Műemlékvédelem, 2019 (63. évfolyam, 1-6. szám)

2019 / 1-2. szám - Szmygin, Boguslaw: Történeti romok - védelem vagy rekonstrukció?

TÖRTÉNETI ROMOK -VÉDELEM, VAGY REKONSTRUKCIÓ? Boguslaw Szmygin Dr. építőmérnök, műemlékvédelmi szakmérnök, 2008-2012 a Lublini Műszaki Egyetem Építő- és Építészmérnöki Karának dékánja, 2002-től a Lublini Műszaki Egyetem Műemlék-konzerválási Tanszékének Professzora, az ICOMOS Nemzetközi Elméleti, Filozófiai Szakbizottságának és az ICOMOS Lengyel Nemzeti Bizottságának elnöke. E-mail: HISTORICAL RUINS - PRESERVATION OR RECONSTRUCTION? What to do with the heritage that has been demolished? Should we rebuild them or not? First of all, what is the difference between reconstruction and restoration? How do we interpret these two concepts today? I would define restoration as a strategy that helps communities ‘erect’ or ‘rebuild’ their own self after a disaster. But reconstruction is an act. In a restoration project, society plays an important role in the reconsideration of the heritage, while for a reconstruction these actors are the experts. According to the traditional approach, the historical object is an element of the past. Today’s view, however, says something different: heritage is part of our real present. In the past, heritage conservation specialists defined what to do with the monument, but in the 21st century, various “owners”, users, tourists, namely the participatory society make decisions. Of course, this circle also includes professionals, but they make up only a very small percentage of users. Today we can see and experience: the concept of heritage has undergone a major transformation in the 21st century. Everything can be considered a heritage, even the whole environment. Obviously, we cannot protect our entire environment. That is, the protection of the whole is not the goal anymore. It is a matter of deciding which elements and features of the heritage to be protected. The method of preservation depends on value assessment. It depends on how we decide and what we find valuable. If you like, there are no uniform rules, because the heritage we are talking about is so vast and the boundaries have widened, more precisely, we cannot tell what can be accepted as a heritage. We shall decide for each heritage element how to deal with it. This is the big difference between the old and the current approach. For a reconstruction, the first element is the historical monument, which is the subject of the reconstruction. The second is the reconstruction itself, the technical method or technical activity to be applied for the management of the historical monument. However, the circumstances of the demolition of a historic monument should also be taken into account or there might be conditions requiring the rebuilding of that specific monument. Thus, at least these four elements must be considered during the reconstruction. Is it possible to select only one out of the four-element system and set aside the three others? Well, it is possible to make a distinction between ruins and ruins, that is, between present ruins and historical ruins. To give you an example familiar for me: people living in Warsaw have always remembered the city as a city, the historical ruins were formed before the remembrance of the living generations has started. But nobody knows what the medieval castles really looked like, since they were destroyed three hundred years ago, no one remembers them as objects, only as ruins. The difference emerges both from the living memory or form the lack of living memory. 1

Next