Heritage Preservation

СОХРАНЕНИЕ НАСЛЕДИЯ

ПАМЯТЬ БЕЗ ПАМЯТНИКА: НЕМАТЕРИАЛЬНОЕ НАСЛЕДИЕ И БУДУЩЕЕ СОХРАНЕНИЯ

ИНСТИТУТ STRELKA

2015

HERITAGE PRESERVATION

INSTITUTE

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS: COLLECTIVE MEMORY AS INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

СОХРАНЕНИЕ НАСЛЕДИЯ Защита культурного наследия больше не ограничивается сохранением древних архитектурных памятников. Средневековые замки и церкви, с которых началась дискуссия о сохранении наследия в 19 веке, на сегодняшний день составляют лишь небольшой процент от того, что мы называем культурным наследием. Современные специалисты по сохранению памятников культуры уделяют внимание целому спектру различных феноменов — от огромных архитектурных ансамблей до исчезающих языков, от религиозных обычаев до последовательностей в цифровом коде. Тадж-Махал и всеми забытый сайт, созданный в пору становления интернета, в равной степени могут считаться частью мирового наследия. Единственным критерием для сохранения является лишь то, какую ценность определенный феномен представляет для локальной и глобальной культуры. Список объектов и явлений, получивших статус памятника культурного наследия, растет с каждым годом. Параллельно усложняются и методы обеспечения их сохранности; показательным симптомом этого стало многократное увеличение затрат на поддержание наследия. Теперь сохранением занимаются не только историки и реставраторы, но и менеджеры, кураторы и программисты. Приоритет сохранения физических объектов все чаще дополняется желанием вдохнуть новую жизнь в старые стены. Будущее сохранения наследия сегодня определяют два ключевых понятия. Первый — это устойчивое развитие, понимаемое как способность памятников не разрушаться с течением времени. Второй — сохранение нематериального наследия, не только физических свидетельств прошлого, но и трудноопределимых элементов исчезающей культуры. Данный проект — это попытка представить центр Москвы будущего, сформировавшийся под влиянием эти двух факторов. Как постоянные манипуляции с коллективной памятью — проблема, актуальная для России в целом — отразятся на московской жизни в будущем? Как устойчивый подход к охране наследия изменит практики реставрации и музеефикации материальных памятников культуры, начиная от царских палат и кончая образцами советского модернизма?

— Куба Снопек и Даша Парамонова, кураторы проекта

1

HERITAGE PRESERVATION Heritage preservation is no more a business of protecting old buildings.

Medieval castles and churches that ignited the discussion about heritage in the XIX century, now are merely a small percent of all that we call heritage. Today, preservationists share their attention between phenomena as distant as huge architectural complexes and languages, religious rituals and parts of the digital code. Taj Mahal can potentially be as much of a world legacy as a forgotten website from the times of the daybreak of the Internet. What is critical is the value certain phenomenon has for the local and global culture.

In parallel, the number of entities preserved annually is growing. So is the complexity of the discipline of preservation. It is reflected, for instance, in the trend of growing expenses for maintenance of legacy. Except for historians and specialists in conservation, the discipline attracts also managers, art curators and programmers. The old priority to save the physical legacy is now being complemented with a new one — to sustain interesting life within the old buildings.

The future of heritage preservation thus will be defined by two occurrences gaining importance now. The first is sustainability, understood as an ability of heritage not to be destroyed over time. The second is preservation of the intangible heritage — protection of not only the physical evidence of the past, but also the ephemeral samples of endangered culture.

This project tries to imagine the center of Moscow under those two conditions. How will manipulating the collective memory — the most Russia-relevant aspect of the intangible heritage — change the life of the future Moscow? How will the sustainable approach to heritage preservation change the practice of protection of physical monuments from different epochs, ranging from the ancient tsarist buildings to the Soviet modernism?

— Dasha Pramonova and Kuba Snopek, tutors

2

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

3

For the last two centuries preservation was a reactive force. Heritage was the answer to modernity’s passion for destroying traces of the past. Today, the regime of emergency is over. We are in an era of reflection on what heritage is. Values are being redefined.

Behind the obsession with preservation we find a fiction — collective memory.

4

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

Definition of the Trend Heritage preservation is shifting its focus from protecting the physical qualities of objects to the issue of protecting ephemeral samples of endangered culture.

Criteria for the value of heritage — that used to be determined by its uniqueness or significance within a linear version of history — are becoming more complex nowadays: the number of objects and qualities that can be preserved is growing. Сultural and natural heritage together already cover more than 13% of the planet and this percentage is growing. Heritage literally will form our future.

Traditional conceptions of ‘heritage preservation’ prioritize physical monuments. However, our relationship with the past is no longer limited to looking at busts of Roman emperors or taking group tours through the

5

DEFINITION OF THE TREND

‘historic’ St. Petersburg. Almost anything — from architectural landmarks to digital art — can now be the subject of a preservation debate. Due to this shift to a more complex, multifarious practice of preservation, historians and We are becoming part of a more architectural conservationists no and more complex system, with longer monopolize the heritage a constant state of choice discourse: economists, urban planners, managers, scientists, activists and even politicians are all actively engaged in the conversation about what to preserve.

Preservation of the tangible qualities of a monument is gradually extending to the preservation of its intangible qualities. Recent years have seen a proliferation of sustainable project management programs for heritage sites (e.g. involving locals in the life of a protected building, events programs), and the parallel rise of a new profession — heritage site management. This new theory and practice bears witness to the importance of the intangible: not only the structure, but also life within it must be preserved.

The Armenians preserve lavash, the Yakuts preserve heroic poems, the Moroccans preserve the cultural space of their squares and souks, the Ugandans preserve their

An Armenian lavash is included into the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2014. Photo: Wikipedia

6

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

The amount of objects that are preserved is growing.

7

DEFINITION OF THE TREND

8

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

This comparison illustrates the fact that traditional archives are losing their relevance.

textile making techniques, the Belgians preserve carnival giants. These are all examples from the UNESCO intangible heritage list.

1

n the 2010 O anniversary of revolution in Argentina, Facebook users deleted their profile pictures, leaving just silhouettes in memory of victims of dictatorship.

Compared to previous actions when silhouettes were stuck in the streets, this action had many more participants.

2

I n1998 Frederic Jameson described modern media ‘as the very agents and mechanisms for our historical amnesia’. At the end of the 20th century, Andreas Huyssen diagnosed modern culture as being «terminally ill with amnesia».

Unofficial preservation by activists varies from small details of urban life such as paving stones or window frames, to preservation of memories as a tool for political fights. A digital memorial in Argentina is an example of the latter1.

Social networks are gaining momentum. Facebook users create 300 million shared images per day. It means that the private company has the largest archive of photos ever made. Future historians will operate with big data instead of searching for papers. Traditional archives are losing their relevance. New forms of media, the internet and personal computers have changed the way we remember2. Nowadays we share this ability with a computer, and we learn to categorize and to find information rather than remember it.

It seems that everything is being simplified with new technologies. But in fact we are becoming part of a more and more complex system, with a constant state of choice.

9

DEFINITION OF THE TREND

Yakut epic is one of two Russian entities included in the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Photo: www.culture.ru

10

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

Global Development The complex chimeric structure of heritage preservation integrates into numerous aspects of people’s lives. Current tendencies most frequently indicate interest in topics of sustainability, as a way to manage the growing amount of social, cultural, scientific and economic issues.

Even though, the concept of cultural heritage preservation is very complex, certain threads may illustrate its main trend trajectories for future. To search for them, the observation of the current state is necessary.

First of all, the term heritage itself has undergone a transition. A 19th century scholar would probably struggle to comprehend why Turkish oil-wrestling is being called world heritage.

Yet, UNESCO now protects it, since intangible aspects

11

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

of culture are now defined as the counterpart of culture which is tangible or material. With this shift the rising issue of Intangible Cultural Heritage can be stated.

Secondly, societal transformation caused heritage preservation to undergo major paradigm shifts in the second half of the 20th century. It also seems it might not be over yet, since the present state is more complex than ever before, as numerous new issues occur.

The most notable of all paradigm shifts happened in the apprehension of values, as values determine the fate of a thing. Previous orientation towards inner values (symbolic and educational values associated with an object itself) was reevaluated when heritage started to be deemed as a resource for its external values (market, business, social or touristic). Since then, the traces of this shift are ever present as the talks and themes in the field of preservation prove. The list of hot topics now being discussed in preservation circles shows numerous interdisciplinary ties within each one. This fact perfect-

Preservation is closer to the public than ever before

The Turkish Kirpinar oil wrestling festival was inscribed on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2010. Photo: Wikipedia

12

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

THE PARADIGM SHIFTS IN THE FIELD OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION 2ND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY

WHAT IS CONSIDERED AS HERITAGE ISOLATED MONUMENTS

INTANGIBLE, TANGIBLE, CULTURAL, NATURAL, ANYTHING CAN BECOME HERITAGE

APPROACH OF PRESERVATIONISTS AMATEURISH MAINLY INTERESTED IN ART, ARCHITECTURE, OR ARCHAEOLOGY

PROFESSIONAL, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND MORE SPECIALIZED

HERITAGE PRESERVATION INITIATIVES INTELLECTUAL

AN ORGANIZED FIELD

IN TERMS OF ECONOMY A SMALL INCLUSIVE FIELD

A GROWING INDUSTRY

THE VALUE FOCAL POINT INTERNAL VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HERITAGE ITSELF

EXTERNAL VALUES

Different aspects of heritage preservation have undergone major changes since its rough methodical beginnings in the 19th century.

13

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

ly reflects the overall complexity that best characterizes heritage preservation’s present state.

SUSTAINABILITY IN HERITAGE PRESERVATION Preservation is closer to the public than ever before. It is present, seen and discussed. The number of protected sites is growing. The fundamental issues of preservation need to be solved in order to protect heritage. Worldwide, the notion of sustainability seems to play the main role

VALUES IN HERITAGE PRESERVATION GLOBAL RELEVANCE HISTORICAL CULTURAL SYMBOLIC SPIRITUAL/RELIGIOUS AESTHETIC INFORMATIONAL SCIENTIFIC POLITICAL NATIONAL PRESTIGE MARKET/BUSINESS EXISTENCE BEQUEST EMPLOYMENT NEWNESS RECREATIONAL/TOURISTIC

RUSSIAN RELEVANCE INCLUDED IN THE LAW 73 ON CULTURAL HERITAGE: HISTORY ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHITECTURE CITY PLANNING ART SCIENCE TECHNIQUE ESTHETIC ETHNOLOGY ANTHROPOLOGY SOCIAL CULTURE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LAW: COMMUNITY MEMORIAL RELIGIOUS PROPERTY CITY-MEMORY LOCATION

The list of various values that may determine if an object is heritage.

14

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

HOT TOPICS OF HERITAGE PRESERVATION CULTURAL RELATIVISM PLURALITY OF INTERESTS APPLICATION OF HERITAGE SUSTAINABILITY - ECONOMICAL - ECOLOGICAL GLOBALIZATION LOCAL LEVEL ENGAGEMENT OF COMMUNITIES RISING ISSUE OF INTAGIBLE HERITAGE MULTIPLICATION AND INTERCONNECTIVITY TOURISM VS. ARCHEOLOGY LEGISLATIVE PROTECTION AND FRAMEWORK DIGITAL HERITAGE VIRTUALIZATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE DIGITIZING AND COLLECTING DATA DISAPPEARING OF HERITAGE NOWADAY ICONOCLASM LOSS DUE TO NATURAL DISASTERS AND BLACK OUTS A PROCESS OF A CONSTANT REMAKING REUSE OF OLD TO FIT NEW AND FUTURE PURPOSES COMMERCIALISM OF CULTURAL HERITAGE HERITAGE AS A SOCIAL CHANGE The list of topics is based on the research of the most recent trends in heritage preservation (academic texts, publications, conferences, discussions, ideas, graphs, estimations, etc.)

when it comes to the future of presThe notion of sustainability seems ervation, caused by to play the main role when it comes years of globalizato the future of preservation, tion. In this sense, caused by years of globalization sustainability refers to the practices that can provide lasting solutions and remain functional

15

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT

on long-term basis, and therefore responsibly protect the heritage. Working on a local level with the involvement of local communities, thinking of projects´ functional adaptabilities or allowing commercialism are usual associations within the idea of sustainability.

HafenCity is a project transforming Hamburg´s non-functioning 19th century harbor site into a modern 21th-century district. Through the project’s master plan supervision, these historic monuments are now preserved and they thrive again. HafenCity development project in Hamburg. Photo: Jurjen van Enter, flickr.com

The village in Peru known for its Mochica culture burial site is preserved by the project of Sustainable Preservation Initiative; oriented towards the involvement of the local community since 2010. Photo: http://sustainablepreservation.org/

16

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

The Russian Condition Intangible heritage in Russia is gaining momentum. Russian conditions reveal its core characteristic — collective memory.

Sustainability is a symbol of developed countries and it is not expressed in Russia on that scale yet. Russian cities still grow without concern about energy consumption or recycling. But gradually sustainable practices appear in some places. When a limit for new constructions in Moscow center was established it actually gave opportunities for profitable preservation. The other example of sustainable approach is a set of officially announced actions1 to maintain the Yakut epic Olonkho — one of two Russian objects included into UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage list. The ways of dealing with intangible heritage should be considered as one of the layers of sustainability. A language or a tradition can’t be

17

Events on preservation due to the decree established by the president of Yakutia: • 2006 – 2015 — official years of Olonkho; • lifelong grants for keeper of tradition; • project of a state law; • state program on preservation, studying and spreading the epic; • study centre in the Institute of Humanitarian Research; • state Olonkho theatre; • annual festival; • national holiday; • research projects

1

THE RUSSIAN CONDITION

literally placed in a museum. In order to be preserved it needs sustainable decisions.

UNESCO’s convention on intangible heritage is not ratified in Russia1. Recently, however, certain steps have been taken towards recognition of the category. Official documents label folk traditions, crafts and religious rituals as intangible heritage, and the list is growing2. At the same time, there are ever more bottom-up initiatives

CLASSIFICATION OF INTANGIBLE HERITAGE UNESCO

UNESCO convention on Intangible Heritage was established in 2003.

1

In 2015 the Russian Ministry of Culture reloaded the united site of Russian cultural heritage www. culture.ru with a digital catalog of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

At the moment of publication there were about 100 entities.

2

RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF CULTURE

ORAL TRADITIONS: ORAL TRADITIONS AND EXPRESSIONS, INCLUDING TALES, EPIC SONGS, EPIC TALES, EPICS, FOLK PROSE LANGUAGE AS A VEHICLE OF THE INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE FESTIVE AND CEREMONIAL CULTURE: HOLIDAYS, CEREMONIES, RITUALS KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES CONCERNING NATURE AND THE TECHNIQUES AND UNIVERSE TECHNOLOGIES CONNECTED WITH TRADITIONAL CRAFTS SOCIAL PRACTICES, FOLK AND MUSICAL RITUALS, FESTIVE EVENTS INSTRUMENTS TRADITIONAL NATIONAL TRADITIONAL CRAFTMANSHIP COSTUME TRADITIONAL FARM AND PERFORMING ARTS EVERYDAY CULTURE PERFORMING ARTS: SINGING ART, DANCING ART, MUSICAL-INSTRUMENTAL ART, THEATRICAL ART, STORYTELING Classification of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

18

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

1800s museums of local history

2014 the oldest

2015 sami language laboratory

1950 recording stories of escaping villages

1996 ‘Old songs about main things’ movie

1987 museumfactory of industrial culture in Nijniy Tagil

2014 heritage days

1911 tram line ‘Annushka’

2015 forest of victory

2011 documental series ‘Gingerbread house’

2013 museum of nomadic culture in Moscow

2014 bell ringing traditions in Suzdal

1990 Tsoi wall

2015 ‘Immortal regiment’

2013 ‘Children of Stalingrad’ project

2014 first library of city stories in Moscow

2014 ‘Call of tundra’

2008 ‘Red book’ of St Petersburg

2014 ‘Last address’

1993 vepsian newspaper

1987 search for traces of people lost during the WWII

2013 shipbuilders prionezhie

2010 canteen #57

2011 local railroad at Mezha

2011 ‘Belyaevo forever’ project

1 g O

2007 Kalmyk new year holiday Zul

2012 sami in Murmansk university

2006 georgievskaya ribbon promo

2007 annual action ‘Returning names’

2013 publications about escaping professions

1 B M

museum, cultural institutions, archives

woman in the village tells her story

research, workshops, educational programs

community, urban habits

actions

Examples of initiatives, which show an intention to preserve intangibles (not included in the official list).

19

media

p

THE RUSSIAN CONDITION

2015 traditional Russian food festival

2015 exhibition ‘Properties of memory’

2014 cultural memory project: ‘The euro-arctic north’

2015 gis ‘place of memory’

2015 wall of memory on polygon ‘Kommunarka’

2014 marine heritage discussion

2015 ‘Mari.research’ project

2014 historic-literary project ‘Cronicles’

2015 ‘Our war veterans’

2015 renaming of Gorkogo street into Yurievskaya

2013 “My history.

Romanovy” exhibition

2015 ‘Warm vinyl’ evening

2011 Kalmyk hp documentation project

2015 ‘Map of memory’

2010 well of memory, Mariinsk village

2007 annual songs and dances of war years in Gorkiy park

2000 nostalgic blogging

2010 wooden jambs’ collection

Dostoevskiy Peterburg

1969 miracle tree near Chukovskiy house in Peredelkino

1990 shamans’ gathering on Olkhon

2003 moskva. kotoroy.net

2007 ‘Memorial’ database

2012 Excursion to a book-depositary, biblionights in Russian State Library

1962 ‘This side of the street is the most dangerous’ memorial

1986 Bakshevskaya Maslenica

2004 ‘light a candle of memory’ project

2006 Arkhangelsk cultural heritage online

2015 legendary yellow bus - a guide to memorial places

2015 traditions of Moscow tea drinking

publications

festivals, conferences, events, gatherings

digital platforms excursions

tangible memorials

20

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

(projects such as ‘Last Address’ or ‘Returning names’) whose understanding of heritage does not fit with the official definition. These show us how strategies for preservation of the intangible will look over the next decade.

Such projects share a common trait: they work with collective memory, which becomes an extremely popular concept in Russia.

‘Returning names’ is an annual action of ‘Memorial’ near the Solovetsky stone in Moscow, when anyone can come and read the names of victims of political repression. Photo: Wikipedia

“Canteen №57” in the center of Moscow is a smart combination of nostalgia about soviet canteen atmosphere, collective memories on the objects of that time, and of the existing market demand.

21

THE RUSSIAN CONDITION

This is due to the historical processes and technology development of the 20th century, which makes collective memory a meaningful actor on the preservation stage in the 21st century, and defines the future vector for both intangible and sustainable preservation.

In the project ‘Last Address’ (2014) any person can erect a memorial plague dedicated to a victim of repression. It’s an example of creating a memorial through individual actions in an urban environment. Photo: Wikipedia

Nostalgic blogging is mostly based on the platform www.livejournal.com, where people started sharing their memories of Soviet times.

22

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

Russian Trajectories The processes of collective memory are actualized. It transforms and constantly produces new visions of ‘usable past’, defining the approach to heritage preservation.

The concept of collective memory in Russia appears at the end of the 20th century, with growing amount of translations of foreign publications on the topic. In the wider world, collective memory is inseparably connected with victimhood. Collective memory in Russia is different. It always balances between memories of great victories and the horror of wars, In the 70th year of victory, idealization of the past is going off the scale, whilst at the same time the decision is made to erect a monument to the victims of repression1. This monument is announced as a ‘united nationwide monument, erected on behalf of the State”.

23

The monument will appear on Sakharov boulevard. The contest for designing the monument has been announced www.konkurs. gmig.ru

1

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

Collective memory1 appears on both official and unofficial levels. Individuals present their understanding of past values in their art works and actions; officials take up these initiatives and operate with the ‘usable past’.

From a political perspective, the past is an irreparable symbolic resource which the State relies on and uses to shape collective understanding of the present. Collective memory can’t be completely controlled, but specific events from the past can be chosen to be awakened or — forgotten.

Collective memory is a set of actions taken by a team or a society for a symbolic reconstruction of the past in the present (Contemporary Philosophical Vocabulary, Turbina, 1998)

1

In order to raise its monopoly on memory, the State spends a huge amount of money on advertising, celebrating and other forms of maintaining the myth about the ideal past. As a basis for social identity, it becomes a necessary stable ground for the country in times of political change and economic instability. The illustrations of the past which appear often have nothing to do with the authentic image of history. Facts are being stretched to their breaking point, limitless repetitions direct our attention and make us remember. But despite all remind-

The new monument to Tsar Vladimir which will appear in 2015 on Vorobyovy Gory is exactly the kind of action aimed at forming our memories about today’s political processes. Visualization iCube, photo Victor Borisov

24

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

shaping of

«Whoever s

2 memory boom

s

Holocaust victims victims of war

traum

Sites of memory (liex de mem

a

new carriers of memory

memory as evidence usa memorial heritage mourning affective conn selectivity illusion from films

possession by the past positive and sacral past

family history unites with world histor

family memory

social frames for memory emotional involvement into past

commemorative moment

collective fond

cult of memory basis for identity

eternal meaning

belongs to nobody external memory

fiction purposefulness of memory syndrome of lagging memory text as collective experience 1 memory boom basis for cognition cultural sp Obsession with collective consciousness integrating of lost event into associating memory cult of victory social memory knowledg memory of triumf social-cultural identities personal identity heroic narratives

shared pool of information

COLLECTIVE precision of recall continuous memory memory of men who died in war national identities

25

memory of the world

common memory

privileged status of selected past

EUROPEAN INTEGRATION 1950

1950

WWII 1939 – 1945 MULTY-CHANNEL TV 1940-S

HOLOCAUST 1933 – 1945

TV BROADCAST 1928

REPRESSIONS 1921 – 1953

WWI 1914 – 1918 RADIO BROADCAST 1920

CINEMATOGRAPHY 1895

PHOTOGRAPHY 1826

The development of the collective memory concept.

collective self-deception

collective ideas

Repeating human experience

collective consciousness

1889

MEMORY

cult

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

f future conflicts

returning as a symptom

traumatic memory

unstable

conscious recall

collage

says memory, says Shoah.Âť - Pierre Nora

plastic

representation

reintegrating into a stable understanding

experience of shock

moire)

nection

past as a screen Positive identity

cultural memory

Share of private experience

standardization ry

forcibly mobilized memory

ge source

historical amnesia

Product of merging individual and historical memory

framing

zones of silence

Historical figures

monopoly on memory conflicting memories silenced past

2015 FACEBOOK 2005

SEARCH ENGINE GOOGLE 1998

2000 USSR COLLAPSE 1991 ETHICAL CONFLICTS 1991 WORLD WIDE WEB 1991

present ambitions

flash-up in an instant

1980 HISTORICAL POLICY 1980-S

future aspirations being heard and unheard

different perspectives

borders between told and silenced

3RD DEMOCRACY 1974

memory collected

eternal reinterpretation

ethics of memory

spectacular memory culture of memory

repository for critique

Political tool

distortion of past

tural religiosity

multi-imaged

Interactive nature of memory

official & unofficial memory

kitsch

being in each other’s presence

Rational history

memory trigger

pace for memory

collective surfaces for memory production

Contextual character

memory construction through talks memory policy

screening memory

Mental reinterpretation

factor of political consciousness

nostalgic souvenirization recirculation of memory

productive remembering

communicative memory

violence to memory

multi-directional

Relevant for current political situation

mythologization

able past

communities of memory

Focus on heroic or traumatic periods of history

national memory

ways of representation

affect

memory as mobilization of society

set of actions

reconstruction of memory

ma

business of memory

approximation of a past event

narrative memory

sacrilege of the traumatic experience

memory as spectacle

a product of multitude impulses

ON-LINE PHOTO SHARING 2000-S

m

flashback

reconstruction of our experience of event synthetic

listening beyond the pathology of individual suffering functionalized memories

reshaped

act as memorial

26

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

On Victory Day (the 9th of May) the action “Immortal regiment’ and TV transmission of the Parade produced two different meanings of what this memorial day means. Photo: Wikipedia

27

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

Transmission from the Red Square, 09/05/2015

28

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

ers memory is temporal. The living memory of the main collective event of the 20th century All history is turned into fiction, highlightwill disappear in ed fragments which are hardly united several years when into one connected interpretation. the last veteran of WWII dies.

What is next? What if the creation of a new event aimed to raise collective thinking is the next step? And furthermore — what if all heritage will be subjugated to construction of a myth? In an era when the field of preservation is extremely diverse, new preservation projects will serve the needs of collective memory and intangible values.

Decreasing number of war veterans and increasing amount of spending on the 9th of May. 1878

ADVERTISEMENT AND MEDIA 1878

HOLIDAY CONCERTS, PARADES, FIREWORKS 1072

INSTALLATION AND MAINTAINANCE OF MONUMENTS 849

MEDALS, MEMORABLE MARKS, POSTCARDS 581

HOUSING PURCHASE AND MAINTAINANCE 501

STREET DECORATIONS

388

GIFTS AND FOOD SETS

246

ACCOMPANING ACTIVITIES

155

MEDICINE, TREATMENT, MEDICAL EQUIPMENT OTHER

42

Main costs for the WWII victory celebration, millions of rubles, RBC, 2015

29

RUSSIAN TRAJECTORIES

The posters were hung in Moscow in 2012 on the Day of Victory. American soldiers in Russian uniforms are raising a flag in front of the Capitol. Photo source: www.live-imho.livejournal.com

30

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

The Future Settlement The time of ‘material’ preservation is over.

The Arbat area becomes the stage for the first intangible history preservation project in Moscow and a battlefield for collective memory.

The New and the Old Arbat and the territory in between have always played an important role in Moscow’s identity. Two iconic projects were realised on these streets.

Both projects articulate contemporary approaches to preservation. Our Future settlement forecasts a third project in the Arbat.

The title ‘Preservation beyond monuments’ catches the essence of this forecast. The future of preservation is no longer tied to the physicality of the built environment.

31

THE FUTURE SETTLEMENT

The New Arbat project was an image of a contemporary 1960s Pedestrian Arbat appeared in 1986. The project was one of city with diverse facilities and a new avenue leading towards the the first architectural attempts to work with the existing 19th Kremlin. This project used heritage only as a backdrop for a new century structures. Photo: Wikipedia image of the city. Simeon Stylites Church, photo: Wikipedia

There will come a moment when the amount of intangible heritage exceeds the tangible.

There is no intangible heritage in Moscow yet. Russian history erased all cultural traces, which are usually considered as intangible legacy in the city. But Moscow generates a new kind of legacy: local rituals, collective remembering, meaningful places

Hypothesis on the growth of amounts of tangible and intangible UNESCO heritage.

32

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

and actions that Muscovites don’t want to lose and forget. One of the examples is the typical Moscow trait of the 24-hour lifestyle, which can be lost with the upcoming law on lights’ switch-off1. What if the ability to buy a fridge in the middle of the night is part of Moscow’s intangible heritage?

In our project Arbat becomes the stage for future strategies of heritage preservation. Collective memory is used on different levels: from the small scale of places where one’s life goes on — yards2, talks and everyday routes — to shared ideas of national history. Here, it takes aim not only at the past but also at the future. Memories of the Great Victory of the Second World War are replaced by the promise of a Great Victory in the future: Russian dominance in Space3. As government propaganda reigns in the official space of the New and Old Arbats, initiatives to preserve individual perceptions of history play out in the courtyards and backstreets between them. In the online space of social networks, users also encourage the sharing of personal memories. Memory collected from summarizing individual stories Territory of Arbat was a stage for also becomes a new two projects. Future settlement is kind of collective a forecast about the third one. memory.

In 1960s the New Arbat project was a promise of a bright future. Reconstruction of old Arbat was a return to the values of the 19th century city. The third project in Arbat will bring intangible heritage on the site. Arbat becomes a battleground between different approaches to preservation, between projects of different temporal and spatial scales, between state and grass-roots initiatives, and between official and unofficial versions of the past.

33

1

ccording to A the last redaction of Russian ‘SNIP’ (laws about norms and regulation) all commercial activities on first floors of apartment houses are prohibited after 11p.m. This regulation is being delayed at the moment.

Arbat yards known by locals are preserved on the site: ‘box yard’ with a sports ground, ‘drunk yard’, the yard were used to be a wooden ship and a Dog’s square destroyed in the 1960s.

2

3

I n 2011 young people born in 1991 were surveyed about their historical memory by Moscow School of Civic Education.

The events in Russian history of which they are personally proud are the victory in WWII and Gagarin’s flight into space.

Other events do not generate the same level of pride.

THE FUTURE SETTLEMENT

The future vision of the third experiment on Arbat.

34

EXPERTS

PROJECT PARTICIPANTS

DIRECTORS Anastasia Smirnova, David Erixon TUTOR Dasha Paramonova, Kuba Snopek STUDENTS Andrea Dilhoffova, architect, Slovakia; Konstantin Budarin, journalist, St.Petersburg; Maria Sakirko, researcher, Moscow; Youry Boutenko, architect, Saratov EXTERNAL EXPERTS Denis Leontiev, CEO/partner at KB Strelka; Anna Bronovitskaya, professor, Moscow Architecture Institute (MARHI); Natalia Dushkina, Professor, the Moscow Architecture Institute, ICOMOS 20th Century Committee; Tatyana Emelyanova, doctor of psychological science, The Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences; Mikhail Iampolski, professor of comparative literature and Russian and Slavic studies at New York University; Marina Khrustaleva, cofounder in the Centre of Heritage Capitalization; Elena Petrovskaya, philosopher, chief editor of ÂŤBlue SofaÂť magazine; Pavol Panak, architect; Alexey Shenkov, professor, Moscow architectural institute (MARHI), head of a chair reconstruction and restoration at (MARHI); Alexei Vasiliev, associate professor, Russian State University for the Humanities;

35

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KEY RESOURCES FOR THE RESEARCH

ARNOLD, D., BENDING, S. (2003) Tracing Architecture The Aesthetics of Antiquarianism, London: The Association of Art Historians BENJAMIN, W. (1968) On the Concept of History London: Harcourt publisher BOSKER, B. (2013) Original Copies: Architectural Mimicry in Contemporary China Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press BOYM, S. (2002) The future of nostalgia, New York: Basic Books DENSLAGEN, W. (report) (2008) The Dual Meaning of Authenticity, Heidelberg University: an International Workshop of the Cluster of Excellence DENSLAGEN, W. (2009) Romantic Modernism Nostalgia in the World of Conservation, Amsterdam University Press

HALBWACHS, M. (1950) The collective memory, Paris: University Press of France HARRISON, R. (2012) Heritage: Critical Approaches, New York: Routledge Press HART, L. (2007) Authentic recreation: living history and leisure, London: Museum and Society journal ICOMOS Scientific Symposium (2010) The Impact of Global Change on Cultural Heritage 2010 theme: Heritage and Social Change, Dublin: Castle Conference Centre KELLEHER, M. (2004) Images of the Past: Historical Authenticity and Inauthenticity from Disney to Times Square, CRM JOURNAL

DENSLAGEN, W., GUTSCHOW, N. (2005) Architectural Imitations:Reproductions and Pastiches in East and West, Maastricht: Shaker Publishing BV

KOOLHAAS, R. (2004) Preservation is Overtaking Us, columbia university press LINDSEY, A., NIENASS, B., DANIELL, R. (eds.)(2014) Silence, screens, and spectacle: Rethinking Social Memory in the Age of Information and New Media, Oxford: Berghanbooks

ECO, U. (1990) Travels In Hyperreality, Harvest Book

LOWENTHAL, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country, Cambridge: CUP

EMELIANOVA, T. (2012) Kollektivnaya pamyat v kontekste obidinnogo politicheskogo soznaniya, zpu-journal.ru

MARTON, A. (2011) Social memory and the digital domain: The canonization of digital cultural artefacts, London: School of Economics and Political Science

ETKIND, A. (2011) Pamyat gorechi i gluposti, snob.ru FRITH, J., DIJCK, J. (2007) Mediated Memories in the Digital Age: Cultural Memory in the Present, Stanford: Stanford University Press GONZALEZ, J. (2012) Trends in practical heritage learning in Europe 2012, The Nordic Centre of Heritage Learning

NORA, P. (1989) Between Memory and History, Oakland: University of California Press PASHALIDIS, G. (2008) Towards cultural hypermnesia. Cultural memory in the age of digital, heritage, academia.edu PEACOCK, A., RIZZO, I. (2008) The Heritage Game, Oxford: Oxford University Press

36

PRESERVATION BEYOND MONUMENTS

POLYAKOVA, M. (2005) Ohrana kulturnogo nasledia rossii Moscow: Drofa STAIGER, U., STEINER, H., WEBBER, A. (eds.) (2009) Memory Culture and the Contemporary City, London: Palgrave Macmillan TEA/AECOM (report) (2014), 2013 Theme Index & Museum Index: The Global Attractions Attendance Report, Themed Entertainment Association and the Economics practice at AECOM THE GETTY CONSERVATION INSTITUTE (report), (2002) Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage Research Report, Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute THE LONDON GROUP conference (2001) Forward Planning: The Functions of Cultural Heritage in a Changing Europe SUSTAINABLE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE (2009) GHF’s Model for Community Development-based Conservation, GHF White Paper VASILIEV, A. (2014) Socialnaya pamyat na podmostkah novih media, Moscow: NLO №128 WINTER, J. (2006) Remembering War. The Great War between Memory and History in the 20th Century, New Haven: Yale University Press YAMPOLSKI, M. (2007) Nastoyashie kak razriv, magazines.russ.ru YAMPOLSKI, M. (2015) Kollectivnaya pamyat na trope pobedi, Colta.ru

37

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our project is a tangible result of our education at Strelka institute. We would like to thank everyone who helped us, led and encouraged during the research and production process. They are our tutors Dasha Paramonova and Kuba Snopek, Strelka faculty - Anastassia Smirnova, David Erixon, Nicholas Moore, Brendan McGetrick, Evgenia Pospelova and Mila Ilushina, experts who found time to share their knowledge with us and Strelka students especially Thomas Clark who helped us with editing so many times.

38