Architektūros paveldotvarka Lietuvoje ir jos sąsajos su Europos situacija
LTIšdėstyti Lietuvos architektūros paveldotvarkos, suskirstytos į tris raidos laikotarpius: pradmenų, formavimosi ir pertvarkos, analizės rezultatai. Tiriant kiekvieną laikotarpį atliekama architektūros paveldo objektų tvarkymo analizė, fiksuojama paveldo bei paveldosaugos sampratos kaita, teisinė padėtis paveldosaugos srityje ir visa tai lyginama su analogiška situacija Europoje. XX a. pirmosios pusės laikotarpio paveldosauga Lietuvoje paveldo suvokimo prasme ir teisinio reglamentavimo lygiu atitiko XIX a. Europos paveldosaugos lygį. Po Antrojo pasaulinio karo Lietuvoje paveldosauga formuota pagal sąjunginį modelį remiantis elementiniu-elitiniu principu, paveldo objektams suteikiant reprezentacinę, ideologinę funkciją. Lietuvoje architektūros objektų panaudojimo tendencija analogiška to meto europinei praktikai, tik čia šiam procesui turėjo įtakos dar ir ideologiniai motyvai. Lietuva į sudėtingą paveldosaugos raidą įsitraukė sąlygiškai neseniai ir labai pavėlavusi. Europinių procesų lygį ji atitiko tik XX a. 7-8 dešimtmetyje - valstybės saugomi paveldo objektai buvo tvarkomi saugant jų autentiškumą. Dabartinė situacijos analizė rodo, kad Lietuva šiuo atžvilgiu atsilieka nuo pažangių Europos paveldosauginių tendencijų. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Architektūros paveldas; Paveldo tvarkymo būdai; Paveldosaugos metodai; Paveldosaugos objektas; Valstybinė paveldosauga; Architectural heritage; Methods of heritage preservation; Object of heritage preservation; State heritage preservation.
ENThe paper describes the analysis results of architectural heritage conservation in Lithuania in the periods of its rudiments, formation and reordering. Each period is examined according to the conception of heritage and its preservation, legal situation and architectural heritage conservation, and, finally, the whole of it is compared with analogous situation in Europe. Such an investigation shows the process of architectural heritage conservation not only in a local space, but in a broader context. The heritage preservation conception and its legal regulation in Lithuania in 1918-1940 were identical to the European situation of the 19th century. Most West European countries have some experience in conservation of historic buildings in the beginning of the 20th century. Heritage objects were conserved according to their investigations and projects avoiding the falsification of a monument. Architectural heritage conservation evidently dropped behind in Lithuania, as here only the rudiments of the process were fixed at that time. After the Second World War heritage preservation in Lithuania was formed by a confederate model based on the elementary- elitist principle. Ruined objects were restored according to their previous forms, projects were prepared on the basis of former surveys. Such a practice is analogous to heritage conservation in Europe, but here it was of a substantially wider scale. Lithuanian conservation specialists worked according to international regulations, and that is why the results are identical to the practice of the other European countries. Intensive restoration cases were conditioned by intensive activities in architectural heritage adaptation.The tendency of making built heritage useful for today's needs in Lithuania agreed with the practice in Europe. When political and economic conditions changed in Lithuania (1990), new heritage preservation legacy was formed not according to an integral conception: one law (1993) regulated systemic heritage preservation, another law (1994) - traditional elementary preservation. The prevailing elementary principles of Lithuanian heritage preservation determined the tendency of minimum changes in built heritage in order to preserve maximum authenticity. Now in most European countries architectural heritage is perceived as cultural resources which can be actively used in everyday life. Such an approach requires creative attitude to a heritage object, when conserving and adapting it for today's requirements, harmonizing political, economic and cultural interests. This comparative analysis reveals that the Lithuanian heritage preservation emerged quite late, and the conformity to the European processes was fixed only in the 7-8th decades of the 20th century. The present-day situation in Lithuania shows backwardness from progressive tendencies in heritage preservation. The logic of the eurointegration processes indicates that the Lithuanian heritage preservation must coincide with the systemic conception and then realize the creative coordination of various interests for heritage. The modern heritage conception emphasizes living and qualitative heritage usage, a diffused heritage object and active community participation in preservation activity. That is why today heritage learning becomes more relevant in Lithuania. [Text from author]
