Preservation of cultural heritage. Analysis of the existing policy in the field of conservation and regeneration of cultural heritage objects The current state of cultural and historical monuments of Russia

Culture Preservation

They form the living environment of a person, they are the main and indispensable conditions for his existence. Nature is the foundation, and culture is the very building of human existence. Nature ensures the existence of man as a physical being., being a "second nature", makes this existence properly human. It allows a person to become an intellectual, spiritual, moral, creative person. Therefore, the preservation of culture is as natural and necessary as the preservation of nature.

The ecology of nature is inseparable from the ecology of culture. If nature accumulates, preserves and transmits the genetic memory of a person, then culture does the same with his social memory. Violation of the ecology of nature threatens the human genetic code, leads to its degeneration. Violation of the ecology of culture has a destructive effect on the existence of a person, leading to his degradation.

Cultural heritage

Cultural heritage represents in fact the main mode of existence of culture. What is not included in the cultural heritage ceases to be culture and eventually ceases to exist. During his life, a person manages to master, transfer into his inner world only a small fraction of the cultural heritage. The latter remains after him for other generations, acting as the common property of all people, of all mankind. However, it can only be so if it is preserved. Therefore, the preservation of cultural heritage to a certain extent coincides with the preservation of culture in general.

As a problem, the protection of cultural heritage exists for all societies. However, it is more acute for Western society. The East in this sense differs essentially from the West.

History of the Eastern World was evolutionary, without radical, revolutionary breaks in gradualism. It rested on continuity, centuries-honored traditions and customs. Eastern society quite calmly moved from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, from paganism to monotheism, having done this back in Antiquity.

All of its subsequent history can be defined as "the eternal Middle Ages." The position of religion as the foundation of culture remained unshakable. The East moved forward, turning its gaze back to the past. The value of cultural heritage was not questioned. Its preservation acted as something natural, self-evident. The problems that arose were mainly of a technical or economic nature.

History of Western society, on the contrary, was marked by deep, radical breaks. She often forgot about succession. The transition of the West from Antiquity to the Middle Ages was tumultuous. It was accompanied by significant large-scale destruction, the loss of many achievements of Antiquity. The Western "Christian world" was established on the ruins of the ancient, pagan, often literally: many architectural monuments of Christian culture were erected from the ruins of destroyed ancient temples. The Middle Ages, in turn, was rejected by the Renaissance. The new era was becoming more and more futuristic. The future was the highest value for him, while the past was resolutely rejected. Hegel declared that modernity pays all its debts to the past and becomes indebted to nothing.

The French philosopher M. Foucault proposes to consider the Western culture of the New Age from the point of view of radical shifts, outside the principles of historicism and continuity. He singles out several eras in it, believing that they do not have any common history. Each era has its own history, which immediately and unexpectedly "opens" at its beginning and just as suddenly, unexpectedly "closes" at its end. The new cultural epoch owes nothing to the previous one and does not transmit anything to the next one. History is characterized by "radical discontinuity".

Since the Renaissance, religion in Western culture has been losing its role and significance, it has been increasingly pushed to the sidelines of life. Its place is taken by science, the power of which is becoming more complete and absolute. Science is primarily interested in the new, the unknown, it is turned to the future. She is often indifferent to the past.

History of Russian culture more western than eastern. Perhaps to a lesser extent, but it was also accompanied by sharp turns and discontinuities. Its evolution was complicated by the geopolitical position of Russia: being between the West and the East, it tossed and torn between the western and eastern paths of development, not without difficulty finding and asserting its originality. Therefore, the problem of attitude and preservation of cultural heritage has always existed, sometimes becoming quite acute.

One of those moments was time of Peter 1. With his reforms, he sharply turned Russia to the West, sharply exacerbating the problem of attitudes towards its past. However, for all the radicalism of his transformations, Peter did not at all strive for a complete rejection of Russia's past, of its cultural heritage. On the contrary, it is under him that the problem of protecting cultural heritage for the first time appears as quite conscious and extremely important. It also takes concrete practical measures to preserve cultural heritage.

So, at the end of the XVII century. by decree of Peter, measurements are made and drawings of ancient Buddhist temples in Siberia are taken. Quite remarkable is the fact that in the years when stone construction was prohibited in Russia - in addition to St. Petersburg - Peter issued a special permit for such construction in Tobolsk. In his decree, he notes on this occasion that the construction of the Tobolsk Kremlin is not aimed at defense and military operations, but at showing the greatness and beauty of Russian construction, that the creation of a road leading through Tobolsk to China means the road to the people who are and should be forever friend of Russia.

Started by Peter I finds continuation and under Catherine II. It issues decrees on measurements, research and accounting of buildings of historical and artistic value, as well as on drawing up plans and descriptions of ancient cities and on the preservation of archeological monuments.

Active attempts to take into account and protect monuments of antiquity and nature were made by the leading figures of Russia already in the 18th century. Some of them are successful.

In particular, archival data testify that in 1754, residents of Moscow and nearby villages and villages appealed to St. Petersburg to the Berg Collegium with a complaint and demands to take measures to protect them from disasters brought by ironworks built and being built in Moscow and around her. According to numerous authors of the appeal, these plants lead to the destruction of forests. scare away animals, pollute rivers and harass fish. In response to this request, an order was issued to withdraw and stop the new construction of ironworks for 100 miles in a circle from Moscow. The term for the withdrawal was set at one year, and in case of failure to comply with the order, the factory property was subject to confiscation in favor of the state.

Attention to the protection of natural and cultural heritage increased significantly in the 19th century. Along with private decisions, which were in the majority, general state resolutions regulating construction and other activities were also adopted. As an example, we can point to the binding Construction Regulations adopted in the 19th century, which prohibited the demolition or repair, leading to the distortion of buildings erected in the 18th century, as well as the decree on awarding the Order of Vladimir I degree to persons who planted and raised at least 100 acres of forest.

An important role in the protection of natural and cultural heritage was played by public, scientific organizations: Moscow Archaeological Society (1864), Russian Historical Society (1866), Society for the Protection and Preservation of Monuments of Art and Antiquity in Russia (1909), etc. At their congresses, these organizations discussed the problems of protecting historical and cultural heritage. They were engaged in the development of legislation on the protection of monuments, raised the issue of creating state bodies for the protection of cultural and historical values. Among these organizations, the activities of the Moscow Archaeological Society deserve special mention.

This Society included not only archaeologists, but also architects, artists, writers, historians, and art critics. The main tasks of the Society were the study of ancient monuments of Russian antiquity and "protecting them not only from destruction and destruction, but also from distortion by repairs, extensions and restructuring."

Solving assigned tasks. The society created 200 volumes of scientific works, which contributed to a deep understanding of the exceptional value of the national historical and cultural heritage and the need to preserve it.

No less impressive were the practical results of the Society's activities. Thanks to his efforts, it was possible to preserve the ensemble of the Manor on Bersenevskaya Embankment and the buildings of Kitay-Gorod in Moscow, fortifications in Kolomna, the Assumption Cathedral in Zvenigorod, the Church of the Intercession on Perli, the Church of Lazar of Murom in Kizhi and many others.

Along with the study and preservation of monuments, the Society made a significant contribution to promoting the achievements of Russian culture. In particular, on his initiative, a monument was erected to the outstanding Russian educator, pioneer printer Ivan Fedorov (the author is the sculptor S. Volnukhin), which still adorns the center of Moscow. The authority of the Moscow Archaeological Society was so high that almost nothing was done without its knowledge and consent. If something was started and threatened any monument, then the Society intervened resolutely and put things in order.

At the beginning of the XX century. in Russia Basic laws have already been developed on the protection of monuments of art and antiquity, on the protection of nature and on the organization of natural and historical reserves. The draft law on the protection of ancient monuments in Russia (1911) and N. Roerich's pact on the need for an international solution to the issue of protecting cultural property were published. It should be emphasized that Roerich's pact was the first document in world practice that raised this issue to a global problem. This pact was adopted by the League of Nations only in 1934, having received the not entirely fair name - the "Washington Pact".

The adoption of the law "On the Protection of Monuments in Russia" was prevented by the First World War. True, its adoption could be problematic, since in the original version it affected the rights of private property, including an article on the "compulsory alienation of immovable monuments of antiquity that are in private possession."

After the October Revolution the situation with the preservation of cultural heritage has deteriorated sharply. The Civil War that followed the revolution resulted in the destruction and looting of a huge number of monuments within the country, as well as the uncontrolled export of cultural property abroad. The workers and peasants did this out of revenge and hatred for their former oppressors. Other social strata participated in this for purely selfish purposes. Saving the national cultural heritage required energetic and decisive measures from the authorities.

Already in 1918, decrees of the Soviet government were issued with legislative force on the prohibition of the export and sale of objects of special artistic and historical significance abroad, as well as on the registration, registration and preservation of monuments of art and antiquity. Particular attention is paid to the protection of monuments of landscape art and historical and artistic landscape. It should be noted that such legislative provisions on monuments of landscape gardening and landscape art were the first in the world practice. At the same time, a special state body for museums and the protection of monuments is being created.

The measures taken have yielded positive results. For four years, 431 private collections have been registered in Moscow and the Moscow region alone, 64 antique shops, 501 churches and monasteries, 82 estates have been examined.

Great Patriotic War 1941-1945 caused great damage to the Soviet Union. The Nazi invaders deliberately and purposefully destroyed the most valuable architectural monuments and plundered works of art. The ancient Russian cities of Pskov, Novgorod, Chernigov, Kyiv, as well as the palace and park ensembles of the suburbs of Leningrad, were especially hard hit.

Their restoration began even before the end of the war. Despite severe hardships and enormous difficulties, society found the strength to revive the historical and cultural heritage. This was facilitated by a government decree adopted in 1948, according to which measures aimed at improving the protection of cultural monuments were significantly expanded and deepened. In particular, now cultural monuments included not only free-standing buildings and structures, but also cities, settlements or parts of them that have historical and urban planning value.

From 60-X gg. protection of cultural monuments is carried out in close interaction and cooperation with international organizations and the world community. Let us note that our experience is widely reflected in such an international document as the "Venice Charter" adopted in 1964, devoted to the preservation of monuments of culture and art.

Back to top 70s The protection of cultural and natural heritage is already fully recognized by the world community as one of the global problems of our time. On the initiative UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage Committee The Convention for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Humanity (1972) and the Recommendation for the Preservation of Historic Ensembles (1976) were adopted. The result was the creation of a system of international cultural cooperation, which was headed by the said Committee. Its responsibilities include compiling a list of outstanding monuments of world culture and assisting participating States in ensuring the preservation of relevant sites.

To this list made: Moscow and Novgorod Kremlins; Trinity-Sergius Lavra: Golden Gate, Assumption and Demetrius Cathedrals in Vladimir; the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl and the Stair Tower of the chambers of Andrei Bogolyubsky in the village of Bogomolov; Spaso-Efimiev and Pokrovsky monasteries; Cathedral of the Nativity; Bishops' chambers in Suzdal; Church of Boris and Gleb in the village of Kideksha; as well as the historical and architectural ensemble on the island of Kizhi, the center of St. Petersburg, etc.

In addition to assistance in the conservation and protection of monuments, the Committee also provides assistance in their study, providing sophisticated equipment and experts.

In addition to those mentioned, the International Council for the Preservation of Historic Sites and Historical Monuments (ICOMOS) also works in close cooperation with UNESCO. founded in 1965 and bringing together specialists from 88 countries. Its tasks include protection, restoration and conservation of monuments. On his initiative, a number of important documents aimed at improving the security business around the world have recently been adopted. These include the Florence International Charter for the Protection of Historic Gardens (1981); International Charter for the Protection of Historic Sites (1987): International Charter for the Protection and Use of the Archaeological Heritage (1990).

Among non-governmental organizations, it is worth highlighting the International Center for Research in the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property, known as the Rome Center - ICCROM, whose members are 80 countries, including Russia.

The main problems and tasks in the preservation of the cultural heritage of Russia

In our country, two organizations currently play a leading role in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage. The first is the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments (VOOPIK; founded in 1966, it is a voluntary and public organization that implements the programs "Russian Estate", "Temples and Monasteries", "Russian Necropolis". "Russian Abroad". Society publishes 1980 the magazine "Monuments of the Fatherland".

The second is the Russian Cultural Foundation, established in 1991, which finances a number of programs and projects, including the Small Towns of Russia program. In order to strengthen the scientific side of security affairs, the Russian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage was established in 1992. Its tasks include the identification, study, conservation, use and promotion of cultural and natural heritage.

In 1992, the Commission for the Restitution of Cultural Property was established to settle mutual claims between Russia and foreign states.

Among the most important tasks and the matter of preserving cultural heritage is the revival of religious roots, the religious beginning of Russian culture, restoration of the important role of the Orthodox Church.

At present, the view of religion as something completely obsolete and obsolete is being reviewed everywhere. Religion and the Church again occupy a worthy place in the life and culture of our society. Man is characterized by an irresistible desire for the sublime and absolute, for that which surpasses himself and the limits of existence. This need is best met by religion. Hence its amazing vitality and the rapid restoration of its place and role in human life. This is not about the fact that culture is once again becoming religious in the full sense. This is impossible. Modern culture as a whole is still secular and rests mainly on science and reason. However, religion is again becoming an important and integral part of culture, and culture is restoring its historical ties with religious origins.

In the West, the idea of ​​reviving the religious roots of culture became relevant in the 70s. - along with the emergence of neoconservatism and postmodernism. Later, it becomes more and more powerful. Russia has much more reason to hope for the revival of the religious principle in its culture.

Many Russian philosophers and thinkers, not without reason, speak of "Russian religiosity". According to N. Danilevsky, its innateness and depth were manifested in the very acceptance and rather rapid spread of Christianity in Rus'. All this happened without any missionaries and without any imposition on the part of other states, by means of military threats or military victories, as was the case with other peoples.

The adoption of Christianity took place after a long internal struggle, from dissatisfaction with paganism, from a free search for truth and as a need of the spirit. The Russian character most fully corresponds to the ideals of Christianity: it is characterized by alienation from violence, gentleness, humility, respect, etc.

Religion was the most essential, dominant content of ancient Russian life, and later formed the predominant spiritual interest of ordinary Russian people. N. Danilevsky even speaks about the chosenness of the Russian people, bringing them closer in this respect to the peoples of Israel and Byzantium.

Similar thoughts are developed by Vl. Solovyov. To the already named features of the Russian character, he adds peacefulness, the rejection of cruel executions, and concern for the poor. The manifestation of Russian religiosity Vl. Solovyov sees in a special form of expression by a Russian person feelings for his homeland. A Frenchman in such a case speaks of "beautiful France", of "French glory". The Englishman lovingly pronounces: "Old England." The German talks about "German loyalty". A Russian person, wishing to express his best feelings for his homeland, speaks only of "Holy Rus'."

The highest ideal for him is not political and not aesthetic, but moral and religious. However, this does not mean complete asceticism, complete renunciation of the world, on the contrary: "Holy Rus' demands a holy cause." Therefore, the adoption of Christianity does not mean a simple memorization of new prayers, but the implementation of a practical task: the transformation of life on the basis of true religion.

L. Karsavin points to another property of a Russian person: "For the sake of the ideal, he is ready to give up everything, to sacrifice everything." According to L. Karsavin, the Russian person has a “feeling of the holiness and divinity of everything that exists”, like no one else he “needs the absolute”.

Historically, Russian religiosity has found a variety of manifestations and confirmations. Khan Batu, having placed Rus' in vassalage, did not dare to raise his hand to the faith of the Russian people, to Orthodoxy. He, apparently, instinctively felt the limits of his power and limited himself to the collection of material tribute. spiritually

Rus' did not submit to the Mongol-Tatar invasion, survived and, thanks to this, regained its full freedom.

In the Patriotic War of 1812, the Russian spirit played a decisive role in achieving victory. To an even greater extent, he showed himself in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Only unprecedented fortitude of spirit allowed the Russian people to endure truly deadly trials.

The Russian people accepted the ideals of communism largely due to the fact that they perceived them through the prism of the ideals of Christianity, Christian humanism. N. Berdyaev convincingly reflects on this.

Of course, Russia in its history has not always strictly followed the Christian path, it has also allowed serious deviations. Sometimes in it holiness and villainy turned out to be side by side. As Vl. Solovyov, there were both the pious monster Ivan IV and the true Saint Sergius in it. The Russian Orthodox Church was not always on top. She is often accused of that she allowed herself to be subjugated to secular power, starting with Peter I - the tsarist, and then the communist. Russian theology is reproached for being inferior to Catholic theology in theoretical terms.

Indeed, the Russian Orthodox Church was deprived of freedom for centuries, was under the strict control of the authorities. However, this is not her fault, but a misfortune. For the sake of the unification of Rus', she herself in every possible way contributed to the strengthening of her statehood. But it turned out that the state power, having become absolute, subjugated the power of the absolute.

Russian theology was indeed not very successful in theory; it did not offer new proofs for the existence of God. However the main merit of the Russian Orthodox Church is that she was able to preserve Orthodox Christianity. This alone atones for all her other sins. The preservation of Orthodoxy as true Christianity gave Moscow grounds to claim the title of "Third Rome". And it is precisely the preservation of Christianity that makes it possible to hope for the revival of the religious principle in Russian culture, for the spiritual recovery of the Russian people.

This is facilitated by the extensive restoration and renovation of churches and monasteries in recent years. Already today in most settlements of Russia there is a temple or a church. Of particular importance is the restoration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. Even more important is the adoption of the law on freedom of conscience. All this creates the necessary conditions for each person to find their way to the temple.

The situation is very favorable for monasteries. Despite the destruction and misadventures that took place in the past, more than 1200 monasteries have survived, of which about 200 are currently active.

The beginning of monastic life was laid by the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra - the monks Anthony and Theodosius. From the 14th century the center of Orthodox monasticism becomes the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, founded by the great Sergius of Radonezh. Among all the monasteries and temples, it is the main Shrine of Orthodoxy. For more than five centuries, the Lavra has been a place of pilgrimage for Russian Christians. The St. Daiil Monastery also deserves special mention - the first monastery in Moscow, founded by Prince Daniel, son of Alexander Nevsky, which is today the official residence of the patriarch.

Russian monasteries have always been important centers of spiritual life. They had a special attraction. As an example, it is enough to point to the monastery of Optina Pustyn, which was visited by N. Gogol, F. Dostoevsky. J1. Tolstoy. They came there to drink from the purest spiritual source. The very existence of monasteries and monks helps people to endure the hardships of life more easily, because they know that there is a place where they will always find understanding and consolation.

An exceptionally important place in the cultural heritage is occupied by Russian estates. They took shape in the second half of the 11th century. - 19th century These were "tribal", "noble nests". There were thousands of them, but dozens remained. Some of them were destroyed during the revolution and the Civil War. The other part has disappeared from time and desolation. Many of the surviving ones - Arkhangelsk, Kuskovo, Marfino, Ostafyevo, Ostankino, Shakhmatovo - have been turned into museums, reserves and sanatoriums. Others are less fortunate and need urgent help and care.

The role of Russian estates in the development of Russian culture was enormous. In the XVIII century. they formed the basis of the Russian Enlightenment. Thanks in large part to them in the 19th century. became the golden age of Russian culture.

The way of manor life was closely connected with nature, agriculture, centuries-old traditions and customs, the life of peasants and common people. The elements of high culture are rich libraries. beautiful collections of paintings, home theaters - organically intertwined with elements of folk culture. Thanks to this, the split, the gap between the Europeanized culture of the upper stratum and the traditional culture of the Russian people, which arose as a result of the Petrine reforms and was characteristic of capitals and large cities, was largely removed. Russian culture regained its integrity and unity.

Russian estates were living springs of high and deep spirituality. They carefully preserved Russian traditions and customs, the national atmosphere, Russian identity and the spirit of Russia. One can say about each of them in the words of the poet: “There is a Russian spirit. It smells of Russia there. Russian estates played an important role in the fate of many great people of Russia. The Russian estate had a beneficial effect on the work of A.S. Pushkin. In the estate of Khmelite, Smolensk region, A.S. Griboedov, and later the idea of ​​"Woe from Wit" was born. The Vvedenskoye estate in Zvenigorod was of great importance for the life and work of P.I. Tchaikovsky, A.P. Chekhov.

Russian estates opened the way to the heights of art for many talented nuggets from the depths of the Russian people.

The remaining Russian estates represent the visible and tangible past of Russia. They are living islands of genuine Russian spirituality. Their restoration and preservation is the most important task in the preservation of cultural heritage. Its successful solution will be facilitated by the re-created "Society for the Study of the Russian Estate", which existed in the 1920s. (1923-1928).

The task of preserving Russian estates is closely related to another equally important task - revival and development of small towns in Russia.

Currently, there are more than 3 thousand of them with a population of about 40 million people. Like estates, they embodied a truly Russian way of life, expressed the soul and beauty of Russia. Each of them had a unique, unique look, their own lifestyle. For all their modesty and unpretentiousness, small towns were generous with talents. Many great writers, artists and composers of Russia came out of them.

At the same time, for a long time, small towns were in oblivion and desolation. An active, creative and creative life died out in them, they more and more turned into a remote province and a backwater. Now the situation is gradually changing, and small towns are coming back to life.

Comprehensive programs have been developed for the revival of the historical and cultural environment of such ancient Russian cities as Zaraysk, Podolsk, Rybinsk and Staraya Russa. Of these, Staraya Russa has the most favorable prospects. F.M. lived in this city. Dostoevsky and his own house has been preserved. This city also has a mud resort and historical monuments. All this allows Staraya Russa to become an attractive tourist, cultural and health center. Proximity to Novgorod will enhance its cultural significance.

Approximately the same expects the rest of the mentioned cities. The experience accumulated in their revival will serve as the basis for the development of renovation projects for other small towns in Russia.

A special place in the protection of cultural heritage is occupied by folk arts and crafts. Together with folklore, they constitute folk culture, which, being the most important part of the entire national culture, expresses its originality and uniqueness with the greatest force. Russia has long been famous for its magnificent products of artistic crafts and crafts.

Among the oldest of them is a Russian wooden toy, the center of which is Sergiev Posad. It was here that the world-famous matryoshka was born. The same ancient is the Kholmogory bone carving. Using the technique of low relief, Kholmogory bone carvers create unique works of decorative art - combs, goblets, caskets, vases. Khokhloma painting has a no less long history. It is a decorative painting with a floral pattern on wooden products (dishes, furniture) in red and black tones and gold.

The miniature has become widespread in Russia. One of its famous centers is located in the village. Fedoskino, Moscow region. Fedoskino miniature - oil painting on papier-mâché lacquerware. The drawing is done in a realistic manner on a black lacquer background. The Palekh miniature, which is a tempera painting on papier-mâché lacquerware (boxes, caskets, cigarette cases, jewelry), echoes the Fedoskino miniature. It is characterized by bright colors, a smooth pattern, an abundance of gold.

Gzhel ceramics - products made of porcelain and faience, covered with blue painting, received well-deserved fame in Russia and abroad.

The arts and crafts mentioned, as well as other arts and crafts in general, continue their life and activity, although with varying degrees of success and confidence in the future.

However, they all need serious help. Many of them require significant reconstruction, the result of which should be the creation of modern working conditions for craftsmen and creators. Some of them need to be revived and restored. The fact is that over time these trades and crafts have undergone significant changes: they were too modernized. The themes and plots were changed, the technology was broken, the style was distorted.

In general, the protection of cultural heritage in the modern world is becoming more complex and acute. This issue requires constant attention. Without exaggeration, we can say that the level of development of the culture of a particular people should be judged by how it relates to its cultural heritage. By preserving the past, we prolong the future.

At the RISS, experts discussed the study, preservation and development of historical and cultural territories in the context of the strategic tasks of Russia's spatial development

In the strategic planning documents of the Russian Federation, the issues of the progressive development of the country, as well as strengthening its competitiveness in the world, are increasingly linked to the tasks of spatial development and the preservation of the national cultural, historical and natural heritage of Russia.In March 2018, in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly, the President put forward the idea of launching a large-scale spatial development program in Russia, including the development of cities and other settlements, doubling spending for this purpose over the next six years.

On September 20 and 26, RISS hosted round tables on such topical issues as"Study, preservation and development of historical and cultural territories of the European part of Russia" And"Russia in the Preservation of Cultural Heritage Abroad".

A representative pool of Russian experts from a number of specialized organizations took part in the discussion of this topic:Moscow Architectural Institute;public movement "Arhnadzor"; Directorate of the International Cultural Forum; Institute of Linguistics RAS; Institute for Social Policy, National Research University Higher School of Economics; NPO Energy, Urban Planning and Strategic Development NIIPI General Plan; Analytical agency "Center"; Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences; architectural company RTDA LLC. Among the participants in the discussion were representativesRussian Research Institute of Cultural and Natural Heritage. D.S. Likhachev and the House of Russian Abroad named after Alexander Solzhenitsyn, as well as expertsInternational Research Center (ICCROM) and the International Council for the Conservation of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).

Head of the Center for the Study, Preservation and Development of Historical and Cultural Territories (TSISIRKT)O.V. Ryzhkov, Speaking about the goals and objectives of the Center of the RISS structural subdivision, established in April 2018, he emphasized the difficulty of implementing a dual task: on the one hand, to preserve, on the other, to develop. In order to develop approaches to solving this problem, namely the preservation and reproduction of historical and cultural identity as a factor in the socio-economic development of territories and the enhancement of human capital, competent specialists gathered at RISS.

It is clear that this complex issue cannot be exhausted by one or two discussions. A long and thoughtful conversation, an exchange of opinions, and discussions are ahead. Acquaintance with the directions and results of research is required, as well as with the accumulated experience of organizations and institutions working in the field of studying and preserving the historical and cultural heritage of small towns and settlements.The task of the Center and these "round tables" is to create a new expert platform within which it would be possible to systematically discuss these problems by leading Russian experts and state representatives.

During the events, a number of topical issues were raised, including:

– development of regional programs for the preservation and use of cultural heritage using foreign experience in organizing recreational and event tourism in historical cities (N.V. Maksakovskiy, National Research University Higher School of Economics);

– formation of a comfortable environment in historical settlements following the results of the All-Russian competition among small historical towns (M.V. Sedletskaya , Agency "Center");

– development of a conceptual apparatus (“historical city”, “historical settlement”, “historical territory”, etc.) as a tool for more accurately attributing objects to historical territories and determining their boundaries (N.F. Soloviev, Deputy Director of IIMK RAS).

The experts were also provided with important information about the activities of ICCROM in Russia (N.N. Shangina, member of the Council of ICCROM, Chairman of the Council of the Union of Restorers of St. Petersburg), as well as on the current problems facing the Russian Committee of ICOMOS and the Russian heritage protection system as a whole (N.M. Almazova, VVice-President of the National Committee of ICOMOS of Russia, Vice-President of the Union of Restorers of Russia). Speech by the head of the Center for World Heritage and International Cooperation Research Institute. D.S. LikhachevN.V. Filatova was devoted to international cooperation in the field of heritage protection, in particular, the efforts of the Russian Federation to preserve Orthodox monasteries in Kosovo; activities of employees of the Research Institute. D.S. Likhachev in Syria.

WHead of the Department of International and Interregional Cooperation of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russian AbroadE.V. Krivova reported on the areas of work of the House of Russian Diaspora. And the deputy director of the Research Institute. D.S. LikhachevE.V. Bahrevsky presented a guide to the history and culture of Russia in Japan, prepared by the Heritage Institute, and drew the attention of the round table participants to the need to study in foreign countries the influence not only of Russian culture, but also of the culture of other peoples of Russia.

In general, the participants of the expert meetings came to the conclusion that it is necessary to exchange experience and coordinate the work of organizations and institutions dealing with the problems of historical and cultural heritage on a regular basis in order to increase the efficiency of this work and reduce the risk of duplication. The importance of strengthening control over construction and restoration work in historical settlements was emphasized in order to preserve local cultural identity. In this regard, it is advisable to assess the prospects for creating a working group of the expert community on the revival, conservation and development of historical and cultural territories.

Message of the President to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018:Kremlin. en/ events/ president/ news/56957

Kruglikova Galina Alexandrovna,
The problem of preserving the historical and cultural heritage in modern conditions has become particularly relevant. History is the history of people, and each person is an accomplice in the existence of the past, present and future; the roots of a person are in the history and traditions of the family, their people. Feeling our involvement in history, we care about preserving everything that is dear to the memory of the people.

It should be emphasized that at present, interest in monuments, anxiety for their fate is no longer the property of individual specialists and disparate public groups. The sharp decline in the Russian economy, the loss of spiritual ideals aggravated the already disastrous situation of science and culture, which affected the state of the historical and cultural heritage. Now the head of state, local authorities are constantly addressing the problem of preserving cultural heritage, emphasizing the need to take measures to prevent the loss of monuments. The policy of spiritual revival proclaimed by the government, in case of loss of the continuity of the best traditions of culture, cannot be fully implemented without the preservation and revival of the historical and cultural heritage.

In historical science, there is a process of rethinking assessments, experience, lessons, overcoming one-sidedness; Much attention is paid to unexplored and little-studied problems. This fully applies to the state policy on cultural heritage. Culture has been and remains a historical heritage. It includes those aspects of the past that continue to live in the present in an altered form. Culture acts as a phenomenon of active social impact on social practice, expressing the essential interests of mankind, and is one of the most important areas for understanding human existence.

Cultural heritage is a broad and multifaceted concept: it includes both spiritual and material culture. The concept of " cultural heritage» is associated with a number of other categories of cultural theory (cultural values, traditions, innovation, etc.), but has its own scope, content and meaning.

In the methodological sense, the category "cultural heritage" applicable to the processes taking place in the field of culture. The concept of inheritance presupposes a theoretical understanding of the patterns of succession and a conscious action in the form of an assessment of the cultural values ​​created by previous generations and their creative use. But the process of spiritual production is characterized by a variety of relations inherent in it, and for this reason the culture of each new formation finds itself in the necessary succession connection with the totality of the relations of spiritual exchange and consumption that have arisen earlier.

Cultural heritage is always considered from the point of view of the possibilities of its practical application by the relevant social groups (classes, nations, etc.), entire generations of people, therefore, in the process of cultural inheritance, something is preserved and used, and something is changed, critically reviewed or completely discarded.

It is also necessary to turn to the analysis of the concept, without which the category cannot be defined. "cultural heritage", namely, to the concept of "tradition". Tradition acts as "a system of actions that are passed down from generation to generation and form the thoughts and feelings of people, caused in them by certain social relations."

Since development proceeds from the past to the present and from the present to the future, traditions always live in society, on the one hand, in which the experience of previous generations is concentrated, and on the other hand, new traditions are born, which are the quintessence of experience from which future generations will draw knowledge.

In every historical epoch, humanity critically weighs the cultural values ​​it has inherited and supplements, develops, enriches them in the light of new opportunities and new tasks facing society, in accordance with the needs of certain social forces that solve these tasks in terms of both scientific and technical and social progress.

Thus, the cultural heritage is not something immutable: the culture of any historical epoch always not only includes the cultural heritage, but also creates it. The cultural ties that are emerging today and the cultural values ​​being created, growing on the basis of a certain cultural heritage, tomorrow will themselves become an integral part of the cultural heritage inherited by the new generation. The widespread rise of interest in historical and cultural monuments requires an understanding of the essence of cultural heritage in all its connections and mediations, and an attentive attitude towards it.

E.A. Baller defines it as "a set of connections, relationships and results of material and spiritual production of past historical eras, and in a narrower sense of the word - as a set of cultural values ​​inherited by mankind from past eras, critically mastered, developed and used in accordance with the objective criteria of social progress" .

International documents note that “the cultural heritage of the people includes the works of its artists, architects, musicians, writers, scientists, as well as the works of unknown masters of folk art and the whole set of values ​​that give meaning to human existence. It covers both material and non-material, expressing the creativity of the people, their language, customs, beliefs; it includes historical sites and monuments, literature, works of art, archives and libraries.”

According to the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture, the cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation is material and spiritual values ​​created in the past, as well as monuments and historical and cultural territories and objects that are significant for the preservation and development of the identity of the Russian Federation and all its peoples, their contribution to world civilization.

Thus, the introduction of the concept cultural heritage” has played a positive role in establishing a new paradigm applicable to all categories of immovable objects of historical and cultural significance.

The question of the relationship between culture and society may seem trivial. It is clear that one does not exist without the other. Culture cannot be outside society, and society cannot be outside culture. What is the problem? Both culture and society have a single source - labor activity. It contains both the mechanism of culture (social memory, social inheritance of people's experience) and the prerequisites for the joint activity of people that give rise to various spheres of social life. The status of culture in society, ideas about its state, ways of preserving and developing are always in the process of formation. And a society can be understood not only from an analysis of its political and socio-economic "biography", but certainly from an understanding of its cultural heritage.

One of the most important determinants of the development of culture is ideology, which expresses the social and class characteristics of certain elements of culture. It acts as the social mechanism through which any social community subordinates culture to itself and through it expresses its interests. The ideological influence leads to an appropriate state policy in the field of culture, expressed in its institutionalization (the creation of an education system, libraries, universities, museums, etc. in society).

The most complete is the definition of cultural policy as “an activity related to the formation and coordination of social mechanisms and conditions for cultural activity of both the population as a whole and all its groups, focused on the development of creative cultural and leisure needs. As mechanisms for the formation and coordination of the conditions of cultural activity, administrative, economic and democratic conditions are distinguished.

One of the paradoxes of today's cultural situation is the concentration of enterprising, bright, talented ascetics of culture on one side of the cultural life of society, and funds, buildings, legal rights in the form of cultural institutions and bodies - on the other.

The result of this confrontation is a social order, which is an important regulator not only of the constitution of monuments, but also of their preservation. This is the order of society, adjusted to historical and cultural traditions, state priorities.

Particularly effective is the manifestation of public interest in the protection of historical and cultural heritage as an integral part of the ecology of culture, on the basis of which not only public opinion is formed, but also protective measures are carried out. Thus, the preservation of cultural heritage becomes a civic action in which the people take an active part.

Public interest and social order influence the creation of an idea of ​​what is a monument of history and culture on the scale of a locality, region, country as a whole. Thus, the preferences that have developed among different peoples and national groups are taken into account.

After the October Revolution, the problems of protecting cultural property began to occupy a large place in the activities of the Soviet government and the party. The adoption of fundamental legislative acts - the Decrees of the Council of People's Commissars "On the Nationalization of Foreign Trade" (April 22, 1918), which prohibited trade by private individuals; "On the Prohibition of the Export and Sale of Items of Special Artistic and Historical Importance Abroad" (October 19, 1918); "On the registration, registration and protection of monuments of art, antiquity, administered by individuals, societies and institutions" (October 5, 1918), as well as the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee "On the registration and protection of monuments of art, antiquity and nature" (January 7, 1924) clearly expressed the essence of the policy of the Soviet government in relation to cultural and historical heritage. An important step was the formation of a network of state bodies in charge of the preservation and use of historical and cultural heritage.

The state has always tried to put the protection of monuments under its control and direct it in the right direction. In this regard, the Soviet government could not but pay attention to the fact that most of the monuments taken into account in the first years of Soviet power were religious buildings. Thus, in 1923, of the three thousand immovable monuments registered in the RSFSR, more than 1,100 were examples of civil architecture, and more than 1,700 were religious. This disparity grew rapidly. Two years later, out of the six thousand recorded immovable monuments, more than 4,600 were cult and only a little more than 1,200 were civil buildings.

On the one hand, the Soviet government took measures to save objects of historical and cultural significance. On the other hand, the famine relief campaign of 1921–1922 had a pronounced political and anti-church character. It was decided to hold in each province a week of agitation for the collection of church valuables, and the task was to give this agitation a form alien to any struggle against religion, but entirely aimed at helping the starving.

The meeting of the Politburo was reflected in an article in the Izvestia newspaper dated March 24, 1922. The article proclaimed the determination to confiscate church property everywhere, and announced a serious warning to anyone who planned any disobedience to the authorities. This was how public opinion was prepared regarding the seizure of church property and the authority of the authorities to take any action. Now any discontent could be interpreted as resistance, as a manifestation of counter-revolution. Consequently, the authorities received the right to protect their own interests, and by all available means and to justify any of their actions by the interests of the people and the desire to maintain the rule of law.

The Ural region was among the first in terms of the number of seized valuables. In the secret order of the Yekaterinburg Provincial Committee of the RCP (b), the county committees of the Communist Party were ordered to take quick, energetic and decisive action. “Withdrawal,” it said, “is subject to absolutely everything that can be realized in the interests of the state (gold, silver, stones, embroidery), no matter what these values ​​are. Any talk about leaving things "necessary for the performance of religious rites" is to be avoided, because for this it is not necessary to have things made of valuable metals.

For example, in Yekaterinburg and the county, from the beginning of the seizure until June 2, 1922, the Gubernia Financial Department received: silver and stones - 168 pounds 24 pounds, copper - 27 pounds, gold with and without stones - 4 pounds. In the districts of the Ekaterinburg province, the churches lost 79 pounds of silver and stones and 8 pounds of gold.

According to official statistics (note that the source refers to 1932), as a result of the seizure of valuables across the country, the Soviet state received about 34 poods of gold, about 24,000 poods of silver, 14,777 diamonds and diamonds, more than 1.2 poods of pearls, more than a pood of precious stones and other valuables. It is safe to say that the number of items seized was much higher.

During the ongoing events, gross violations of the law and regulations, the temples lost what was created by Russian masters of several generations. Having proclaimed the goal of building a democratic classless society, the ideological confrontation was brought to a disastrous absurdity, which led to the denial of universal spiritual values. The protection of monuments in the country was put under strict control by creating a single state centralized all-encompassing system for managing scientific, museum, and local history institutions.

Since the 1920s the state began to systematically destroy and sell cultural property. This was determined by the policy of the party and government in connection with the need for imports and the limited export funds and foreign exchange reserves. A course was taken to give the sphere of spiritual life a secondary role in comparison with material production. As an example of the attitude towards the historical and cultural heritage of representatives of the state authorities of that time, one can cite the words of the chairman of the Moscow City Executive Committee, N.A. Broken - better. They broke the Kitaygorod wall, the Sukharev tower - it became better ... ".

Ideology had a powerful impact on the worldview and worldview of people, on their social health. Characteristically, even many specialists in the museum business agreed with the sale of valuables abroad, not considering that it caused irreparable damage to the culture of the country. This is confirmed by the minutes of the meeting at the Office of the Commissioner of the People's Commissariat of Education on the issue of allocating valuables for export, which took place on January 27, 1927. Philosophers (Hermitage): In connection with the changed policy on the allocation of export goods, the entire museum fund should be revised. With the exception of a small number of items needed for central museums, the entire museum fund can be transferred to the export fund.

It is not possible to give even an approximate number of art and antiquity items taken out of the USSR in the late 1920s. The following example is indicative: "The list of jewels and art products exported to Germany" in 1927 occupies 191 sheets. It lists the contents of 72 boxes (2348 items in total). According to Robert Williams, in the first three quarters of 1929 alone, the Soviet Union sold 1,192 tons of cultural property at auction, and 1,681 tons in the same period in 1930.

Mass sale of cultural property since the late 1920s was logical, since it was a reflection of the mentality of the Soviet society of that period and its attitude to the pre-revolutionary historical past.

In the course of atheistic propaganda and an anti-religious campaign, thousands of churches, chapels, monasteries were closed, demolished, converted for economic needs, and the church utensils that were in them were also destroyed. As an example, we can cite the minutes of the meeting of the commission on closing churches in Sverdlovsk on April 5, 1930: out of 15 objects examined, 3 were sentenced to be demolished, while the rest had to be adapted for a library, a pioneer club, a sanitary and educational exhibition, a nursery, a canteen, etc. Another example: the church of the Verkhotursky Monastery, closed in 1921 after a short use for a club of military infantry courses was used in 1922 as a sacking point, and then completely abandoned.

Bell ringing was banned in many cities; bells were everywhere removed and melted down in foundries "in favor" of industrialization. So, in 1930, the workers of Perm, Motovilikha, Lysva, Chusovoy, Zlatoust, Tagil, Sverdlovsk and other cities proclaimed: “The bells are to be melted down, it’s enough to mumble in them and lull us with a ringing. We demand that the bells do not honk and do not interfere with us building a new and happy life.

As a result, the system of protection of monuments was destroyed as superfluous, it was replaced by monumental propaganda, which soon took on ugly forms both in its scale and artistry. In the late 1920s - 1930s. the nihilistic approach to the creations of the past triumphed. They were no longer recognized as having any spiritual value for the builders of a socialist society. Thus, monuments of the centuries-old history and culture of the people turned into sources of funds and non-ferrous metal, were used for household purposes without regard to their historical and cultural value.

The phenomenon called "Soviet culture" arose as a result of the implementation of the Bolshevik cultural policy. It embodied the relationship and interaction of the three subjects of cultural life - the authorities, the artist and society. The authorities purposefully and intensely - in accordance with the postulates of the Bolshevik cultural policy - tried to put culture at their service. So the “new” art (“faithful assistant to the party”) carried out a social order under the supervision of the same party - it formed a “new person”, a new picture of the world, pleasing to the communist ideology.

The protection of monuments is a struggle for a correct understanding of history, for the public consciousness of the broad masses of the people inhabiting the historical and cultural space.

It is curious that this position is theoretically not questioned even today. In the central and local press, the shortcomings that still exist in the work of preserving architectural monuments of history and culture are widely discussed. In particular, there are criticized (and very sharply) the facts of a dismissive attitude towards the unique structures of the past. The damage inflicted on the monuments of antiquity and their protection, in whatever form it manifests itself - whether as a result of neglect, in the form of direct destruction of buildings of the past, or through aesthetic humiliation - this is damage to the national culture of the people.

In a society divided into social strata, where there is no unity of views on history and social processes, there are always different approaches to the preservation of historical and cultural heritage, since it has cognitive and educational functions.

Monuments of history and culture are endowed with cognitive functions, since they are materialized facts of past historical events or bear traces of the impact of historical events. As a result, the monuments contain certain historical information (or aesthetic, if they are works of art). Thus, monuments of history and culture are sources of historical and aesthetic knowledge.

Monuments are endowed with educational functions because, having visibility and high attractiveness, they are a source of strong emotional impact. Emotional sensations, together with historical and aesthetic information, actively influence the formation of knowledge and social consciousness of the individual. The combination of these two qualities makes monuments a powerful means of pedagogical influence, the formation of beliefs, worldview, motivation of actions and, ultimately, one of the factors that determine public consciousness and behavior.

Public interest in historical and cultural monuments is one of the forms of man's eternal desire to search for a higher principle, a universal measure. It follows from this that interest in traditions is a manifestation of the spiritual beginning of the individual, his desire to enrich his own culture and the culture of society as a whole. This interest is projected mainly in the plane of preservation and consumption of cultural heritage.

The multilayer nature of such public interest is obvious. It grows out of the many goals pursued by people who come into contact with cultural heritage.

Let us point out some of these goals: to know the past (to join history); sensually perceive the experience and life of previous generations; get aesthetic and emotional satisfaction from acquaintance with historical and cultural objects; satisfy natural curiosity and inquisitiveness. More serious goals: to preserve the memory, master and pass on the traditions of the past, protect the historical and cultural heritage as an integral part of the ecology of culture.

Today they talk and write a lot about the revival of Russia, but everyone understands it in their own way. It is necessary to decide in relation to one's historical and cultural heritage, to understand what can be in demand in the current situation, to understand the relationship between traditions and innovations on Russian soil, and to determine their optimum. Historical and cultural heritage is closely interconnected with historical memory as a special mechanism, a system of preservation and transmission in the public consciousness of the most important events, phenomena, processes of history, and the activities of prominent historical figures. However, historical memory is not only an intellectual and moral phenomenon. It, among other things, is embodied in the material results of human activity, which, alas, tend to perish.

Thus, in recent times, a reasonable and realistic cultural policy, a well-thought-out strategy for the development of culture, has acquired particular importance. The goal of cultural policy is to make people's lives spiritually rich and multifaceted, to open wide scope for revealing their abilities, to provide opportunities for familiarization with culture and various forms of creative activity. The human being is at the center of politics.

The recommendations on the participation and role of the masses in cultural life, adopted by UNESCO, say that the main task of modern cultural policy is to provide the greatest possible number of people with a set of tools that promote spiritual and cultural development. Cultural policy is faced with the task of ensuring intellectual progress, so that its results become the property of every person and harmonize the cultural relations of people.

As a prerequisite for the implementation of a meaningful state cultural policy, one can consider the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation "On especially valuable objects of cultural heritage of the peoples of the Russian Federation", in accordance with which the State Expert Council under the President of Russia was created.

It is impossible not to recognize the need to revive national dignity, respect for one's own traditions as the most important task of state cultural policy. As a first step in this direction, we can recommend expanding access to genuine culture and education for large groups of the population. In the meantime, the movement is going in the opposite direction - the sector of free education is shrinking, the contacts of the population with culture are declining, a large-scale westernization of the spiritual life of Russia is taking place - through television, radio, the movie screen, education, language, clothing, etc.

The neglect of legal problems in the field of culture is noted: “despite the abundance of existing legal acts, today we are forced to state that there is no single regulatory framework for ensuring activities in the field of culture that adequately reflects its needs, the specifics and diversity of features, nuances inherent in managed objects, neither for creative workers, nor for institutions and organizations ” .

What can we say about the “consumption” of valuables, if people see only 5% of the entire wealth of the museum fund in Russia? Everything else lies under a bushel, and, apparently, much of what is there, no one will ever see.

One of the main reasons for the confusion is, in our opinion, the fact that the Bolshevik and then the communist ideology abolished all previous culture. The current timelessness is precisely due to the loss of value, cultural landmarks.

There are probably enough reasons to understand that the values ​​of culture have yet to acquire the status of true in the public mind.

The culture of each nation exists and manifests itself as a cultural heritage and cultural creativity. Subtract one of the terms - and the people will lose the possibility of further development. The cultural heritage of a people is the criterion of its national identity, and the attitude of the people to their own cultural heritage is the most sensitive barometer of their spiritual health and well-being.

The priorities of the legal support of the state cultural policy are the creation of new opportunities for initiation into the culture of subcultural groups of the population and the elimination of the gap between elite and mass culture on the basis of legal guarantees of social protection for all creators of cultural values, regardless of cultural and educational level and socio-demographic characteristics.

Yes, the greatest artistic values ​​have been left to us. And these monuments are our glory and pride, regardless of their original cult purpose. Like ancient temples and gothic cathedrals, they are a universal property.

Age-old vaults do not collapse by themselves. They are destroyed by indifference and ignorance. Someone's hands sign the order, someone's hands plant dynamite, someone calmly, intrepidly contemplates all this and passes by. I would like to note: in the matter of protecting monuments, our national pride and glory, there are no and cannot be outsiders. Caring for the past is our duty, human and civic.

Cultural policy actually forms the living space in which a person lives, acts and creates. Such is the process of interaction: politics is interested in culture as a means of humanizing its pragmatic decisions, and culture is interested in politics as a link with the life of man and society.

Culture is always acquired at a high cost. Yes, much has not been preserved that today, of course, would be recognized as cultural heritage. But is it right to speak in this case of a catastrophic loss of cultural heritage?

A new approach to understanding the value of historical and cultural monuments should, to a certain extent, relieve the stress that arises when thinking about the lost heritage. The movement in support of the ecology of culture is growing every day, which makes it possible for the public to effectively control the preservation of cultural heritage. And, finally, the human factor, which is now given paramount importance, is becoming a true guarantor of the activation of public interest in historical and cultural monuments in all their diversity and originality.

The historical continuity of the development of culture, embodied in monuments, and the awareness of their living connection with modernity, are the main motives for the social movement in defense of cultural heritage. Monuments of history and culture are carriers of a certain historical meaning, witnesses of the people's fate, and therefore serve to educate generations, preventing national forgetfulness and depersonalization.

Bibliographic list

1. Baller E.A. Social progress and cultural heritage. M., 1987.

2. Volegov Yu.B. The state of legal support in the sphere of culture and in the system of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation // Landmarks of the cult. politicians. 1993. No. 1.

3. Mexico City Declaration on Cultural Policy // Cultures: Dialogue of the Peoples of the World. UNESCO, 1984. No. 3.

4. Diagnostics of socio-cultural processes and the concept of cultural policy: Sat. scientific tr. Sverdlovsk, 1991.

5. Law of the Russian Federation of December 9, 1992: Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on culture. Sec. I. Art. 3.

6. Kandidov B. Famine of 1921 and the Church. M., 1932.

7. Kumanov E. Thoughts of the artist. Sketches in disturbing tones // Architecture and construction of Moscow. 1988. No. 3.

8. Mosyakin A. Sale // Ogonyok. 1989. No. 7.

9. Enlightenment in the Urals. 1930. Nos. 3–4.

10. Center for Documentation of Public Organizations of the Sverdlovsk Region, f. 76, op. 1, d. 653.

Introduction

Today comes the understanding that the sustainable development of the city cannot be realized only through the further preservation of existing structures. It becomes clear that many historical buildings meet the new requirements relatively easily and, at the same time, can purposefully change the structure in short periods of time.

The objectives of the protection of monuments are the conservation and documentation of the historically valuable state of the building, which is preserved with a historical, artistic, scientific or urban justification. However, conservation, in the sense of preserving the original state of the monument, is inevitably applied with its renewal. To preserve monuments, they must be used, while they are not lost or depreciated, but are part of a structure that must be developed further. The museum world, filled with unused monuments, perishes as long as the interests of society are directed only at their protection. Renovation associated with historical aspects is the value of the monument, which gives it a special emotional significance, corresponding to the interests of society.

A compromise must be found between conservation, restoration and renovation, as well as between conservation and modern architectural requirements.

If earlier the protection of cultural and historical heritage was limited to the protection of individual outstanding material monuments, then new approaches to the definition of the concept of cultural and historical heritage and its protection suggest:

. transition from the protection of individual objects to the protection of urban landscapes, including both outstanding heritage monuments and row buildings, as well as natural landscapes, historical routes, etc.;

Transition from the protection of only outstanding monuments to the protection of historical buildings that reflect the lifestyle of ordinary citizens;

Transition from the protection of only ancient monuments to the protection of monuments of the XX century;

Active participation of society, and above all local residents, in the preservation of cultural heritage and its integration into the social and economic life of the city (“vitalization”);

Integrating heritage into the daily life of the city and making it an integral and indispensable element.

However, in developed countries, the policy in the field of heritage conservation and regeneration is based precisely on these principles. Moreover, in a number of countries, especially in countries

Europe, the regeneration and integration of cultural and historical heritage is increasingly seen as the driving force behind the development of historic cities in general (heritage-led regeneration).

The main conflict associated with the use of a broad understanding of the term "object of cultural and historical heritage" is the need, on the one hand, to find funds for the maintenance and restoration of numerous monuments (it is an impossible task for any state to maintain all heritage objects at its own expense), and on the other hand, to integrate heritage objects into the economic life of the city and put them into economic circulation.

Given the relevance of this topic today, it would be reasonable to analyze the existing policy in the field of conservation and regeneration of cultural heritage, which is the purpose of this work. In order to carry out the analysis, the following tasks must be performed:

• analyze existing work on this topic
• consider the main economic models
• consider the main ways to preserve cultural heritage sites
• consider, using the example of different countries, the methodology for preserving and regenerating objects of cultural heritage
• consider the model of management of historical and cultural heritage in Russia

This topic is very relevant for research in our time. Zheravina O.A. is actively working on issues related to the preservation of cultural heritage. , Klimov L.A. , Borodkin L.I. , Uryutova Yu.A. . Foreign scientists and researchers also actively publish their works on this topic, such as: Christoph Brumann, Soraya Boudia, Sébastien Soubiran, Mateja Šmid Hribar. David Bole. Primoz Pipan.

Galkova O.V. believes that the fundamental in determining modern ideas about cultural heritage is the understanding of the importance and immutability of maintaining in a rapidly developing society such a human habitat in which he will maintain a connection with nature and cultural heritage objects, the realization that cultural heritage is an important condition for sustainable development, the acquisition of national identity, the harmonious development of the individual . But all monuments of history and culture are also objects of property rights (often state or municipal), which determines their involvement in property relations, as well as the need for their effective use. In some cases, this leads to the fact that individual business entities and officials perceive the territory of the monument as nothing more than a potential construction site, and the cultural heritage site itself as an obstacle to the implementation of bold urban planning decisions.

As a result, we can observe the facts of partial or complete demolition of monuments with the preservation of only one of the facades of the building and the construction of modern objects (usually made of glass and concrete), the addition of additional floors, the addition of large-scale structures, etc., which inevitably leads to a significant change in the historical development of cities.

Thus, here we are dealing with an extremely controversial area, where there is a clash, on the one hand, of public interests in the preservation of cultural heritage sites, and on the other hand, private interests of owners (other owners) in the most profitable use of monuments and their active inclusion in urban planning activities.

According to Dzhandzhugazov E.A. . carrying out the reconstruction of historical buildings, and then maintaining their condition is not only a significant cost, but also a serious responsibility, since private owners, along with the right of ownership, will have to bear obligations for the preservation of the building and its historical appearance. They will have to restore their new property, maintain it in a certain condition and provide free access to tourists. All this will allow to preserve the cultural heritage, rationally using historical monuments of architecture. .

Zhunich I.I. in his work notes that the very fact of the existence of cultural heritage gives rise to cultural and educational tourism. The development of this type of tourism is an important direction in the life of the state. This is the development of regions, and the cultural interaction of peoples, and the influx of financial resources, which go mainly to the development of infrastructure, the creation of new jobs and the active involvement of young people in the labor market, support for monuments of material culture, and the preservation of intangible heritage. Travel and tourism has become one of the largest business sectors in the world. According to UNESCO forecasts, by 2020 the number of travels around the world will increase three times. Currently, all regions of the Russian Federation are aimed at the development of the tourism industry. The tourism business stimulates the development of other sectors of the economy, contributes to the creation of new jobs, the preservation of traditions and customs, and ensures the filling of regional and federal budgets. The protection of cultural heritage sites is one of the priority tasks of the state authorities of the Russian Federation, the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government - at present, the Federal Law “On cultural heritage sites (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation” is in force in Russia. The Russian region is a region in which unique monuments of religion, history and culture are concentrated. This makes Russia a zone favorable for the development of such a direction as religious tourism. Cathedrals, mosques, religious museums and spiritual centers are tourist sites that are in increasing demand, that is, religious tourism is literally becoming part of the modern tourism industry.

But the excellent location of suburban monument buildings (ensembles), as a rule, requires large-scale investments in reconstruction, repair and restoration. In order to involve such objects in the market turnover (purchase and sale, insurance, collateral in a bank, etc.), their assessment is necessary, but so far the corresponding methods have not been developed.

Yaskevich E.E. considers the main difficulties in assessing monument buildings on the territory of the Russian Federation in his work. :

• with the presence of federal, regional or local status, imposing certain easements on the building (individual structural elements);
• with the lack of a developed segment of the market for the sale of similar objects;
• with high operating costs;
• with a ban on reconstruction (only restoration work is allowed within the framework of maintaining integrity and visual perception), etc.

Materials and methods

The effective use of cultural heritage sites is an essential criterion for ensuring their safety. For a long time, the most familiar and understandable way to ensure the safety of cultural heritage objects was the organization of their museum use. For example, a restored manor complex or an old building usually became an architectural, artistic or memorial museum. Such activities almost always did not pay even the current costs, and the main support for such museums was constant budget subsidies.

At present, a fundamentally different approach is needed to cultural heritage objects, first of all, as objects that not only have a special historical and cultural potential, but also contain a significant economic component. For this, it is expedient to develop modern economic programs for the development of territories where cultural heritage sites are located.

According to the results of identifying the historical and cultural potential of the territory, it is advisable to form various economic models.

The model of the scientific and educational complex is created in the form of a scientific testing ground. attractive to various scientific communities, the economic effect of which is manifested in scientific results from the involvement of scientists and specialists in the study of a given object of cultural heritage or its historical environment.

The model of a historical and cultural reserve is created on the basis of a place of interest, which is an outstanding integral historical, cultural or natural complex that needs a special regime of maintenance. Currently, on average, the museum-reserve provides work for 60-80 people employed in the main state. In addition, during the summer period, the staff of employees is temporarily increased to ensure the implementation of the entire volume of museum work, excursion and tourist services. Calculations show that the implementation of the program for the creation of a museum-reserve in the region contributes to the creation of additional jobs in various industries for about 250-300 people. New jobs are significant enough for the economy of a small historical settlement or administrative region and are in fact equal to the introduction of a new large manufacturing enterprise or even the formation of a new industry.

The model of the tourist complex is created in the form of a set of interconnected tourist and excursion objects. Currently, only a small number of cultural heritage sites of the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, their suburbs, which house the largest museums and museum-reserves in Russia (for example, in Yasnaya Polyana, Spassky-Lutovinovo and Mikhailovsky), as well as the monuments of the Golden Ring, are most visited by tourists and sightseers. In general, the tourism potential of cultural heritage sites is not in full demand, which is determined by the underdevelopment of domestic cultural tourism, the incompatibility of real incomes of the population with the price / quality ratio of domestic tourism services, the lack of the necessary specialized infrastructure, and orientation to foreign tourism products.

In the world today, four main ways of preserving cultural heritage are used:

. privatization of monuments with the imposition of encumbrances on private owners;

. development of heritage sites;

. development of cultural and educational tourism and creation of tourism products and brands on the basis of heritage sites;

. sale of the "aura" of historical and cultural heritage, when the attractiveness of historicalgenera and selected historic districts are used to increase the value of new real estate.

None of these methods can be considered ideal, each of them has its own significant drawbacks. Therefore, if we talk about successful examples of the regeneration of heritage sites, as a rule, these methods are used in combination. Privatization of historical and cultural monuments is one of the most common ways to capitalize heritage sites and attract private investment for their restoration and maintenance.

It is important to note that the main objective of the privatization of monuments in the EU countries is not to generate additional revenues for the state budget, but to free the state from the burden of restoration and maintenance of monuments and transfer the corresponding obligations to private owners. Restoration around the world costs an order of magnitude more expensive than new construction. Therefore, in addition to numerous restrictions on the use of privatized heritage sites, a number of tools for economic incentives for owners of monuments are used here - subsidies and benefits. This is the reason for the fact that the monuments are attractive objects for private investment here, and these investments themselves not only do not harm them, but also allow them to be kept in good condition.

In world practice, another tool is used to support private owners of monuments - incentives. The most effective tool for stimulating private owners of heritage objects are real estate tax incentives, which in the EU countries, as well as in the Russian Federation, are calculated on the basis of the cadastral value of real estate, the rates of which are high everywhere here.

In addition, tax deferrals, accelerated depreciation, tax deductions, exemptions from certain taxes, preferential terms for granting loans are applied. It is also used to reduce the established rent by the amount of costs associated with the restoration and maintenance of the monument, or to collect rent at the minimum rate.

Development is used to capitalize heritage sites. Development companies are engaged in changing the existing appearance of the building and land, leading to an increase in their value, specializing in the reconstruction of cultural heritage sites. It should be noted that development is the least sparing way of regenerating a heritage object, which carries significant risks of losing the authenticity of the monument. Therefore, in order to preserve the authenticity of cultural heritage objects, the state needs to create and process electronic databases, historical geographic information systems, three-dimensional reconstruction and visualization of historical monuments and museum items.

Another effective way of commercialization of objects of cultural and historical heritage - tourism - is developing in Russia very slowly and unsystematically. Today, tourism income does not exceed 3-4% of the total income of Russian cities. For comparison, in the income structure of such European capitals as Paris and London, tourism revenues exceed 50%. To level the weaknesses of the tourism industry, not individual improvements are needed, but the implementation of comprehensive and systemic solutions aimed at creating a modern tourism industry on the territory of the Russian Federation.

Such a specialization in the field of public administration as “heritage management” has appeared and has become generally recognized, the task of which is to create competitive development and tourism products, develop and implement regeneration projects while preserving the integrity of original monuments and ordinary historical buildings, as well as taking into account the interests of local residents and businesses. To form a developed organizational infrastructure for the conservation and regeneration of heritage sites, it is necessary to create a "connecting branch" between non-profit public organizations and the state.

The study of foreign experience of heritage conservation at the present stage of development of urban spaces is very important to identify all the positive and negative aspects of this activity. Most countries are characterized by a comprehensive approach to the preservation and revival of cultural and historical heritage, the existence of effective legislation regulating this area. There are basic laws on the protection of cultural heritage, federal, regional and local programs for the preservation of heritage and the protection of monuments have been adopted and are being implemented.

A special place in the world experience in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage is occupied by states from the European group, which have a similar model of heritage conservation management. The most successful countries in heritage conservation, where all the basic elements necessary for successful activity are present, are Great Britain, France and Germany. The state system of executive power in European countries has similar features, which consist in the branching of the vertical of executive authorities at the local level, and in the delegation of basic powers not only to municipal authorities, but also to public non-profit organizations.

The most popular are economic stimulus programs, which are fundamentally different in each country. All types of incentives can be divided into three main groups:

• tax breaks,
• subsidies
• grants

results

Consider the example of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Russia, the method of preserving and regenerating objects of cultural heritage.

Table 1. Methodology for the preservation and regeneration of objects of cultural heritage.

A country	Regulatory documents	Incentive methods
France	- Law "On Historical Monuments" of December 31, 1913, - Law "On the Reorganization of the Protection of Natural Monuments and Landscapes of an Artistic, Historical, Scientific, Legendary and Scenic Character" of May 2, 1930 (with subsequent amendments), Law "On the Regulation of Archaeological Excavations" of September 27, 1941, Law No. 68-1251 "On the Promotion of the Preservation of National Art of December 31, 1968, Law No. 87-8 "On the distribution of competence between communes, departments, regions and the state" of January 7, 1983, Program Law No. 88-12 "On monumental heritage" of January 5, 1988 - decrees	- reduction of general income tax for the owner of historic property in return for the costs incurred for the repair, operation and rehabilitation of the heritage site - a system of grants aimed at encouraging restoration and reconstruction projects
Germany	- the basic law of Germany (clause 5, article 74) - instructions - "On the implementation of the Law on the protection of monuments" (September 24, 1976), "On the implementation of the Law on the protection of monuments with local features and the inclusion of the area in the protection of monuments" (July 14, 1978), "On the implementation of the Law on the protection of monuments - characteristics of monuments" (February 20, 1980). - federal law on the protection of cultural heritage	expenditure items for the maintenance of heritage sites and their rehabilitation
Great Britain	-Local Government Rights in Historic Buildings Act 1962, -Vacant Churches and Other Places of Religious Buildings Act 1969, -Urban and Rural Planning Acts 1971, 1972 and 1974, -National Heritage Act 1980, 1983 and 1985 (with subsequent changes)	-Huge amounts of subsidies for historical heritage sites that are not focused into tax credits and income deductions. -tax incentives through relief of value added tax and main taxes
Italy	By Law No. 352 of October 8, 1997 "Regulation on Cultural Property", Legislative Decree No. 490 "Unified Text of the Legislative Regulation on Cultural and Environmental Property" was adopted on October 29, 1999.	- decentralization of management in the sphere of culture - democratization - creation of effective mechanisms of public-private partnership in order to ensure effective protection of the national heritage
Russia	-Federal Law "On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" dated June 25, 2002 No. 73-FZ; - Federal Law "On the privatization of state and municipal property" dated December 21, 2001 No. 178-FZ, which establishes the procedure for the privatization of historical and cultural monuments (including with the mandatory registration of security obligations) - RF Code of December 29, 2004 No. 190-FZ (Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation)	- a rigid system of executive power - centralized state financing of the restoration and maintenance of objects of cultural and historical heritage

Analyzing the experience and activities of foreign countries that have been the most successful in the field of preserving historical and cultural heritage, a single organizational model for managing historical heritage has been identified for all states.

Picture 1. Organizational model of historical heritage management.

The organizational model has a core, which is determined by the presence of a solid legal framework that allows direct interaction between the four main segments, without which it is impossible to form a common economic basis:

• state heritage management system;
• research institutes;
• structures of civil society;
• individuals.

Let us consider in more detail the model of management of historical and cultural heritage in Russia.

To date, in the Russian Federation, the share of non-budgetary sources in the financing of work on the preservation of cultural heritage sites is small. In 2012, it was 12.1%, but tends to increase (in 2011, less than 10% came from extrabudgetary sources).

Examples of successful fundraising efforts include:

Restoration of St. Nicholas Naval Cathedral in Kronstadt, which was supported by the International Charitable Foundation "Kronstadt Naval Cathedral in the name of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker";

The restoration of the Church of the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God supported the charitable project "Let's Assemble the Temple", where everyone could take part by paying for the manufacture of a specific element of the temple decoration - an icon or other piece of utensils or furniture.

The restoration of New Jerusalem is taking place with the assistance of the Charitable Foundation for the Restoration of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Stauropegial Monastery.

In the context of insufficient budget funding for cultural heritage sites, attracting funds from the private sector of the economy is becoming increasingly relevant and in the future may become the main financial lever for ensuring the preservation and protection of historical and cultural monuments. In this connection, I would like to dwell on such a concept as a public-private partnership (PPP). This concept is used in many regulatory legal acts of the federal level (BC RF, Federal Law "On the Development Bank", etc.).

PPP in the field of culture can be defined as the involvement by the authorities on a contractual basis and on the terms of cost compensation, risk sharing, obligations and competence of the private sector for more efficient and high-quality performance of the tasks of state authorities in the field of development, conservation, restoration and popularization of historical and cultural monuments, preservation and development of the cultural and national identity of the peoples of the Russian Federation, creation of favorable conditions for the development of tourism, as well as assistance in increasing the attractiveness of visiting Russia for tourism purposes in the world community.

There are the following forms of public-private partnership, the use of which is possible in the field of culture in the Russian Federation:

• Privatization of immovable objects of cultural heritage.

Privatization is carried out with an encumbrance, the new owner of real estate assumes obligations to preserve the cultural heritage object, which are indicated in the security obligation. The exceptions are cultural heritage sites classified as especially valuable cultural heritage sites of the peoples of the Russian Federation, monuments and ensembles included in the World Heritage List, historical and cultural reserves and archaeological heritage sites that are not subject to privatization.

• Rent and gratuitous use of a cultural heritage site.

A mandatory condition for concluding a contract for the lease of a cultural heritage object / gratuitous use of a cultural heritage object is a security obligation. The Federal Law on Cultural Heritage Objects (Parts 1.2, Article 14) grants the Russian Government the right to establish benefits in terms of rent for a tenant who has invested his funds in the preservation of cultural heritage objects. In addition, the law on cultural heritage objects (part 3, article 14) provides for the right of the user of a cultural heritage object to compensation for the costs incurred by him, provided that such work is performed in accordance with this Federal Law. However, this provision is currently suspended until 2016.

• Free transfer of ownership of cultural heritage objects (in particular, religious buildings and structures with land plots related to them and other religious property to religious organizations)

• Trust management of cultural objects;
• Concession;
• Outsourcing (performance of work and provision of services);
• investment agreements.

The main measures to enhance public-private partnerships that contribute to attracting funds from economic entities of private ownership to socially significant projects are: preferential taxation; tax refund; refund of part or all of the costs associated with capital construction, modernization of fixed production assets, operation of cultural facilities; joint direct funding of cultural projects; concessional lending on commercial loans for organizations, through the payment of part or all interest on loans by government bodies; ensuring the minimum profitability of economic entities in the form of subsidies; state guarantees to financial and credit organizations for loans issued for the purposes of implementing public-private partnership projects; socio-psychological support for public-private partnership.

In the Russian Federation, some constituent entities of the Russian Federation have already adopted laws on PPP: the Law of St. Petersburg "On the participation of St. Petersburg in public-private partnerships", the Law of the Tomsk Region dated December 17, 2012 No. 234-OZ "On public-private partnerships in the Tomsk region".

Thus, in Russia, public-private partnership is currently at the stage of formation and development of relevant tools. It seems expedient to develop in the near future a concept for the development of PPP in Russia, including, among other things, a unified methodology for its organization and implementation, taking into account the experience of Russian regions and foreign countries. However, it should be noted that the funds of entrepreneurial structures will not be able to solve the whole problem of ensuring the preservation of historical and cultural monuments. In this connection, it is possible to qualitatively implement a policy in the field of preserving cultural heritage objects only through the joint efforts of the state and business, and the initiative should first of all come from public authorities.

Discussion and conclusion

Analyzing the experience of foreign countries and current socio-economic conditions, we see a direct relationship between the cultural heritage and the economy of the state. If an object of history and culture is used and generates income, then it will exist. It is clear that for a unified model of heritage conservation and the formation of its economic basis in Russia, a developed regulatory and legal framework is needed, which will allow creating programs for the sustainable development of objects of history and culture. This will provide an opportunity to include individuals in heritage conservation work, as well as attract the private and commercial investment sector. Changes are needed in the system of distribution of powers between the branches of executive power, public organizations and research institutes.

Bibliography

1. Zheravina O. A., Libraries of Florence in the cultural heritage of Italy, Bulletin of the Tomsk State University. Culturology and Art History, 1 (2011), p. 52-62.

2. Klimov L. A., Cultural heritage as a system, St. Petersburg State University. Questions of museology, 1 (2011), p. 42-46.

3. Borodkin L.I., Rumyantsev M.V., Lapteva M.A., The Virtual Reconstruction of the Objects of Historical and Cultural Heritage in the Format of the Scientific Research and Educational Process, Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Science, 7 (2016), pp. 1682-1689.

4. Uryutova Yu. A., Preservation of the national cultural heritage in the context of the development of the information society (social and philosophical aspect), Society: philosophy, history, culture, 2 (2012), p. 17-20.

5. Brumann C., Cultural Heritage, International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) 2015, pp. 414–419

6. Soraya Boudia, Sébastien Soubiran, Scientists and their cultural heritage: Knowledge, politics and ambivalent relationships, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(4) (2013), pp. 643-651.

7. Mateja Šmid Hribar. David Bole. Primož Pipan, Sustainable Heritage Management: Social, Economic and Other Potentials of Culture in Local Development, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 188 (2015), pp. 103-110

8. Galkova O. V., Theoretical foundations of cultural heritage, Bulletin of the Volgograd State University, 3 (2011), p. 110-114.

9. Vinnitsky A. V., Monuments of history and culture: must be preserved or can be reconstructed?, Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice, ¬7 (2009), p. 65-69.

10. Dzhandzhugazova E. A., Conceptual hotels as a means of preserving cultural and historical heritage, Modern problems of service and tourism, 4 (2008), p. 68-72.

11. Zhunich I. I., The use of UNESCO cultural heritage in the system of tourism education, Secondary vocational education, 9 (2009), p. 7-9.

12. Tutur Lussetyowati, Preservation and Conservation through Cultural Heritage Tourism, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184 (2015), pp. 401-406.

13. Nagornaya M.S., The architecture of the social city as an object of cultural heritage: European experience and Russian perspectives, Management in modern systems, 4 (2014), p. 16-26.

14. Yakunin V.N., The development of religious tourism as an integral part of the historical and cultural heritage at the present stage, Vestnik SSTU, 4(60) (2011), p. 280-286.

15. Yaskevich E.E., Theory and practice of assessing cultural heritage buildings, Property Relations in the Russian Federation, 6 (93) (2009), p. 70-88.

16. Litvinova O. G., Foreign and domestic experience in the preservation of historical and cultural heritage at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries, Vestnik TGASU, 4 (2010), p. 46-62

17. Smirnova T. B., Issues of preserving cultural heritage in the activities of the International Union of German Culture, Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State University, 3 (2012), p. 123-133.

18. Davliev I. G., Valeev R. M., The system of preservation of cultural heritage in England, Bulletin of the Kazan State University of Culture and Arts, 2-1 (2015), p. 1-6.

19. Mironova T. N., Preservation of cultural and natural heritage as the main feature of the cultural policy of the countries of the European region: Italy, Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2 (2009), p. 41-48.

20. Bogolyubova N. M., Nikolaeva Yu. V., Protection of cultural heritage: international and Russian experience, Bulletin of the St. Petersburg State University of Culture and Arts, 4(21) (2014), pp. 6-13.

Today, a large amount of Russia's cultural heritage is under threat. As a result of the growth of cities, the development of economic activity, part of the cultural heritage has lost its former value, and part has simply been destroyed irrevocably.

In the modern post-industrial era, humanity began to think about its future. Today, all the fragility of the situation is realized, the total dependence on the cultural and natural heritage, which acts as a resource for the further successful development of society.

The coming era puts forward new requirements for a person, his awareness, his special attitude to the environment and national heritage. Therefore, such global structures for the protection of cultural and natural heritage as UNESCO are being created. In every country today there are organizations that protect the national cultural heritage. Russia is no exception. But the efforts that Russia is making today to protect cultural heritage are not enough.

The current state of cultural and historical monuments of Russia

According to experts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the state of cultural and historical monuments, which are under state protection, is extremely unsatisfactory. Approximately 70% of them need urgent restoration work to prevent their destruction. Among them are the famous architectural complexes:

• Kremlins of Veliky Novgorod, Nizhny Novgorod and Astrakhan;
• monuments of white-stone architecture of the Vladimir region;
• Kirillo-Belozersky monastery in the Vologda region and many others.

Monuments of wooden architecture cause serious concern because of the fragility of their material. In the period from 1996 to 2001 alone, approximately 700 immovable objects of the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia were irretrievably destroyed.

The state of monuments of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia can be represented as a percentage as follows:

• 15% of monuments are in good condition;
• 20% of the monuments are in satisfactory condition;
• 25% of the monuments are in poor condition;
• 30% of the monuments are in disrepair;
• 10% of monuments are ruined.

The demolition of historical sites and the erection of modern buildings in their places is a problem of modern society. Therefore, the architectural, urban heritage of Russia is literally in a catastrophic state. For example, in Tobolsk, almost all the wooden and stone buildings of the Lower City are already in the last stages of destruction.

Here you can name many cities in Russia where historical monuments and cultural monuments are specially demolished, destroyed from time to time or restored in a modern manner, even those that are under state protection as architectural monuments.

First of all, this is due to the commercial side of the issue. In the second - with a lack of funds for their restoration and other necessary work to preserve them.

Remark 1

It should be especially noted here that the historical and cultural (architecture, urban planning) heritage of Russia is still very poorly studied. This is especially true for provincial building complexes, individual architectural monuments in the outback of Russia.

Also, entire epochs of the development of domestic architecture have not been studied at all, in particular the architecture of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries, and entire areas of construction: places of worship, individual residential buildings, noble and merchant estates, and more. This state of affairs leads to the irretrievable loss of unique monuments of history and culture.

Modern problems of protection of the cultural and historical heritage of Russia

Today, a number of problems have been identified in the field of protection of the natural and cultural heritage of Russia. Consider the most significant:

1. It is necessary to amend the Russian legislation in order to improve it in the field of protection and use of Russia's natural and cultural heritage.
2. It is necessary to determine the boundaries of the territories and the mode of use of lands that have objects of cultural and historical heritage.
3. It is necessary to approve the list of objects and protection zones by the legislation of the Russian Federation.
4. A significant number of objects of natural and cultural
5. heritage do not have a registered owner.
6. It is necessary to include objects of natural and cultural heritage
7. to the state cadastral register.
8. Objects of archaeological, historical, ethnographic value are subjected to unauthorized excavations.

At the same time, numerous violations of the current legislation on the protection and protection of the historical and cultural heritage of the Russian Federation have been recorded today. Here are the most common ones:

1. Violation of laws regulating relations related to the identification, recording, preservation and use of natural and cultural heritage objects (on registering cultural heritage objects; on establishing the boundaries of territories, protection zones of natural and cultural heritage objects; non-registration and failure to fulfill security obligations; failure to provide information about cultural heritage objects, etc.).
2. Violation of laws is recorded in various activities aimed at financing natural and cultural heritage sites.
3. Violation of laws on the protection of natural and cultural heritage in the process of urban planning and landscaping.
4. Violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation regulating relations related to the use of objects of natural and cultural heritage.

The low level of compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation in this area is primarily due to the intersectoral management structure, which leads to interdepartmental friction, inconsistency in the actions of various subjects of government.