Nauja kultūros paveldo objektų aprašo koncepcija

Abstract

Tvarkant kultūros paveldą turi būti atsižvelgta į daugybės subjektų, darančių įtaką miesto aplinkos tvarkymui, interesus, intencijas ir galimybes. Konsensuso pagrindą gali sustiprinti projektavimo eigą veikiančių „teiginių“ formulavimas neapsiribojant individo psichologijos kategorijomis, o tokių informacinių vienetų formavimo procese didesnį dėmesį skiriant kolektyvinei psichologijai. Tai gali atlikti konotacijos, simboliai, kultūriniai archetipai, kurie praplečia kultūrinį kontekstą ir skatina adekvatų bei labiau motyvuotą architektūrinės aplinkos elementų reikšmės suvokimą. Kritiškai išanalizavus ir įvertinus Lietuvos kultūros paveldo apsaugos metodologinius ir teisinius pagrindus nustatyta, kad juose konotacijų, kultūrinių archetipų recepcija iš esmės nepasireiškia, nes dominuoja klasikinio pasaulėvaizdžio reliktinės nuostatos. Klasikinėje traktuotėje figūruoja tik universalios, „savaime aiškios“ vertingosios savybės, kurioms suprasti nereikia jokios papildomos kontekstinės informacijos. Toks traktavimas neatsako į postindustrinės civilizacijos keliamus iššūkius, kurių svarbiausi – dinamiškas, tinklinis, rekursyvus, nelinijiniais socialinės sąveikos procesais pasižymintis su praktine ir edukacine veikla susijusių informacinių procesų pobūdis, žinių visuomenės formavimo siekis. Pateikiama metodiškai nauja kultūros paveldo objektų, istorinių vietovių aprašymo teisės aktuose ideologija, kurioje ypatinga reikšmė greta denotacinių teikiama konotacinėms charakteristikoms. Tai būtina tam, kad apsauga ir plėtra (kūryba, inovacija) veiktų darniai. Tik tokiu būdu organizuojant projektinės veiklos informacinį aprūpinimą gali būti sudaromos galimybės sukurti naujus originalius architektūrinius kūrinius, kartu atsižvelgiant ir į sociokultūrinę atmintį.

The present article introduces a new concept of cultural heritage description. For the time being, architecturology and cultural heritage theory are dominated by the cultural heritage description categories that are more related to universal qualities of the heritage locality and of the objects found therein, and are actually dissociated from the specific cultural context, from an individual ‘biography’ of the object. The aforesaid characterisation of objects is grounded on the individual psychology categories that could not be related to the cultural context. In the Lithuanian legislation on cultural heritage protection, the value of objects that determines their protection is identified statically, in an absolute and contextually closed manner. Specific physical objects are often considered qualities. An object may be a bearer of a certain quality, but it shall not be identified with the quality. Heritage descriptions contain practically no cultural ideas, connotative and denotative references are not adjusted either. The shortages are witnessed by the Descriptions of Kaunas Naujamiestis (Kaunas New Town) and Lentvaris Manor Park mentioned in the present paper. Unfortunately, foreign heritage descriptions contain practically no cultural ideas and cultural connotations as well. The aforesaid is illustrated by the description of the residential house of Walter Gropius, one of the most prominent modernist architect, located in the USA (Gropius House National Historic Landmark Nomination), and by the description of Casa Batlló, the building additionally attributed to the object ‘Works of Antoni Gaudi’ by the document of the World Heritage Committee. The main reason of this attitude towards the cultural heritage is a relict effect of the classical worldview. The principle of spatiality inherent in classical rationalism requires complete articulation of the matter outwards (available for external observation) as the condition of the things that could be generally known about the matter; as if the act of phenomena observation does not change the essence. In the mentality of architects, the manifestation of the spatiality principle is testified by the following: 1) in urban design, context is often understood as the closest buildings 2) when physical attributes of the building are considered the most valuable qualities of the cultural heritage object 3) when it is said ‘why the comparative analysis of landscape is required if everything in well seen on the map’ 4) when discussion of the value, benefit, possible functions of objects considers no cultural context of the functioning of the object. This is the latter issue wherein the important role is played by cultural connotations displaying the social cultural memory of the social community and appearing on the plane of collective psychology. Texts regulating the activity and containing sufficient connotative possibilities stimulate an abductive solution grounded on integration of the existential experience. The New Testament may be referred to as the example wherein Christ bringing his teaching operates the generally comprehensible comparisons, i.e. metaphors. The solution grounded on abduction will be creative, however, only provided that the creator is able to use additional information on relevant ‘perception bodies’ (by the function, they are analogous to shifters known in linguistics, i.e. shifters are linguistic units the contents whereof is not important, however, the very units are significant for restructuring of perception). In the case under discussion, the function of shifters is carried out by cultural ideas, symbols, connotations, cultural archetypes. According to Merab Mamardashvili, direct determination of thinking is impossible in the interrelationship between consciousness and being. It can be completed only through intermediary links and Mamardashvili was the first to call them ‘perception bodies’. Socially significant constructs, i.e. connotations as ‘perception bodies’ or ‘perception tools’, may cover both symbols, metaphors and other conditioned expert knowledge established in the process of any analysis of the object as well as carry out the function of mythological narratives important for communication of meanings. Hence, the valuable qualities of objects in descriptions should be listed along with the role of the object in the context (this is the thing represented by cultural ideas and connotations). For instance, in possession P, preservation of a group of buildings as they are is desirable due to the following reasons: 1) they represent the industry uncommon to the region 2) they contribute to the urban development of the quay 3) height of the buildings enables to ensure historically significant visual relations, etc. Being sufficiently clear situationally, these characterisations capture the cultural memory. The metaphor ‘Kauno Naujamiestis – Katedra’ (Kaunas New Town – Cathedral) suggested by the author may serve as an example illustrating the cultural connotation as a ‘perception tool’ able through its ‘message’ to orient, catalyse, assist in evaluation of activity and in understanding of the architectural meaning of the entire New Town of Kaunas: Laisvės alėja (Freedom Avenue), Kęstučio, Donelaičio streets are sort of three naves of the basilica cathedral with the crossing Daukanto street serving as a transept and with the present Garrison Church (former Soboras) seen as an altar. Entrance to this huge symbolic church is arranged from the west to east. It is likely to support the image of Vienybės aikštė (Solidarity Square or Unity Square) ‘attached’ to the ‘transept’ from the north as of the chapel wherein the great men were laid to rest. Lentvaris Manor Park displays the manifestation of cultural ideas and cultural connotations known neither to the researchers of the park nor to its protectors or possible restorers. One of such concepts is the idea of ‘Žemės rojus’ (Terrestrial Paradise) that is significant to the history of the European culture. To this idea in Lentvaris Manor Park, the following objects might be related: obelisk-column, labyrinth, bridge-viaduct with a grotto, waterfall, ‘pathway of predecessors/philosophers’. In the former research study of the park, the author emphasised that due to the expert evaluation practice grounded on absolute criteria the abovementioned valuable elements of the park are neither completely identified nor adequately introduced in the list of ‘valuable qualities’, therefore, their preservation is threatened if interventions in the park are made in future. Heritage locality or separate object regulation specifying the cultural ideas and connotations related to the objects may be used as both a legal document and advisory intellectual system containing both textual and cartographic tools (e.g. dynamic GIS solution). Descriptions combining denotative and connotative semantics (the latter is especially important for promoting creative thinking) might contribute to the existential experience actualisation of an architect for solving creative tasks as well as might play the role of a solution catalyst; information support organised as mentioned above is the only way enabling the development of new original architectural pieces taking into account the social cultural memory.