Būtis paveldu : istorinių dvarų parkų vaizdiniai sovietinėje Lietuvoje

LTPublikacijoje nagrinėjami istorinių dvarų parkų vaizdiniai, formavęsi sovietinėje Lietuvoje, ir tų vaizdinių poveikis pačių parkų sampratai, jų įpaveldinimui bei rekonstrukcijai. Pirminės ar autentiškosios dvarų parkų prasmės gali gyvuoti dvarų kultūroje. Tačiau tai nereiškia, kad jai sunykus parkai visiškai nustoja savo simboliškojo ar prasminio pavidalo. Jis egzistuoja, tik kyla iš kitokių subjektų ir įgyja kitokių turinių. Vaizdiniais šiuo atveju vadinamos kultūrinės atminties raiškos. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Atmintis; Paveldosaugos istorija; Dvarų paveldas; Istoriniai parkai; Memory; History of heritage protection; Manor heritage; Historical parks.

ENIf we look back to the period before 1914, we can speak about manor parks in Lithuania as living and developing objects immersed in a shield of authenticity. After 1918, they were reduced to the memory of past existence and old meanings embedded in the medium of the remaining landlords. After 1945, this reflective medium disappeared as well. However, this does not mean that these parks have lost their symbolic or semantic form – though it still exists, it is derived from different subjects and acquires different contents. In the Soviet times, several images and concepts of old manor parks were formed: the park as people’s legacy (in the Soviet, class or conceptual sense), a park without a manor, a park as a repository of exotic plants, a park as a relic of paganism, etc. They were the products of the Soviet memory policy or had “national” origin, but still obeyed this policy. The images allowed the parks to cross the barrier of extraneous inheritance and gain the status of heritage. However, this status was completely formal, just for official purposes, and was supported only by a narrow circle of specialists.Parks did not provide identity to Soviet Lithuania’s society, and the Soviet system did not consider them relevant political or cultural tools. All these facts raise the question of the status of parks in the Soviet era – whether they were a full-fledged heritage significant to society (besides authenticity and historicity, significance is hereby treated as one of the fundamental or essential elements for an object to function as heritage). The old parks were significant, but not in their heritage features – they were valued as a place of recreation and entertainment. Thus, a paradoxical conception of the old parks as heritage has developed: they are considered a protected valuable object, while their authenticity is not; the merging of the old and new parks has been started by equally applying the criteria of modernity to both. [From the publication]