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

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Materiali Latvijas makslas vesturei

Authors help

  1. 2 Petersons R.

Years help

  1. 1 2006

  2. 1 2001

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

THEORY AND PRACTICE IN THE PROTECTION OF CULTURAL MONUMENTS IN LATVIA DURING THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE (1919-1923) (Kulturas mantojuma aizsardziba Latvijas Republika (1919-1923))

100%
Petersons R.
Materiali Latvijas makslas vesturei
|
2001
|
vol. 2
23-33
EN
During the early years of Latvia's independence, the need to protect the country's cultural monuments was not forgotten. In 1998 we marked the 75th anniversary of the adoption of Latvia's first law to protect monuments (June 15, 1923) by Parliament. The methods that are used in this process are different now than they were back then, but the range of issues which must be considered have remained relatively unchanged: specification of the typology of monuments, differentiation of the value of real estate and movable objects, involvement of the public in the protection of monuments, working out terminology, assembling lists of monuments and publishing them in catalogues, cooperation of government institutions and public organizations in this area, etc. World War I and the subsequent battle for Latvia's independence did great damage to Latvia's cultural environment and the country's artistic treasures. Vandalism and theft, selling off many treasures for speculative purposes - this was very much the typical situation in Latvia soon after the declaration of independence. The Education Ministry was the institution which was charged with protecting the country's movable cultural heritage. The work started in earnest only in the fall of 1919. Deputies to the Latvian Constitutional Convention and members of the public began to work actively in 1920 to create a legal and organizational foundation for protection of the cultural heritage. A wide range of politicians and specialists became involved in the discussions about this issue, among them Aspazija, Karlis Skalbe, Valerija Seile, Karlis Kasparsons, Atis Kenins. The Constitutional Convention rejected the first draft law on the protection of monuments, and this meant that the establishment of the appropriate national institution was delayed for nearly two more years. Among the many specialists who participated in the process, there were representatives of specific areas - Arveds Svabe in history, Pauls Kundzins in architecture, Antons Birkerts in cultural history and Zelmars Lancmanis in regional research.
2

MONUMENT BOARD ACTIVITIES AND POLITICAL CONTEXTS (1923-1940) (Politiskie konteksti Piemineklu valdes darbiba (1920-1940)

100%
Petersons R.
Materiali Latvijas makslas vesturei
|
2006
|
vol. 5
93-104
EN
The Monument Board (Piemineklu valde) was a state institution supervised by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Latvia. Its task was to work on and develop heritage protection. It was founded, taking as a basis the law 'On Monument Protection' passed on 26 January 1923, and functioned until the Soviet occupation in 1940. The structure of the Monument Board changed several times. Part of its members was appointed by the government; part was selected according to the principle of representation from the State Museum of History, the Latvian University and the Latvian Academy of Art. Regardless of the fact that well-known public figures and recognized professionals worked at the Monument Board, the article demonstrates that the heritage protection during the first period of Latvia's independence was dependant on a small group of people and society was not involved in solutions of major issues. Politicians used the Monument Board according to their interests, especially after Karlis Ulmanis established his authoritarian regime in 1934. The question of whether Monument Board members and its director, archaeologist Francis Balodis, were eager to collaborate and serve the regime, subjecting heritage protection issues to the political interests of those in power, remains open.
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.