona zabytków jest obowiązkiem zarówno władz, jak i społeczeństwa. Żeby była skuteczna, nie może być nacechowana uznaniowością. Tylko jednoznacznie, precyzyjnie ustalone obowiązki znajdą akceptacje społeczną, a bez niej trudno coś chronić. Ponadto potrzebna jest szeroko rozumiana edukacja. Karami nie wymusi się wrażliwości na piękno i szacunku dla historii. Uznanie za pomnik historii powinno być traktowane jako zaszczyt przez mieszkańców terenu, który ten status uzyskał, a nie jako „dopust boży”.

EN

Undisputedly, Kazimierz Dolny is of special cultural significance for culture and thus meets the requirements to be considered as a monument of history. Unfortunately, the relevant regulations concerning the protection of historical monuments: the decisions of 1966 and 1983 on the inclusion of the town into the register of historical monuments and the ordinance of the President of the Republic of Poland of 1994 on recognizing Kazimierz Dolny as a monument of history raise a number of questions of a substantive and legal nature – it is uncertain whether they are valid. Such a situation causes conflicts between the inhabitants of Kazimierz Dolny and the authorities, especially the Regional Heritage Protection Authority. In order to provide Kazimierz Dolny with appropriate legal protection, the above-mentioned decisions of 1966 and 1983, as well as the 1994 ordinance, should be removed from legal circulation. Next, an ordinance of the President of the Republic of Poland should be issued to recognise the city as a monument of history, clearly defining the object and principles of the protection. The regulation should be preceded by research that would clearly indicate the area to be protected and specify what should be protected there and why. This paper should be treated as an appeal to eliminate the legal chaos concerning the monuments of history. There are several monuments in a similar situation as Kazimierz Dolny, which were recognised as monuments of history by the ordinances of President of Poland issued in 1994. The protection of monuments is the duty of both the authorities and the society. Only clearly and precisely defined obligations will be accepted by the society, without the cooperation of which it is difficult to protect anything. Moreover, education in various forms is needed. Penalties cannot enforce appreciation of beauty and respect for history. The recognition of an area as a monument of history should be treated as an honour by the inhabitants of a particular area, and not as “divine retribution”.

5

Rola Działu Analiz Konserwatorskich w realizacji zadań statutowych Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa

51%

Jagielska E.

Ochrona Zabytków

|

2012

|

issue 1-2

101-110

EN

The Conservation Analyses Department was established by the order of the Director of the National Centre for Research and Documentation of Monuments dated 6 June 2010. The Department comprised the Team of Experts and the Conservation Policy Formation Workshop. The Department co-ordinates and supervises work connected with the preparation of opinions and expertises regarding the protection of non-movable and movable monuments for public administration authorities – the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, Voivodeship Offices for Monument Protection and their branches and local government conservators. It carries out its tasks with the help of local divisions representing the National Heritage Board of Poland. The definite majority of issued opinions concerns the evaluation of the level of preservation of the value of historic objects or areas during administrative procedures being conducted by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage with regard to deletions from the register of monuments. The Conservation Analyses Department co-ordinates the implementation of the procedure for acknowledgement of a historic object as a history monument and participates in work regarding the creation and dissemination of standards of documentation, research and conservation of historic objects. The activity of the Department in the field of protection of historic parks and gardens is particularly worth mentioning. It includes, among others, study and design works carried out in Branicki’s Garden in Białystok from 2006 till 2009 and the preparation of conservation requests and the resulting projects of regeneration of the palace park in Białowieża and the park in Trzebiny. The palace & park layout in Trzebiny is currently administered by the National Heritage Board of Poland – the Local Workshop in Trzebiny. An important task ordered by the Minister of Culture and National Heritage is the management of the regeneration of Muskau Park. Over 20 years’ period of regeneration works is a significant yet still fragmentary process of restoration of the full historical value of the park. The Institute is also responsible for the creation and putting into common use of standards of documentation, elaborations and manuals regarding the protection of cultural heritage that are addressed to a wide group of recipients, an example of which is the Methodological guide to the elaboration of communal monument care programmes. The international co-operation with Eastern states has been carried out by NHBP and its predecessors for many years, including the „Nieśwież Academy” Postgraduate Summer School and cooperation with the Trakai Historical National Park in Lithuania. All activities being handled by the Conservation Analyses Department of the National Heritage Board of Poland are subject and may become subject to modifications, depending on the orders of the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, the needs of voivodeship monument conservators and other institutions and the emerging topics that must be solved urgently. Currently the Conservation Analyses Department employs 14 persons. They build an interdisciplinary team consisting of a group of historians of art, monument experts – conservators, landscape architects, an architect and a lawyer – persons with a large professional experience and significant achievements.

6

Renowacja i adaptacja piwnic Starego Miasta Warszawyna cele kulturalne

45%

Fiedorowicz J.

Problemy Rozwoju Miast

|

2010

|

issue 3

32-40

PL

Przedstawiono doświadczenia i osiągnięcia związane z realizacją projektu pn.: „Renowacja i adaptacja na cele kulturalne piwnic Staromiejskich Warszawy na obszarze wpisu na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO”, współfinansowanego ze środków Norweskiego Mechanizmu Finansowego w ramach Umowy finansowej Nr 39/PL0236/ NMF/2008. Realizowany przez Stołeczny Zarząd Rozbudowy Miasta projekt dotyczy renowacji zabytkowych piwnic oraz adaptacji odrestaurowanych pomieszczeń o łącznej powierzchni 2856,27m2 na cele kulturalne, w obiektach zlokalizowanych przy ul. Boleść 2, Brzozowej 11/13, Jezuickiej 4, Rynek 2, Rynek 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42 i Nowomiejskiej 4, 6, 8. Całkowita wartość inwestycji wynosi 8 821 960 euro, w tym udział dofinansowania ze środków MF EOG i NMF w wysokości 4 471 318 euro stanowi 50,68% wartości projektu. W ramach II naboru do Priorytetu 3 MF EOG i NMF projekt, którego pomysłodawcą i liderem jest Biuro Stołecznego Konserwatora Zabytków, został wysoko oceniony przez ekspertów, zajmując I miejsce w rankingu.

EN

The author presents the experiences and achievements associated with the project called the "Renovation and Adaptation of Cellars in the Warsaw's Old Town for Cultural Purposes," conducted on the area entered on the UNESCO World Heritage List, co-financed from the resources of the Norwegian Financial Mechanisms under Financial Agreement No. 39/PL0236/NMF/2008. The project, conducted by the Capital City Expansion Management, concerns renovation of old cellars and adaptation of restored premises, with the total floor area of 2,856.27 m2, for cultural purposes, in the buildings located at the following street numbers: Boleść 2, Brzozowa 11/13, Jezuicka 4, Rynek 2, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 42, and Nowomiejska 4, 6 and 8. The total value of the projects amounts to 8,821,960 euros, including subsidies from MF EOG and NMF Funds, in the amount of 4,471,318 euros, constituting 50.68% of the whole project value. Within the second recruitment to Priority 3 of MF EOG and NMF, the project conceived and led by the Capital City Conservator's Office, was highly appreciated by experts and granted the first place on the ranking list.

Refine search results

4 Ochrona Zabytków

1 MAZOWSZE Studia Regionalne

1 Problemy Rozwoju Miast

1 2020

1 2012

1 2010

1 2000

1 1994

1 1971

1 Fiedorowicz J.

1 Fijałkowski W.

1 Jagielska E.

1 Konopka M.

1 Sieroszewski W.

1 Wieczorek A.

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

Czy ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach dojrzała do nowelizacji : artykuł dyskusyjny

Pomniki historii

Czy Kazimierz Dolny jest pomnikiem historii?

Rola Działu Analiz Konserwatorskich w realizacji zadań statutowych Narodowego Instytutu Dziedzictwa

Renowacja i adaptacja piwnic Starego Miasta Warszawyna cele kulturalne