Про виявлення пам'яток і зворотні процеси
Loading...
Date
2017
Authors
Руденко, Сергій
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
У статті розглянуто недосліджену в науці проблему виявлення та елімінації пам’яток. Практичний досвід у цій царині є досить багатим, але досі ніким не узагальнений. Мета статті – сформулювати емпіричні правила виявлення пам’яток, які роблять їх стійкими до штучних елімінацій.
Основні правила: брати до уваги ефект Лінді, «менше – означає більше», опціональність, збереженість шарів автентичності, природно сформований комплекс; не брати велику кількість одиничних
розрізнених пам’яток, не шукати вигоди від виявлення пам’яток. При відборі пам’яток згідно із
емпіричними правилами до уваги не беруть конкретні цілі репрезентації та інтерпретації минулого
тут і зараз. І саме це дає змогу уникнути негативних наслідків штучних елімінацій.
Detection of cultural heritage is the process of identifying the objects of the environment which can serve as sources of significant historical and cultural information necessary to trace social development. Among these objects we select more suitable objects for which the information properties are better. The reverse process is elimination: when an object considered to be heritage is no longer considered to be such. Elimination is inescapable because that cultural heritage object is expected to save its status in the future. But the future is unpredictable. Thus, failures of detection happen. It is a natural process. Detection of cultural heritage very often depends on dominating at some time (and very variable time-to-time) representations and interpretations, often ideological, of the past. Adepts of some representations and interpretations of the past want to perpetuate good, as they think, moments of history or clean some aspects of history, which do not satisfy some groups. Thus, cultural heritage, which is the means of representation of the past and the source of interpretation, is threatened and destroyed, because dominating representations and interpretations change. That is why representations and interpretations of the past make objects of cultural heritage fragile. In its turn, destroying the cultural heritage makes historical consciousness fragile. However, there are more fragile-maker factors, in particularly, economic activity. The trait of this form of elimination of cultural heritage is the material gains here-and-now, which seems more attractive, rather than intangible gains of relics of the past, which needed to be saved for future generations. The research question is how to detect objects that avoid artificial elimination and pre-elimination, especially for ideological reasons. Despite sophistication and topicality of this issue, there are no decisions in theoretical and practice domains. The aim of this research is to outline empiric rules of detecting the cultural heritage, which will be resistant to the pressure of elimination. Scientific innovation: for the first time, experience of detecting the cultural heritage is comprehended theoretically. Conclusions. The rules are: remember Lindy effect, less is more, optionality, preservation of stratums of authentication, natural complex is better than a large number of objects, gain from the heritage. The results of the research draw an interesting paradox. On the one hand, the cultural heritage is used for representation and interpretation of the past. On another hand, none of these rules is concerned with representations and interpretations of the past, characterizing the time when the object of cultural heritage was detected. In other words, detecting the cultural heritage should not here-and-now correspond to representations and interpretations of the past. This is the way to avoid destructive consequences of artificial elimination. Moreover, these rules provide more ways of using the cultural heritage, not only for confirmation of dominating historical narratives. Perspectives of further investigation are concerned with the “trial” detection, when the cultural heritage is recognized in “young” objects which could be derecognized in the future, and natural elimination, when the status of heritage was given to objects according to ideological reasons.
Detection of cultural heritage is the process of identifying the objects of the environment which can serve as sources of significant historical and cultural information necessary to trace social development. Among these objects we select more suitable objects for which the information properties are better. The reverse process is elimination: when an object considered to be heritage is no longer considered to be such. Elimination is inescapable because that cultural heritage object is expected to save its status in the future. But the future is unpredictable. Thus, failures of detection happen. It is a natural process. Detection of cultural heritage very often depends on dominating at some time (and very variable time-to-time) representations and interpretations, often ideological, of the past. Adepts of some representations and interpretations of the past want to perpetuate good, as they think, moments of history or clean some aspects of history, which do not satisfy some groups. Thus, cultural heritage, which is the means of representation of the past and the source of interpretation, is threatened and destroyed, because dominating representations and interpretations change. That is why representations and interpretations of the past make objects of cultural heritage fragile. In its turn, destroying the cultural heritage makes historical consciousness fragile. However, there are more fragile-maker factors, in particularly, economic activity. The trait of this form of elimination of cultural heritage is the material gains here-and-now, which seems more attractive, rather than intangible gains of relics of the past, which needed to be saved for future generations. The research question is how to detect objects that avoid artificial elimination and pre-elimination, especially for ideological reasons. Despite sophistication and topicality of this issue, there are no decisions in theoretical and practice domains. The aim of this research is to outline empiric rules of detecting the cultural heritage, which will be resistant to the pressure of elimination. Scientific innovation: for the first time, experience of detecting the cultural heritage is comprehended theoretically. Conclusions. The rules are: remember Lindy effect, less is more, optionality, preservation of stratums of authentication, natural complex is better than a large number of objects, gain from the heritage. The results of the research draw an interesting paradox. On the one hand, the cultural heritage is used for representation and interpretation of the past. On another hand, none of these rules is concerned with representations and interpretations of the past, characterizing the time when the object of cultural heritage was detected. In other words, detecting the cultural heritage should not here-and-now correspond to representations and interpretations of the past. This is the way to avoid destructive consequences of artificial elimination. Moreover, these rules provide more ways of using the cultural heritage, not only for confirmation of dominating historical narratives. Perspectives of further investigation are concerned with the “trial” detection, when the cultural heritage is recognized in “young” objects which could be derecognized in the future, and natural elimination, when the status of heritage was given to objects according to ideological reasons.
Description
Keywords
виявлення пам'яток, елімінація пам'яток, емпіричні правила виявлення пам'яток, пам'ятки, культурна спадщина, пам’яткознавство, репрезентація та інтерпретація минулого, ефект Лінді, ідеологічний вандалізм, cultural heritage, heritage science, representations and interpretations of the past, detection of cultural heritage, elimination of cultural heritage, empiric rules of detection of cultural heritage, relics of the past, Lindy effect
Citation
Руденко Сергій Борисович. Про виявлення пам'яток і зворотні процеси / Руденко С. Б. // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Теорія та історія культури. - 2017. - Т. 191. - С. 83-89.