VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY ARCHITECTURE AND CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE

Jolita Butkevi čien ÷

TRENDS IN THE LITHUANIAN HERITAGE CONSERVATION OF MASONRY ARCHITECTURE DURING THE SOVIET PERIOD

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, Art Studies ( 03 H )

Kaunas, 2009 The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with the Architecture and Construction Institute on July 15, 2003, by decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania.

The doctoral dissertation worked out trough 2003 – 2009 at Vytautas Magnus University

Scientific supervisor: Prof. habil dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytautas Magnus University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H )

Council of defence of the doctoral dissertation:

Chairman: Prof. dr. Nijol÷ Lukšionyt÷ (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H )

Members: Prof. dr. Laima Šinkūnait÷ (Vytautas Magnus University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Stauskas (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Doc. dr. Vytautas Petrušonis (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Humanities, Art Studies 03 H ) Doc. dr. Rasa Čepaitien÷ (The Lithuanian Institute of History, Humanities, History 05 H)

Opponents: Doc. dr. Mindaugas Bertašius (Kaunas University of Technology, Humanities, History 05 H) Dr. Marija Dr÷mait÷ (Vilnius University Humanities, Art Studies 03 H )

The official defence of the dissertation will be held at public meeting of the Council of scientific Field of Art Studies in the Art Institute of Vytautas Magnus University in Laisv÷s av. 53, “Art Gallery 101”, at 2 p. m. on January 29, 2010.

Address:K. Donelaičio 58, LT 44248, Kaunas, Lithuania Phone: (+370 37) 323599 fax: (+370 37) 203858 The summary of doctoral dissertation was distributed on December ,2009. The dissertation is available at the National M. Mažvydas library, library of Vytautas Magnus University and library of Architecture and Construction Institute

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS ARCHITEKTŪROS IR STATYBOS INSTITUTAS

Jolita Butkevičien÷

LIETUVOS MŪRINöS ARCHITEKTŪROS PAVELDOTVARKOS TENDENCIJOS SOVIETMEČIU

Daktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra (03 H)

KAUNAS, 2009

Doktorantūros ir daktaro mokslo laipsnių suteikimo teis÷ suteikta Vytauto Didžiojo universitetui kartu su Architektūros ir statybos institutu 2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausyb÷s nutarimu Nr.926. Disertacija parašyta Vytauto Didžiojo universitete 2003-2009 metais.

Disertacijos vadovas: Prof. habil.dr. Vytautas Levandauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H)

Disertacijos gynimo taryba: Pirminink÷: Prof. dr. Nijol÷ Lukšionyt÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Nariai: Prof. dr. Laima Šinkūnait÷ (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Prof. habil. dr. Vladas Stauskas (Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Doc. dr. Vytautas Petrušonis, (Vilniaus Gedimino technikos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H) Doc. dr. Rasa Čepaitien÷ (Lietuvos Istorijos institutas humanitariniai mokslai, istorija 05 H)

Oponentai Doc. dr. Mindaugas Bertašius (Kauno Technologijos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, istorija, 05 H) Dr. Marija Dr÷mait÷ (Vilniaus universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, menotyra 03 H)

Disertacija bus giname viešame Menotyros mokslo krypties tarybos pos÷dyje, kuris įvyks, 2010 m. sausio 29 d. 14 val. Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto „Menų galerijoje 101“, Laisv÷s al. 53.

Adresas: Donelaičiog. 58, Kaunas 44248 Tel: (8 37) 323599, faksas (8 37) 203858 Disertacijos santrauka išsiųsta 2009 gruodžio d. Su disertacija galima susipažinti Lietuvos nacionalin÷je M. Mažvydo, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto, Architektūros ir statybos instituto bibliotekose.

INTRODUCTION Cultural heritage is a living witness of our past preserving traces of well-known or long-forgotten events. By touching riches of culture one can unveil a lot of mysteries and understand who we were, are and will be. Architectural heritage at this cognition process of history occupies an exceptional place, since our Old Towns’ buildings counting hundreds of years are open to a constant contact with public. Although building architecture of Lithuanian historical towns has been changed not once in the flow of ages, nevertheless, in most of them, at least partly, valuable fragments that are several centuries old have survived. The problem of the research. In the second half of the 20 th century in Lithuania first consistent and integrated works of heritage maintenance were started. The islands of Trakai and Biržai castles were rebuilt and restored buildings of the Old Towns of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaip ÷da and K ÷dainiai revealed the past of our architectural heritage. Having removed the layers that had formed in the 19th – the beginning of the 20 th centuries, old architectural strata were uncovered and Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture was raised from forgetfulness. A lot of buildings reconstructed and restored during the Soviet times have become the most important foci of our Old Towns. In the monograph History of Lithuanian Architecture they are presented as authentic Gothic and Renaissance creations. Although several decades have already passed, these objects have not been thoroughly researched and assessed from the viewpoint of restoration methodology thus far. Therefore, today two salient problems are emerging: 1) whether these paradigmatical examples of architecture indeed repeat a former look of originals; 2) unidentified past mistakes of heritage conservation create a favourable environment for the spread of the same mistakes. The object of the research. Reconstructed and restored buildings represent the Lithuanian architecture of the 15 th – 18 th centuries. The research of these objects enables a physical and spiritual touching on the past: the change of architectural forms reveals the development of creative thought; decorative elements ornamenting facades of dwelling-houses illustrate prevailing aesthetic views of the time and witness economic rises; and charred fragments of bricks remind us of wars and fires that have raged over the country. A great deal of information can be read on walls of buildings; however, whether it is objective will depend on the authenticity of the material researched. Consequently, it is very important to know whether restored buildings reveal for us primary information and to be aware of what is genuine, what is recreated or just a created imitation of the middle of the 20 th century. Thus the object of the present scientific work is the conservation of Lithuanian masonry architectural heritage during the Soviet period (1950 – 1990 m.) with the main attention being focused on the work of reconstruction and restoration, the analysis of scientific validity, the investigation of the authenticity of the form of recreated fragments and the establishment of the survival of historical material (in the sense of form and substance). The Soviet period is being defined from 1950, since that year consistent works of architectural heritage conservation were started. Relevance and novelty. As several decades have passed since first works of heritage conservation were started, it is necessary to turn back and to thoroughly analyse and assess objects that were reconstructed and restored during the Soviet times, for till now this has been done rather fragmentarily and superficially. During the Soviet period the conservation of architectural heritage was discussed in press and scientific conferences, however, at that time only the positive side of the work carried out was

5 being stated, a considerable attention was paid to statistical presentation and one did not go deep into the validity of conducted scientific work and the main problems related to the authenticity of recreated architectural composition and preservation of original substance were not realized and identified. Such an attitude towards architectural heritage conservation shows that its significance and direct influence on the spread of values lying in objects of architectural heritage were not properly perceived. Therefore, the present study attempts to fill the emerged gap hoping that the conducted analysis and conclusions provided will help to prevent a possible spread of the same and till now unidentified mistakes. The aim. The all enumerated factors have dictated the aim of the present work which is building on contemporary theories of heritage conservation to assess the reconstruction and restoration of Lithuanian masonry architectural heritage during the Soviet period. In order to reach the given aim the following main tasks have been set for the work : 1) To survey and assess the development of European heritage conservation and international documents regulating activities of heritage conservation; 2) To discuss the situation of heritage conservation in the interwar Lithuania; 3) To investigate and assess the theoretical works on heritage conservation in Lithuania published during the Soviet period (1950 – 1990); 4) To classify objects according to the types of heritage conservation work and to explore them; 5) To distinguish and assess the ways used for the recreation of parts of architectural structures and to analyse examples ascribable to them; 6) To assess the work on heritage conservation conducted during the Soviet period; 7) To ascertain and identify historical, cultural and political causes that made influence on the architectural heritage conservation of that time. Methods of the research. The subject of the present thesis has determined the employment of different scientific research methods. For the discussion of the development of European heritage conservation the work has employed the historical and analytical methods which help to reveal a chronological change of essential ideas and conceptions and to distinguish causal relationships of this process. By means of the same methods the situation of heritage conservation in the interwar Lithuania is surveyed and the causes which determined a specific way of heritage treatment and maintenance during the Soviet period are searched for. For the analysis of the scientific validity and scope of the conservation work on Lithuanian masonry architectural heritage conducted during the Soviet period the analytical , empirical and comparative methods have been used. The positive and negative sides of the heritage conservation work have been revealed through the analysis, synthesis, summation and comparison of the accumulated archival data and material of empirical research. The results obtained have been evaluated in the context of international regulations for heritage conservation. The restoration and reconstruction outcomes involving changes in the volumetric-spatial structure and / or architectural composition of buildings have been established using the method of formal analysis. In addition, the method created by the author and conditionally named as formal-reconstructive has been applied when a reconstructed (fully rebuilt) or restored architectural composition is compared with the data of architectural and iconographic research with the main attention being paid to the scientific validity of recreated building parts and components. This method enables to

6 reveal how much authentic information (building materials, architectural elements, etc.) remains there in the architecture which underwent the invasion of heritage conservation as well as to establish the affinity of the recreated prospect to the former authentic one. The comparative method employed in the work helps to assess the situation of Lithuanian heritage conservation methodology and practice in the European context. In the course of the research, the process of the selection of architectural heritage objects proceeded in three stages. First of all, attempts have been made to familiarize with the material consisting of reports on architectural research, projecting and the work carried out on. buildings that underwent different maintenance work. In this way, the numerousness and geographical spread of conservation operations have been revealed as well as the types of conservation methods applied during the Soviet times have been established according to the scope of the work carried out on particular objects. The further research has involved buildings where the reconstruction and restoration work was conducted. This stage has disclosed solutions for the problems of the recreation of compositionally important architectural parts and details that were applied during the Soviet times. For the follow-up the most symptomatic objects best reflecting tendencies of the Soviet time heritage conservation have been selected. Literature and sources. The further research on the conservation of the Lithuanian architectural heritage during the Soviet period in this work builds on archival documents, scientific monographs, articles and other literature. The all used literature and sources can be brought into the four groups: 1 Sources and literature introducing the reconstruction and restoration work that was carried out in Lithuania during the Soviet period. 2 International legal documents and publications regulating activities of heritage conservation. 3 Scientific studies on the conservation of architectural heritage by foreign specialists. 4 Literature revealing the development of the conception of cultural heritage in Lithuania. A separate group of sources and literature consists of the research on cultural heritage preservation and maintenance in Lithuania. As it has been already mentioned, since the beginning of heritage conservation work in Lithuania five decades have passed, however, thus far it has not been thoroughly analysed and assessed. From time to time the public was presented with only the positive side of the heritage conservation work and somewhat greater criticism was levelled at the quality of the conducted work and materials used, but one hardly researched into the scientific validity of the heritage conservation work. Problems of the preservation of the authenticity of recreated architectural compositions and original substance also remained obscured. The main and probably the only scientific work of the Soviet period devoted to architectural heritage conservation was the dissertation of Jonas Glemža, defended in 1974 in Moscow, titled Methodological Trends of the Restoration Work on the Masonry Architecture of the Lithuanian SSR and the scientific article On the Methodology of Monument Conservation Work that was written on the basis of the former work . The mentioned dissertation theoretically defined all methods for the maintenance of architectural heritage objects, but described only several most characteristic examples of the restoration of Lithuanian defensive, public and residential architectural heritage and provided brief evaluations that frequently are found to be contradictory to the contemporary conception of heritage conservation. The situation of the research on

7 heritage conservation and preservation improved a bit during the period of Independence. Several years ago, Edita Riaubien ÷ wrote the work Preservation of Lithuanian Architectural Heritage (1918 – 2000): Legal Possibilities and Results of Maintenance which presents the research into the working legislation and institutional system of heritage preservation of that time and provides a quantitative analysis of heritage conservation work and the survey of the work carried out on several objects of architectural heritage. In 2003, the dissertation of Rasa Čepaitien ÷ Conceptions of Culture in Lithuania in the 20 th Century was defended on the basis of which, in 2005, the book Time and Stones. The Conception of Cultural Heritage in the Modern Lithuania was published . In her research, Čepaitien ÷ devotes the principal attention to the analysis of origins and development of conceptions of cultural heritage and its protection in Lithuania from institutional, administrative, juridical and ideological aspects as well as that one of historical consciousness and reveals how those conceptions were unfolding among specialists and public in different periods. The first group of literature and sources also includes the primary and most important material on the reconstruction and restoration work conducted in Lithuania during the Soviet period that has been accumulated in the archives of Vilnius County and the Centre for the Lithuanian Cultural Heritage. However, from the point of view of information the situation is not good. Only a small part of the conducted reconstruction and restoration work has been described in scientific reports. In the most exhaustive and explicit way, the architectural research and work performed on heritage conservation are characterized in the reports prepared by Dalija Zareckien ÷. Yet, the majority of other authors often paid the main attention not to a consistent characterization of architectural research and processes of heritage conservation, but to a chronological description of works carried out, frequently absolutely not indicating the grounds on which architectural details or even whole compositions had been recreated. There is a fair number of such uninformative examples. They include and most reports on the restoration of Vilnius University buildings. In respect of the analysis of recreated details, the material on the reconstruction work of Trakai island is either not always sufficiently comprehensive. The quality of scientific reports was influenced by a great number of different factors. Documents summing up all performed works were very often written after several years had passed, and in the case of the Trakai island castle even after more than a decade, when the architects-restorers were in parallel working on several objects and the processes being described had already been starting to sink into forgetfulness. The preparation of this scientifically important documentation was very low-paid or sometimes and totally unpaid and it was not allocated additional time. Considerable problems arose when researching those buildings the reconstruction and restoration work of which was absolutely not described. In such cases, the information of architectural research has been analysed and the obtained data has been compared to reconstruction and restoration projects as well as the material of nature. However, it has been most difficult to examine objects the architectural research data on which remained not summarized and not released in separate cases. One of them is the Biržai castle. The scientific documents grounding its rebuilding were not prepared, the data of architectural research was not systematized and, in the remaining material on historical research and projects, the building (recreation) of such an important architectural element as the arcade of the ground floor of the main facade appears to be motiveless. There is a similar situation and with the buildings of the Town Hall of Kaunas No 2 and 3, the Raudon ÷ castle and some other objects about the recreation of which there is no

8 any data. These facts show that the then institutions executing the protection and maintenance of architectural heritage did not perceive the significance of the documentation of the work carried out and, in this way, future generation have lost the possibility to find out about the validity of the recreation of some objects, all the more as during the heritage conservation work authentic substance was often destroyed and its place was taken by innovations. Collecting the information on the subject in question the investigation has also covered the whole set of conference reports prepared during the Soviet period and devoted to heritage conservation. However, it should be noted that these conferences were of a practical approach where the research did not go into common problems, but simply involved a superficial survey of separate works. The same could be said about the majority of the then articles on heritage conservation. A relatively greater attention was given to the restoration of some objects of Kaunas architectural heritage. In her articles, the architect-restorer Zareckien ÷ presented the data of the architectural research on the house in Vilniaus str. No11, the Perk ūnas House of the Old Rectory (mistakenly called the Royal Inn ( Karališkoji kar čema )) and the building in Rotuš ÷s av. No 29 as well as a brief characterization of the restoration work on the latter two buildings. The second group of the bibliography consists of international documents and literature regulating heritage conservation. It has been distanced from the rules and instructions that were in force during the Soviet period on purpose in order to assess the conducted work in the most objective way revealing the achieved positive and negative results on the basis of the contemporary conception of heritage conservation work. Although the conservation work on architectural heritage in Lithuania started in 1950 when the Scientific Restoration Workshop was established, nevertheless, actually till 1974 there was no one methodology defining the heritage conservation work. The methodological directions for architectural heritage conservation (at that time the term monument conservation was used) which came into force later during the period of Soviet times not always coincided with the Venice Charter and other international documents regulating ways of the behaviour concerning architectural heritage. The methodology followed in the wake of practice and it was being adjusted on the basis of mistakes that showed up in the course of practical works. (This problem will be examined in a more detailed way in the first chapter of the present work). The forming of the assessment criteria for the restoration and reconstruction work on masonry architectural heritage in this work has been based on the following documents of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) that regulate the work on heritage conservation: the Venice Charter, Charter on the Conservation of Historic Towns, European Charter of the Architectural Heritage , the Burra Charter, the New Zealand Charter and the Nara Document on Authenticity . The work has also employed the contemporary criteria for the treatment of architectural heritage and authenticity defined by the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and presented in the publication Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritages Sites . The book reveals a modern conception of cultural heritage, defines at length heritage conservation works and shows their relation to the preservation of object authenticity and introduces groups of values influencing heritage preservation. The Bernard M. Feilden’s book Conservation of Historic Buildings enabled to get acquainted with a technical side of heritage conservation process in a more detailed way. The book provides the means for the maintenance of historical building structures, discusses the principal causes of a

9 natural and human origin influencing the decay of buildings, points to the means helping to avoid or slow down the identified processes of decay / destruction and examines in a coherent manner the constituents of the architect-restorers’ work. The given publication also discusses conceptions of the work of architectural heritage conservation. The literature subsumed under the third group is devoted to the historical development of the conceptions of architectural heritage reconstruction, restoration and preservation common in foreign countries. This group involves works of Jokilehto, Johan Earl and Salvador Muñoz Viñas. In his scientific study, the heritage conservation specialist Jokilehto presents a comprehensive development of the theory and practice of the European architectural heritage conservation. The author starts the search for the earliest work of building preservation from the Renaissance and travelling through centuries till the second half of the 20 th century reveals in a consistent manner the change in the conception of the preservation and maintenance of architectural objects. The greatest attention is given to the 19 th century when in Europe the underlying methods and main principles of heritage conservation were forming. It is important to notice that Jokilehto brings in not only theoretical ideas of restorers, but also discusses the projects implemented by them, thereby revealing a not rarely occurring incongruity between the idea and actions. The research by Jokilehto is complemented by works of the heritage conservation specialists Earl and Viñas. Both authors present the most symptomatic moments in the development of heritage conservation and critically assess them within the present-day context. Viñas gives the main attention to the analysis of the classical heritage conservation which emerged in the middle of the 20 th century and distinguishes both its positive and negative sides, analyses causes and outcomes of negative phenomena and at the same time is involved in the search for ways to improve the situation. The author pays a considerable attention to the unfolding of the change in the conception of authenticity and indicates problems arising due to a wrong treatment of this very important concept. He also shows priorities of the contemporary heritage conservation and discusses means of their implementation. Earl, in his book, through the prism of philosophy looks at the conception of historical buildings, surveys the causes inspiring the preservation and maintenance of architectural heritage, analyses the impact of heritage conservation work on meanings and values of architectural objects, introduces and assesses specific restoration means and discusses possibilities for the combination of different interests emerging during processes of heritage preservation and maintenance. The fourth group of the bibliography consists of the literature revealing the development of the conception of cultural heritage in Lithuania. Seeking in the most complete and objective way to recreate the picture of the perception, evaluation and preservation of the cultural heritage during the Soviet times, information has been collected from different archival sources and literature. The attitude of institutions and specialists towards cultural heritage which formed during the Soviet period is researched in the already mentioned book by Čepaitien ÷ Time and stones . This problem is also discussed in the articles of J ūrat ÷ Markevi čien ÷, Glemža and Rimvydas Glinskis. Thanks to the Jurkštas’ monograph, the identification system of architectural object values that existed during the Soviet period is being unclosed. On the basis of this work, when preparing projects for the regeneration of the Old Towns during the seventh and eighth decades of the 20 th century the methodology for the assessment of old town buildings was created. This methodology was formulated by Kazimieras Šešelgis and

10 further developed by Jurkštas. The latter architect died having not defended his scientific work; however, the assessment criteria tested in practice are described in a comprehensive way in the already mentioned monograph published after the author’s death. A great deal of valuable information has been found in the various cases describing reconstruction and restoration work kept in the archives of Vilnius County and the Centre for the Lithuanian Cultural Heritage. The grounded propositions about the reasons of failures in the Lithuanian heritage conservation can be found in the book by Dangiras Ma čiulis State Cultural Policy in Lithuania in 1927 – 1940 . The systematization of the all data has opened the panorama of the architectural heritage state that existed during the Soviet times. The research into the historical context of the Lithuanian heritage conservation has referred to the Glemža’s book Protection and Maintenance of Immovable Cultural Heritage which devotes a considerable attention to the historical development of the architectural heritage protection and maintenance work. The articles by Algirdas Mošinskis and Paulius Galaun ÷ have helped to better understand the situation of the cultural heritage during the interwar period. A good deal of information about the given period has been also found in the works by Nastazija Keršyt ÷. A diverse nature of the used sources and literature has enabled to reveal tendencies in the Lithuanian heritage conservation in a more integrated and objective way. Terms. The usage of certain terms in the present thesis has been distanced from the terminology of the Soviet period as well as from some concepts defined in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage passed in 2005. In the course of the five decades, in Lithuania various terms defining cultural heritage and its protection and conservation were changed not once. The process of shifts was influenced by political and cultural changes that took place in Lithuania and thanks to which there emerged a favourable environment to legitimize a qualitatively new conception of cultural heritage. The change of concepts and terms is influenced by the development of the attitude towards meanings and values of heritage. The titles of the Law on Protection of Cultural Monuments (adopted in 1967) and the Lithuanian SSR Law on Protection and Usage of Historical and Cultural Monuments (adopted in 1977) that were in force during the Soviet period used the formulation cultural monument. The given concept denotes a cultural relic of the past and its official legitimization determined that the age of an object became one of the principle values. It is evident that during the existence of such an attitude favourable conditions emerged for the destruction of a relatively “young” (the end of the 18 th – the beginning of the 20 th centuries) legacy. The word monument eventually became to be perceived as the reference to a view that has an expositional, aesthetic and artistic value. The usage of this term implicated the selection of protected objects that is based on aesthetic criteria. On the other hand, and the word culture is often used in a narrow sense paying the attention only to elite phenomena. To sum up, it is possible to maintain that the term cultural monuments programmed the protection of exceptional objects which had an old-time and artistic value. Nevertheless, there remains an open question whether the analysed elitist formulation cultural monument determined the approach towards cultural legacy or whether the prevailing attitudes conditioned the choice of the given formulation. At the end of the ninth decade of the 20 th century, one can notice a qualitative transformation of cultural legacy. More and more often a more liberal concept of

11 cultural heritage was started to be used. The very word heritage denotes the legacy taken over and does not embrace the meanings of old-time and artistic exceptionality. In order to mark legally protected objects of cultural heritage the term cultural properties was started to be used which appears and in the titles of the laws adopted in 1994 and 1997. Meanwhile, the status of cultural monument is given only to the most significant cultural properties. Such a situation was sufficiently clear, as the colligating term cultural heritage covered both legally protected and non-protected objects, whereas cultural properties referred to objects (legally protected by the state) included into the Register. However, in a new Republic of Lithuania Law on Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage adopted in 2005, these two formulations are equated. Explaining the main concepts of the given law the cultural heritage is defined as “the cultural property inherited (...) from generation to generation and significant from the ethnical, historical, esthetical or scientific point of view”. In this way, a broad meaning of the phrase cultural heritage is withdrawn and the two by then different formulations become nearly synonymous. In the present thesis, the concepts cultural heritage and architectural heritage have been used in their broader sense, thereby naming the cultural or architectural legacy that is state protected or expectant of that protection. The phrase architectural heritage object has been employed to define units of architectural heritage such as structures, complexes of structures or clusters. In the present study, the concept heritage conservation , differently from the new Republic of Lithuania Law on Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage , describes the work related to a physical maintenance and safeguarding of a heritage object: research, projection, realization of projects including preservation, restoration, reconstruction and repair. The definition is identical to the concept of monument conservation . Such a choice has been determined by a wish to follow up the tradition of the usage of a long- lived term monument conservation that was legitimized about 1975 and readily accepted, yet later replaced by heritage management ( the 2005 Republic of Lithuania Law on Protection of Immovable Cultural Heritage ) believing that the replacement of the entrenched term which precisely and explicitly indicated actions ascribable to it by the recent coinage is unnecessary. In the present dissertation, specific terms characterizing works of heritage conservation have been used building on international documents that define heritage conservation work. Mostly two terms responding to the goals of the present study, those of restoration and reconstruction , have been employed. Restoration identifies the process during which it is aimed to return to the object the lost look and value. In the course of this process, certain elements contradicting to the form which is being returned are removed. In individual cases, entire later layers are moved, what has been lying under the scurf of time is revealed and missing elements are recreated. It is a complicated operation revealing the lost state of an object and its cultural values and preserving the maximum amount of authentic material. It has to be noted that the concept of restoration used in this study only slightly differs from the definition formulated in the instruction on the application of the 1972 Law on Protection of Cultural Monuments. In the present work, the concept reconstruction is employed as an international equivalent of the Lithuanian word for recreation . Both these terms define the activity the aim of which is to recreate missing, removed or destroyed elements. It should be noticed that during the Soviet Period the term of reconstruction was misapplied. In the

12 West European tradition, it signifies recreation or return of the former , whereas, in the Soviet environment, the given term defines the essential transformation and the creation of something new and previously absent . In the already mentioned instruction of 1972, this word meant restoration on the grounds of analogies and hypotheses. In his dissertation, Glemža additionally divides the term recreation into recreation and reconstruction . The operation of recreation , according to Glemža, constitutes the recreation of lost parts of an architectural heritage object which is based on scientific research, whereas the reconstruction is the employment of contemporary architectural forms and means for the creation of missing details. Thus, the conception of the term reconstruction in works of Glemža digressed even more from its actual meaning, as it is used to define innovations inserted into the structure of an object of cultural heritage. In the present study, details based on interpretations of architects-restorers and integrated into the fabric of an architectural object are referred to as created. The structure of the work . The dissertation consists of the introduction, three chapters comprised of separate sections, conclusions, list of bibliography and appendices. The chosen structure has helped to show the historical context of Europe and Lithuania and to reveal peculiarities of heritage conservation in Lithuania during the Soviet period from various aspects. The Introduction defines the object of the work, discusses the relevance and novelty of the problem, formulates the aim and tasks, introduces the methods of the research, the structure of the work and surveys the sources and literature used. At the end of the introduction, the main terms used in the thesis are explained.

1. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORETICAL THOUGHT OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE CONSERVATION

The first chapter of the work examines trends in the formation and spread of the theories of architectural heritage conservation. The beginnings of architectural heritage conservation reach back to the juncture of the 18 th – 19 th centuries. At that time ideas of romanticism permeated all cultural areas. The formation of national identity and romanticising of history prompted to turn back and “peer” into the past. As a new attitude was unfolding, specific actions were undertaken in order to ensure the survival of the most outstanding architectural monuments: first works of anastylosis and reconstruction were carried out and the theory analysing problems of the preservation of cultural heritage was given a start. The section “History of the West European Heritage Conservation” presents the research into the development of the theoretical thought and practice of architectural heritage maintenance. The processes that lasted for two hundred years, building on the aspect of interrelationships of man (subject) and architectural heritage (object), can be divided into three stages. The first stage of architectural heritage conservation works embracing the period of the first half of the 19 th - the first half of the 20 th centuries is called the early stage. At that time two different trends of heritage conservation formed. The theory and practice of restoration spread over a larger part of Europe were oriented towards a romanticised recreation of architectural heritage objects. The most famous representative of this trend, the French architect Eugin Viollet le Duc, theoretically substantiated the conception of stylistic restoration maintaining that the genuine primary state of an object is not the one that was realized, but the one which was conceived. However, such an approach to architectural heritage met not just wide approval, but also

13 criticism. The movement against stylistic restoration started to form in England. It rested on the perception that each object belongs to its specific historical and cultural context; therefore, it is impossible to recreate signs of the past time. One of the most famous theoreticians of this trend John Ruskin indicated as the only means capable of ensuring the preservation of past legacy to be conservation. Having rejected the creative interpretation in the first half of the 20 th century, it became possible to combine contrasting principles of the restoration and preservation theories. In the meantime, norms of heritage conservation became subject to discussion at the international level (this practice is also being applied nowadays). The second stage of the development of heritage conservation covering the fourth – tenth decades of the 20 th century is called the classical period. At that time the theory was focused on the unfolding of objective information preserved in architectural properties; therefore, natural sciences were brought into its field. Architectural heritage was started to be treated as a historical testimony of the past which cannot be falsified. As a result, the work of restoration and preservation had to be grounded on findings of scientific investigation of an object. Nevertheless, the classical heritage conservation was lacking philosophical speculation and such underlying concepts as objectivity, truth and authenticity were not defined and were frequently treated erroneously. Consequently, in the field of heritage conservation there emerged a contradictory situation. On the one hand, by using substantial scientific instruments it became possible to recreate and highlight architectural forms of the previous periods, which undoubtedly constituted the positive side of the development. On the other hand, the statement that these operations return an object to its genuine state is erroneous, as in this way it is disinclined to accept the history of an object, although it is always stressed that it is necessary to preserve signs of all the periods. Having perceived contradictions lying within this theory, the attention was shifted from the object, which was in the centre of theories of classical heritage conservation in the tenth decade of the 20 th century, towards the group of subjects concerned about the fate of heritage. The fundamental concept of truth was replaced by the communication between the object and subject. Contemporary heritage conservation is based on principles of democracy, is declaring the importance of an open society, a dialogue and sustainable activity as well as orienting towards factors that depend on subjects, i.e. towards the value , meaning and function of a heritage object. The section “The Expression of the Conservation and Assessment Methodologies of Architectural Heritage in Lithuania” analyses and evaluates theoretical works on heritage maintenance and assessment which were written during the Soviet period in Lithuania. The Lithuanian heritage conservation, because of the restrictions on information characteristic of the Soviet times, had to tackle anew a lot of problems which had been solved in West Europe long ago. With the work of architectural heritage conservation started from 1950, for two more decades there was no common methodology regulating these processes. At the beginning of the eighth decade the situation was improved by the only scientific work devoted to architectural heritage conservation which was J. Glemža’s dissertation defended in 1974 in Moscow and titled “Methodological Trends of the Restoration Work on the Masonry Architecture of the Lithuanian SSR” and the scientific article “On the Methodology of Monument Conservation Work” which was written on the basis of the former work. Having focused on the creation of a theoretical foundation for practical activity, in his works, J. Glemža systematized and defined all methods for the maintenance of architectural heritage objects. The methodology for heritage conservation formulated

14 and described by the author, in essence, does not contradict to the Venice Charter which is the most important international document regulating restoration work. It is akin to the aesthetical theory which at that time permeated through Italy and is characterized by a fair amount of features typical of the classical heritage preservation (and common to the scientific and aesthetical ones). The sharpest conflict with international norms is evidenced in regard to the relic of the 19 th century approach legitimized in the Soviet time Lithuania that of making reference to analogies. Doubts are also raised by the approach towards reconstruction introduced by J. Glemža which attributes to this work not only the function of recreation, but also the employment of modern architectural forms and means for the creation of missing details. Assessing such attitudes towards reconstruction work it is possible to maintain that the ascription of the recreation of lost fragments which is based on scientific research and the creation of completely new details to the same methodology is not correct, because these works are contrary to each other and are based on different approaches. The levelling of contraries can unconsciously lead to an erroneous conclusion that when faced with a lack of data one may create unknown fragments. The second section also analyses the system of architectural heritage assessment prepared by V. Jurkštas which is directed at the preservation of elite architectural heritage objects of visible stylistic features and an exceptional artistic facade composition. The given methodology of architectural heritage assessment can be ascribed to the aesthetical theory. According to such an assessment system, buildings that were lacking in the above mentioned stylistic and artistic properties and, as the experience shows, most frequently representing the 19 th – the beginning of the 20 th centuries, were doomed to perish. In the second half of the 20 th century, when in Lithuania methodologies of heritage maintenance and assessment were being created, in most countries of the world the scientific theory of heritage conservation predominated, while the aesthetical one because of its limitation was rarely used.

2 TRENDS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION WORK ON LITHUANIAN MASONRY ARCHITECTURE

The present part of the work building on the archival data and the research on nature analyses the heritage conservation work on Lithuanian masonry architecture carried out during the Soviet period. The main attention is being paid to the analysis of the performed reconstruction and restoration work thereby determining the employed methods of heritage conservation works and types of recreation. The section “The Spread of the Heritage Conservation Work in the First Half of the 20 th Century” surveys the situation of architectural heritage at the beginning of the 20 th century. Considering that the evaluation of the Lithuanian cultural heritage which had formed in the 19 th century had a great influence on the formation of heritage conception in the 20 th century, the beginning of the section presents a brief discussion on the situation of the Lithuanian cultural heritage in the 19 th century. The apparatus of Tsarist authorities perceptively considering cultural heritage to be a source of the consolidation of national identity consciously inhibited activities of heritage protection and maintenance. Romanticized fixations of old buildings (by V. Smakauskas, N. Orda and others) and isolated statements on the subject of their preservation were the only actions aimed at calling the attention to perishing monuments. The first decade of the 20 th century should be viewed as the beginning of

15 the heritage conservation work in Lithuania. One of the first objects to the preservation and accentuation of the architectural value of which scientifically grounded preservation-restoration work was applied became the St. Ann’s church in Vilnius. Proceeding with the analysis on the situation of architectural heritage, the first half of the 20 th century reveals that the restoration work initiated by enthusiasts did not became the example to follow. During the interwar period in the independent Lithuania the architectural heritage was little cared for. Even the authoritarian regime which viewed culture as a means capable of ensuring its existence and idealized an honourable past of Lithuania did not include the architectural heritage into the sphere of propaganda. Old buildings received the attention only occasionally when saving particular objects from decay or destruction (because of this reason the preservation work was carried out on the castles of Kaunas, Panemun ÷ and Raudon ÷). Meanwhile, in the Vilnius Region occupied by Poles the situation was much better. Here the Polish heritage conservation system was operating and the Chief Monument Conservator’s Office took care of the preservation and restoration of the remains of the Gediminas’ castle in Vilnius and the Trakai island castle as well as of the research and supervision of some other objects. The facts indicate that in the interwar Republic of Lithuania historical buildings and urban structures, as authentic witnesses of the past, did not become a part of national identity. Whereas the Polish authorities and public, on the contrary, perceived the Vilnius Region and its heritage as their own, belonging to Poles, and because of these reasons tried to preserve it. During the first decade of the Soviet occupation objects of cultural heritage were consciously destroyed and suffered the harm from vandals. In this context, the recreation work on the war-damaged Church of St. Peter and Paul in Šiauliai can be distinguished. Consequently, in the first half of the 20 th century, traditions of the architectural heritage maintenance did not form and only isolated objects were restored and reconstructed. In the section “The Heritage Conservation Work of the Soviet Period (1950– 1990 m.): between Science and Creation” , the conservation of masonry architectural heritage is examined by focusing on the analysis of reconstruction and restoration works and determining the employed types of the heritage conservation work and the methods of recreation. In the subsection “The Problem of the Application of Heritage Conservation Methods: Discoveries and Losses”, on the basis of archival data and the research on nature, it has been established that, according to the scope of the work carried out on architectural objects, the heritage conservation work can be subdivided into the following types:1) recreation (reconstruction); 2) restoration: a) the complete restoration of a building; b) the partial restoration of a building: the prospect of, most frequently, one or, more rarely, several (but not of all) facades of a building is being recreated; and c) fragmentary restoration: in one or several facades compositions of the early architectural elements are being exposed, restored and displayed; 3) preservation. The recreation was and still is the most difficult process of heritage conservation requiring an exceptionally vast amount of objective information on the former volumetric-spatial structure and architectural composition of facades, the plan of the inside and details of the interior of an object lost. Such an amount of information can be gathered only about objects that had been at length inventoried and (most frequently) fell into decay or were destroyed in the 20 th century. Architectural objects inventoried in

16 such a coherent manner could not be found in Lithuania in the second half of the 20 th century, but the remains of several castles important to Lithuanians had survived and despite the lack of data some of these objects were recreated. The most extensive works of such a character were carried out on the Trakai island castle and residential palace of the Biržai castle. The research has shown that a greater part of the recreation work on the Trakai island castle varied from the 20 th century regulations for heritage conservation and repeated the 19 th century mistakes of West Europe: the work was based on romantic interpretations and analogies of other objects. Meanwhile, the residential palace of the Biržai castle, regardless of some fragments recreated by means of interpretation, repeated the essential architectural features of the former Renaissance palace. The complete restoration constitutes another procedure applied to Lithuanian Old Towns which is akin to recreation. The name shows that by applying the given type of restoration the whole architectural composition lying under superstrata of different periods is being recreated. The application of such a procedure to the whole building would be determined by findings of scientific research. The authentic fragments found in all facades of a building and at least in some of premises would become the basis for a complete restoration and would be used as a foundation for the recreation of the former configuration of the plan, volumetric-spatial structure, the architecture of all the facades and, as much as possibilities of the application allowed, the scheme of the inside plan. Most frequently attempts were made to return to a building the early, Gothic or Renaissance, look. This one was the most difficult type of restoration during which all architectural layers of different periods as well as superstructures and extensions not related to the chosen period for the recreation are dismantled and destroyed parts are recreated. Restoration is often related not only to building, but also destruction. Rare exceptions when destruction was minimal could be illustrated by the cases of the Perk ūnas House (Aleksoto str. No 6) and Old Rectory (Vilniaus str. No 9) located in Kaunas the primary configuration of the plan and volumetric-spatial structure of which had changed insignificantly in the course of several centuries. A more complicated restoration involved the houses in Rotuš ÷s av. No 29 and No 28 in Kaunas where the volumetric-spatial structures and exterior compositions of the 19 th – 20 th centuries had survived. By means of the complete restoration in these buildings Gothic and Renaissance compositions were recreated. A greater or smaller deficiency of authentic material was faced in the already mentioned as well as in other researched cases involving the application of the complete restoration method. The partial restoration is the most frequently employed type of heritage conservation work in the practice of the Lithuanian architectural heritage conservation. The given method when several (but not all) or only one (a more frequent case) street facades are being recreated was used for the maintenance of masonry buildings of Vilnius, Kaunas and K ÷dainiai Old Towns. The choice for the partial restoration was mostly determined by the amount of authentic information. At this point it should be emphasized that chiefly, as in the case of the complete restoration, Gothic and Renaissance compositions were being returned. The partial restoration was applied to the houses in Pilies str. No 12 and No 13 in Vilnius as well as in Rotuš ÷s av. No 2 (in these buildings the main facades were restored by bringing in the Gothic forms) and Rotuš ÷s av. No10 in Kaunas (the Zabiela palace where the main Renaissance facade was restored) and other buildings. Thus, although the procedure of the partial restoration is of a smaller extent compared to the complete restoration, the investigation

17 of the buildings restored in this way has showed the same striving to recreate a composition as completely as possible irrespective of whether the amount of authentic information is sufficient or not. The fragmentary restoration constitutes such a method of heritage conservation during which authentic fragments of the earlier architectural compositions which survived in facades are exposed, restored and displayed. In Lithuania there emerged a wide spectrum of fragmentary restoration examples: from the exposure of the whole Gothic composition in facades of the 19 th century architectural trend of historicism to the demonstration of small authentic architectural details (friezes, lintels of openings, etc.). The given method of heritage conservation was applied to the houses in Karmelit ų str. No 3 in Vilnius (the facade of the 19 th century displays a restored and subtly integrated facade of a small Gothic house), Rotuš ÷s av. No 26 (fragments of the Gothic composition were exposed) in Kaunas and the Town Hall of Kaunas (the facades display authentic and recreated details of the Gothic and Renaissance architecture). The investigations have revealed that exposures often demonstrate not only authentic, but also restored fragments. Such treatment of exposures is at variance with international regulations for heritage conservation. The Preservation work is meant to secure surviving layers. During the Soviet period in Lithuania this operation of heritage conservation was used most rarely . Preservation was mostly an integrate part of the restoration work. The preservation method was employed for the Kaunas castle, part of Vilnius Higher castle and Medininkai castle. As it has been already mentioned, when using the given method of heritage conservation the outside of a building was changed marginally, therefore, such complicated tasks of the recreation of fragments or details that had to be sold during the reconstruction or restoration of buildings did not emerge. The subsection “The Recreation of Architectural Compositions. From Scientific Research to Artistic Interpretation” analyses methods of restoration. The research carried out has shown that the substantiation of the heritage conservation work was conducted on the basis of: a) information of scientific research; b) logical interpretations inspired by scientific research; c) the combination of scientific research and creative interpretation; and d) creative interpretation. Information of scientific research is the most accurate method for the recreation of missing parts: architectural research or objective visual material reveals an accurate former picture of a fragment being recreated. The missing parts recreated by this principle enable to exactly repeat a destroyed composition. In this case, information which survived in an object itself and / or photo-fixation and / or drawings of object measurements become the principle objective source for recreation. The architectural composition recreated in this way repeats the former look. It has to be stated that none of the objects which underwent works of heritage conservation could be characterized by the abundance of authentic information; therefore the given method was applied for the recreation of only isolated details of separate buildings. On the basis of this method, the restoration was carried out of the old, yet remaining in a sufficiently good state, pediments of the Napoleon’s House (Muitin ÷s str. No 14 in Kaunas) and Perk ūnas House. Photographs helped to restore the towers of the Raudon ÷ castle and the Church of St. Peter and Paul in Šiauliai and the pediment of the house located in Didžioji str. No 6 in K ÷dainiai. Such recreations founded on scientific research enable to reveal the architectural composition which repeats a lost authentic look with possible digressions from the former original being quite insignificant.

18 In the case of logical interpretations inspired by scientific research, the amount of scientific information is not sufficient for the complete recreation of a fragment and the lacking data is obtained by means of mathematical (geometrical) calculations. The proximity of a restored fragment to that one which had vanished was determined by the amount of authentic information retained in the authentic fragment. The research carried out on the work of architectural heritage conservation during the Soviet period has showed that logical interpretations inspired by scientific research were relatively frequently used as a means of recreation. This method was employed to tackle the problems of the destroyed size or fragmented architectural details and missing elements of the compositional structure. The given method was also used for the recreation of the height of the residential palace of the Trakai island castle as well as the height and the shape of the roof of the southern casemates and the height of the south-western tower of this castle. Mathematical calculations helped to approximately determine the oriel of the main facade of the Perk ūnas House, the eastern ascent of the staircases of the Gothic block of the house in Rotuš ÷s av. No 29 and architectural details of other buildings that underwent the work of heritage conservation. In cases when the maintenance of an architectural heritage object involves logical interpretations inspired by authentic fragments it is not possible to exactly determine the extent to which the recreated information coincides with the former look. In the case of the combination of scientific research and creative interpretation , survived authentic fragments are not sufficient for the complete restoration of an object; therefore, in order to reach compositional unity, missing parts of fragments are created by means of artistic interpretation and analogies. The given group also subsumes recreations founded on works of the fine arts. Although this constitutes iconographical material which should belong to the area of scientific research, yet artists often rendered architectural elements (frequently and whole buildings) not in an exact way digressing from an original and scrutinising the environment through the prism of Romanticism, therefore, the information found in works of the fine arts can often be subjective. The iconography of the fine arts was used for the rebuilding of the top of the tower of the Franciscan Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Vytautas the Great) and the recreation of the western pediment of the house in Rotuš ÷s av. No 28 in Kaunas. The attic of the Old Arsenal in Vilnius was recreated according to a watercolour by P. Smuglevi čius and the studies on Vilnius Renaissance buildings. The shortage of authentic information was supplemented with improvisations. Such behaviour was used for the restoration of the pediment of the street facade of the house located in Aušros vart ų str. No 8 in Vilnius. Here, by means of the interpretation of the survived fragments the upper part of the pediment was created. The methods of scientific research and that of creative interpretation in heritage conservation work conditionally should also subsume the founding on analogies when information “is borrowed” from the same or other objects. In this way, the remaining pediment of the Napoleon’s House was used as a basis for the recreation of the second and third stages of the Renaissance pediment cresting the southern facade of the house in Vilnius str. No 11 in Kaunas. The recreation of the street pediment of the house located in Didžioji str. No 4 in K ÷dainiai was partially based on the analogy of an adjacent house (situated in Didžioji str. No 6). The investigations of reconstructed and restored objects have revealed more examples of the founding on analogies. The carried out research has showed that the supplementation of forms based on artistic interpretation and analogies disguises a serious problem: while observing a building it is impossible to distinguish among

19 details recreated according to research material, those which repeat forms present in other buildings and those which are created building on remains of authentic data. Thus, an observer may perceive all the information as an authentic or research-grounded reconstructed fragment of the past, though it would be not truth. In the case of creative interpretation , authentic information only shows that there was a particular detail, but there is no data about its appearance. Consequently, that lost detail is being created. The given method of recreation was employed not once during the reconstruction of the palace of the Trakai island castle. There were no even slightest references to the former height of the roofs and shape of the residential palace. It was not known whether the parapets surrounding the palace had been closed and integrated under the common roof of the building or open, as both variants seemed to be possible. The architect-restorer B. Kr ūminis, building on aesthetical and practical criteria, suggested to build closed parapets and to cover the palace with a hip-roof. This decision was absolutely hypothetic and based on only aesthetical attitudes of the second half of the 20 th century. The existence of the former tower in the outer part of the castle’s triangular casemates at the junction of the defensive walls was witnessed only by a greater thickness of the walls compared to other places. Very little time was given to the projecting of this element; therefore, scientific research was not carried out. A simple quadrangular form was chosen for the tower and its height and the form and slopes of the roof were matched up to the surrounding structures. The author of the reconstruction projects S. Mikulionis, assessing the validity of the recreation of the triangular casemates, claimed: “Why the triangular casemates are designed in the way as they appear soon will become a puzzle.” The creative improvisation was also used for the recreation of the pediment of the house in Didžioji g. str. 12 in Vilnius during the reconstruction of which attempts were made not to create a Gothic detail, but with the help of stylized means to remind about its existence. Consequently, it can be maintained that the problem of the pediment of the given house was tackled competently. However, in general, such recreation of elements which is based only on creation does not meet international regulations for heritage conservation. The investigation of the recreation work carried out during the Soviet period has revealed a deeply rooted practice of the destruction of authentic masonry and architectural details, which, in principle, contradicts the conception of recreation. The facts show that, regardless of the degree of their survival, authentic elements were being destroyed in all structures of the Trakai island castle (in the residential palace, authentic masonry areas were broken down in the donjon, the remains of the survived arch in the triangular casemates were destroyed, etc.) and many other objects. The restoration that was carried out in Lithuania can be called fasadism , as in buildings during works of heritage conservation only facades were being left. Restoration works removed from buildings the 18 th – 19 th century spans, partitions, floors, doors, windows, stoves and other details not related to the chosen period for restoration. During the restoration of buildings principles of material compatibility were violated and traditional technologies were not employed, although such behaviour met the requirements that were in force at that time in Lithuania.

20 3 THE ASSESSMENT OF THE HERITAGE CONSERVATION WORK

The final part of the work presents the assessment of the restoration work carried out during the Soviet period. It reveals the succession of the Soviet time heritage conservation tendencies during the Independence period (1990 – 2008). The given part also analyses circumstances which determined a constant repetition of the same mistakes that disagree with the contemporary conception of reconstruction and restoration. The focus is laid on the reasons which induced restorers to recreate and to copy not observing regulations for restoration and reconstruction or even to create architectural compositions as old as possible at times destroying the authentic later period legacy of an artistic value. In the section “Outcomes of the Heritage Conservation Work”, on the basis of the established contemporary systems of values, works of heritage conservation conducted during the Soviet period are assessed. The research has revealed that there are both positive and negative outcomes of the given process of heritage conservation. Thanks to only reconstruction and restoration, secular buildings representing the Gothic and Renaissance periods were recreated. Objects were made to display or show more intensified artistic, technical, economic and social relationship values. By adjusting old buildings restorers created new images of the cities, new relations of buildings with the environment and made the recreated buildings dominants of the Old Towns. An observer can read live the history of old towns, although here the lack of information objectivity has been evidenced. It is not possible to distinguish in buildings between repetitions of authentic forms and the 20 th century interpretations. Thereby one of the most important values, the cognitive one, loses its meaning. Thus, it can be maintained that restoration had to more frequently involve exposures, rather than the recreation / creation of the whole lost composition. The section “Trends in the Heritage Conservation during 1990–2008” reveals the impact of the positive and negative heritage conservation traditions of the Soviet period on the present-day heritage conservation. The rebuilding of the Royal Palace shows that during the Independence period the conception of cultural heritage which formed during the Soviet times has not changed, the importance of the object authenticity has remained not realized and a faulty tradition of the adjustment of the history has been continued. Meanwhile, the restoration of the St. Gertrude’s Church has to be assessed positively. There was a sufficient amount of material for the recreation of the chosen Gothic composition except for the roof of the tower. Thanks to the heritage conservation work a lost composition demonstrating the architectural style of the end of the 15 th – the beginning of the 16 th centuries was returned. However, the recreation of the Renaissance architecture of the Siesikai Palace cannot be assessed positively. For this object of architectural heritage, an inappropriate restoration conception was chosen, since, as the conducted research has shown, the amount of the material was not sufficient to create the Renaissance composition and the information gaps were filled by methods contradicting international regulations for heritage conservation. It should be stressed that during the restoration an authentic classicistic composition was destroyed. In the section “The Reasons of Heritage Conservation Failures” it is searched for the answer to the question why the recreation or creation of the old architecture became so important rather than the preservation of authentic information. While searching for answers to this question the research into the Lithuanian architectural heritage conservation during the Soviet period has been performed from different points

21 of the historical perspective. Analysing the situation it has been noticed that a symbolic Lithuanian world-view which had formed in the course of the last centuries during the Soviet period once again had a favourable environment for its thriving and unfolding. The honourable past of Lithuania became a base enabling not to lose the national consciousness and such conditions determined a false identification of authenticity with the primary state. The recreation of architectural values was influenced by symbolic past thinking and it was namely this factor which to the greatest extent had conditioned the widely spread trend to recreate an architectural form as old as possible at any price. The architectural heritage was not perceived as a historical document; as a result, formerly lost details of a composition were created or copied and presented as authentic ones. It is also important that in Lithuania there were no traditions of architectural heritage conservation. The first serious steps of the reconstruction and restoration work were made during the Soviet times. Architects without the restorer’s background dominated in the process of decision making related to heritage conservation and their willingness to create was often stronger than the necessity to preserve. A paradoxical fact has to be stated that during the Soviet times there emerged favourable conditions to transfer the symbolic thinking of the interwar period into the plane of cultural heritage. The old architecture was started to be viewed as a particular symbol and missing parts were being simply created. The research on works of architectural heritage conservation has revealed two different features of this process: an obvious wish to recreate the lost architecture and the inappreciation of authentic material. During the spread of the given two attitudes the reconstructive-creative springs rather than those of preservation started to predominate in the area of heritage conservation

CONCLUSIONS

1. In West Europe the theory of heritage conservation started to form at the beginning of the 19 th century. Having explicated the division offered by the heritage conservation researcher Salvador Muñas Viñas from the aspect of interrelationships of man (subject) and architectural heritage (object), the development of the heritage conservation theory which lasted for two hundred years can be divided into three stages: 1) The early stage (the first half of the 19 th – the first half of the 20 th centuries) involves the theory the main axis of which is a romanticized subject’s attitude towards the object. At that time two principal conceptions of restoration and preservation which defined heritage conservation work stood out. 2) The classical stage (the fourth – tenth decades of the 20 th century) is characterized by the revelation of objective information preserved in an object. Natural sciences were brought into the theory of heritage conservation. 3) The contemporary stage starts from the tenth decade of the 20 th century. The fundamental idea of the theory of this period rests on the relation of the group of subjects with an object. The application of the conception of the sustainable development formed by social and environmental sciences has been given a start. 2. In Lithuania, the theory of heritage conservation was formed only in the second half of the 20 th century (during the Soviet period). In principle, it conforms to the Venice Charter which is the most important international document regulating restoration works, is akin to the aesthetical theory at that time spread over Italy and has a fair number of features typical of the classical (scientific and aesthetical) heritage

22 conservation. The assessment theory of heritage objects is also closely related to the aesthetical theory that is ascribable to the classical one and which recommends to give the greatest amount of attention to artistic properties of an object. The prominence given to the aesthetical value doomed to perish a fair part of architectural heritage. The sharpest conflict with international norms is evidenced in regard to the officially legitimized relic of the 19 th century conception that of making reference to analogies. 3. First heritage conservation works in Lithuania were started in the first decade of the 20 th century in Vilnius where architects invited from Poland building on scientific grounds restored the St. Ann’s Church. Shortly, in the established Independent Republic of Lithuania this example was not longer followed: during the two decades of Independence the architectural heritage was alien to government institutions and a larger part of society, its meaning and value were not perceived, as a result, old buildings were repaired and rebuilt without any research being carried out and destroying authentic historical information with preservation and restoration works almost not conducted at all. Meanwhile, in the Vilnius Region occupied by Poles the restoration and preservation work was carried out on isolated objects (the Gediminas’ castle, buildings of Vilnius University, the Trakai island castle, etc.). 4. During the Soviet period, in 1950, in Lithuania first works of architectural heritage conservation which had been initiated by the government began. In the course if time, during the span of four decades there emerged types and methods of heritage conservation works. Types of heritage conservation works conform to international rules and involve recreation, restoration and preservation, however, their choice was determined not by the amount of authentic material, but the unconditioned wish to recreate a composition as fully as possible and make it to be completed in an artistic sense. In such a way, facing the lack of information, the reconstruction of the Trakai island castle and the restoration of the houses situated in Rotuš ÷s av. No 2 and No 10 in Kaunas were performed. On the other hand, the objective to recreate the building architecture as old as possible determined and the positively assessed restoration work. Examples of this group can be considered to include the Perk ūnas House in Kaunas, the houses located in Aušros vart ų str. No 6 and Karmelit ų str. No 3 and others. Having researched the common trends in architectural heritage conservation it has become clear that the recreation and restoration work of each building has to be assessed separately taking into consideration both positive and negative peculiarities. 5. During the Soviet period reconstruction and restoration of architectural heritage objects missing architectural parts were recreated using several methods: 1) information of scientific research; 2) logical interpretations inspired by scientific research; 3) the combination of scientific research and creative interpretation; and 4) creative interpretation. The choice of a particular method was determined by the amount of scientific information and iconographic data as well as the methodology for the maintenance of a building. The employment of these methods for heritage conservation led to different results: 1) Recreations founded on scientific research enabled to reveal the architectural composition which repeats a lost authentic look with possible deviations from the former original being quite insignificant. The towers of the Church of St. Peter and Paul in Šiauliai and the Raudon ÷ castle as well as the pediments of the Napoleon’s House and Perk ūnas House in Kaunas and the house located in Didžioji str. No 6 in K ÷dainiai that were recreated in the given way are undoubtedly valuable and present objective information.

23 2) Architectural fragments recreated on the basis of the synthesis of scientific research and logical interpretation cannot be assessed in an unambiguous way. The reliability of such recreation is determined by the amount of scientific data: the greater amount of authentic information, the closer proximity is shown by the restored fragment to its vanished counterpart. The wall height of the residential palace of the Trakai island castle and the wall height and roof of its southern casemates were recreated building on a quite considerable amount of authentic information and consequent calculations made on its basis, therefore, these fragments are very close to the original ones. However, due to the deficiency of the survived data, a larger part of the south-western and north- western towers was recreated using logical interpretation. Parts of buildings recreated by the given principle only suppositionally repeat the former look. 3) The combination of scientific research and creative interpretation subsumes several different methods for the recreation of missing parts: a) the usage of iconography (creation of the fine arts), b) restorers’ creation inspired by scientific research and c) the selection of analogies of the same or other objects. The amount of scientific information and the solution chosen by restorers to tackle the problem of information deficiency determined different outcomes: a) The research has showed that iconographic material of the fine arts often provides a subjective author’s interpretation and it cannot be treated a priori as a reliable source of information. It has been established that the tower of the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Kaunas and the donjon of the Trakai island castle recreated according to T. Makovskis’ engravings deviate from their former look. However, the western pediment of the house located in Rotuš ÷s av. 28 in Kaunas recreated according to the M. Barvickis’ picture can be close to its destroyed original. b) In architectural details inspired by scientific research and freely interpreted by restorers a former original look is not repeated and the amount of authentic information is minimal. The given method involved the creation of the staircase of the southern facade of the Perk ūnas House and the pediment of the house located in Rotuš ÷s av. 28 in Kaunas, the roof of the western casemates of the Trakai island castle and other objects. c) Using the analogies of missing details copied from the same building a recreated look can bear the proximity to the original one. The given solution was applied for the recreation of the destroyed pediments of the Old Rectory and the house in Rotuš ÷s av. No 29 in Kaunas. By copying missing architectural details from other buildings (in this way the first floor of the house in Rotuš ÷s av. No 3 and the cornice of the house in Rotuš ÷s av. No 10 in Kaunas were recreated) an erroneous opinion was being implicated that a historical period (Gothic, Renaissance) involved the run of architectural details. The given methods of recreation except for the building on iconographic material appear to be at variance with norms of international heritage conservation. 4) Seeking to recreate the former look of architectural objects in the best possible way missing fragments lacking any data about them were created. For example, the roof and parapets of the residential palace and the defensive tower of triangular casemates and some other missing parts of the Trakai island castle were created. Such formations imitating the original look disagree with principles of international heritage conservation. All the given restoration methods employed restorative masonry, therefore without special research it is not possible to establish a principle used for the recreation

24 of a particular part of a building. The impossibility in nature to determine what in a restored building recreates the former look and what was created in the second half of the 20 th century presents one of the greatest mistakes of the Soviet period works of heritage conservation. 6. In exceptional cases, the reconstruction work conducted during the Soviet period may be assessed positively. The recreation of the Trakai island castle to the nation suppressed by the Soviet occupation was a very important prerequisite for the retention of national identity. The recreation of the buildings of the Trakai island castle and the residential palace of the Biržai castle led to the consolidation of their national and historical value as well as revealed their artistic-technical, educational, social relationship and economical values. Nevertheless, taking into consideration the fact that the recreation of these objects employed methods not conforming to rules of heritage conservation it has to be emphasized that such reconstructions do not constitute the example to be followed. 7. The research has showed that during the Soviet period restoration of buildings attempts were almost always made to recreate an architectural composition as old as possible regardless the existing deficiency of information. On the one hand, this should be assessed positively, since although recreating original architectural compositions the authentic layers of the end of the 18 th – 19 th centuries were destroyed, nevertheless, on the other hand, thanks to restoration recreated Gothic and Renaissance compositions revealed the origin of the masonry residential architecture reaching the 15th century. The restoration of buildings disclosed their national, artistic-technical and cognitive values. 8. During the Soviet period in Lithuania authentic substance and architectural details were not valued. The concept of authenticity was erroneously identified with the primary substance ; therefore the authentic substance of later layers was not treated as valuable. In the course of the reconstruction and restoration of buildings authentic masonry was frequently destroyed (such examples include the Trakai island castle, the house in Pilies str. No 11 in Vilnius and the houses located in Rotuš ÷s av. No 2, No 10 and No 24 in Kaunas) and the 18 th – 19 th century spans and doors of most buildings were removed. 9. The reasons of the mistakes of the Soviet period heritage conservation could be conditioned by several factors: 1) The symbolic perception of cultural heritage formed by the centuries-long oppression of foreign countries had determined the emergence of the attitude that did not recognize all layers of a building as equally important and which did not value objects according to their age qualification. Following this attitude, authentic objects are treated as unnecessary and they can be substituted by created symbols, therefore, the importance falls only on the form with its missing details being created. 2) Restorers seeking to recreate architectural layers as old as possible demonstrated an individual expression of passive cultural resistance. 3) The information deficiency in heritage conservation and the absence of traditions determined the repetition of certain mistakes typical of the 19 th century European heritage conservation (creative interpretation, reference to analogies, non- preservation of authentic substance). 10. The stereotypes of the behaviour concerning heritage which were entrenched during the Soviet period have remained vital and after 1990. The research has revealed that both positive and negative trends of heritage conservation have been developed. For instance, the restoration of the St. Gertrude’s Church was carried out in the way

25 complying with international regulations, a sufficient amount of scientific material was collected and the restored Gothic composition of the church bears the affinity to the primary one. During the restoration the authentic substance was being safeguarded. Meanwhile, the scientific validity of the heritage conservation works carried out on the Royal Palace of Vilnius’ Lower Castle and the Siesikai residential Palace is not sufficient. A fair number of the methods employed for the recreation do not observe essential principles of heritage conservation.

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE DISSERTATION 1. Butkevi čien ÷, Jolita. Kauno rotuš ÷s aikšt ÷s paveldotvarka XX a. šešt ąjį – devint ąjį dešimtme čiais. (Heritage conservation of Kaunas Town Hall Square) . In Kult ūros paminklai , ISSN 1392-155X, 2003, nr.10, p.91 – 103. 2. Butkevi čien ÷, Jolita. Architekt ūros paveldotvarkos teorin ÷s minties raida (The Development of the Theory of Architectural Heritage Conservation). In Meno istorija ir kritika. Menas ir tapatumas, ISSN1822-4555, 2008, nr.4, p.199 – 213.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS Butkevi čien ÷, Jolita; Levandauskas, Vytautas. Menotyra Vytauto Didžiojo universitete (The Art History and Criticism In Vytautas Magnus University). In Meno istorija ir kritika. Kult ūros paveldas:prarastos vertyb ÷s neišnaudotos galimyb ÷s, ISBN 9955-12- 108-4, nr.1, p. 3 – 5.

OTHER SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES: Executive Secretary of the International Scientific Conference “Cultural Heritage: Lost Values, Unused Possibilities”. October 7-9, 2004, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas. The editor of the publication arba galima b ūtų The editor of the 1 st volume of the journal Meno istorija ir kritika (Art History and Criticism). Kult ūros paveldas:prarastos vertyb ÷s neišnaudotos galimyb ÷s (Cultural Heritage: Lost Values, Unused Possibilities) ISBN 9955-12-108-

CURRICULUM VITAE Jolita Butkevi čien ÷ 1995 – 1999 Bachelor studies at the Faculty of Arts, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas. Research area: History of Lithuanian Architecture; 2000 – 2002 Master studies at the Faculty of Arts, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas. Research area: Architectural Heritage: Research and the Means of Protection 2003 – 2009 Doctoral studies at the Faculty of Arts, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas. Research area: Conservation of the Lithuanian masonry architectural heritage during the Soviet period . Address Garšv ÷s g. 84, LT 45476 Kaunas Telephone +370 620 35622 E – mail [email protected]

26 ĮVADAS

Kult ūros paveldas – gyvas m ūsų praeities liudininkas, saugantis gerai žinom ų ar seniai pamiršt ų įvyki ų p ÷dsakus. Prisiliet ę prie kult ūros lobi ų, galime įminti daugyb ę paslap čių, suprasti kas mes buvome, esame ir kuo tapsime. Architekt ūros paveldas šiame istorijos pažinimo procese užima išskirtin ę viet ą, nes šimtme čius skai čiuojantys mūsų senamies čių pastatai yra atviri nuolatiniam s ąly čiui su visuomene. Ir nors Lietuvos istorini ų miest ų pastat ų architekt ūra laikui b ÷gant buvo ne kart ą kei čiama, daugelyje j ų bent iš dalies išliko verting ų keli ų šimtme čių senumo fragment ų. Tyrimo problema. XX a. antrojoje pus ÷je Lietuvoje prasid ÷jo pirmieji nuosekl ūs kompleksiniai paveldo tvarkymo darbai. Atstatyti Trak ų salos pastatai, Birž ų pilis, restauruoti Vilniaus, Kauno, Klaip ÷dos, K ÷daini ų senamies čių pastatai atskleid ÷ mūsų architekt ūros paveldo praeit į. Pašalinus XIX–XX a. pr. susiformavusius sluoksnius, atsideng ÷ senieji architekt ūros klodai, iš užmaršties buvo prikelta gotikos, renesanso, baroko architekt ūra. Daugelis sovietme čiu rekonstruot ų ir restauruot ų pastat ų tapo svarbiausiais m ūsų senamies čių akcentais. Monografijoje „Lietuvos architekt ūros istorija“ (I t. 1988 m., II t. 1994 m.) jie pateikiami kaip autentiški gotikos ir renesanso kūriniai. Nors pra ÷jo jau keli dešimtme čiai, min ÷tieji objektai iki šiol dar n ÷ra išsamiai nagrin ÷ti ir įvertinti restauravimo metodikos poži ūriu. Tod ÷l šiandien išryšk ÷ja dvi problemos: 1) n ÷ra nustatyta, ar šie chrestomatiniai architekt ūros pavyzdžiai iš ties ų atkartoja buvus į original ų pavidal ą; 2) ne įvardytos praeities paveldotvarkos klaidos sudaro prielaidas šioms klaidoms plisti. Tyrimo objektas. Rekonstruoti, restauruoti pastatai reprezentuoja Lietuvos XV– XVIII a. architekt ūrą. Tyrin ÷dami šiuos objektus, fiziškai ir dvasiškai prisiliečiame prie praeities: architekt ūros form ų kaita atskleidžia k ūrybin ÷s minties raid ą, gyvenam ųjų nam ų fasadus puoš ę dekoratyviniai elementai iliustruoja vyravusias estetines paži ūras, liudija ekonominius pakilimus, apdeg ę plyt ų fragmentai primena pra ūžusius karus ir gaisrus. Pastat ų sienose galima perskaityti daugyb ę informacijos, ta čiau jos objektyvumas priklausys nuo tyrin ÷jamos medžiagos autentiškumo. Tod ÷l labai svarbu žinoti, ar restauruoti pastatai atskleidžia mums pirmin ę informacij ą, ir atskirti, kas yra tikra, kas – atkurta, o kas – tik XX a. viduryje sukurta imitacija. Šio mokslo darbo o b j e k t a s yra Lietuvos m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros paveldotvarka sovietme čiu (1950– 1990 m.), daugiausia d ÷mesio skiriama rekonstrukcijos ir restauracijos darb ų mokslinio pagr įstumo analizei, atkurt ų fragment ų formos autentiškumo tyrimams, istorin ÷s medžiagos (formos ir substancijos) išlikimo nustatymui. Sovietme čio laikotarpis šiame darbe apibr ÷žiamas kaip prasidedantis nuo 1950 m., nes tais metais prasid ÷jo nuosekl ūs architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darbai. Tyrimo aktualumas ir naujumas. Pra ÷jus keliems dešimtme čiams nuo pirm ųjų paveldo tvarkymo darb ų, reikia atsigr ęžti atgal ir nuodugniai išanalizuoti bei įvertinti sovietme čiu rekonstruotus, restauruotus objektus, nes iki šiol tai buvo atliekama palyginti fragmentiškai ir paviršutiniškai. Sovietme čiu architekt ūros paveldotvarka buvo aptariama spaudoje ir mokslin ÷se konferencijose, ta čiau tuomet buvo aptariami tik teigiami atlikt ųjų darb ų aspektai, daug d ÷mesio skirta statistikos pateikimui, nesigilinta į atlikt ų darb ų mokslin į pagr įstum ą, o svarbiausios problemos, susijusios su atkurtos architekt ūros kompozicijos autentiškumu, originalios substancijos išsaugojimu, buvo nesuvoktos ir ne įvardytos. Toks poži ūris į architekt ūros paveldotvark ą rodo, kad nebuvo tinkamai suprasta jos reikšm ÷ ir tiesioginis poveikis ver čių, gl ūdin čių architekt ūros paveldo objektuose, sklaidai.

27 Šio darbo mokslinis naujumas atsiskleidžia keliais aspektais. Lietuvos menotyroje pirm ą kart ą visapusiškai tiriami rekonstruoti ir restauruoti architekt ūros objektai daugiausia d ÷mesio skiriant atlikt ų darb ų moksliniam pagr įstumui. Pirm ą kart ą išskiriami, apibr ÷žiami ir įvertinami tr ūkstam ų architekt ūros statinio dali ų atk ūrimo būdai ir vadovaujantis tarptautin ÷mis architekt ūros paveldotvarkos nuostatomis įvertinami Lietuvoje sovietme čiu atlikti paveldotvarkos darbai. Šiuo mokslo darbu siekiama užpildyti iki šiol buvusi ą tokio pob ūdžio tyrim ų sprag ą ir tikimasi, kad atlikta analiz ÷ ir pateiktos išvados pad ÷s užkirsti keli ą galimam iki šiol ne įvardyt ų klaid ų plitimui. Tyrimo tikslas ir uždaviniai. Visi aukš čiau išvardyti veiksniai padiktavo šio mokslo darbo t i k s l ą: remiantis šiuolaikin ÷mis paveldotvarkos teorijomis, įvertinti Lietuvos m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros paveldo rekonstravim ą ir restauravim ą sovietme čiu. Šiam tikslui pasiekti iškelti pagrindiniai u ž d a v i n i a i: 1) apžvelgti ir įvertinti Europos paveldotvarkos raid ą bei tarptautinius dokumentus, reglamentuojan čius paveldotvarkos darbus; 2) aptarti paveldotvarkos pad ÷tį tarpukario Lietuvoje; 3) ištyrin ÷ti ir įvertinti sovietme čiu (1950–1990 m.) Lietuvoje paskelbtus teorinius paveldotvarkos darbus; 4) suklasifikuoti architekt ūros objektus pagal paveldotvarkos darb ų tipus ir juos išnagrin ÷ti; 5) išskirti ir įvertinti architekt ūros statinio dali ų atk ūrimo b ūdus bei išanalizuoti jiems priskiriamus pavyzdžius; 6) įvertinti sovietme čiu atliktus paveldotvarkos darbus; 7) išaiškinti ir įvardyti istorines, kult ūrines, politines priežastis, l ÷musias to laikme čio architekt ūros paveldotvark ą. Tyrimo metodai. Šio mokslo darbo tema l ÷m÷ įvairi ų mokslini ų tyrim ų metod ų taikym ą. Aptariant Europos paveldotvarkos raid ą, pasitelkti istorinis ir analitinis metodai , padedantys atskleisti chronologin ę esmini ų id ÷jų ir sampratos kait ą bei išskirti šio proceso priežastinius ryšius. Taikant šiuos metodus, apžvelgiama ir Lietuvos paveldotvarkos pad ÷tis tarpukariu, ieškoma priežas čių, l ÷musi ų specifin ę paveldo traktavimo ir tvarkymo b ūkl ę sovietme čiu. Analizuojant Lietuvos m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darb ų, atlikt ų sovietme čiu, mokslin į pagr įstum ą ir apimtis, taikomi analitinis , empirinis ir lyginamasis metodai . Paveldotvarkos darb ų teigiami ir neigiami aspektai atskleidžiami analizuojant, apibendrinant ir lyginant sukauptus archyvinius duomenis bei empirini ų tyrim ų medžiag ą. Gauti rezultatai įvertinami tarptautini ų paveldotvarkos nuostat ų kontekste. Restauravimo ir rekonstravimo pasekm ÷s (pastat ų tūrin ÷s-erdvin ÷s sandaros ir / ar architekt ūros kompozicijos pasikeitimai) atskleidžiamos pasitelkus formaliosios analiz ÷s metod ą. Taip pat taikomas autor ÷s sukurtas metodas, sąlyginai pavadintas formaliuoju-rekonstrukciniu : rekonstruota (visiškai atstatyta) ar restauruota architekt ūros kompozicija lyginama su architekt ūrini ų ir ikonografini ų tyrim ų duomenimis, pagrindin į d ÷mes į skiriant moksliniam atkuriam ų pastato dali ų ir detali ų pagr įstumui. Šis metodas padeda atskleisti, kiek paveldotvarkos invazij ą patyrusioje architekt ūroje yra lik ę autentiškos informacijos (statybin ÷s medžiagos, architekt ūros element ų ir t. t.) ir nustatyti atkurtojo vaizdo artimum ą buvusiam autentiškam vaizdui. Darbe taikomas lyginamasis metodas padeda įvertinti Lietuvos paveldotvarkos metodikos ir praktikos pad ÷tį Europos kontekste. Atliekant tyrim ą, architekt ūros paveldo objekt ų atrankos procesas vyko trimis etapais. Vis ų pirma buvo susipažinta su įvairius tvarkymo darbus patyrusi ų pastat ų

28 architekt ūros tyrim ų, projektavimo ir atlikt ų darb ų ataskait ų medžiaga. Taip buvo atskleisti paveldotvarkos darb ų skai čiai ir geografinis paplitimas, o pagal konkre čiuose objektuose atlikt ų darb ų apimtis buvo nustatyti sovietme čiu taikyt ų paveldotvarkos metod ų tipai. Tolesniam tyrimui buvo atrinkti pastatai, kuriuose atlikti rekonstravimo ir restauravimo darbai. Šiame etape išryšk ÷jo sovietme čiu naudoti kompoziciškai svarbi ų architekt ūros dali ų bei detali ų atk ūrimo problem ų sprendimo b ūdai. T ęsiant tyrim ą, buvo atrinkti tipiškiausi, geriausiai sovietme čio paveldotvarkos tendencijas atspindintys objektai. Literat ūra ir šaltiniai. Šiame darbe, tyrin ÷jant Lietuvos architekt ūros paveldo tvarkym ą sovietme čiu, buvo remiamasi archyviniais dokumentais, mokslin ÷mis monografijomis, straipsniais ir kita literat ūra. Vis ą naudot ą literat ūrą ir šaltinius galima suskirstyti į keturias grupes: 1) šaltiniai ir literat ūra, pristatantys Lietuvoje sovietme čiu atliktus rekonstravimo ir restauravimo darbus; 2) tarptautiniai teis ÷s dokumentai ir leidiniai, reglamentuojantys paveldotvarkos darbus; 3) užsienio specialist ų architekt ūros paveldotvarkos mokslin ÷s studijos; 4) literat ūra, atskleidžianti kult ūros paveldo sampratos raid ą Lietuvoje. Atskir ą šaltini ų ir literat ūros grup ę sudaro kult ūros paveldo saugojimo ir tvarkymo Lietuvoje tyrimai. Kaip jau min ÷ta, nuo paveldotvarkos darb ų pradžios Lietuvoje pra ÷jo penki dešimtme čiai, ta čiau jie iki šiol n ÷ra išsamiai išanalizuoti ir įvertinti. Retkar čiais visuomenei b ūdavo pateikiama paveldotvarkos darb ų (tik teigiam ų) apžvalga, šiek tiek daugiau kritikos sulaukdavo atlikt ų darb ų ir medžiag ų kokyb ÷, ta čiau beveik visai nesigilinta į paveldotvarkos darb ų mokslin į pagr įstum ą. Atkurt ų architekt ūros kompozicij ų autentiškumo ir originalios substancijos išsaugojimo problemos taip pat liko nuošalyje. Svarbiausias ir bene vienintelis sovietme čio laikotarpio mokslo darbas, skirtas architekt ūros paveldotvarkai, – tai J. Glemžos 1974 m. Maskvoje apginta disertacija „Lietuvos TSR m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros restauravimo darb ų metodin ÷s kryptys“ ir jos pagrindu parašytas mokslinis straipsnis „Paminklotvarkos darb ų metodikos klausimu.“ J. Glemžos disertacijoje teoriškai apibr ÷žti visi architekt ūros paveldo objekt ų tvarkymo metodai, apib ūdinti keli tipiškiausi Lietuvos gynybin ÷s, visuomenin ÷s ir gyvenamosios architekt ūros paveldo restauravimo pavyzdžiai, pateikti trumpi, dažnai prieštaraujantys šiuolaikinei paveldotvarkos sampratai vertinimai. Paveldotvarkos ir paveldosaugos tyrim ų pad ÷tis šiek tiek pager ÷jo Nepriklausomyb ÷s laikotarpiu. 2003 m. E. Riaubien ÷ paraš ÷ mokslo darb ą „Lietuvos architekt ūros paveldosauga (1918–2000): teisin ÷s galimyb÷s ir tvarkymo rezultatai“, kuriame gilinosi į tuo metu galiojusius įstatymus, paveldosaugos institucin ę sistem ą, pateik ÷ kiekybin ę paveldotvarkos darb ų analiz ę ir keliuose architekt ūros paveldo objektuose atlikt ų darb ų apžvalg ą. 2003 m. buvo apginta R. Čepaitien ÷s disertacija „Kult ūros sampratos Lietuvoje XX amžiuje“, jos pagrindu 2005 m. buvo išleista knyga „Laikas ir akmenys. Kult ūros paveldo samprata modernioje Lietuvoje“. R. Čepaitien ÷ savo tyrimuose daugiausia d ÷mesio skiria kult ūros paveldo ir jo apsaugos sampratos kilm ÷s ir raidos Lietuvoje analizei instituciniu, administraciniu, juridiniu, ideologiniu ir istorin ÷s s ąmon ÷s aspektais ir atskleidžia, kaip ta samprata skirtingais laikotarpiais skleid ÷si tarp specialist ų ir visuomen ÷je. Pirmajai literat ūros ir šaltini ų grupei taip pat priklauso pirmin ÷ ir svarbiausia medžiaga apie Lietuvoje sovietme čiu vykusius rekonstravimo ir restauravimo darbus, sutelkta Vilniaus apskrities ir Kult ūros paveldo centro archyvuose. Ta čiau informacijos

29 kiekio poži ūriu pad ÷tis n ÷ra gera. Tik nedidel ÷ dalis atlikt ų rekonstrukcijos ir restauracijos darb ų aprašyta mokslin ÷se ataskaitose. Išsamiausiai ir aiškiausiai architekt ūros tyrimai ir paveldotvarkos darbai apib ūdinti D. Zareckien ÷s rengtose ataskaitose. Dauguma kit ų autori ų daugiausia d ÷mesio dažnai skyr ÷ ne nuosekliam architekt ūros tyrim ų ir paveldotvarkos proces ų charakterizavimui, bet chronologiniam vykusi ų darb ų aprašymui, dažnai visiškai nenurodydavo, kuo remiantis buvo atkurtos architekt ūros detal ÷s ar ištisos kompozicijos. Toki ų neinformatyvi ų pavyzdži ų yra nemažai. Jiems priklauso ir dauguma Vilniaus universiteto pastat ų restauravimo ataskait ų. Atkurt ų detali ų analiz ÷s atžvilgiu ne visada pakankamai išsami ir Trak ų salos rekonstrukcijos darb ų medžiaga. Mokslini ų ataskait ų kokyb ę l ÷m÷ daug įvairi ų veiksni ų. Labai dažnai visus darbus apibendrinantys dokumentai buvo rašomi pra ÷jus keleriems, o Trak ų salos pilies atveju – net keliolikai met ų, architektai-restauratoriai lygiagre čiai dirbdavo su keliais objektais, aprašomieji darbų procesai jau buvo prad ÷ję grimzti užmarštin. Už š į moksliškai svarbios dokumentacijos rengim ą buvo labai mažai arba kartais ir visai nemokama, jam nebuvo skiriama papildomai laiko. Dideli ų problem ų kilo tyrin ÷jant tuos pastatus, kuri ų rekonstravimo, restauravimo darbai visai neaprašyti. Tokiais atvejais buvo analizuojama architekt ūros tyrim ų informacija, gauti duomenys lyginami su rekonstravimo, restauravimo projektais ir nat ūros medžiaga. Ta čiau sud ÷tingiausia nagrin ÷ti objektus, kurių architekt ūros tyrim ų duomenys liko neapibendrinti ir neišleisti atskiromis bylomis. Vienas iš toki ų yra Birž ų pilis: moksliniai dokumentai, pagrindžiantys jos atstatym ą, – neparengti, architekt ūrini ų tyrim ų duomenys – nesusisteminti, išlikusioje istorinių tyrim ų ir projektin ÷je medžiagoje nepaaiškintas ir nepagr įstas tokio svarbaus architekt ūros elemento, kaip pagrindinio fasado pirmojo aukšto arkada, pastatymas (atk ūrimas). Panaši yra ir Kauno Rotuš ÷s aikšt ÷s pastat ų nr. 2, 3, Raudon ÷s pilies ir kai kurių kit ų objekt ų, apie kuri ų atk ūrim ą n ÷ra joki ų duomen ų, pad ÷tis. Šie faktai rodo, kad tuometin ÷se architekt ūros paveldo apsaug ą ir tvarkym ą vykdžiusios įstaigose nebuvo suvokta atlikt ų darb ų dokumentavimo svarba ir d ÷l to ateities kartos prarado galimyb ę sužinoti apie kai kuri ų objekt ų atk ūrimo pagr įstum ą, juo labiau kad dažnai paveldotvarkos darb ų metu autentiška substancija buvo ardoma ir jos viet ą užimdavo naujadarai. Renkant informacij ą r ūpima tema, buvo išnagrin ÷ta nemažai sovietme čiu rengt ų paveldotvarkai skirt ų konferencij ų pranešim ų, ta čiau šios konferencijos buvo praktinio pob ūdžio, j ų metu nebuvo gilinamasi į bendras problemas, o tik paviršutiniškai apžvelgiami atskiri darbai. T ą pat į galima pasakyti ir apie daugum ą paveldotvarkai skirt ų to meto straipsni ų. S ąlyginai daugiau d ÷mesio sulauk ÷ kai kuri ų Kauno architekt ūros paveldo objekt ų restauravimas. Architekt ÷-restaurator ÷ D. Zareckien ÷ savo straipsniuose pateik ÷ namo, esan čio Vilniaus g. nr. 11, Senosios klebonijos (klaidingai vadintos Karališk ąja kar čema), Perk ūno namo ir pastato, esan čio Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 29, architekt ūros tyrim ų duomenis bei trump ą pastar ųjų dviej ų pastat ų restauravimo darb ų apraš ą. Antr ąją bibliografijos grup ę sudaro tarptautiniai paveldotvark ą reglamentuojantys dokumentai ir literat ūra. Specialiai atsiribota nuo sovietme čiu galiojusi ų taisykli ų ir instrukcij ų – siekta kuo objektyviau įvertinti atliktus darbus, atskleisti pasiektus teigiamus ir neigiamus rezultatus remiantis šiuolaikine paveldotvarkos darb ų samprata. Nors architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darbai Lietuvoje prasid ÷jo 1950 m., kai buvo įsteigta Mokslin ÷ restauracin ÷ gamybin ÷ dirbtuv ÷, net iki 1974 m. nebuvo bendros metodikos, apibr ÷žian čios paveldotvarkos darbus. V ÷liau sovietme čiu įsigalioj ę architekt ūros paveldotvarkos (tuo metu buvo vartojamas

30 paminklotvarkos terminas) metodiniai nurodymai ne visada sutapdavo su Venecijos chartija ir kitais tarptautiniais dokumentais, reglamentuojan čiais elgesio su architekt ūros paveldu b ūdus. Metodika sek ÷ praktikos įkandin, j ą koregavo praktini ų darb ų metu išryšk ÷jusios klaidos (ši problema pla čiau nagrin ÷jama pirmajame mokslinio darbo skyriuje). Moksliniame darbe, formuojant m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros paveldo restauravimo ir rekonstravimo darb ų vertinimo kriterijus, remtasi Tarptautin ÷s paminkl ų ir istorini ų viet ų tarybos (ICOMOS) paveldotvarkos darbus reglamentuojan čiais dokumentais: Venecijos chartija, Istorini ų miest ų apsaugos chartija, Europos architekt ūros paveldo chartija, Burra chartija, Naujosios Zelandijos chartija, Nara autentiškumo dokumentu. Taip pat naudotasi Tarptautinio kult ūros turt ų konservavimo ir restauravimo centro (ICCROM) apibr ÷žtais ir leidinyje „Pasaulio kult ūros paveldo viet ų bei vietovi ų prieži ūros gair ÷s“ išd ÷stytais šiuolaikiniais elgesio su architekt ūros paveldu ir autentiškumo kriterijais. Knygoje apib ūdinama šiuolaikin ÷ kult ūros paveldo samprata, išsamiai apibr ÷žiami paveldotvarkos darbai, atskleidžiamas j ų santykis su objekto autentiškumo išsaugojimu, pateikiamos vert ÷s grup ÷s, lemian čios paveldo išsaugojim ą. Pla čiau su techniniais paveldotvarkos proceso aspektais pad ÷jo susipažinti B. M. Feildeno knyga „Conservation of Historic Buildings“. Čia pateikiamos istorini ų pastat ų strukt ūrų tvarkymo priemon ÷s, aptariamos svarbiausios gamtin ÷s ir žmogiškosios kilm ÷s priežastys, sukelian čios pastat ų irim ą, nurodomos priemon ÷s, padedan čios išvengti ar pristabdyti įvardytus nykimo / naikinimo procesus, nuosekliai nagrin ÷jamos architekt ų-restauratori ų darbo sudedamosios dalys. Šioje knygoje aptariama ir architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darb ų samprata. Tre čiajai grupei priskiriama literat ūra, skirta architekt ūros paveldo rekonstrukcijos, restauravimo ir konservavimo sampratos užsienyje istorinei raidai. Tai J. Jokilehto, J. Earlo, S. Muñoz Viñas darbai. Paveldotvarkos specialistas J. Jokilehtas mokslin ÷je studijoje išsamiai apžvelg ÷ Europos architekt ūros paveldotvarkos teorijos ir praktikos raid ą. Ankstyviausi ų pastat ų išsaugojimo darb ų paiešk ą autorius pradeda nuo renesanso ir keliaudamas per šimtme čius iki XX a. antrosios pus ÷s nuosekliai atskleidžia architekt ūros objekt ų išsaugojimo ir tvarkymo sampratos kait ą. Daugiausia d÷mesio skiriama XIX a., kai Europoje buvo formuojami pamatiniai paveldotvarkos metodai ir principai. Svarbu pamin ÷ti, kad J. Jokilehtas ne tik pateik ÷ restauratori ų teorini ų min čių, bet ir aptar ÷ j ų įgyvendintus projektus atskleisdamas dažn ą minties ir veiksm ų neatitikim ą. J. Jokilehto tyrim ą papildo paveldotvarkos specialistai J. Earlas ir S. M. Viñas. Abu autoriai pateikia svarbiausius paveldotvarkos raidos momentus ir kritiškai juos vertina šiandieniniame kontekste. S. M. Viñas daugiausia d ÷mesio skiria XX a. viduryje susiklos čiusios klasikin ÷s paveldotvarkos analizei, išskiria ne tik teigiamus, bet ir neigiamus jos aspektus, analizuoja neigiam ų reiškini ų priežastis ir pasekmes, ieško b ūdų pad ÷č iai gerinti. Autorius daug d ÷mesio skiria autentiškumo sampratos kaitai atskleisti ir nurodo problemas, kylan čias d ÷l neteisingo šio labai svarbaus koncepto suvokimo. Taip pat atskleidžia šiuolaikin ÷s paveldotvarkos prioritetus ir aptaria priemones jiems įgyvendinti. J. Earlas savo knygoje per filosofijos prizm ę žvelgia į istorini ų pastat ų samprat ą, apžvelgia architekt ūros paveldo saugojim ą ir tvarkym ą inspiruojan čias priežastis, analizuoja paveldotvarkos darb ų poveik į architekt ūros objekt ų reikšmei ir vertei, apib ūdina ir įvertina konkre čias restauravimo priemones, svarsto paveldo saugojimo ir tvarkymo metu kylan čių skirting ų interes ų suderinimo galimybes.

31 Ketvirt ą bibliografijos grup ę sudaro literat ūra, atskleidžianti kult ūros paveldo sampratos raid ą Lietuvoje. Siekiant atkurti kuo visapusiškesn į ir objektyvesn į kult ūros paveldo suvokimo, vertinimo, saugojimo vaizd ą sovietme čiu, informacija kaupta naudojantis įvairiais archyviniais šaltiniais ir literat ūra. Sovietme čiu susiklost ęs institucij ų ir specialist ų poži ūris į kult ūros paveld ą tyrin ÷tas min ÷toje R. Čepaitien ÷s knygoje „Laikas ir akmenys“. Ši ą problem ą savo straipsniuose aptaria ir J. Markevi čien ÷, J. Glemža, R. Glinskis. V. Jurkšto monografijos d÷ka atsiveria sovietme čiu gyvavusi architekt ūros objekt ų ver čių identifikavimo sistema. Jos pagrindu tapo senamies čio pastat ų vertinimo metodika, parengta XX a. septint ąjį–aštunt ąjį dešimtme čiais sudarant senamies čių regeneracijos projektus. Ši ą metodik ą suformavo K. Šešelgis, o išpl ÷tojo V. Jurkštas. Pastarasis architektas mokslo darbo nesp ÷jo apginti, ta čiau praktikoje išbandyti vertinimo kriterijai išsamiai aprašyti po autoriaus mirties išleistoje min ÷toje monografijoje. Daug vertingos informacijos rasta Vilniaus apygardos ir Kult ūros paveldo centro archyvuose saugomose įvairiose rekonstrukcijos ir restauravimo darbus aprašan čiose bylose. Motyvuot ų teigini ų apie Lietuvos paveldotvarkos nes ÷kmi ų priežastis esama D. Ma čiulio knygoje „Valstyb ÷s kult ūros politika Lietuvoje 1927–1940 metais“. Susisteminus visus duomenis, atsiv ÷r÷ sovietme čiu egzistavusi architekt ūros paveldo b ūkl ÷s panorama. Skirtingas naudojam ų šaltini ų ir literat ūros pob ūdis pad ÷jo kompleksiškiau ir objektyviau atskleisti Lietuvos paveldotvarkos tendencijas. Terminai. Disertacijoje vartojant kai kuriuos teminus, atsiribota nuo sovietme čio terminologijos ir nuo kai kuri ų 2005 m. priimtame LR Nekilnojamojo kult ūros paveldo apsaugos įstatyme apibr ÷žt ų s ąvok ų. Per penkis dešimtme čius Lietuvoje ne kart ą kito daugelis kult ūros paveldo ir jo apsaug ą bei tvarkym ą apibr ÷žian čių termin ų. Kaitos proces ą l ÷m÷ Lietuvoje vyk ę politiniai, kult ūriniai poky čiai, kuri ų d ÷ka susidar ÷ galimyb ÷ įteisinti kokybiškai nauj ą kult ūros paveldo samprat ą. Sąvok ų ir termin ų kait ą lemia poži ūrio į paveldo reikšm ę ir vert ę raida. Sovietme čiu galiojusi ų Kult ūros paminkl ų apsaugos (priimtas 1967 m.) ir Lietuvos TSR Istorijos ir kult ūros paminkl ų apsaugos ir naudojimo (priimtas 1977 m.) įstatym ų pavadinimuose vartojama formuluot ÷ kult ūros paminklas. Ši s ąvoka žymi praeities kult ūros liekan ą, ir oficialus jos įteisinimas l ÷m÷ tai, kad vienu iš svarbiausi ų vert ÷s kriterij ų tapo objekto amžius. Akivaizdu, kad gyvuojant tokiai nuostatai, susidar ÷ palankios s ąlygos naikinti palyginti „jaun ą“ (XVIII a. pab. – XX a. pr.) palikim ą. Žodis paminklas ilgainiui tapo suvokiamas kaip nuoroda į ekspozicin ę, estetin ę, menin ę vert ę turint į regin į. Šio termino vartojimas implikavo estetiniais kriterijais paremt ą saugom ų objekt ų atrank ą. Kita vertus, ir žodis kult ūra dažnai vartojamas siaur ąja prasme, atkreipiant d ÷mes į tik į elitinius reiškinius. Apibendrinant galima teigti, kad terminas kult ūros paminklai užprogramavo išskirtini ų senumo ir menin ę vert ę turin čių objekt ų apsaug ą. Ta čiau lieka nenustatyta, ar analizuojamoji elitarin ÷ formuluot ÷ kult ūros paminklas l ÷m÷ poži ūrį į kult ūros palikim ą, ar vyravusios nuostatos l ÷m÷ šios formuluot ÷s pasirinkim ą. XX a. devintojo dešimtme čio pabaigoje pastebima kokybin ÷ kult ūros palikimo sampratos transformacija. Vis dažniau prad ÷ta vartoti liberalesn ÷ kult ūros paveldo sąvoka. Žodis paveldas žymi perimt ą palikim ą ir neapima senumo, meninio išskirtinumo reikšmi ų. Siekiant išskirti įstatym ų saugomus kult ūros paveldo objektus, prad ÷tas vartoti kult ūros vertybi ų terminas, šis žodži ų junginys vartojamas ir 1994 bei 1997 m. priimtuose įstatym ų pavadinimuose, kult ūros paminklo statusas suteikiamas tik

32 reikšmingiausioms kult ūros vertyb ÷ms. Tokia pad ÷tis buvo pakankamai aiški, nes apibendrinantis terminas kult ūros paveldas apr ÷p÷ tiek teisiškai saugomus, tiek nesaugomus objektus, o kult ūros vertyb ÷mis vadinti į Registr ą įrašyti (valstyb ÷s teisiškai saugojami) objektai. Ta čiau 2005 m. priimtame naujame LR Nekilnojamojo kultūros paveldo apsaugos įstatyme šios dvi formuluot ÷s sutapatintos. Aiškinant pagrindines įstatymo s ąvokas, kult ūros paveldas apibr ÷žiamas kaip „karta iš kartos paveldimos /.../ kult ūros vertyb ÷s, svarbios istoriniu, estetiniu ar moksliniu poži ūriu“. Tokiu b ūdu panaikinama plati fraz ÷s kult ūros paveldas prasm ÷, ir dvi iki tol buvusios skirtingos formuluot ÷s tampa kone sinonimais. Disertacijoje s ąvokos kult ūros paveldas ir architekt ūros paveldas vartojamos platesne prasme, įvardijant ir valstyb ÷s saugom ą, ir tos apsaugos laukiant į kult ūros ar architekt ūros palikim ą. Žodži ų junginys architekt ūros paveldo objektas vartojamas architekt ūros paveldo vienetams – statiniams, statini ų kompleksams ar ansambliams – apibr ÷žti. Sovietme čiu vartotos s ąvokos paminklotvarka transformavimasis į paveldotvark ą yra s ąvokos paminklas pakeitimo s ąvoka paveldas pasekm ÷. Ta čiau šiandien šie žodžiai n ÷ra lygiareikšmiai. 1975 m. J. Glemža, remdamasis atlikt ų architekt ūros paveldo tvarkymo darb ų analize, apibr ÷ž÷ paminklotvarkos sąvok ą ir išskyr ÷ tokias darb ų grupes: tyrimus, projektavim ą ir projekt ų realizavim ą. Naujajame LR Nekilnojamojo kult ūros paveldo apsaugos įstatyme s ąvoka paveldotvarka apibr ÷žiama kaip „paveldosaugos normini ų teis ÷s akt ų sistemos k ūrimas, institucij ų formavimas ir j ų veiklos organizavimas, paveldosaugos program ų projekt ų rengimas ir įgyvendinimas, tvarkybos administravimas ir steb ÷sena“. Taigi ilgainiui kito ne tik pirmoji žodžio dalis, bet ir jo reikšm ÷, kuri dabar nurodo ne fizin į architekt ūros objekto tvarkym ą, o teisin ę apsaug ą. S ąvokai paminklotvarka pagal nauj ąjį įstatym ą šiandien yra adekvati s ąvokai tvarkyba. Šiame mokslo darbe terminu paveldotvarka , skirtingai nei įstatyme, vadinami su fizine paveldo objekto prieži ūra ir tvarkymu susij ę darbai: tyrimai, projektavimas, projekt ų realizavimas: konservavimas, restauravimas, rekonstrukcija, remontas. Šis apibr ÷žimas tapatus paminklotvarkos s ąvokai, tok į pasirinkim ą l ÷m÷ noras prat ęsti ilgame čio apie 1975 m. įteisinto ir greitai prigijusio termino paminklotvarka bei j į pakeitusio termino paveldotvarka vartojimo tradicij ą. Manoma, kad įsitvirtinusio termino, tiksliai ir aiškiai nurodan čio juo pavadinamus veiksmus, keitimas naujadaru yra nereikalingas. Konkret ūs paveldotvarkos darbus apib ūdinantys terminai disertacijoje vartojami remiantis tarptautiniais paveldotvarkos darbus reglamentuojan čiais dokumentais. Dažniausiai vartojami du šio mokslo darbo tikslus atspindintys terminai – restauravimas ir rekonstrukcija . Restauravimu įvardijamas procesas, kurio metu siekiama sugr ąžinti objektui prarast ą pavidal ą ir vert ę. Jo metu pašalinami tam tikri elementai, prieštaraujantys gr ąžinamai formai, kai kuriais atvejais nuimami ištisi v ÷lesni sluoksniai ir atskleidžiama tai, kas gl ūd÷jo po laiko apnašomis, atkuriami tr ūkstami elementai. Tai sud ÷tinga operacija, atskleidžianti prarast ą objekto b ūsen ą, jo kult ūrin ę vert ę išsaugant maksimal ų autentiškos medžiagos kiek į. Reikia pamin ÷ti, kad šiame mokslo darbe vartojama restauravimo sąvoka nedaug skiriasi nuo 1972 m. Kult ūros paminkl ų apsaugos įstatymo taikymo instrukcijoje pateikto apibr ÷žimo. Šioje disertacijoje s ąvoka rekonstrukcija vartojama kaip tarptautinis lietuviško žodžio atstatymas atitikmuo. Abiem šiais terminais apib ūdinama veikla, kurio tikslas – atstatyti tr ūkstamus, pašalintus ar sunaikintus elementus. Reikia pamin ÷ti, kad

33 sovietme čiu rekonstrukcijos terminas buvo vartojamas netinkamai. Vakar ų Europos tradicijoje jis žymi atstatym ą, buvusio vaizdo sugr ąžinim ą, o sovietin ÷je erdv ÷je šiuo terminu buvo apibr ÷žiamas esminis pakeitimas, kokio nors naujo, dar nebuvusio elemento suk ūrimas. Min ÷toje 1972 m. Instrukcijoje šis žodis reišk ÷ restauravim ą pagal analogijas ir hipotezes. J. Glemža savo disertacijoje atstatymo termin ą papildomai skaido į atk ūrim ą ir rekonstrukcij ą. Atk ūrimo operacija, J. Glemžos teigimu, – tai moksliniais tyrimais pagr įstas prarast ų architekt ūros paveldo objekto dali ų atk ūrimas, o rekonstrukcija – tai šiuolaikini ų architekt ūros form ų ir priemoni ų panaudojimas tr ūkstamoms detal ÷ms sukurti. Taigi termino rekonstrukcija samprata J. Glemžos darbuose dar labiau nutolo nuo tikrosios savo reikšm ÷s, juo apib ūdinami į kult ūros paveldo objekto strukt ūrą įterpti naujadarai. Šiame mokslo darbe architekt ų-restauratori ų interpretacijomis paremtos detal ÷s, įkomponuotos į architekt ūros objekto audin į, vadinamos sukurtomis. Darbo strukt ūra. Pagrindin ę disertacijos dal į sudaro įvadas, trys d ÷stomosios dalys, susidedan čios iš atskir ų skyri ų, ir išvados. Tokia strukt ūra padeda parodyti Europos ir Lietuvos istorin į kontekst ą bei įvairiais aspektais atskleisti paveldotvarkos ypatumus Lietuvoje sovietme čiu. Įvade apibr ÷žiamas darbo objektas, aptariamas problemos aktualumas ir naujumas, formuluojami tyrimo tikslas ir uždaviniai, pristatomi tyrimo metodai, darbo strukt ūra, apžvelgiami šaltiniai ir literat ūra. Įvado pabaigoje paaiškinami pagrindiniai disertacijoje vartojami terminai.

1. ARCHITEKT ŪROS PAVELDOTVARKOS TEORIN öS MINTIES RAIDA

Pirmojoje darbo dalyje nagrin ÷jamos architekt ūros paveldotvarkos teorij ų susiformavimo ir sklaidos tendencijos. Architekt ūros paveldotvarkos pradžia siekia XVIII–XIX a. sand ūrą. Tuo metu romantizmo id ÷jos persmelk ÷ visas kult ūros sritis, tautin ÷s savimon ÷s formavimasis, istorijos romantizavimas skatino atsigr ęžti ir įsiži ūr÷ti į praeit į. Skleidžiantis naujam poži ūriui, įstabiausi ų architekt ūros paminkl ų išlikimui užtikrinti imtasi konkre čių veiksm ų: atlikti pirmieji anastiloz ÷s, rekonstravimo darbai, prad ÷ta kurti kult ūros paveldo išsaugojimo problemas nagrin ÷janti teorija. Skyriuje „Vakar ų Europos paveldotvarkos istorija“ gilinamasi į architekt ūros paveldo tvarkymo teorin ÷s minties ir praktikos raid ą. Vadovaujantis paveldotvarkos tyrin ÷tojo S. M. Viñas skirstymu ir j į išpl ÷tojus, dviej ų šimt ų met ų paveldotvarkos raid ą, remiantis žmogaus (subjekto) ir architekt ūros paveldo (objekto) tarpusavio santykiais, s ąlyginai galima skirti į tris laikotarpius – ankstyv ąjį, klasikin į ir šiuolaikin į Pirmasis architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darb ų laikotarpis, apimantis XIX a. I p. – XX a. I p., darbo autor ÷s pavadintas ankstyvuoju . Tuo metu susiformavo dvi skirtingos paveldotvarkos kryptys. Didžiojoje Europos dalyje pasklidusi restauravimo teorija ir praktika buvo nukreipta į romantizuot ą architekt ūros paveldo objekt ų perk ūrim ą. Žymiausias šios krypties atstovas pranc ūzų architektas E. Viollet le Duc teoriškai pagrind ÷ stilistinio restauravimo koncepcij ą ir teig ÷, kad tikrasis pirminis objekto b ūvis yra ne tas, kuris buvo įgyvendintas, bet tas, kuris buvo sumanytas. Ta čiau toks architekt ūros paveldo suvokimas sulauk ÷ ne tik pritarimo, bet ir kritikos. Anglijoje prad ÷jo formuotis pasipriešinimo stilistiniam restauravimui jud ÷jimas, pagr įstas suvokimu, kad kiekvienas objektas priklauso savo specifiniam istoriniam ir kult ūriniam kontekstui, tod ÷l pra ÷jusio laiko ženkl ų atkurti ne įmanoma. Vienas žymiausi ų šios

34 krypties teoretik ų J. Ruskinas vienintele priemone, galin čia užtikrinti praeities palikimo išsaugojim ą, laik ÷ konservavim ą. XX a. I. p. atsisakius k ūrybin ÷s interpretacijos, prieštaringus restauravimo ir konservavimo teorij ų principus pavyko suderinti. Tuo metu paveldotvarkos normos prad ÷tos svarstyti tarptautiniu lygmeniu (ši praktika taikoma ir dabar). Antrasis paveldotvarkos raidos laikotarpis, apimantis XX a. ketvirt ąjį–dešimt ąjį dešimtme čius, vadinamas klasikiniu . Tuo metu teorija buvo sutelkta į architekt ūros vertyb ÷se gl ūdin čios objektyvios informacijos išskleidim ą, tod ÷l buvo įtraukti gamtos mokslai. Architekt ūros paveldas prad ÷tas laikyti istoriniu praeities liudininku, kurio negalima klastoti, tod ÷l restauravimo ir konservavimo darbai tur ÷jo būti gr įsti mokslini ų objekto tyrim ų duomenimis. Ta čiau klasikinei paveldotvarkai tr ūko filosofin ÷s minties, tod ÷l tokios pamatin ÷s s ąvokos, kaip objektyvumas, tiesa, autentiškumas , nebuvo apibr ÷žtos ir dažnai suvoktos klaidingai, taigi paveldotvarkos lauke susiklost ÷ prieštaringa pad ÷tis. Viena vertus, naudojant solidžias mokslines priemones, atsirado galimyb ÷ atkurti, išryškinti ankstesni ų laikotarpi ų architekt ūros formas, ir tai neabejotinai vertintina teigiamai, ta čiau teiginys, kad šios operacijos gr ąžina objektui tikr ąjį b ūvį, yra klaidingas, nes nenorima pripažinti objekto istorijos, nors visada pabr ÷žiama, kad reikia saugoti vis ų laikotarpi ų ženklus. Suvokus šioje teorijoje gl ūdin čius prieštaravimus, XX a. dešimtajame dešimtmetyje klasikin ÷s paveldotvarkos teorij ų centre buvus į objekt ą pakeit÷ paveldo likimu suinteresuota subjekt ų grup ÷, o pamatin ÷ tiesos sąvoka buvo pakeista komunikacija tarp objekto ir subjekto. Šiuolaikine pavadinta paveldotvarka remiasi demokratijos principais, deklaruoja atviros visuomen ÷s, dialogo ir tausojan čios veiklos svarb ą, yra nukreipta į veiksnius, priklausan čius nuo subjekt ų, – į paveldo objekto vert ę, reikšm ę, funkcij ą. Skyriuje „Architekt ūros paveldo tvarkymo ir vertinimo metodik ų raiška Lietuvoje“ analizuojami ir įvertinami sovietme čiu Lietuvoje parašyti teoriniai paveldo tvarkymo ir vertinimo darbai. Lietuvos paveldotvarka d ÷l sovietme čiui b ūdingos informacijos ribojimo tur ÷jo iš naujo spr ęsti daugel į Vakar ų Europoje seniai išgvildent ų problem ų. 1950 m. prasid ÷jus architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darbams, dar du dešimtme čius nebuvo bendros ši ą veikl ą reglamentuojan čios metodikos. Aštuntojo dešimtme čio pradžioje situacij ą pagerino vienintelis architekt ūros paveldotvarkai skirtas mokslinis veikalas – J. Glemžos 1974 m. Maskvoje apginta disertacija „Lietuvos TSR mūrin ÷s architekt ūros restauravimo darb ų metodin ÷s kryptys“ ir jos pagrindu parašytas mokslinis straipsnis „Paminklotvarkos darb ų metodikos klausimu.“ Susitelk ęs į praktin ÷s veiklos teorinio pagrindo k ūrim ą, J. Glemža savo darbuose susistemino ir apibr ÷ž÷ architekt ūros paveldo objekt ų tvarkymo b ūdus. Autoriaus suformuluota ir apib ūdinta paveldotvarkos metodika iš esm ÷s neprieštarauja svarbiausiam restauravimo darbus reglamentuojan čiam tarptautiniam dokumentui – Venecijos chartijai, yra gimininga tuo metu Italijoje paplitusiai estetinei teorijai, turi nemažai klasikinei (bendr ų mokslinei ir estetinei) paveldosaugai b ūding ų bruož ų. Aštriausiai su tarptautin ÷mis normomis konfliktuoja sovietme čio Lietuvoje įteisintas XIX a. poži ūrio reliktas – r÷mimasis analogijomis. Abejoni ų kelia ir J. Glemžos pateikiama atstatymo traktuot ÷, priskirianti šiems darbams ne tik atk ūrimo funkcij ą, bet ir šiuolaikini ų architekt ūros form ų ir priemoni ų panaudojim ą tr ūkstamoms detal ÷ms sukurti. Vertinant tokias atstatymo darb ų nuostatas, galima teigti, kad moksliniais tyrimais pagr įsto prarast ų fragment ų atk ūrimo ir visiškai nauj ų detali ų suk ūrimo priskyrimas tai pa čiai metodikai n÷ra teisingas, nes šie darbai yra priešingi vienas kitam ir remiasi skirtingomis nuostatomis. Priešingybi ų suvienodinimas gali nes ąmoningai įpiršti klaiding ą poži ūrį, kad tr ūkstant duomen ų nežinomus fragmentus galima sukurti.

35 Antrajame skyriuje taip pat nagrin ÷jama V. Jurkšto parengta architekt ūros paveldo vertinimo sistema, nukreipta į elitini ų architekt ūros paveldo objekt ų, turin čių aiški ų stilistini ų bruož ų ir išskirtin ę menin ę fasad ų kompozicij ą, išsaugojim ą. Ši ą architekt ūros paveldo vertinimo metodik ą galima priskirti estetinei teorijai. Remiantis tokia vertinimo sistema, pastatai, stokojantys min ÷tų stilistini ų ir menini ų savybi ų ir, kaip rodo patirtis, dažniausiai atstovaujantys XIX a. – XX a. pr., buvo pasmerkti ž ūč iai. XX a. antrojoje pus ÷je, kai Lietuvoje buvo kuriamos paveldo tvarkymo ir vertinimo metodikos, daugelyje pasaulio valstybi ų dominavo mokslin ÷ paveldotvarkos teorija, o estetin ÷ teorija d ÷l savo ribotumo buvo taikoma retai.

2. LIETUVOS M ŪRIN öS ARCHITEKT ŪROS PAVELDOTVARKOS DARB Ų RAIDA IR TENDENCIJOS

Šioje darbo dalyje, remiantis archyviniais duomenimis ir nat ūros tyrimais, analizuojami sovietme čiu vyk ę Lietuvos m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darbai. Daugiausia d÷mesio skiriama atlikt ų rekonstravimo ir restauravimo darb ų analizei, nustatomi paveldotvarkos darb ų tipai ir atk ūrimo b ūdai. Skyriuje „Paveldotvarkos darb ų sklaida XX a. pirmojoje pus ÷je“ apžvelgiama architekt ūros paveldo pad ÷tis XX a. pradžioje. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kad XIX a. susiklost ęs Lietuvos kult ūros paveldo vertinimas tur ÷jo didel ę įtak ą paveldo sampratos formavimuisi XX amžiuje, skyriaus pradžioje trumpai aptariama Lietuvos kult ūros paveldo pad ÷tis XIX a. Carin ÷s valdžios aparatas, kult ūros paveld ą įžvalgiai laik ęs tautinio identiteto stiprinimo šaltiniu, s ąmoningai varž ÷ paveldo apsaugos ir tvarkymo veikl ą. Romantizuoti sen ųjų pastat ų fiksavimai (V. Smakausko, N. Ordos ir kt.) ir pavieniai pareiškimai j ų išsaugojimo klausimu buvo vieninteliai veiksmai, kuriais siekta atkreipti d ÷mes į į nykstan čius paminklus. XX a. pirm ąjį dešimtmet į reik ÷tų laikyti paveldotvarkos darb ų pradžia Lietuvoje. Vienu iš pirm ųjų objekt ų, kuriam išsaugoti ir jo architekt ūros vertei paryškinti buvo pritaikyti moksliškai pagr įsti konservavimo- restauravimo darbai, tapo Vilniaus Šv. Onos bažny čia. Toliau analizuojant architekt ūros paveldo pad ÷tį XX a. pirmojoje pus ÷je, atsiskleidžia, kad entuziast ų inicijuoti restauravimo darbai sektinu pavyzdžiu netapo. Tarpukariu Nepriklausomoje Lietuvoje architekt ūros paveldu r ūpintasi menkai. Net autoritarinis režimas kult ūrą laik ę priemone, galin čia užtikrinti jo egzistencij ą, idealizav ęs garbing ą Lietuvos praeit į, architekt ūros palikimo į propagand ą ne įtrauk ÷. Seniesiems pastatams d ÷mesys rodytas tik retkar čiais, objektus gelbstint nuo sunykimo arba sunaikinimo (d ÷l šios priežasties atlikti konservavimo darbai Kauno, Panemun ÷s, Raudon ÷s pilyse). Tuo metu lenk ų okupuotame Vilniaus krašte pad ÷tis buvo daug geresn ÷. Čia veik ÷ Lenkijos paveldosaugos sistema, Vyriausioji paminkl ų konservatoriaus įstaiga r ūpinosi Vilniaus Gedimino pilies, Trak ų salos pilies griuv ÷si ų konservavimu ir restauravimu ir kai kuri ų kit ų objekt ų tyrimais ir prieži ūra. Tarpukariu Lietuvos Respublikoje istoriniai pastatai ir urbanistin ÷s strukt ūros, kaip autentiški praeities liudininkai, netapo tautinio identiteo dalimi. Ta čiau Lenkijos valdžia ir visuomen ÷, priešingai, Vilniaus krašt ą ir jo paveld ą suvok ÷ kaip sav ą, priklausant į lenkams, ir d ÷l ši ų priežas čių steng ÷si j į saugoti. Pirm ąjį soviet ų okupacijos dešimtmet į kult ūros paveldo objektai buvo naikinami sąmoningai. Šiame kontekste išsiskiria nuo karo nukent ÷jusios Šiauli ų Šv. Petro ir Pauliaus bažny čios atstatymo darbai.

36 Taigi XX a. pirmojoje pus ÷je architekt ūros paveldo tvarkymo tradicijos nesusiformavo, restauruoti ir rekonstruoti buvo tik pavieniai objektai Skyriuje „Sovietme čio (1950–1990 m.) paveldotvarkos darbai: tarp mokslo ir kūrybos“ nagrin ÷jama m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros paveldotvarka, susitelkiama į rekonstravimo ir restauravimo darb ų analiz ę, nustatomi paveldotvarkos darb ų tipai ir atk ūrimo b ūdai. Poskyryje „Paveldotvarkos metod ų taikymo problema: atradimai ir praradimai“, remiantis archyvais ir nat ūros tyrimais, nustatyta, kad pagal architekt ūros objektuose atlikt ų darb ų apimt į paveldotvarkos darbus galima skirti į tokius tipus:1) atstatym ą (rekonstravim ą); 2) restauravim ą: a) visišk ą pastato restauravim ą; b) dalin į pastato restauravim ą: atkuriamas dažniausiai vieno, re čiau – keli ų (bet ne vis ų) pastato fasad ų vaizdas; c) fragmentin į restauravim ą: viename ar keliuose fasaduose atidengiamos, restauruojamos ir eksponuojamos ankstyv ųjų architekt ūros element ų kompozicijos; 3) konservavim ą. Atstatymas yra pats sud ÷tingiausias paveldotvarkos procesas, reikalaujantis išskirtin ÷s gausos objektyvios informacijos apie prarasto objekto buvusi ą t ūrin ę-erdvin ę sandar ą, architekt ūrin ę fasad ų kompozicij ą, vidaus plan ą, interjero detales. Tok į informacijos kiek į įmanoma surinkti tik apie išsamiai inventorizuotus ir (dažniausiai) XX a. sugriuvusius ar sugriautus objektus. Taip nuosekliai inventorizuot ų architekt ūros objekt ų XX a. antrojoje pus ÷je Lietuvoje nebuvo, ta čiau buvo išlik ę keli ų lietuviams svarbi ų pili ų griuv ÷siai ir nepaisant duomen ų tr ūkumo kai kurie iš ši ų objekt ų buvo atstatyti. Pa čios didžiausios apimties tokio pob ūdžio darbai vyko Trak ų salos pilyje ir Birž ų pilies rezidenciniuose r ūmuose. Per keturis dešimtme čius buvo atstatyta Trak ų salos pilies t ūrin ÷-erdvin ÷ strukt ūra, atkurtos vieno iš pirm ųjų Lietuvos m ūrin ÷s architekt ūros objekt ų architekt ūrin ÷ kompozicija. Ta čiau tyrimas parod ÷, kad nemaža Trak ų salos pilies atstatymo darb ų dalis neatitiko XX a. paveldotvarkos nuostat ų ir pakartojo XIX a. Vakar ų Europoje darytas klaidas: r ÷mim ąsi romantin ÷mis interpretacijomis ir kit ų objekt ų analogijomis. Birž ų pilies rezidenciniai r ūmai, nepaisant kai kuri ų interpretacijos b ūdu atkurt ų fragment ų, atkartojo esminius buvusi ų renesanso r ūmų architekt ūros bruožus. Visiškas restauravimas – kita Lietuvos senamies čiuose taikyta proced ūra, artima atstatymui. Pavadinimas rodo, kad taikant š į restauravimo tip ą atstatoma visa po skirting ų laikme čių antsluoksniais gl ūd÷jusi architekt ūros kompozicija. Tokios proced ūros taikym ą visam pastatui lemdavo mokslini ų tyrim ų rezultatai. Visiško restauravimo pagrindu tapdavo visuose pastato fasaduose ir bent dalyje patalp ų rasti autentiški fragmentai, kuriais remiantis buvo atkuriama ankstesn ÷ plano konfig ūracija, tūrin ÷-erdvin ÷ strukt ūra, vis ų fasad ų architekt ūra ir, kiek leido pritaikymo galimyb ÷s, vidaus plano schema. Dažniausiai stengtasi sugr ąžinti pastatui ankstyv ąjį (gotikos ar renesanso) pavidal ą. Tai – pati sud ÷tingiausia restauravimo r ūšis, kurios metu ardomi visi skirting ų laikme čių architekt ūros sluoksniai, antstatai ir priestatai, nesusij ę su pasirinktuoju atstatyti laikotarpiu, ir atkuriamos sunaikintos dalys. Restauravimas dažnai susij ęs ne tik su statymu, bet ir su griovimu. Retas išimtis, kai griovimas buvo minimalus, iliustruoja Perk ūno namo (Aleksoto g. nr. 6) ir Senosios klebonijos (Vilniaus g. nr.7), esan čių Kaune, atvejai: ši ų pastat ų pirmin ÷ plano konfig ūracija ir tūrin ÷-erdvin ÷ kompozicija per kelis šimtme čius nedaug pakito. Sud ÷tingesnis buvo nam ų, esan čių Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 29 ir nr. 28, ir kt. objekt ų restauravimas: čia buvo išlik ę XIX–XX a. susiklos čiusios tūrin ÷s-erdvin ÷s strukt ūros ir eksterjero kompozicijos. Pasitelkus visišk ą restauravim ą, šiuose pastatuose atkurtos gotikos ir renesanso

37 kompozicijos. Su didesniu ar mažesniu autentiškos medžiagos tr ūkumu susidurta min ÷tais ir kitais tyrin ÷tais atvejais, kai buvo taikomas visiško restauravimo b ūdas. Dalinis restauravimas – dažniausiai Lietuvos architekt ūros paveldotvarkos praktikoje taikytas paveldotvarkos darb ų tipas. Šis metodas, kai atkuriami keli (bet ne visi) ar tik vienas (šis atvejis dažnesnis) gatv ÷s fasadai, naudotas Vilniaus, Kauno, K÷daini ų senamies čių m ūriniams pastatams tvarkyti. Dalinio restauravimo pasirinkim ą dažniausiai lemdavo autentiškos informacijos kiekis. Reikia pabr ÷žti, kad dažniausiai, kaip ir visiško restauravimo atvejais, buvo gr ąžinamos gotikos ir renesanso kompozicijos. Dalinis restauravimas buvo pritaikytas namams, esantiems Vilniuje, Pilies g. nr. 12 ir nr. 13, Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 2 (šiuose pastatuose restauruoti pagrindiniai fasadai suteikiant jiems gotikines formas) ir Zabiel ų r ūmams Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 10, Kaune ( čia restauruotas pagrindinis renesansinis fasadas), ir kitiems pastatams. Taigi, nors dalinio restauravimo darbai yra mažesn ÷s apimties už visišk ą restauravim ą, nagrin ÷jant tokiu b ūdu restauruotus pastatus, pasteb ÷tas tas pats siekis atkurti kuo pilnesn ę kompozicij ą neatsižvelgiant į tai, ar užtenka autentiškos informacijos. Fragmentinis restauravimas yra paveldotvarkos b ūdas, kurio metu atidengiami, restauruojami ir eksponuojami fasaduose išlik ę autentiški ankstyvesni ų architekt ūros kompozicij ų fragmentai. Lietuvoje susiklost ÷ platus fragmentinio restauravimo pavyzdži ų spektras: nuo visos gotikin ÷s kompozicijos atidengimo XIX a. istorizmo architektūros srov ÷s fasaduose iki smulki ų autentišk ų architekt ūros detali ų (friz ų, ang ų sąram ų ir kt.) demonstravimo. Šis paveldotvarkos metodas taikytas namui, esan čiam Vilniuje, Karmelit ų g. nr. 3 (XIX a. fasade buvo restauruotas ir subtiliai įkomponuotas nedidelio gotikinio namo fasadas), Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 26 (atidengti gotikin ÷s kompozicijos fragmentai), Kauno Rotušei (fasaduose eksponuojamos autentiško ir atkurtos gotikos ir renesanso architekt ūros detal ÷s). Tyrimas parod ÷, kad darant atodangas dažnai demonstruojami ne tik autentiški, bet ir restauruoti fragmentai, toks atodang ų kūrimas neatitinka tarptautinių paveldotvarkos nuostat ų. Konservavimo darbai skirti išlikusiems sluoksniams sutvirtinti. Šis paveldotvarkos tipas sovietme čiu Lietuvoje buvo naudotas re čiausiai . Konservavimas dažniausiai tapdavo sud ÷tine restauravimo darb ų dalimi. Konservavimo metodas buvo panaudotas Kauno pilyje, dalyje Vilniaus aukštutin ÷s pilies, Medinink ų pilyje. Kaip jau min ÷ta, naudojant š į paveldotvarkos b ūdą, pastato išor ÷ pasikei čia nežymiai, taigi toki ų sud ÷ting ų fragment ų ar detali ų atk ūrimo uždavini ų, kurie b ūdavo sprendžiami rekonstruojant ar restauruojant pastatus, nekildavo. Poskyryje „Architekt ūros kompozicij ų atk ūrimas. Nuo mokslini ų tyrim ų iki menin ÷s interpretacijos“ analizuojami restauravimo b ūdai. Atliktas tyrimas parod ÷, kad paveldotvarkos darb ų pagrindimas buvo atliekamas remiantis: a) mokslinių tyrim ų informacija; b) mokslini ų tyrim ų inspiruotomis login ÷mis interpretacijomis; c) mokslini ų tyrim ų ir k ūrybinio interpretavimo deriniu; d) k ūrybine interpretacija. Trūkstam ų dali ų atk ūrimo b ūdas, paremtas mokslini ų tyrim ų informacija yra pats tiksliausias: architekt ūros tyrimai ar objektyvi vaizdin ÷ medžiaga atskleidžia tiksl ų buvus į atkuriamo fragmento vaizd ą. Tokiu principu atkurtos tr ūkstamos dalys padeda tiksliai atkartoti sunaikint ą kompozicij ą. Šiuo atveju pa čiame objekte išlikusi informacija ir / arba fotofiksacija, ir / arba objekto matavim ų br ÷žiniai tampa pagrindiniu objektyviu atk ūrimo šaltiniu. Tokiu b ūdu atkurta architekt ūros kompozicija pakartoja buvus į vaizd ą. Tenka konstatuoti, kad autentiškos informacijos gausa nepasižym ÷jo n ÷ vienas paveldotvarkos darbus patyr ęs objektas, tod ÷l šis b ūdas buvo pritaikytas tik atskir ų pastat ų pavien ÷ms detal ÷ms atkurti. Remiantis šiuo b ūdu, buvo

38 restauruoti Napoleono namo (esan čio Kaune, Muitin ÷s g. nr. 14), Perk ūno namo pakankamai gerai išlik ę senieji frontonai. Fotografijos pad ÷jo restauruoti Raudon ÷s pilies, Šiauli ų Šv. Petro ir Pauliaus bažny čios bokštus bei namo, esan čio K ÷dainiuose, Didžiojoje g. nr. 6, fronton ą. Tokie moksliniais tyrimais paremti atstatymai padeda atskleisti prarast ą autentišk ą vaizd ą pakartojan čią architekt ūros kompozicij ą, o galimi nukrypimai nuo buvusio originalo yra nežym ūs. Mokslini ų tyrim ų inspiruotos login ÷s interpretacijos atveju visiškam fragmento atk ūrimui mokslin ÷s informacijos neužtenka, tr ūkstami duomenys gaunami matematini ų (geometrini ų) skai čiavim ų b ūdu. Restauruoto fragmento artimum ą sunykusiajam lemia autentiškos informacijos kiekis. Tyrimo rezultatai rodo, kad mokslini ų tyrim ų inspiruota login ÷ interpretacija buvo palyginti dažnai naudojama kaip atk ūrimo priemon ÷. Pasitelkus š į b ūdą, spr ęstos sunaikinto t ūrio ar apirusi ų architekt ūros detali ų tr ūkstam ų kompozicin ÷s strukt ūros element ų problemos. Šiuo b ūdu remtasi atkuriant Trak ų salos pilies rezidencini ų r ūmų aukšt į, pietini ų kazemat ų aukšt į ir stogo form ą, pietvakarinio bokšto aukšt į. Matematiniai skai čiavimai pad ÷jo apytiksliai nustatyti Perk ūno namo pagrindinio fasado erker į, namo, esan čio Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 29, gotikinio korpuso rytin į laiptini ų rizalit ą ir kit ų paveldotvarkos darbus patyrusi ų pastat ų architekt ūros detal ÷s. Kai tvarkant architekt ūros paveldo objekt ą naudojamos autentišk ų fragment ų inspiruotos login ÷s interpretacijos, negalima tiksliai nustatyti, kiek atkurtoji informacija atitinka buvus į vaizd ą. Mokslini ų tyrim ų ir k ūrybinio interpretavimo derinio atveju išlikusi ų autentišk ų fragment ų neužtenka visiškai atkurti objekt ą, tod ÷l, siekiant kompozicin ÷s vienov ÷s, tr ūkstamos fragment ų dalys sukuriamos pasitelkus menin ę interpretacij ą ar analogijas. Šiai grupei priskiriami ir dail ÷s darbais pagr įsti atstatymai. Nors tai – ikonografin ÷ medžiaga, kuri tur ÷tų priklausyti mokslini ų tyrim ų sri čiai, matyti, kad dailininkai architekt ūros elementus (dažnai – ir visus pastatus) perteikdavo netiksliai, nutoldami nuo originalo, steb ÷dami aplink ą per romantizmo prizm ę, tod ÷l dail ÷s darbuose matoma informacija dažnai gali b ūti subjektyvi. Remiantis dail ÷s ikonografija, pagr įstas Kauno Pranciškon ų Šv č. Mergel ÷s Marijos ÷mimo į dang ų (Vytauto) bažny čios bokšto virš ūn÷s perstatymas, namo, esan čio Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 28, vakarinio frontono atstatymas. Vilniuje esan čio Senojo Arsenalo atikas atkurtas remiantis P. Smuglevi čiaus akvarele ir Vilniaus renesanso pastat ų studijomis. Autentiškos informacijos tr ūkumas buvo papildomas improvizacijomis. Taip elgtasi restauruojant namo, esan čio Vilniuje, Aušros vart ų g. nr. 8, gatv ÷s fasado fronton ą. Čia, interpretuojant išlikusi ų fragment ų tema, buvo sukurta viršutin ÷ frontono dalis. Prie mokslini ų tyrim ų ir k ūrybinio interpretavimo paveldotvarkos darbuose s ąlyginai reik ÷tų skirti ir r ÷mim ąsi analogijomis, kai informacija „pasiskolinama“ iš to paties ar kit ų objekt ų. Tokiu b ūdu, remiantis išlikusiu Napoleono namo frontonu, buvo atstatyti namo, esan čio Kaune, Vilniaus g. nr. 11, pietin į fasad ą vainikuojan čios renesansinio frontono antrasis ir tre čiasis tarpsniai. Atstatant namo, esan čio K ÷dainiuose, Didžiojoje g. nr. 4, gatv ÷s fronton ą, iš dalies remtasi gretimo namo (esan čio Didžiojoje g. nr. 6) analogija. Tyrin ÷jant rekonstruotus ir restauruotus objektus, rasta ir daugiau r ÷mimosi analogijomis pavyzdži ų. Atliktas tyrimas parod ÷, kad form ų papildymas, pagr įstas menine interpretacija ir analogijomis, slepia rimt ą problem ą: stebint pastat ą, ne įmanoma atskirti, kurios detal ÷s atkurtos pagal tyrim ų medžiag ą, kurios atkartoja kituose pastatuose esan čias formas ir kurios sukurtos pagal autentišk ų duomen ų liku čius. Taigi steb ÷tojas gali suvokti vis ą informacij ą kaip autentišk ą arba kaip tyrimais pagr įst ą rekonstruot ą praeities fragment ą, nors iš ties ų taip n÷ra.

39 Kūrybin ÷s interpretacijos atveju autentiška informacija tik parodo, kad konkre čios detal ÷s b ūta, ta čiau duomen ų apie jos išvaizd ą n ÷ra, – tada toji prarasta detal ÷ sukuriama. Šis atk ūrimo b ūdas ne kart ą naudotas rekonstruojant Trak ų salos pilies r ūmus. Apie rezidencini ų r ūmų buvus į stog ų aukšt į ir form ą nebuvo lik ę net menkiausi ų užuomin ų. Nebuvo žinoma, ar r ūmus juos ę parapetai buvo uždari, įkomponuoti po bendru pastato stogu, ar atviri, – abu variantai atrod ÷ galimi. Architektas-restauratorius B. Kr ūminis, remdamasis estetiniais ir praktiniais kriterijais, pasi ūl÷ statyti uždarus parapetus, o r ūmus uždengti keturšlai čiu stogu. Šis sprendimas buvo visiškai hipotetinis, pagr įstas tik estetin ÷mis XX a. antrosios pus ÷s nuostatomis. Pilies trikampi ų kazemat ų išorin ÷je pus ÷je gynybini ų sien ų susikirtimo vietoje buvusio bokštelio egzistavim ą liudijo didesnis nei kitose vietose sien ų storis. Šio elemento projektavimui buvo skirta labai mažai laiko, tod ÷l moksliniai tyrimai nebuvo atlikti. Bokšteliui parinkta paprasta keturkamp ÷ forma. Jo aukštis, stogelio forma ir nuolydžiai buvo priderinti prie aplinkini ų statini ų. Rekonstravimo projekt ų autorius S. Mikulionis, vertindamas trikampi ų kazemat ų atstatymo pagr įstum ą, teig ÷: „Kod ÷l trikampiai kazematai suprojektuoti b ūtent tokie, greitai taps m įsle.“. Kūrybin ÷ improvizacija buvo pasitelkta ir atkuriant namo, esan čio Vilniuje, Didžiojoje g. nr. 12, fronton ą: stengtasi ne sukurti gotikin ę detalę, o stilizuotomis priemon ÷mis priminti apie jos buvim ą, taigi galima teigti, kad šio namo frontono problema išspręsta gerai. Ta čiau dažniausiai toks vien k ūryba paremtas element ų atstatymas neatitinka tarptautini ų paveldotvarkos nuostat ų. Tyrin ÷jant sovietme čiu atliktus atstatymo darbus, atsiskleid ÷ giliai įsišaknijusi autentiško m ūro ir architekt ūros detali ų naikinimo praktika, iš esm ÷s prieštaraujanti atstatymo koncepcijai. Faktai rodo, kad nepaisant išlikimo laipsnio autentiški elementai buvo naikinami visuose Trak ų salos pilies statiniuose (rezidenciniuose r ūmuose, donžone išardyti autentiški m ūro plotai, trikampiuose kazematuose sugriauti išlikę arkos liku čiai ir t. t.) ir daugelyje kit ų objekt ų. Lietuvoje vykus į restauravim ą galima vadinti fasadizmu , nes pastatuose, atliekant paveldotvarkos darbus, buvo paliekami tik fasadai. Iš pastat ų buvo šalinamos XVIII–XIX a. perdangos, pertvaros, grindys, durys, langai, krosnys ir kitos su pasirinktu restauruoti laikme čiu nesusijusios detal ÷s. Restauruojant pastatus, buvo pažeidžiami medžiag ų suderinamumo principai, nebuvo naudojamos tradicin ÷s technologijos, ta čiau toks elgesys atitiko tuo metu Lietuvoje galiojusius reikalavimus.

3. PAVELDOTVARKOS DARB Ų VERTINIMAS

Paskutin ÷je darbo dalyje pateikiamas sovietme čiu atlikt ų restauravimo darb ų vertinimas. Atskleidžiamas sovietme čio paveldotvarkos tendencij ų t ęstinumas Nepriklausomyb ÷s laikotarpiu (1990–2008 m.). Analizuojamos aplinkyb ÷s, l ÷musios nuolatin į t ų pa čių dabartin ÷s rekonstrukcijos ir restauravimo sampratos neatitinkan čių klaid ų kartojim ą. Susitelkiama į priežastis, skatinusias restauratorius atkurti ir nesilaikant restauravimo ir rekonstravimo nuostat ų kopijuoti ar netgi sukurti kuo senesnes architekt ūros kompozicijas, kartais sugriaunant v ÷lyvesnio laikme čio autentišk ą, menin ę vert ę turint į palikim ą. Skyriuje „Paveldotvarkos darb ų pasekm ÷s“, remiantis pripažintomis šiuolaikin ÷mis vert÷s sistemomis, įvertinami sovietme čiu atlikti paveldotvarkos darbai. Tyrimas parod ÷, kad esama ir teigiam ų, ir neigiam ų šio paveldotvarkos proceso

40 pasekmi ų. Tik rekonstravimo ir restauravimo d ÷ka buvo atkurti gotikos ir renesanso laikus reprezentuojantys pasaulietiniai pastatai. Objektuose atsiskleid ÷ ar sustipr ÷jo menin ÷, technin ÷, ekonomin ÷, socialini ų ryši ų vert ÷. Restauratoriai, koreguodami senuosius pastatus, suk ūr÷ naujus miestovaizdžius, naujus pastat ų ryšius su aplinka, padar ÷ juos senamies čių dominant ÷mis. Steb ÷tojas gali gyvai skaityti sen ųjų miest ų istorij ą, ta čiau čia susiduriame ir su informacijos objektyvumo tr ūkumais. Autentišk ų form ų pakartojim ų ir XX a. pabaigos interpretacij ų pastatuose ne įmanoma atskirti, d ÷l to savo prasm ę praranda viena iš svarbiausi ų – pažintin ÷ – vert ÷. Taigi galima teigti, kad restauruojant dažniau reik ÷jo daryti atodangas, o ne atkurti / sukurti vis ą prarast ą kompozicij ą. Skyriuje „1990–2008 m. paveldotvarkos tendencijos“ atskleidžiamas sovietme čiu susiklos čiusi ų teigiam ų ir neigiam ų paveldotvarkos tradicij ų poveikis šiandieninei paveldotvarkai. Valdov ų r ūmų atstatymas rodo, kad Nepriklausomyb ÷s metais nepasikeit ÷ sovietme čiu susiformavusi kult ūros paveldo samprata, liko ne įsis ąmoninta objekt ų autentiškumo svarba, t ęsiama ydinga istorijos koregavimo tradicija. Vis d ÷lto Kauno Šv. Gertr ūdos bažny čios restauravim ą reikia vertinti teigiamai. Pasirinktam gotikin ÷s kompozicijos atk ūrimui tur ÷ta pakankamai medžiagos, išskyrus bokšto stog ą. Paveldotvarkos darb ų d ÷ka buvo sugr ąžinta sunykusi XV a. pab. – XVI a. pr. architekt ūros stili ų demonstruojanti kompozicija. Ta čiau Siesik ų r ūmų renesanso architekt ūros atk ūrimo negalima vertinti teigiamai. Šiam architekt ūros paveldo objektui parinkta netinkama restauravimo koncepcija, nes, kaip parod ÷ atliktas tyrimas, medžiagos renesanso kompozicijai sukurti tur ÷ta nedaug, informacijos spragos užpildytos remiantis tarptautin ÷ms paveldotvarkos nuostatoms prieštaraujan čiais b ūdais. Reikia pabr ÷žti, kad restauravimo metu buvo sunaikinta autentiška klasicizmo ir istorizmo laikotarpiu susiklos čiusi kompozicija. Skyriuje „Veiksniai l ÷mę paveldotvarkos darb ų pob ūdį“ ieškoma atsakymo į klausim ą kod ÷l toks svarbus tapo senosios architekt ūros atk ūrimas arba suk ūrimas, o ne autentiškos informacijos išsaugojimas? Ieškant atsakym ų į š į klausim ą, į Lietuvos architekt ūros paveldotvark ą sovietme čiu gilintasi iš skirting ų istorin ÷s perspektyvos tašk ų. Analizuojant situacij ą, pasteb ÷ta, kad per paskutinius šimtme čius susiformavusi simbolin÷ lietuvi ų pasaul ÷jauta sovietme čiu v ÷l tur ÷jo palanki ą erdv ę tarpti ir skleistis. Garbinga Lietuvos praeitis tapo atramos tašku, padedan čiu neprarasti tautin ÷s savimon ÷s, ir tai l ÷m÷ neteising ą autentiškumo tapatinim ą su pirminiu b ūviu. Architekt ūros vertybi ų perk ūrim ą veik ÷ simbolinis praeities matymas, ir b ūtent šis veiksnys labiausiai l ÷m÷ pla čiai paplitusi ą tendencij ą bet kokia kaina atstatyti kuo senesn ę architekt ūros form ą. Architekt ūros paveldas nebuvo suvoktas kaip istorinis dokumentas, tod ÷l kadaise prarastos kompozicijos detal ÷s buvo sukuriamos arba nukopijuojamos ir pateikiamos kaip autentiškos. Svarbu ir tai, kad Lietuvoje nebuvo architekt ūros paveldotvarkos tradicij ų. Sovietme čiu buvo žengiami pirmieji rekonstravimo ir restauravimo darb ų žingsniai. Architektai, neturintys restauratoriaus išsilavinimo, priimdavo lemiamus su paveldotvarka susijusius sprendimus, ir j ų noras kurti dažnai buvo stipresnis už b ūtinyb ę išsaugoti. Tenka konstatuoti paradoksal ų fakt ą, kad sovietme čiu susiklost ÷ palankios s ąlygos tarpukariu paplitus į simbolin į matym ą perkelti į kult ūros paveldo plotm ę. Senoji architekt ūra prad ÷ta laikyti tam tikru simboliu, o tr ūkstamos dalys papras čiausiai b ūdavo sukuriamos. Architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darb ų tyrimas atskleid ÷ dvi skirtingas šio proceso ypatybes: akivaizd ų nor ą atkurti prarast ą architekt ūrą ir autentiškos medžiagos

41 ne įvertinim ą. Skleidžiantis šiems dviem poži ūriams, paveldotvarkoje įsivyravo atkuriamasis-kūrybinis, o ne saugojimo pradas.

IŠVADOS

1. Vakar ų Europoje paveldotvarkos teorija prad ÷jo formuotis XIX a. pradžioje. Išpl ÷tojus paveldotvarkos tyrin ÷tojo S. Muñas Viñas skirstym ą žmogaus (subjekto) ir architekt ūros paveldo (objekto) tarpusavio santyki ų aspektu, du šimtus met ų trukusi ą paveldotvarkos teorijos raid ą galima padalyti į tris etapus: 1) Ankstyvojo etapo (XIX a. I pus ÷ – XX a. I pus ÷) pagrindin ÷ teorijos ašis – romantizuotas subjekto poži ūris į objekt ą. Išryšk ÷ja dvi pagrindin ÷s restauravimo ir konservavimo koncepcijos, apibr ÷žian čios paveldotvarkos darbus. 2) Klasikiniam etapui (XX a. ketvirtasis–dešimtasis dešimtme čiai) b ūdingas objekte gl ūdin čios objektyvios informacijos atskleidimas. Į paveldotvarkos teorij ą įtraukiami tikslieji mokslai. 3) Šiuolaikinis etapas prasideda nuo XX a. dešimtojo dešimtme čio. Pagrindin ÷ šio laikotarpio teorijos ašis – subjekt ų grup ÷s santykis su objektu. Pradedama taikyti socialini ų ir aplinkosaugos moksl ų suformuota tvarios raidos koncepcija. 2. Lietuvoje paveldotvarkos teorija suformuota tik XX a. antroje pus ÷je (sovietme čiu). Ji iš esm ÷s atitinka svarbiausi ą restauravimo darbus reglamentuojant į tarptautin į dokument ą – Venecijos chartij ą, yra gimininga tuo metu Italijoje paplitusiai estetinei teorijai, turi nemažai klasikinei (mokslinei ir estetinei) paveldosaugai b ūding ų bruož ų. Paveldo objekt ų vertinimo teorija glaudžiai susijusi ir su klasikinei teorijai priskiriama estetine teorija, kuri rekomenduoja daugiausia d ÷mesio skirti objekto menin ÷ms savyb ÷ms. Estetin ÷s vert ÷s sureikšminimas praž ūč iai pasmerk ÷ nemaž ą architekt ūrinio paveldo dal į. Aštriausiai su tarptautin ÷ms nuostatomis konfliktuoja oficialiai įteisintas XIX a. sampratos reliktas – vadovavimasis analogijomis. 3. Pirmieji paveldotvarkos darbai Lietuvoje prad ÷ti XX a. pirm ąjį dešimtmet į Vilniuje – iš Lenkijos pakviesti architektai, remdamiesi moksliniu pagrindu, restauravo Šv. Onos bažny čią. Netrukus susik ūrusioje Nepriklausomoje Lietuvos Respublikoje šiuo pavyzdžiu nebuvo sekama: per du Nepriklausomyb÷s dešimtme čius valdžios institucijoms ir didžiajai daliai visuomen ÷s architekt ūros paveldas buvo svetimas, jo reikšm ÷ ir vert ÷ nebuvo suvoktos, tod ÷l senieji pastatai buvo remontuojami ir perstatomi neatlikus joki ų tyrim ų, naikinant istorin ę autentišk ą informacij ą, o konservavimo ir restauravimo darbai beveik nevyko. Tuo metu Lenkijos užimtame Vilniaus krašte buvo restauruojami ir konservuojami pavieniai objektai (Gedimino pilis, Vilniaus universiteto pastatai, Trak ų salos pilis ir kt.). 4. Sovietme čiu, 1950 metais, Lietuvoje prasid ÷jo pirmieji valdžios institucij ų inicijuoti architekt ūros paveldotvarkos darbai. Laikui b ÷gant, per keturis dešimtme čius susiklost ÷ paveldotvarkos darb ų tipai ir b ūdai. Paveldotvarkos darb ų tipai atitinka tarptautines nuostatas – tai yra atstatymas, restauravimas ir konservavimas, ta čiau j ų parinkim ą lemdavo ne autentiškos medžiagos kiekis, o nes ąlygiškas noras atkurti kuo pilnesn ę ir menine prasme baigt ą kompozicij ą. Taip, tr ūkstant informacijos, buvo rekonstruota Trak ų salos pilis, restauruoti namai, esantys Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 2 ir nr. 10. Kita vertus, siekis atkurti kuo senesn ę pastato architekt ūrą l ÷m÷ ir teigiamai vertinamus restauravimo darbus – tokiais pavyzdžiais laikytini Kauno Perk ūno namai, Vilniuje, Aušros vart ų g. nr. 6, Karmelit ų g. nr. 3 esantys namai ir kt. Ištyrus bendr ąsias

42 architekt ūros paveldotvarkos tendencijas, paaišk ÷jo, kad kiekvieno pastato atstatymo ir restauravimo darbus reikia vertinti atskirai, atsižvelgiant į teigiamas ir neigiamas j ų ypatybes. 5. Sovietme čiu rekonstruojant ir restauruojant architekt ūros paveldo objektus, tr ūkstamos architekt ūros detal ÷s atkuriamos remiantis keliais b ūdais: 1) mokslini ų tyrim ų informacija; 2) mokslini ų tyrim ų inspiruota logine interpretacija; 3) mokslini ų tyrim ų ir k ūrybinio interpretavimo deriniu; 4) k ūrybine interpretacija. Konkretaus b ūdo pasirinkim ą lemdavo turimas mokslin ÷s informacijos, ikonografini ų duomen ų kiekis ir pastato tvarkymo metodika. Naudojant šiuos paveldotvarkos b ūdus gauti skirtingi rezultatai: 1) Moksliniais tyrimais pagr įsti atstatymai pad ÷jo atskleisti prarast ą autentišk ą vaizd ą pakartojan čią architekt ūrin ę kompozicij ą, o galimi nukrypimai nuo buvusio originalo – nežym ūs. Tokiu b ūdu atstatyti Šiauli ų Šv. Petro ir Pauliaus bažny čios ir Raudon ÷s pilies bokštai, Kauno Perk ūno ir Napoleono nam ų, K ÷dainiuose, Didžiojoje g. nr. 6, esan čio namo, frontonai neabejotinai yra vertingi, atskleidžiantys objektyvi ą informacij ą. 2) Mokslini ų tyrim ų ir login ÷s interpretacijos sintez ÷s pagrindu atstatyt ų architekt ūros fragment ų negalima vertinti vienareikšmiškai. Tokio atk ūrimo patikimum ą lemia mokslini ų duomen ų kiekis: kuo daugiau b ūta autentiškos informacijos, tuo restauruotas fragmentas artimesnis sunykusiajam. Trak ų salos pilies rezidencini ų r ūmų sien ų aukštis, pietini ų kazemat ų sien ų aukštis ir stogas atkurti remiantis nemaža dalimi autentiškos informacijos ir pagal j ą atliktais skai čiavimais, tod ÷l šie fragmentai yra labai artimi pirminiams. Ta čiau turint nedaug išlikusi ų duomen ų, didesn ÷ dalis pietvakarinio ir šiaur ÷s vakar ų bokšto atkurta remiantis logine interpretacija. Tokiu principu atstatytos pastat ų dalys tik numanomai pakartoja pirmin į vaizd ą. 3) Mokslini ų tyrim ų ir k ūrybinio interpretavimo derinio b ūdui priskiriami keli skirtingi tr ūkstam ų dali ų atk ūrimo b ūdai: a) r ÷mimasis ikonografija (dail ÷s k ūriniais), b) mokslin ÷s informacijos inspiruota restauratori ų k ūryba ir c) analogij ų iš to paties ar kit ų objekt ų parinkimas. Mokslin ÷s informacijos kiekis ir restauratori ų pasirinktas tr ūkstamos informacijos sprendimo b ūdas l ÷m÷ skirtingus rezultatus: a) Atliktas tyrimas parod ÷, kad ikonografin ÷ dail ÷s medžiaga dažnai pateikia subjektyvi ą autoriaus interpretacij ą ir negali b ūti a priori vertinama kaip patikima informacija. Nustatyta, kad pagal T. Makovskio gravi ūras atstatyti Kauno Šv č. Mergel ÷s Marijos ÷mimo į dang ų bažny čios bokštas ir Trak ų salos pilies donžonas yra nutol ę nuo pirmin ÷s savo išvaizdos. Ta čiau namo, esan čio Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. 28, vakarinis frontonas, atstatytas pagal M. Barvickio piešin į, gali b ūti artimas sunaikintam originalui. b) Mokslin ÷s informacijos inspiruotose restauratori ų laisvai interpretuotose architekt ūrin ÷se detal ÷se buv ęs pirminis vaizdas neatkartojamas, o autentiškos informacijos kiekis – minimalus. Tokiu b ūdu sukurti Kauno Perk ūno namo pietinio fasado laiptai, namo, esan čio Rotuš ÷s a. 28, frontonas, Trak ų salos pilies vakarini ų kazemat ų stogas ir kt. c) Remiantis tr ūkstam ų detali ų analogijomis, nukopijuotomis iš to paties pastato, atkurtas vaizdas gali b ūti artimas pirminiam. Taip spr ęstas Kauno Senosios klebonijos ir namo, esan čio Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 29, sunaikint ų fronton ų atstatymas. Kopijuojant tr ūkstamas architekt ūros detales iš kit ų pastat ų (tokiu b ūdu atstatytas namo, esan čio Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 3, antrasis aukštas, namo, esan čio Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 10, karnizas), implikuojama

43 klaidinga nuomon ÷, kad istoriniu laikotarpiu (gotikos, renesanso) architekt ūros detal ÷s tiražuojamos. Šie atk ūrimo b ūdai, išskyrus r ÷mim ąsi ikonografine medžiaga, prieštarauja tarptautin ÷s paveldotvarkos normoms. 4) Siekiant kuo geriau atkurti pirmin į architekt ūros objekto vaizd ą, kai kada tr ūkstami fragmentai, neturint apie juos joki ų duomen ų, buvo sukurti. Pvz., Trak ų salos pilies rezidencini ų r ūmų stogas ir parapetai, trikampi ų kazemat ų gynybinis bokštelis ir kai kurios kitos tr ūkstamos dalys buvo sukurtos. Tokie pirmin į vaizd ą imituojantys dariniai prieštarauja tarptautin ÷s paveldotvarkos principams. Visiems šiems restauravimo b ūdams buvo naudotas restauracinis m ūras, tod ÷l be speciali ų tyrim ų negalima nustatyti, pagal kur į princip ą atkurta konkreti pastato dalis. Negal ÷jimas nat ūroje nustatyti, kas restauruotame pastate atkuria buvus į vaizd ą, o kas sukurta XX a. antrojoje pus ÷je, yra viena iš didžiausi ų sovietme čio paveldotvarkos darb ų klaid ų. 6. Sovietme čiu atliktus rekonstravimo darbus išimties tvarka galima vertinti teigiamai. Trak ų salos pilies atk ūrimas sovietin ę okupacij ą ken čian čiai tautai buvo labai svarbi savojo identiteto išsaugojimo prielaida. Atsta čius Trak ų salos pilies pastatus ir Birž ų pilies rezidencinius r ūmus, sustipr ÷jo j ų tapatumo ir istorin ÷ vert ÷s, atsiskleid ÷ menin ÷-technin ÷, švietimo, socialini ų ryši ų ir ekonomin ÷ vert ÷s. Ta čiau atsižvelgiant į tai, kad atstatant šiuos objektus naudoti paveldotvarkos nuostat ų neatitinkantys atk ūrimo b ūdai, reikia pabr ÷žti, kad tokios rekonstrukcijos n ÷ra sektinas pavyzdys. 7. Tyrimas parod ÷, kad sovietme čiu restauruojant pastatus beveik visada stengtasi atkurti kuo senesn ę architekt ūros kompozicij ą neatsižvelgiant į informacijos tr ūkum ą. Viena vertus, tai vertinama neigiamai, nes atkuriant pirmines architekt ūrines kompozicijas buvo suardyti autentiški XVIII a. pab. – XIX a. sluoksniai, ta čiau, kita vertus, restauravimo d ÷ka atkurtos gotikos ir renesanso kompozicijos atskleid ÷ XV amži ų siekian čią m ūrin ÷s gyvenamosios architekt ūros kilm ę. Restauravus pastatus, atsiskleid ÷ j ų tapatumo, menin ÷-technin ÷, pažintin ÷ vert ÷s. 8. Sovietme čiu Lietuvoje nebuvo vertinama autentiška substancija ir architekt ūros detal ÷s. Autentiškumo konceptas klaidingai buvo tapatinamas su pirminiu , tod ÷l v ÷lyvesni sluoksniai, autentiška substancija nelaikyti vertingais. Rekonstruojant ir restauruojant pastatus, dažnai buvo ardomas autentiškas m ūras (tokiais pavyzdžiais laikytini Trak ų salos pilis, namai, esantys Vilniuje, Pilies g. nr. 11, Kaune, Rotuš ÷s a. nr. 2, nr. 10, nr. 24), restauruojant šalinamos daugumos pastat ų XVIII–XIX a. perdangos, durys. 9. Sovietme čio paveldotvarkos klaid ų priežastis gal ÷jo lemti keletas veiksni ų: 1) Šimtamet ÷s svetim ų valstybi ų priespaudos subrandintas simbolinis kult ūros paveldo suvokimas l ÷m÷ poži ūrio, nepripaž įstan čio vis ų pastato laikme čių kaip vienodai svarbi ų ir vertinan čio objektus pagal amžiaus cenz ą, susiklostym ą. Laikantis šio poži ūrio, autentiški objektai yra nereikalingi, juos galima pakeisti sukurtais simboliais, tod ÷l svarbi tampa tiktai forma, o tr ūkstamos jos detal ÷s sukuriamos. 2) Restauratoriai, siekdami atkurti kuo senesnius architekt ūrinius sluoksnius, demonstravo savit ą pasyvios kult ūrin ÷s rezistencijos form ą. 3) Paveldotvarkos informacijos stygius ir tradicij ų nebuvimas l ÷m÷ kai kuri ų klaid ų, b ūding ų Europos XIX a. paveldotvarkai (k ūrybin ÷s interpretacijos, r ÷mimosi analogijomis, autentiškos substancijos nesaugojimo), kartojim ą. 10. Sovietme čiu įtvirtinti elgesio su paveldu stereotipai išliko gajūs ir po 1990 met ų. Tyrimas parod ÷, kad pl ÷tojamos ir teigiamos, ir neigiamos paveldotvarkos

44 tendencijos. Pavyzdžiui, Šv. Gertr ūdos bažny čios restauravimas buvo atliktas laikantis tarptautini ų nuostat ų, surinkus pakankamai mokslin ÷s medžiagos, restauruojant buvo saugoma autentiška substancija, taigi atkurta gotikin ÷ bažny čios kompozicija yra artima pirminei. Tačiau Vilniaus Žemutin ÷s pilies Valdov ų r ūmų ir Siesik ų rezidencini ų r ūmų paveldotvarkos darb ų mokslinis pagr įstumas yra nepakankamas. Nemažai naudojam ų atk ūrimo b ūdų prieštarauja esmin ÷ms paveldotvarkos nuostatoms.

45

Jolita BUTKEVI ČIEN ö

TRENDS IN THE LITHUANIAN HERITAGE CONSERVATION OF MASONRY ARCHITECTURE DURING THE SOVIET PERIOD

Summary of Doctoral Dissertation

Išleido ir spausdino – Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla (S. Daukanto g. 27, LT-44249 Kaunas) Užsakymo Nr. 161. Tiražas 40 egz. 2009 12 23. Nemokamai.