VII Saint-Petersburg International Cultural Forum / “Preservation Of

VII Saint-Petersburg International Cultural Forum / “Preservation of intangible value of cultural heritage sites: Celebrating Centennial of State Protection of Monuments in Russia” round table discussion / November 17th, 2018. Saint-Petersburg / A book of conference abstracts. - 2019.

The collection is intended for popularization of cultural heritage sites Issued as a digital publication

The collection is prepared by means of direct reproduction of materials, submitted by the authors.

Committee for the State Inspection and Protection of Historic and Cultural Monuments Saint-Petersburg, 2019

The collection you are reading is the result of a Round table on "Preservation of intangible value of cultural heritage sites", held on 17.11.2018 in the House of journalists in St. Petersburg, under the auspices of the Committee for state control, use and preservation of historical and cultural monuments. The idea of the round table was to discuss a rather neglected topic in Russia -- that of presence within of each object of cultural heritage of some intangible component, which is sometimes no less, and sometimes more important than the carrier of such information. Three experts from different countries (Clara Arokiasami-founder and head of the national Committee on intangible heritage of ICOMOS (UK), consultant on the preservation of UNESCO world heritage not only in Europe but also in Canada and America. Michael Kloos, Professor, owner of the Heritage Management Advisory company, Professor in the discipline of Preservation and Sustainable Development of Historical, Cultural and Urban landscapes of the Wiesbaden University of Applied Sciences in Germany. Specialist in the implementation of impact assessments for world heritage recognized by UNESCO and World Heritage Centre. Advises on the conservation and management of UNESCO sites around the world. Sujeong Lee -- Professor, Specialist, Department of Conservation and Development of Historic Cities, 2

Cultural Heritage Administration of South Korea (Seoul) She holds a public service position and teaches at the University of Seoul in the field of preservation of cultural world heritage. At present she is working on the implementation of intangible characteristics of cultural heritage in national legislation, in fact, representatives of different ways of thinking about the material and intangible aspects, presented their views on this topic and discussed the importance of the intangible component of any historical object together with Russian experts . It was made possible to discuss the identification of different types of intangible heritage and cultural spaces associated with it, as well as ways to preserve, recreate and promote this type of heritage in a short time. The participants discussed the need to restore the burned Dormition Church in Kondopoga, and noted that the spiritual message and the information about the history of the people that carried this unique object is often more important than the material authenticity of individual elements lost as a result of vandalism. We publish a collection of reports with some delay, but now, a year later, this topic is still not widely discussed in the professional community, due to its scientific and methodological complexity. Therefore, the reports not only did not lose their relevance, but also acquired a certain endurance, which confirms the correctness of our idea.

Mikhailov Alexey

“Preservation of intangible value of cultural heritage sites" round table Program

Date --17.11.2018

Time – 11:00-14:00

Venue - [to be specified] Поток – Professionals

Event languages -- Russian, English

Speakers:

Sujeong Lee -- Professor, Specialist, Department of Conservation and Development of Historic Cities, Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea (Seoul)

Clara Arokiasami - Chair of the Committee for Intangible Heritage ICOMOS (UK).

Susan Tamwoy -- manager of the International projects and Research ICOMOS (Australia), past-president of the Scientific Committee of Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICOMOS)

Moderator -- Alexey Mikhailov, Deputy Chairman of the Committee for the state preservation of historical and cultural monuments, Government of St. Petersburg.

Topics for Discussion: study of tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage sites, practices for preservation and legislative regulation of intangible values of cultural heritage sites, including international practice cases.

Event Organizers: St. Petersburg City Committee for State Inspection and Protection of Monuments of History and Culture, Co-organized by: Likhachev Russian Research and Development Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Victoria Sergeevna Pushkina, +7 (812) 315-50-12, [email protected]

Olesya Yurievna Orlova, +7 (812) 315-50-12, [email protected]

Content

1. Mikhailov A.V. Thinking about the intangible…………………….……….7 2. Sementsov S. V. Cultural heritage as a reflection of intangible values (some thoughts on current challenges in preservation of cultural heritage)………………9 3. Akulova N. A., M. V. Redina Perception of the city's historic appearance as a way to preserve its intangible heritage………………………………………………………………...………….16 4. Yudina N. V. Clusters in historic cities……………………….……….…..22 5. Sujeong Lee Sense of Place: challenges in assessing values and decision- making for heritage conservation………………………………………..………..24 6. Svyatitskaya E.N. Archaeology of an object and its image: archaeological exhibitions of the Museum of Moscow in 2016-2018…………………..………..34 7. Kozyreva Y. A. Nearby manors of noble people as an intangible component of the cultural heritage object………………………………………..…..……….45 8. Akulova N. A., Yagzheva A. S. Intangible heritage of the historical industrial areas of the Dekabristov Island………………………………..………52 9. Yevgenieva L.V. On valuable intangible attributes of cultural heritage properties of religious value at Solovetsky archipelago………………….……...57 10. T. Yakovleva It was recently, it was a long time ago... …….……….70 11. Sosnovskaya A.M., Pushkina V.S. Reconstruction of historical practices of cultural heritage in St. Petersburg………………………………………..………79 12. Sosnovskaya A. M., Orlova O. Y. Intangible Heritage and Identity of Millenial Generation of St. Petersburg…………………………………..………91 13. Butorina I., Morozova O.A. On the issue of preservation of intangible aspects of historical cities on the example of St. Petersburg…………….……..100 14. Ryadova M.N. Intangible component as a text for architectural landscapes………………………………………………………………..…..…106

Mikhailov Alexey Vladimirovich Deputy Chairman of the State Inspection and Protection of Historic and Cultural Monuments, e-mail: [email protected]

Thinking about the intangible.

What is an intangible heritage in people's minds: the exchange of cultural practices between ethno-cultural groups and its preservation; the transfer of cultural worldview from the bottom up; oral history - because people like to listen to stories; a living heritage - people do not just perceive this heritage as a static set of information, but they practice it in certain situations and everyday; it is what and with what people live. Reflections on the intangible component of individual cultural heritage sites, including the world heritage, as well as the entire historical urban and natural environment and landscapes, can not be conducted exclusively from the standpoint of the Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible cultural heritage. Of course, the Convention operates with five main components covering historical traditions and practices which include rituals, folklore, crafts and any material object of cultural heritage carries this information at least partly. But it is often important to understand properly the complex cause-and-effect relationships of securing certain intangible functions for the object and their preservation. Any object of cultural heritage is a carrier or a concentration of intangible heritage, that is why in many cultures the variability of such an object is permissible to the extent that it continues to be such a carrier (the Doctrine is more important than the image of the Buddha). Relocation of the building, its reconstruction and restoration are acceptable in many cultures, in case if it allows to preserve the transfer of intangible knowledge, but in some cultures it is perceived as a loss of authenticity and therefore of the ability to be a carrier of

history. Different cultures have different views and each of these approaches has its own logic. For the convenience of understanding the existing traditions, it is probably necessary to carry out the primary systematization of the intangible components of the object and their meaning. These components are: spiritual (the image, the myth, the genius loci), informational (history, events, persons), functional (use). The importance of intangible components is: in fulfilling the meaning of the object, maintaining the foundations of identification of a person, people, nation (biocultural diversity as the basis of tolerance); preservation and reliable transmission of information about the object for future generations and carriers of other cultures. The intangible component is the carrier and the basis stimulating rational (artistic) and irrational (mythological) creative processes. It also determines the optimal functional use of the object. The intangible component of the object of cultural heritage is not only a theoretical basis for the study and understanding of the phenomenon of cultural heritage, but also an element of practical accounting that must be fixed in the documents about the object and its current use. Currently, the intangible heritage in general and the intangible component of cultural heritage are protected and recorded in a number of cases, including: in the Convention on intangible heritage; in the form of historical monuments; places of interest; in the form of information in historical references. As maintenance of historical functional use, in cultural routes and event tourism. However, the study of such an important component of cultural heritage is currently not sufficient. The lack of tangibility of the subject, the depth of its understanding, the inability to fully assess the consequences of its application, including at the international level, stops many researchers and specialists. So let us pick up the efforts of those few who are still trying to learn the essentially unknowable and immerse ourselves in an interesting and multifaceted world of intangible components of cultural heritage.

S. V. Sementsov. Doctor of architecture, Professor. St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (SPbGASU), e-mail: [email protected]

Cultural heritage as a reflection of intangible values (some thoughts on current challenges in preservation of cultural heritage)

The system of cultural heritage protection in Saint Petersburg has a long and proud history. In particular, in 2018, the system of conservation of cultural heritage in Petrograd, Leningrad and Saint Petersburg celebrated its centenary. It is undisputed that this system has a high rating and some major achievements. However, despite these achievements and gains, we often face inexplicable and controversial cases in the sphere of cultural heritage preservation both in Russia and many other countries. Moreover, famous UNESCO charters, such the Venice Charter, or the Nara Document on Authenticity, are not always helpful in finding the best solution. For example, why Tokyo Imperial Palace in Japan constructed of wood is demolished every hundred years to be erected afresh, and this new building is considered as "exactly the same"? What about the "sacred" principle of authenticity? Or how are we supposed to deal with the reconstruction of the famous Frauenkirche in Dresden? Thousands of small original pieces embedded into the modern construction (could it be called a recreated construction?) of the building cannot make it completely "authentic". How about beautiful reconstruction (or building from scratch?) of the temples in Veliky Novgorod that were razed to the ground? Or famous palaces in Saint Petersburg's suburbs that were recreated using reconstruction techniques and of course preserving original pieces? Or a worldwide discussion about the experiment of the Greek restorers who carefully preserved (conserved? re-created? built a replica using genuine

fragments?) Parthenon? Or restoration work on unique wooden architecture of the Russian North and the issue that arose after the fire in the famous Dormition Church of Kondopoga: shall we preserve the ashes for the sake of authenticity or restore the monument and revive it? The list of examples could be endless. This topic can be viewed from different perspectives, but most often it is addressed in terms of compliance with the authenticity principle and UNESCO charters. Notably, when discussion is limited to formal compliance with the charters, this often results in the same practice in many countries: careful preservation of the destroyed (often completely demolished) objects of cultural heritage goes along with the construction of new monstrous buildings, fully in line with the authenticity conservation criteria according to which new objects have to be radically different from the authentic ones. But then, why the whole world admires the reconstruction of the original appearance (with some exceptions only professionals can see) of the palaces in Oranienbaum, Peterhof, Tsarskoye Selo (think of tourists' immense desire to see the Amber Room)? A similar practice is going to be implemented with the reconstruction of the Acropolis of Athens; Greek restorers now use the method of the finest assembly of the old and new fragments (following the most careful measurements and design reconstruction) to create a full-size layout of the great temple, but with a difference in tones of the marble used: yellowish marble is genuine, and white marble is modern. It is done with the greatest attention to detail in the historic form and meticulous reproduction of every nuance in new fragments. And what is going to happen in 20, 30, 50 years' time, when the color of the modern marble becomes the same as that of the original marble? So why do most experienced and highly acclaimed restorers and experts in the protection of cultural heritage all over the world use such methods and techniques when trying to restore the monuments in their most exact form? What

about violating (intentionally? unconsciously? on purpose? automatically?) the conservation principles adopted by the world community? Such monuments across countries can be divided into several categories: - Individual monuments which are represented in specific structures, materials, forms and shapes, but are of particular importance mostly because of something incomprehensible, clearly more important than the monument itself, as with temples, signs, memorials, etc. - Multifunctional and multi-faceted systems of monuments, for example, major groups of buildings ("ensembles") which include, along with the objects themselves (with clearly defined dimensions and shapes), "something else", such as "the air between objects that connects them into a whole." - World heritage sites, many of which are multistructural and diverse, for example, the Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monument, which includes not only groups of monuments in a visible, material form, but also "something incomprehensible", some inexplicable (in material terms) elements - visual patterns in construction, the actions of Peter the Great, the resistance of the civilian population during the Siege of Leningrad. These elements are often treated as crucial and most significant in an object of cultural heritage. How can we determine such characteristics and how to preserve them in the modern system of conservation? The situation is drastically deteriorating when a heritage object is comprised of thousands of components, as is the case with Saint Petersburg and its historic centre which covers an area of 10 km by 15 km. Under these circumstances, any requirements of full compliance with the conservation regimes (especially museification) are useless. Such territories with a population of 1 million people and more than 1,5 million people coming here every day for work and tourism certainly require not only preservation, but also environment for development and reaching high standards of living and working conditions. But how to achieve that objective? After all, modern approaches to the protection of cultural heritage are purely museological. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that

before 1917, Saint Petersburg and its provinces were like a single organism, and the problem-solving system had a coherent management framework. As a result, the regular metropolitan agglomeration of Saint Petersburg has become a unique example of urban planning with extraordinary design solutions. At present, a previously single administrative body is artificially divided by randomly drawn boundaries into Saint Petersburg and Leningrad region developing in an uncoordinated manner; therefore, the integrity of a historical agglomeration is almost completely destroyed. Some of its fragments are included in the borders of Saint Petersburg, while other ones remained in the Leningrad region. The World heritage site "Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg..." as a rather pale reflection of the former great unity of the agglomeration has also been inevitably divided between two subjects of the Russian Federation. - Cultural heritage monuments of extreme importance for national culture, regardless of their material form. Among these are the Mikhaylovskoye and Trigorskoye manor museums dedicated to Pushkin, the museum-estates of Leo Tolstoy, Ivan Turgenev, Maximilian Voloshin, Ilya Repin, Mikhail Lermontov, the Anna Akhmatova Literary and Memorial Museum etc. They exist within the national cultural field as mediums of the legacy of famous artists, even if material objects associated with these illustrious names have not survived. We know that Mikhaylovskoye Museum Reserve no longer has material artifacts related to Pushkin, but we treat his memory that has been preserved there for centuries with no less respect. Or let us remember such obviously grandiose national relics as Borodino Field, Kulikovo Field, Sinyavinsky Heights, Nevsky Pyatachok, Mamayev Kurgan in Volgograd (formerly Stalingrad)... their landscapes, historical and modern-day surroundings and greenery are clearly different from original ones, but are forever cherished in people's memory and national culture. Each of these "ensembles", buildings and objects is marked with something "incomprehensible" and "non-material", something that is often considered in

national culture as even more relevant and requiring more care and supervision than walls and constructions. Roughly speaking, we can draw certain comparisons with the cultures of other countries. In Japan, the symbolism and "atmosphere" of the Tokyo Imperial Palace matter more than its material forms. In the UK, haunted castles are valued (even in terms of "marketability", for purchase and sale) more than similar ones, but without ghosts, which means that "ghosts" (as intangible values) are more significant for people across different regions in the UK than castles as structures. These casually mentioned, but numerous objects of cultural heritage in different countries show that there are lots of monuments, complexes, sites etc. having something that does not belong to the material aspect, but is often more significant than material values. Quite naturally we wonder how to determine the intangible value of such objects and describe this intangible component. More precisely we are talking about the intangible component of the subject to protection (in terms of current Russian legislation). This intangible component of the subject to protection is often the most important for national culture; sometimes it is the only component that has survived. Let me also remind you that there are lots of such objects, and they are quite diverse. And I believe they need a new, unusual approach, the only one of its kind, especially since Russian system of cultural heritage protection is focused on preservation of individual objects. "Ensembles", visual and design features of the urban objects, panoramas, landscapes, etc. remain outside the modern system of cultural protection in Russia, and it is dangerous for major urban heritage under protection. On the one hand, it is good that thousands of objects in Saint Petersburg have been preserved, as we finally abandoned the "pure style" approach of the first half of the 20th century and accepted historical buildings of different architectural styles in Saint Petersburg and its suburbs as equal. One the other hand, it is bad because at the same time, the most important thing for Saint Petersburg and its metropolitan area is being destroyed: the integrity of urban spaces and landscapes,

the rules of urban planning and environment articulated by our great predecessors. Under these circumstances, the future of our city can be frustrating: thousands of objects will be preserved yet the urban planning value of Saint Petersburg as a whole might be lost. Even now almost no one can pinpoint the features of the Palace square ensemble and its differences from the Nevsky Prospect ensemble, the Saint Isaac's Cathedral ensemble, etc. Moreover, in legal terms these ensembles (taken as integral urban objects) are just a sum of individual buildings (limited by their dimensions), and the space between them, the so-called "air in between" these buildings that incorporates them into a whole, is simply not taken into account and can be destroyed. If we recall that historic centre of Saint Petersburg and dozens of ensembles and groups of buildings around, along with such incomprehensible things as panoramas, visual axes connecting major urban objects and highways with the historical axes of roads and waterways, constitute a single cultural heritage object, we can definitely see that preservation of nothing more but thousands of objects is in fundamental contradiction with the urban design features, landscapes, and intangible (visual, cultural, civilizational, etc.) features of this cultural heritage object. Even the approach to protected zones specifically developed in Leningrad is not helpful. All versions of the modern law on preservation of cultural heritage (Federal Law No. 73-FZ On Cultural Heritage Sites) have demonstrated that different conservation regimes for the environment around the monument (the cultural heritage site) such as buffer zones, or control around protected areas, can only maintain the status quo of this environment. Yet it is now impossible to reproduce the destroyed parts of the monument (or monument in general); all we can do is save what is left (sometimes only cherish the memory of what once was a cultural monument). Thus we may note that: a) a single-element approach is now effectively used; b) a multi-faceted, integrative approach to the system of urban planning and landscape is almost non-existent, both in law and in practice; c) there is no

approach to the type of cultural objects that have existed since ancient times but were not in focus until now, namely objects of intangible cultural value under protection. Nearly all these points are observed in preservation of the cultural heritage of Saint Petersburg. The issues of urban development and planning have been discussed for a long time, and some small steps are being made. However, the significance and characteristics of the intangible aspects of cultural heritage objects have only recently become a matter of debate, although objects of this category have existed since ancient times; these are famous cultural monuments, for many decades present in the structure of cultural heritage. Unfortunately, other urban objects of intangible value have been neglected. Here I would like to emphasize that such monuments, with a clear dominance of the intangible aspect of cultural heritage, may require another conservation and restoration approach, as well as other ways to use them. After all, their main feature is the highest level of semantic and symbolic value, often much more superior to their material value and even authenticity. They can be classified as objects of crucial importance for national culture, and therefore, their preservation in the form of ruins is impossible; restoration work should take into account their semantic, symbolic, and cultural aspects whose importance transcends their material form. Perhaps an intuitive or conscious understanding of this makes it possible to proceed further than simple "conservation of ruins", and results in a full reconstruction of the Parthenon; relocation and reconstruction of the Abu Simbel temples in Egypt; almost complete reconstruction of the Dormition Church in the Volotovo field in Velikiy Novgorod with carefully preserved historical frescoes in the interiors; wonderful revival of the Church of the Transfiguration on Kizhi island, etc. Of course, all work should be done with maximum care for original appearance of these monuments.

Thus, objects of cultural heritage (monuments) with a predominance of intangible value require different approaches in the field of protection, preservation

(preferably using ideas and methods of reconstruction), and maintenance.

N. A. Akulova, M. V. Redina St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (SPbGASU) St. Petersburg, e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

PERCEPTION OF THE CITY'S HISTORIC APPEARANCE AS A WAY TO PRESERVE ITS INTANGIBLE HERITAGE

The article focuses on the issue of preservation of intangible heritage, which is endangered due to the globalization process. The concepts of the city's appearance as a material value, and the city's image as an intangible value formed in people's minds through visual and emotional perception of the environment are addressed. The problem of identifying these values as a way to preserve the intangible heritage is raised. The concept of the spirit of place, as well as the emotional impact of the architectural environment on the person is also considered. Keywords: intangible heritage; protection of cultural heritage; image of the city; cultural values; perception of the environment.

Objects of cultural heritage are not only valuable from the point of view of their material form, as unique examples of architecture, but also carry a non- material message. The history of the object, various events associated with it, its connection with the great figures in history and art altogether play a vital role in the search for uniqueness and spirit of the place. While intangible heritage is disappearing, there is particularly growing interest in it, as globalization destroys local cultures. The term "intangible cultural heritage" was established in 2003 in the UNESCO Convention "On Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage". There is a global trend toward increasing importance of identification and preservation of the intangible value of objects rather than their material characteristics. Such perception of cultural heritage creates the idea that

not only particular sites or cities but nations as a whole are unique, which promotes a sense of identity and continuity, and respect for cultural diversity and human creativity [1]. In Russia, this Convention has not been approved; moreover, there is no legal basis for the concept of "intangible heritage", and the only term in Russian legislation similar to it is "cultural values", adopted in the Federal Law "The Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture" [2]. Today, the issue of preservation of intangible values is more relevant than ever, so various concepts and strategies are being worked out to offer new methods of preservation of intangible cultural heritage at the state level. The connection between the material and the non-material aspects is inseparable. Intangible cultural heritage is represented through the material elements of the environment, such as historical objects, architecture, landscapes, etc. For example, world-famous carnivals are held in cities with specific historical background, such as Venice or Rio de Janeiro. If the material value of the city is constituted by its historical environment and objects, the intangible value is inextricably linked to the image of the city. The concept of image is intertwined with the concept of appearance. Appearance is an essential basis for the image. In this sense, the appearance is primary, since it is material and includes buildings, monuments and streets that form the architectural spaces of the city; the image is a secondary phenomenon embodied in the process of perception, which results in spiritual and aesthetic experience. The visual image of the city contains both objective and subjective parameters. It is worth noting that different people develop substantially different images, as the latter depend on people's social status, age, education and cultural background. Anyway, the basis of the visual image of the city is its architectural environment, as the medium at the morphological and artistic levels. Many scholars, such as R. Arnheim, G. V. Glazychev, G. B. Zabelshansky, K. Lynch, have been studying the psychological aspect of perception of the

environment. Based on these studies, we have identified several aspects of the visual perception of the urban environment [3]: Psychophysiological aspect (G. Fechner, W. Helmholtz, W. Wundt) implies visual and emotional perception of the physical environment with its attributes such as spatial location, mass, volume and dimensions. Aesthetic aspect (N. A. Berdyaev, L. Vygotsky, D. Gibson) is expressed through perception of the aesthetic value of an object accompanied by an emotional experience. As a result of such perception, a certain image is formed which may correspond to the image intended by the author or not. Creative/figurative aspect (V. T. Shimko, A. P. Yermolayev) implies the perception of the environment as a work of art, which involves understanding of its artistic form and expressiveness, largely due to the spirit of the place. This means that a non-material image of the environment is being formed in the process of its visual perception, during which an aesthetic and spiritual experience arises. Protection of intangible cultural heritage should be based on identification of the object of protection and description of its values. Identification of the monument's value helps to understand what needs to be preserved, what should be developed, and what can be neglected. First of all, we are talking about the historical and cultural reference plan describing all aspects of the object's value. Significant values of historic buildings include its historical, memorial, artistic and aesthetic features, as well as urban planning, functional, scientific, and religious aspects. So far, there have been only a few studies on the value of architectural heritage, but they do not provide a detailed explanation of what exactly this value is and what it consists of. Let us now consider the values associated with the visual and emotional perception of the architectural environment. Historical and memorial value

Historical and memorial values lie in the evidence of particular historic events, which is perceived not only consciously but also emotionally. Thus, a person feels a connection with the past events, a sense of community with the great figures of the past. Monuments of historical value enrich the semantic field of the city and contribute to the spirit of the place [5]. The sources of historical and memorial value of historic buildings are: • Authentic material. Authentic material is physical evidence of the events, a medium that retains the most reliable information about the history of the object. • Antiquity. Ancient monuments that have experienced a large number of historical events convey unique information, and the older the monument, the higher its value. • Connection to an event or person. Historical monuments are real witnesses of the events of their time, various ideas, and lives of outstanding people [6]. • Ability to project history into the present. The way monuments evoke the atmosphere of a bygone era affects people's daily lives. This is especially true if the monument is integrated into a group of buildings ("ensemble") or its historical landscape was preserved. • Symbolic expression of the era. Aldo Rossi, Italian architect, wrote that such historical objects represent new stages in developing an ideology, or signs of large-scale changes associated with crucial events for the development of a city or country [7]. Artistic and aesthetic value The artistic and aesthetic value of the architectural monument includes the appearance of the building and the emotions associated with it. The sources of artistic and aesthetic value are: • Integrity. It is difficult to visually reconstruct the appearance of the building that has lost a significant number of elements, therefore, its emotional perception will be hindered. However, a ruined monument can also trigger an aesthetic

experience, but for this it needs to be incorporated into a historical or artificially created landscape to avoid the feeling of destruction. • Expressive form of an image. The artistic value of a monument is increased if its architectural or design solution is unique and without parallel in the world. This contributes to the creation of a unique and distinct image. The combination of various aspects of the monument's value has an emotional impact on the viewer and creates certain images in his mind. Emotional impact is most effective in the place where the object was formed. According to Aldo Rossi, the place is constituted by space and time, dimensional characteristics and shape, ancient and modern events related to the object, and the memory of them [7]. Acknowledging the importance of the spirit of the place, experts have created a Declaration [8] that explains the meaning of this phenomenon; it is defined as a set of material and non-material, physical and mental elements that make the particular territory unique and meaningful and evoke feelings. The spirit of the place consists of several concepts [9]: ● Artistic image; ● Patina of time and historical layers; ● Authentic material; ● Connection to history; ● "Ensembles" and other surroundings. Thus, intangible spiritual heritage stems from tangible cultural heritage. It is questionable what should come first, and the answer to this question is vital for the development of the nation. The importance of intangible heritage cannot be underestimated, it carries a powerful emotional message and forms the basis for social and cultural phenomena. Preservation of spiritual heritage begins with younger generations' introduction to culture. For example, D. S. Likhachyov proposed methods of education of the younger generation aimed at preserving historical values of Russian culture [10]. There are several aspects of his stance:

● preservation of the 'documentary' value of monuments; ● active promotion of cultural values; ● education of the younger generation based on historical monuments; ● study of the local history, starting from the secondary school level; ● personal involvement in preservation of monuments and cultural values. When developing legislation on culture, it is necessary to bear in mind that the protection system should include not only the protection of buildings, groups of buildings and urban planning, but also protection of visual axes, panoramas, silhouettes, emotional perception of objects, and intangible values; also, we need to constantly maintain and keep alive the spiritual heritage of Russia.

References 1. UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). Paris. 2. Federal Law "The Fundamentals of the Legislation of the Russian Federation on Culture" (1992). 3. Stepanova, S. A. (2006). Dinamika Vizualnogo Obraza Goroda (na primere g. Khabarovska) [Dynamics of the Visual Image of the City (the case of the city of Khabarovsk)]: avtoref. dis. … kand. arhitektury. Moscow. 4. Kuznetsova Y. S. (2014). Spektr Tsennostey Pamyatnika Arhitektury [The Range of Values of Architectural Monuments]. Observatoriya Kultury [Observatory of Culture]. 5. Sovremenniy Oblik Pamyatnikov Proshlogo: Istoriko-khudozhestvenniye Problemy Restavratsii Pamyatnikov Arkhitektury) [The Modern Appearance of the Monuments of the Past: Historical and Artistic Issues of the Restoration of Architectural Monuments] (1983). Ed. by A. S. Schenkov. Moscow, Stroyizdat. 6. Lysova, N. Y. Arkhitekturnoe Nasledie: Problema Tsennosti [Architectural Heritage: The Issue of Value]: dis. … kand. filos. nauk. Saransk, 1997. 7. Rossi, A. (2011). Arkhitektura Goroda. Unikalnost Gorodskikh Artefaktov [Architecture of the City. The Uniqueness of Urban Artifacts]. Project International, no. 28. 8. The Quebec Declaration on the Preservation of the Spirit of the Place (2008). 9. Day, C. Places of the Soul: Architecture and Environmental Design as a Healing Art [Russ. ed.: Mesta, Gde Obitaet Dusha: Arkhitektura i Sreda Kak Lechebnoe Sredstvo]. Moscow, MP Ladya. 10. Likhachyov, D. S. (1983). Zemlya Rodnaya [Native Land]. Moscow, Prosvescheniye.

Yudina N. V. Moscow Architectural Institute (State Academy) (MArchI), e-mail: [email protected] Supervisor Blagovidova N.G., Cand. of Sciences, professor of Town- Planning, MArchI

Clusters in historic cities

How single-industry urbanized formations can acquire a new life in the contemporary world

Many Russian cities and settlements are facing the problem of fading territorial activities. The lost function (most often, that of production) becomes a reason of death for the urban settlement. The structural framework collapses and invaluable cultural and historical identity, contained in the ensembles of landscape and architectural heritage, remains under its "fragments". Existing methods of preservation based on isolation from the surrounding impact, maintain the appearance of the building unchanged, but do not provide long-term effects and, over time, the monuments again are brought to the critical condition. How can we ensure the restoration of the urban environment in its modern form without causing fatal transformations of historical territories? Sestroretsk, a suburb of St. Petersburg and the center of the Kurortnyi District, has come a long way from the industrial city to a northern health resort. The unique recreational potential and healthy atmosphere have always attracted summer residents, including foreigners. During Soviet times, a systematic and science-driven approach to medical and health tourism was highly valued, and the suburban area of the Kurortny District was a place of secluded recreation for the first persons of the state. Unfortunately, at present we can observe the disunity of

urban areas and excesses of private owners. Over the past 30 years, the ensembles of wooden architecture by masters of the early XX century modern have been compromised. Ecological state of the territory, which threatens the loss of the natural identity of the area and its main factor of socio-economic development, requires close attention. Global trends in the development of historical cities prove the effectiveness of integrated approach. In particular, the cluster method involves the creation of an interconnected system of research and production enterprises on the territory of the system, which constitute a single cycle of product production or represent one product type. Cluster development of Cambridge, Manchester and Ruhr regions proved to be justified. In Sestroretsk it is proposed to create a complex for the development of recreational resources, where on the basis of laboratories, research stations and creative workshops new medicines and medical technologies, methods of treatment and rehabilitation, ways s of landscaping and ecological cleansing of the area, reconstruction and restoration of heritage sites will be developed and introduced into resort practice. Student campuses, academic buildings, exhibition and fair grounds will provide economic efficiency of the area, which will be many times higher than the profit from the sale of middle-class housing. We can only hope that the idea will be supported by the administration of the Kurortny District, investors and, most of all, residents, who will be helped by the new program of the territory to ennoble their small homeland.

Sense of Place: challenges in assessing values and decision-making for heritage conservation

Sujeong Lee (Cultural Heritage Administration of Korea) e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction The spectrum of cultural heritage has been extended in short period of time since it was emerged during early of the 19th century as a part of modern cult on history. Such extension has been deeply affected by the change of perspective in defining the concept. Early concept of heritage has defined it as material evidence to witness historical events and social development. Conservation has aimed at preserving of material aspects. The Venice Charter (1964) has led a change of the perspective. The charter defines historic sites and object as heritage which carries both tangible and intangible elements to be inherited between generations. Heritage goes beyond material remains. It now includes all types and forms of human activities of all periods including tradition, philosophy, spiritual elements, and language. Those intangible aspects are understood as important sources of understanding its significance and constructing national or community identity for the present and future generation. Conservation, then, aims at delivering values (or significance) from one generation to the other ‘in full richness of authenticity’. Such perspective is transforming again. Arguing that heritage can benefit society by preserving it, it is becoming a resource to improve the quality of our lives. Management of change and sustainability is new challenges in heritage conservation. While we have experienced the development of concept, intangible aspect of tangible one has been highlighted as an important entity to be assessed and protected in sustainable conservation. Intangible aspects of heritage site have received a special attention in both international and regional discussion in recent years. Internationally, the World

Heritage Convention (1972) has strengthened the role of the intangible aspects by introducing the concept of collective memory of humankind. Unesco has been commissioned to explore on the ‘site of memory (2017) in order for them to clarify intangible aspect of a site of uncomfortable history and prevent international conflict caused by different approach toward memory and spirit. ’ ‘Livingness’ is an alternative word by ICCROM to interpret intangible aspect of heritage in dealing with sustainability in particular (2015). Regional or local effort to recognize the role of intangible aspect has started. ‘Sense of place’ is a way of recognizing intangible aspects in the U.K., in managing historic environment in specific (2009). Different from international effort, it has provided a constructive platform for setting out national conservation principles leading to the revision of legal statement. No matter it is called intangible aspects of heritage or sense of place, it is challenging task in identifying what it is, where it is expressed, and how it is manifested. It is more challenging in decision-making process on the way it has been interpreted and recognized in relations to its tangible aspects. Taking Korean cases, this paper explores the way how sense of place has been ignored in decision- making. The way of interpreting has more weighed specific elements of intangible values such as religious aspiration and associative attachment without respecting fundamental values of heritage such as historical and artistic values. Intangible aspects of heritage, Sense of Place In 2017, experts and public has heavily criticized Municipal government of Tongyoung city against their decision on removing the workshop of nationally designated craftsman in order for them to build a road. He is so called ‘National Treasure’, a person who has nationally valued skills in making small traditional table, Sobanjang. His workshop is a place of making traditional table with nationally recognized skills. Main question in the debate was whether his workshop has some meanings and significance in related to his intangible techniques, as enough to be preserved.

In such case, his skills is clearly related to the workshop. The latter is a place for him to bring out his artistic inspiration and design. It is also a place where he preserve his tools and information which has inherited his father’s trace, who was also the same type of craftsman.

Figure 1 Gwaebul in Bongseonsa temple Similar to the role of tangible aspects of intangible heritage, intangible aspects plays an important role in tangible heritage. No only designs and techniques but also memory and experience is part of intangible aspect of tangible heritage. The range of intangible aspect are wide so anything invisible related to tangible heritage can be included to the category of intangible aspect. They are not inseparable from tangible heritage. Gwaebul, huge scroll Buddhist painting, is tangible heritage. However it is only one day during a year to be scrolled out in courtyard (Figure 1). Most days it is preserved in a box at the backside of a main hall. The day of buddha’s birthday or an important ceremonial day is the only time that it is brought out to host Buddhist ritual, called youngsanjae, a ceremonial ritual to celebrate a sermon of buddha at vulture peak. Youngsanjae is a day-long ceremony and it is nationally designated intangible heritage as well as Unesco’s Intangible Heritage. A huge scroll Buddhist painting has heritage values of its own, such as artistic value made by master painter of the time and historic values to display artistic style of the time with definite date of production. However its authenticity and integrity can be manifested and preserved when it is presented during youngsanjae, the ritual. Therefore it is important for us to secure the painting can play the same role as it is

intended. Preserving it in a museum can secure its material aspect, but not a way of conserving its authenticity and integrity. Separating wall painting from main hall of a Buddhist temple displays the mistakes in dealing with intangible aspect of tangible heritage. Wall paintings in a main hall of Muwi Temple are essential elements of sanctify buddha’s land (Figure 2). The main hall is called Geukrakjeon, meaning ‘hall of western paradise’. Wall

Figure 3 Wall painting in Muwi temple Figure 3 Separated wall paintings painting in the main altar has depicted Buddha who is giving a lesson in western paradise. Two side wall paintings have depicted buddhas receiving dead person and additional preaching scene. During the process of solving structural problem of the building In 1979 and 1981, all wall paintings except the main altar one have dismantled from the main hall and moved to the museum (Figure 3). Their role in sanctifying the hall of western paradise and presenting Buddhist theology is no longer to be fully appreciated.

Sense of place or religious needs: Case of Buddhist temple 1. Case 1 : Sudeoksa temple Sudeoksa temple, founded in 6th century, has been famous for its main Buddha hall, the second oldest building (dated 1308) in Korea, which is one of rare examples of 14th century building of Goryeo Dynasty (936 ~ 1392). The size of the temple compound nor the original arrangement of buildings has not been known because the temple record had not specify the number of buildings and the arrangement and there is no photographic record before the

Japanese colonial period. Aerial view from the photograph taken during the Colonial period shows that the central area for the main building were clustered with living quarters for monks and small pavilion to face to the main hall. It is assumed that there were no distinctive divided areas for buildings for laity or gates. The only major conservation work during the Japanese Colonial Period was performed for the main hall. The building was completely dismantled and reassembled as it was in order to repair its structural instability without altering its architectural form and style. The quiet temple with regular religious service and activities went through a drastic alteration in the 1980s when a new abbot was appointed. The first change had been made to the creation of natural landscape of which plan was established from a new interpretation of authentic setting of the temple. The 19th century old pavilion was replaced into bigger buildings and a huge artificial pond was created in front of it in order to represent the division of sacred and secular area. According to the Buddhist concept, water is a medium to purify visitors making them to be ready for entering sacred area. However, many Buddhist temples had imported natural water stream to the setting when the building arrangement had been set out. The construction of new pavilion, called Hwangharu, was completed in 1986 with a grant central and local government. The pavilion with a seven-bay front was designed for occasional services with a huge congregation or for temporary exhibitions. The fund was granted for the landscaping of the surroundings of the pavilion so that the public money was used for the construction of an artificial pond in the front (Figure 4). The project was completed in 1992. The second change during the time was a creation of gates, one-pillar gates and guardians’ gate. To have a formal gates in the Buddhist temple with two or three different buildings were Joseon (1392 ~ 1910) tradition. The construction of such buildings was the re-interpretation of authentic layout of the temple fixing a certain period.

However, a new abbot, Beopjang, who was appointed in 1992, launched a new ten-year scheme for restoring the temple in 1993. The first thing to catch his attention was the pavilion and its surrounding landscape. The building was

Figure 4. Hwangharu in Sudeoksa Figure 5. New Hwangharu in Sudeoksa constructed in 1992 replaced by a new one in 1996(Figure 5). The temple’s rationale for replacement was that the 1992 building was so massive and tall that it distracted from the dignity of the main hall behind it. In addition, the pond was backfilled and grassed over because the temple authority regarded it as a Japanese method of landscape. Agreeing with the temple’s plan to reduce the size of the new pavilion, the Cultural Heritage Administration approved the reduction in size of the new pavilion from a seven-bay to a five-bay one and the lowering of the ground level by two or three meters and government funding was granted. However, the temple changed the scheme and built nine bays on the ground floor and seven bays on the first floor in 1996. In its defence, the temple explained that the pavilion was to be established as a museum so it needed a bigger space to facilitate an office and warehouse. There is no record about whether the government authorised the change of the scheme nor about whether the fund was returned to the government. In addition, the temple built two buildings, a nursery school and engine room on the left and right side of the pavilion. Sudeoksa took advantage of the problem of the criteria of the state grant by abusing government support for the temple which has one of the oldest timber buildings in Korea, altering existing buildings

and constructing new ones resulting in the destruction of the previous setting. This case also raises the concern that Buddhist temples spend their grants for purposes that have not been approved. And they demolished a building created with huge amount of government funds in 1986. The 1980s and 1990s changed to the temple raises a concern not only in terms of the abuse of government funds but also an irrational ambition of an abbot in the name of religious theology and modern needs. The main hall, which is registered as a National Treasure, lost its significance and the visual importance after the works. Visitors are not able to appreciate the architectural beauty and religious inspiration because the main hall had been marginalised by huge new buildings in the temple.

2. Case 2 : Haeinsa temple Haeinsa first built in the 9th century, is one of the Three Jewels Temples which represent the bul (the Buddha: Tongdosa), beop (the Dharma - the teaching: Haeinsa) and seung (the Shanga - the Buddha’s followers such as monks and laity: Songgwangsa)(Figure 6). Each temple preserves symbolic objects or an institute:

Figure 6. Aerial view of Haeinsa Figure 7 Woodblocks engraving buddha's teaching

Tongdo temple representing the Buddha has a stupa behind of the main hall and it contains one of many Seokgamoni’s real sariras; Songgwangsa representing the Shanga, has the biggest training centre for monks and it is well known as a place which has produced many great monks since its foundation; Haeinsa, as the Dharma temple, preserves a complete set of Buddhist scriptures(Figure 7). 31

The temple experienced several reconstructions after accidental fire and damage during several wars since it was founded in the 7th century. Most buildings were reconstructed after the latest fire of 1817 which burnt down the rest of the temple except two depositories. Old buildings were replaced by contemporary- style buildings of that time in the same place or in different locations in order to accommodate contemporary religious demand, resulting in the change of configuration of the temple. The temple was designed to arrange a group of buildings at four different ground-levels based on the symbolic meaning and importance of each group. At the lowest level, there are three gates: one pillar, four-guardians, and non-duality Gates for dividing secular and sacred area. At the upper level of the three gates, there is a small courtyard surrounded by a lecture hall in the north, bell pavilion in the west, a temple office in the south and an assembly hall in the east to locate functional and symbolic buildings for various religious activities for laity. Staircases on the left and right of lecture hall called Gugwangru lead to the central courtyard where the main hall, Birojeon, is located in front, a school on the left, and living quarters of monks on the right hand side of which area is designed for Buddha and monks. The highest location of the temple is the most important and sacred area, which locates four depositories: two are long in a row, Sudarajeon and Beopbojeon; and two are small between the two long depositories, called Dongseosagango, which house the woodblocks of the Tripitaka Koreana, the Buddhist scripture. Both buildings and the woodblocks are designated as a Korean

32 Figure 8 New storage for woodblocks Figure 9 Damp problem Inside of new storage

national treasure and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In 1990s, condition of woodblocks and the building has been worsen so that government has constructed a new building for better storage in the area of eastern side of the temple compound(Figure 8). However most important value of the temple is the location of two storage building at the top of the compound. Not only its scientific design of the buildings but also its symbolic meaning of location as a

Dharma(the teaching) temple was not at the centre of consideration in decision. Only physical condition of the woodblocks was at the value interpretation in the decision. At the end the decision to move woodblocks was not executed due to moisture problem of the new buildings(Figure 9). Future decision needs to consider sense of place along with physical condition of the woodblocks.

Conclusion: a way forward Two Korean cases in interpreting intangible aspects of tangible heritage has not fully understand where they are manifested in heritage and how to conserving them in practice. In order for them to solve the problem, two principles should be applied. First is value-based approach. Value-based approach are divided into three steps: 1. Value identification; 2. Value conservation; 3. Value dissemination. For this approach, it is essential for decision-maker to understand various values considering both tangible and intangible elements to manifest the values. Sense of place, in particular, in assessing values of a site and buildings should be carefully examined. Second is rational decision-making. Once value is assessed, then it is important to take values as a criteria of decision-making. Decision on conservation is not the matter of right or wrong but the matter of a rational process, which is to collect needed information, assess impacts on values, set out logical reason of intervention, and execute value-based practice. Sense of place, in many cases, can

cause difficult dilemmas to compromise with the condition of tangible elements, such as physical deterioration. However considering that intangible elements of tangible heritage is essence of values, it is important for decision-maker to weigh both tangible and intangible elements for a rational decision-making. Reference Anon (2016) Tongyoung Municipal City kicks out National Treasure to the street, Hangyerae, June 8, 2016 Cultural Heritage Administration(1988) The annual record of conservation of cultural properties, Seoul: CHA. Lee, Sujeong(2007) Conservation of religious building in use : comparative research into some philosophical, legal and management aspects of conservation of English churches and Korean Buddhist temples, PhD thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of York.

Sudeoksa (2002) The reconstruction record of Sudeoksa, Yesan: Sudeoksa.

Svyatitskaya E. N., head of the Archeology department State budgetary institution of culture "Museum Association "Museum of Moscow"», e-mail: [email protected]

Archaeology of an object and its image: archaeological exhibitions of the Museum of Moscow in 2016-2018

Active archaeological study in the center of Russian capital began in the first years after war. It has been carried on by Moscow archaeological expedition of the Institute of Archaeology of the Academy of Sciences, as well as the staff of the State historical Museum and the Museum of history and reconstruction of Moscow (currently -- Museum of Moscow). A special archaeological service was established in 1986 in order to provide a comprehensive study of the cultural layer of the city, so-called Center for archaeological research. By early 21st century a system of interaction has developled between design and construction organizations, together with the Archaeological Service of the Cultural Heritage Department of the Government of Moscow, Institute of Archeology and Museum of Moscow. Contemporary archaeological research is a long and multi-stage process of scientific study of the monument, from the moment of its discovery in course of archaeological exploration until the execution of archaeological excavations and processing of the found material - both "in the field" and after the archeological collection has been donated to the museum. The actual task of the museum is not only to introduce new material to scholars, but also to present the new archaeological material to the general public. The Museum of Moscow successfully performs such tasks, because it has a specialized department of Archaeology, which has been created more than 60 years ago in order to solve the problems of archaeological study, acquisition of

archaeological collections, their inclusion in the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation, accounting and scientific processing. In carrying out these tasks, the Museum is guided by the Federal law No. 73-FZ "On the Cultural Heritage (Monuments of History and Culture) of the Nations of the Russian Federation" from 25.06.2002, article 40 of Chapter 7 "Preservation of cultural heritage " which regulates the preservation of archaeological objects and monuments, and article 45 of Chapter 7, which regulates the procedure for the transfer of archaeological objects to the state part of the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation1. The Museum interacts with archaeological structures of both federal and municipal level. Since the mid-1990s, it has concluded and prolonged Agreements on scientific cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The last such Agreement was signed by directors of the Museum of Moscow and the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences respectively, Alina Saprykina and Nikolai Makarov on December 1st, 2015; it defines the joint interaction of these two institutions in the field of preservation and promotion of archaeological heritage. There are three main areas of cooperation. These are: 1. Preservation. 2. Scientific research. 3. Popularization. As part of the fulfillment of joint obligations, the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences transfers the collections obtained as a result of archaeological research, and documentation to them to the Museum for the purpose of permanent storage. The Museum staff accepts these collections, conducts the necessary preliminary sorting of the material before placing it on the fund, the staff of the Institute and the Museum conducts conservation and restoration of objects of material culture, if necessary. Then the items go through all stages of museum accounting, starting with the presentation of the collection at the EFZK (expert

1 http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_37318/bc8d2092d1fc2ab432e22010990d8a3c1444ad46/ 36

fund and procurement commission), and are included in the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation and the State Catalog2. The Museum of Moscow provides the permanent access to the received collections to the authors of excavations and their colleagues for scientific processing, and it should be noted that the staff of the "Archaeology" Department continued this joint work with colleagues even during the difficult period associated with the relocation of the Museum to new premises in the early 2010s. Employees of the Department take an active part not only in the scientific processing of the obtained material, but also participate directly in the field research expeditions of AI RAS. There is an active exchange of the latest scientific and scholarly data, documentation and literature. Finally, the Museum of Moscow and the Institute of Archaeology are actively cooperating in the promotion of archaeological heritage: this includes joint participation in scientific events, seminars and conferences, exhibition activity, and round tables. Since 1994, on the basis and by suggestion of the archaeologists of the Museum, the work of the scientific and practical seminar "Archaeology of Moscow and Moscow region" was carried out, which later transformed into "Archaeology of Moscow region" seminar of IA RAS. As a result of many years of activity of one only Rostislavl' archaeological expedition of Institute of archeology, all materials of which are stored in the Museum of Moscow, Museum Fund of the Russian Federation has recieved more than 4300 units in the General Fund only, and more than 10 thousand items in total. These figures do not include the materials from recent excavations, which are still in the processing stage, and contain no less material. Such examples can go on and on. The Museum has been actively cooperating with the city's archaeological services at municipal level since their inception in the late 1980s. In the mid-1990s, agreements on joint activities for organization and conduct of field archaeological

2 http://goskatalog.ru/portal/#/museums?id=262

research in Moscow, exhibiting, storing and publishing the results were concluded, firstly, with the Central Archaeological Unspection (CAI) of the UGK OIP (Department of State Control for the Protection of historical and cultural monuments), then with the Committee for cultural heritage of Moscow. Currenty, the cooperation of the Museum of Moscow with the Department of cultural heritage of Moscow and archaeological organizations that directly conduct archaeological work in the territory of Moscow is continued. Over the past 10 years, the Museum received a collection of more than 1,000 objects examined by qualified specialists-archaeologists of OOO"Archaeological research in construction", OOO "Metropolitan archaeological Bureau" and a number of others. No less important aspect of the activities of the staff of the Archaeology Department of the Museum of Moscow is the work on finding out and preserving that section of the intangible cultural heritage, the genesis of which is directly related to the archaeological heritage of the capital and the Moscow region. Among working formats of the Museum of Moscow, directly related to the intangible cultural heritage, is the creation of exhibition projects, the content of which has a significant psycho-emotional impact on Museum visitors, as well as stimulating their intellectual needs. The active activity of Moscow archaeologists is now connected, among other things, with the implementation in 2016-2017 The program of urban improvement "My street", which covered the historical center of the capital. The specifics of the implementation of this program was associated with a large-scale replacement of communications, which affected those layers where archaeologists can find historical objects. The group of researchers has enrolled to the analysis of repair works in the city in advance, at the stage of their design. Thanks to the data accumulated as a result of the previous historical and archaeological study of the city, the researchers suggested what kind of remains of architectural objects can be found in a particular place. It was impossible to predict only the degree of their safety in advance. Besides large archaeological sites, research of the city is always

accompanied by findings of small household items: ceramic and glassware, children's toys, baptismal crosses, buttons and shoes, all that things people so often lose in any time. In 2016-2017, more than 10 thousands of objects, from unique to often- found, have been excavated on the streets of Tverskaya, Bolshaya Polyanka, Ostozhenka and Prechistenka, on the Boulevard ring, the lanes of the Bely gorod, and the embankments of the Moscow river. After the initial attribution and restoration almost all items found by Moscow archaeologists replenish the funds of the Archeology Department of State budgetary institution of culture "Museum Association "Museum of Moscow". Citizens and toursits can see them both at the exhibitions that the Museum of Moscow holds at its premises, and as a part of other exhibition projects. But the inclusion of archaeological collections in the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation is not instantaneous: the legislator provides the author of the excavations with three years to process the obtained material. Thus, "fresh" finds are not available for non-specialists, while the interest to the current news of archaeological research is great. In 2016-2018 The Museum of Moscow actively participated in the popularization of the results of the work of Moscow archaeologists. The result of this activity was manifested in 2016 exhibitions: "Tverskaya, and not only", "Foreigners in Moscow", "Archaeological summer in Moscow", and the 2017 exhibition "Secrets of Moscow dungeons". These projects presented archaeological artifacts, which were only recently recovered from excavations and trenches, to the visitors of museum. It is pleasant to note, that the project "Secrets of Moscow dungeons" (curated by E. N. Svyatitskaya, M. N. Fursov), which exhibited the findings of 2017, was named the best Moscow exhibition project at the July 2018 Moscow Urban Forum. He won in the nomination "Exhibitions in Moscow" among strong competitors, such as, for instance, the exhibition project of The State Tretyakov gallery "Thaw", which was also included in the shortlist.

The exhibition "Findings on my street" (curated by E. N. Svyatitskaya), another joint project of the Museum of Moscow and Moscow archaeologists, provided visitors with a unique opportunity to see artifacts recently found by researchers carrying out archaeological assistance to the Moscow urban improvement program. The main objective of the exhibition "Findings on my street" was the presentation to a wide range of visitors of the findings made by archaeologists carrying out scientific and security assistance of urban improvement under the guidance of "My street" program. A large-scale educational impact on visitors was a purpose of exhibition. It was conceived as a project designed to influence the formation of urban public opinion, determined by the understanding of the importance of scientific, historical and protection activities of the archaeological services of the city. The coverage of the research opportunities that are presented to the experts during the implementation of the urban improvement program, has enabled to focus attention of visitors on the traditionally close cooperation of the employees of the city archaeological structures and representatives of the Museum community represented by members of State budgetary institution of culture "Museum Association "Museum of Moscow". Scientific and educational goals of the project were aimed at familiarizing visitors with various aspects of the life of the population of medieval Moscow, as well as dwellers from the 18th-early 20th century, which was reflected in the artifacts presented at the exhibition. The main figurative row was associated with the humorous slogan of the exhibition: "From trench in the morning to museum at night". Visitors were invited to imagine themselves walking along the wall of the construction trench, in which at different levels a kind of "windows to the past" was located -- lightbox showcases, which exhibited archaeological findings of this season from the historical center of Moscow-Zaryadye and Kadashi districts, and thematically combining items from the archaeological collections of the Museum of Moscow. A

pair of boots from Ivan the Terrible era, in extremely well-preserved condition, which was thrown into a well and hunting bow found in the Zaryadye area, a hoard of imperial coins, tiles with images from "Alexandria" (history of Alexander the Great), fragment of a gravestone of [AK]uline with the inscription-graffiti, a set of piety objects – vest crosses and engolpions representing both the evolution of such medieval and post-medieval small figurines and the most interesting findings of this working season, totalling about 300 objects of material culture, which had their own lives and their own history. Placed in a museum, exhibition space, which is unique in its essence and is also a cultural space associated with both material and intangible cultural heritage, these artifacts help contemproraries to "catch" the time when they existed. The image of an ancient thing, which the visitor fixes in his mind when visiting the exhibition, helps to create his ideas about the events, processes, personalities associated with it, forming and preserving, thus, the intangible memory of generations. The presentation of the artifact not only as a material object, but as a source with a rich semantic content, allowed the creators of the exhibition to conduct a dialogue with visitors at the semiotic level. Participants in this dialogue become creators of a new layer of intangible cultural field by creating and perceiving new signs and symbols. The synchrony of this interaction of contemporaries is combined with diachronic communication through an object with those who held it in their hands centuries before us. The material object becomes first a sign - a signal object, that attracts our primary attention3. The perfectly preserved hunting bow of the middle of the XVI century becomes interesting, firstly, by the fact of such preservation of the ancient artifact. Then its symbolic meaning appears, generating an algorithm for understanding time. Departing from the essence of the object, which denotes itself, the bow becomes for us a symbol of hunting as an occupation and skill in general, embodies the whole branch of medieval craft

3 https://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc_philosophy/2306/%D0%97%D0%9D%D0%90%D0%9A 41

(woodworking) and hunting as a certain economic activity. Moreover, if modern man is still able to correlate hunting and woodworking with the experience that has survived to our days and known to him, then hunting with the help of a bow and arrow as a specific occupation is already perceived as an archaism in general. The preservation of such a representation, obtained through the perception of an ancient material object (we call it the archaeology of the image), as one of the types of intangible cultural heritage, is of particular importance. Archaeology is a science, which destroys the object of its study in the process of research an archaeological monument, and "conserves" the material material heritage, associated with it, only partly. Therefore, it is so important to pay special attention to the preservation of all kinds of heritage obtained as a result of this research, their understanding, perception and return to the cultural field, at least in an intangible form. In this regard, it is necessary to comply with the paragraph of article 2 of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage4, which defines the protection of intangible cultural heritage as " identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion...". I would like to express the hope that the archaeological exhibition projects of the Museum of Moscow make their contribution to the preservation and promotion of both tangible and intangible heritage.

References. 1. Slovar' aktual'nyh muzejnyh terminov. [The dictionary of actual museum terminology.] // «Muzej»[Museum.]. 2009. №5. 2. Muzej kak soobshchestvo v usloviyah globalizacii. [Museum as a community in terms of globalization.] Moscow, 2002. 3. Klimov L.A. Nematerial'noe kul'turnoe nasledie: k voprosu o soderzhanii ponyatiya.[Intangible cultural heritage: on the meaning of the term] // Voprosy kul'turologii. [Questions of Culuturogy.] 2011. №9. Pp 15-19. 4. Krejn A.Z. Zhizn' v muzee. [Life in the museum] Moscow, 2002. 5. Shokarev S.Yu. Povsednevnaya zhizn' srednevekovoj Moskvy. [Everyday live in medieval Moscow] Moscow. 2012.

4 http://docs.cntd.ru/document/901978302 42

List of illustrations.

Figure 1. Hunting bow. Oak. 16th century.

Figure 2. Boot. Leather. 16th century.

Figure 3. Encolpion sash. Copper alloy. 14-15th centuries

Figure 4. Button, skan' (filigree) White metal. 16th century.

Figure 5. Konstantin Voronin -- the head of OOO "Metropolitan archaeological Bureau" at the excavation.

Figure 6. Key. Iron. 15-16th centuries.

Figure 7. Inkwell. Copper alloy. 18th century

Figure 8. Seal-ring. White metal, agate. 19th century.

Kozyreva Ekaterina Andreyevna Head of the Department for the Protection of Cultural Heritage Sites of the Committee for State Control of the Use and Protection of Monuments of History and Culture of St. Petersburg , e-mail: [email protected]

Nearby manors of noble people as an intangible component of the cultural heritage object

My research of the territory of the Saint Petersburg province (within the borders before 1917) has revealed unique objects in Saint Petersburg and its close environs. These manors are so grandiose and ambitious that they could even compete with the suburban imperial estates, but at the same time they have distinctive features. This type of objects can be categorized as nearby manors of noble people. These are neither suburban imperial residences nor country houses of nobility. Estates (or more precisely palaces and gardens) of nobility traditionally developed as a special type of objects in the city's surrounding area. Now they are located within the borders of the city. Both estates of nobility and suburban imperial residences were most often built on the main highways (or in the immediate vicinity) and contributed to the development of urban areas. Famous and "trendy" court architects built nearby manors of noble people along with imperial residences, and used styles and building materials fashionable at the time. They were located in nearby suburbs of Saint Petersburg. Based on specifics of imperial residences, cottage houses and manors and their development, I have identified a particular type that can be roughly called "nearby manors of noble people". Nearby manors of noble people were located near traffic routes, or in the wildland that was adapted for life (ponds, drainage ditches, drainage of wetlands, etc.). The nucleus of such manor house is the main building with the buildings for ceremonial receptions, and facilities; park objects

used solely for ceremonial purposes (pavilions, temples, gazebos, etc.) were places of amusement. In exploring the estates, I discovered that not only material characteristics but also intangible properties are extremely important for this type of manor houses. Of course, we now find it difficult to fully grasp the cultural and urban impact of manor houses on the development of the area and the surrounding historical environment, but we can draw some conclusions from the memoirs of contemporaries, prints and paintings depicting the festivities and life of the owners.

Fig. 1. Count Stoganov's country house. A print from the book "The Forgotten Past of the Environs of Saint Petersburg" by M. I. Pylyayev (1889)

Fig. 2. Unknown engraver from the Academy of Sciences. Stone Island Palace (Hermitage) (1754). A print of the drawing by M. I. Makhaev (1753)

Fig. 3. Unknown engraver from the Academy of Sciences. Prospect of the garden on the north side nearby the country house on the Stone Island (1757). A print of the drawing by M. I. Makhaev (1755)

Heinrich von Reimers wrote in his book "St. Petersburg at the end of its first century" (1807): "The garden of count Bezborodko is also located on the Vyborg Side... There is a two-storey stone palace with colonnades on both sides forming an amphitheater opposite the Neva River. The temple resting on columns with

elaborate vaults contains a bronze statue of Catherine II, 9.5 feet high, made by Rachette in the form of Cybele in mural crone with a sheaf of wheat ears in the right hand and a key in the left... Merry companies sometimes visit the inn in Bezborodko's garden to dance here in the evening...... Yekaterinhof and two Naryshkin's estates at the fourth and sixth versts of the Peterhof road, known as "Ga-Ga" and "Ba-Ba", deserve special attention among places for country walks. These two places are always open to a decent public, they even used to serve soft drinks here… ... Those who love the beauty of nature cannot miss an opportunity to visit Sivoritsy, Taitsy, Pargolovo, Toksovo and Murino near Saint Petersburg. Sivoritsy is a lovely estate... belonging to Pyotr Grigoryevich Demidov... About thirty years ago, when the current owner of Sivoritsy bought this estate with all the surrounding villages, both Russian and Finnish, the area that has now turned into a blooming park was a swamp with a narrow Sivorka river oozing into the marshes. The fruits of creative endeavour combined with the will of the owner of this luxurious garden are amazing; how could a tiny stream become a picturesque river with lovely banks? it sometimes winds in numerous curves through the blooming meadows, among hills and groves, then suddenly falls from the stones in a small waterfall. ... Taitsy, not far from Sivoritsy, near Duderhof Hills... They are also well- built, there is a beautiful garden and various structures and facilities, and numerous excellent water tricks."

Fig. 4. S. F. Schedrin. A view in the vicinity of St. Petersburg

As M. I. Pylyayev describes in chapter XVIII of the book "Old Petersburg" (1889), "Stone Island, with its shady alleys, was also one of the most beloved public gardens; the site where the Summer Palace of the Grand Duchess Catherine Mikhailovna is standing was occupied by count Bestuzhev-Ryumin's charming pleasure garden in the Dutch style, with canals lined with limestone, gazebos for hunters, entertainment galleries and other noble enterprises. On Yelagin Island, formerly called Melgunov Island, the public also enjoyed the landowner's hospitality, Hofmarschall I. P. Yelagin. The butler was strictly ordered to treat all comers to dinner and supper. During the holidays, there was music playing in the garden, jesters showed their tricks, and amusing lights went off. In the Vyborg Side there were gardens of count Al. Ser. Stroganov and Yekaterinhof. Bezborodko… ... In "Red Tavern," "Yellow Tavern", and Yekaterinhof there were real saturnalia. People went there by boats with music and songs, or threesome of dashing trotters. Guests ordered whole boxes of champagne at the inn, not even bottles. They drank punch instead of tea. Gypsies, hustle and bustle and drinking all night! In the old days all this was considered a good sport. 50

There was a magnificent garden of A. L. Naryshkin on the Peterhof road, near Red Manor, almost seven versts long, also open to the public. There was even a plaque at the entrance that read, "We invite all city residents to take advantage of fresh air and a walk in the garden, for scattering thoughts and maintaining health." Splendid country gardens of Prince Vyazemsky, Zinovyev, Apraksin, Potyomkin, Sheremetev and many others with free entrance for all were located on the Shlisselburg Road."

Fig. 5. Festivities in Yekaterinhof. A print from the book of Yekaterinhof

Fig. 6. K. Hampeln. Festivities in Yekaterinhof on May 1. Fragment of the panorama. Early 1820's. A print from the book of Yekaterinhof

As can be seen from the descriptions and prints, nearby manors of nobility were not used for practical purposes of the estate; rather they had representative and public functions. Therefore restoration projects and further use of such objects should take into account their historical aspect and non-material component. It is necessary to promote the history of the estate and its owners, to tell of the events that happened there (festivities, holidays, etc.), of people who visited this place; to be mindful of the atmosphere created with the help of symbols both in the interiors and exteriors of the estate. We may not understand their meaning and significance nowadays, but at the time of construction of the estate, they were important and showed the status of the owner.

References 1. Georgi, I. G. Opisanie Rossijsko-Imperatorskogo Stolichnogo Goroda Sankt-Peterburga i Dostopamyatnostej v Okrestnostyah Onogo, s Planom [Description of the Russian Imperial Capital City of Saint Petersburg and Its Landmarks in the Suburbs, with a Plan]. Ed. by A. A. Alexeyev. Foreword by Piryutko. St. Petersburg, Liga, Marble Series, 527 p. 2. H. C. von Reimers (2007). Sankt-Petersburg am Ende seines ersten Jahrhunderts, historisch topographisch Beschrieber [Russ. ed.: Sankt-Peterburg v Kontse Svoyego Pervogo Stoletiya: So Vzglyadom Na Vozniknoveniye i Rost Etoj Rezidentsii Pri Razlichnykh Gosudaryakh, Pravivshikh v Techenie Etogo Vremeni]. Translated by A. D. Syschikov. St. Petersburg, Rostok, Dialog Dvukh Kultur, 526 p. 3. Pylyayev, M. I. (1996). Zabytoe Proshloe Okrestnostey Peterburga [The Forgotten Past of St. Petersburg's Environs]. Leningrad, Lenizdat, 670 p. 4. Stariy Peterburg: Rasskazy Iz Byloy Zhizni Stolitsy M. I. Pylyayeva So 100 Gravyurami (2000). [Old St. Petersburg: Stories From the Past of the Capital Told by M. I. Pylyayev: With 100 prints]. Svarog i K, 470 p. 5. Stolpyanskiy, P. N. (1923). Petergofskaya Pershpektiva: Istoricheskiy Ocherk [Peterhof Perspective: Historical Overview]. St. Petersburg, 70 p. 6. Vrangel, N. N. (1999). Starye Usadby: Ocherki Istorii Russkoy Dvoryanskoy Kultury [Old Estates: Essays on the History of Russian Noble Culture]. St. Petersburg, Neva, 319 p. 7. Malinovskiy, K. V. Peterburg v Izobrazhenii M. I. Makhayeva [St. Petersburg As Depicted by M. I. Makhayev]. St. Petersburg, VELES, RIAL, 141 p. 8. Kormiltseva, O. M., Sorokin, P. Y., Kischuk, A. A. (2004). Yekaterinhof. St. Petersburg, Iskusstvo-SPb, 128 p.

N. A. Akulova, Yagzheva Anastasia Sergeevna St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (SPbGASU) St. Petersburg, e-mail: [email protected]

INTANGIBLE HERITAGE THE HISTORIC INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF THE ISLAND OF DEKABRISTOV ISLAND

During the formation of socio-cultural and legislative basis of architectural and construction activity in Russia and beyond, the issue of preservation of cultural objects, architecture and art became more common. Today, with the natural course of history and ageing of material cultural objects the problem of cultural heritage preservation is becoming more and more urgent. The attention of the world public to the heritage has led to positive changes in the issue of protection of monuments of material culture and has designated a new problem of our time, namely the concept of "intangible heritage". The term "intangible cultural heritage" has been coined at first forum-conference in Washington, held under the auspices of UNESCO in 1989. Today, the official definition, according to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, adopted in 2003, by the General conference of UNESCO states: "The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage". This intangible cultural heritage, -- as it says further -- transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their

history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. 5 By definition, intangible cultural heritage can be constituted in the form of a custom, representation and have no relation to specific material objects, and yet it can be a knowledge or a skill associated with a particular cultural or other space, in case if it forms a sense of continuity among its inhabitants and contributes to the maintenance of the spirit and memory of the place. The purpose of this article is to determine the impact of intangible cultural heritage on the preservation of the monument of architecture on the example of the industrial zones of the Dekabristov Island in St. Petersburg. Dekabristov island, or Goloday island (the name was used until 1926), was formed from the beginning of St. Petersburg history. The territories located near the water resources, not far from Vasilevsky island, where the center of the capital was planned during the Petrine era, thanks to their location were popular among entrepreneurs and merchants, who arranged their industrial enterprises and warehouses here. Production facilities with their brick architecture were characteristic of the Dekabristov island during its historical development until the end of the XX century. The spheres of industrial activity were diverse: in 1857 a tannery and a saddler factory were assigned to the Osipov family, and leather was produced for military departments and the tsarist army; in 1880, the first buildings of the future Stationery Factory of V. Pechatkin were erected; in 1894, the Severnaya Weaving mill of Hueck brothers was founded, which engaged in the manufacture of textiles of specific St. Petersburg theme; Tube factory, which began its history from the end of the 18th century, known as Vinny town, a place for storing wine, continued to exist, while being reoriented on the manufacture of details for military purposes. The industrial enterprises on the island boasted original technologies and designs for manufacturing products, and the scale of production formed a wide range of customers and contributed to the growth and

5 Kabitskii M. E. Intangible heritage as an element of constructing meanings of cultural discourse and some issues of its study and use in Russia and Europe. http://www.nrgumis.ru/articles/2012/ 54

development of factories both economically and socioculturally (reputation among the working population, the value of jobs, the construction of new buildings and the prime of the area among eminent entrepreneurs). Unfortunately, due to political and economic events, since the end of the 20th century historically formed enterprises began to lose their former scope and scale, unable to maintain the continuity of business. Large industrial companies, which were household names among the population and in state demand, began to split into small private enterprises, which resulted in a loss of the intangible assets of industries (technology, manufacturing, etc.), destruction of historical and architectural unity of industrial complexes and, consequently, a gradual loss of memory, genius loci, and objects of material cultural heritage (buildings and structures). Further desolation of territories or their split into several separate, functionally unrelated areas can lead not only to the loss of memories and archival materials about pre-existing enterprises, but also to the loss of the historical architectural and urban environment, the scale of development and to global chaotic changes in the socio-urban conditions of the city formation. For preservation of complexes of industrial constructions and prevention of degradation of the territory, and accordingly, of loss of visual reminders of past scale and value of the enterprises it is necessary to recognize the "subject" of the former entrepreneurial activity in terms of intangible cultural heritage and consider possibility of preservation of historical value of the environment through recreation of activity of this "kind". For example, the Osipov tannery (Currently OAO "Kozha") has a rich history of manufacturing leather for the military departments, leather goods and footwear enterprises, and it is the oldest Russian manufacturer. However, at the moment the company does not have large-scale production, is in some kind of degradation and requires a complex restoration work. Taking into account the tendency of transferring production outside of the city and change of the functional purpose of the architectural and urban object, it becomes impossible to restore the

industrial center "as it has been" before the recession. In this case, the use of the intangible heritage of the complex, namely the culture of tannery, helps to determine the new function of the object: the complex of buildings in the preserved borders can be adapted into social and business multifunctional core, arranged as a center of the leather industry, with placement of small offices and shops, preserving small production facilities for modern designers working with leather.

Предмет производства - нематериальное наследие промышленности КОЖА ЧТО?

Дизайн - Процесс работы с предметом Сохраняя создание Производство Реализация историю КАК? идеи

Место работы Офисы Цеха Магазины Музей ГДЕ?

Change of the production function of architecture and town planning object to that of public business, while preserving the themes and subject of historical industrial areas can facilitate the revival of cultural heritage property and return its value as part of the city. With the help of the object of intangible cultural heritage, it is possible to preserve the significance of the object of material cultural (architectural and town planning) heritage and the object as a whole. That is why during the working process with an object of architectural and town planning heritage it is necessary to pay attention to its history and to identify intangible values that have a direct impact on the return of the memory of place and genius loci, contribute to the preservation of the physical condition of the object and form a sense of continuity and respect for human heritage.

References and sources http://www.nrgumis.ru/articles/2012/ Shirokovskih M.S. Peterburgskie tekstil'nye fabriki v dorevolyucionnyj period: istoriya i assortiment [Textile factories of Saint-Petersburg before the 1917 Revolution: History and products] //Arhitekton: izvestiya vuzov. - №61, mart 2018 g. – 192-201 s. Kiryushina Yu.V. Nematerial'noe kul'turnoe nasledie – aktual'noe ponyatie sovremennosti. [Intangible cultural heritage as an actual contemporary term]// electronic resource - https://cyberleninka.ru/article/v/nematerialnoe-kulturnoe- nasledie-aktualnoe-ponyatie-sovremennosti

L.V. Evgenieva, Advisor to the Abbot of the Solovetsky Transfiguration Monastery, Moscow-Solovki, 2018-2019. e-mail: [email protected]

On valuable intangible attributes of cultural heritage properties of religious value at Solovetsky archipelago

"The Solovetsky complex is an outstanding example of a monastic settlement in the inhospitable environment of northern Europe, which admirably illustrates the faith, tenacity and courage of monks of the Russian Orthodox Church. The subsequent history of the monastery is graphically illustrated by the wealth of remains of all types that have survived".

(Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, adopted on the 41st session of the UNESCO World Heritage Commitee, Krakow, 2017).

The spiritual, cultural and natural heritage of Solovki is, first of all a national sacred object of Russian people, an object of self-identification of the nation. The Cultural and Historic Ensemble of the Solovetsky Islands was granted the status of UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1992 in accordance with the Criterion iv (Russian Federation, 632) and the formulation of Outstanding universal value (hereinafter -- OUC), the retrospective version of which is given above.

Fig.1. The fortress of the Solovetsky monastery. Photo By M. S. Skripkin.

The International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (hereinafter -- Convention) was adopted at the 32nd session of the UNESCO General Conference, (Paris, 2003). The Russian Federation has not yet ratified the Convention, but in the field of preservation of cultural heritage (historical and cultural monuments) it is recommended to take into account the intangible component of the object which is protected. This fact, as well as the introduction of the historical and cultural ensemble of the Solovetsky monastery into the UNESCO World Heritage Sites give grounds to use some approaches and formulations of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (as applied) to the definition of intangible components and attributes of Russian cultural heritage objects (historical and cultural monuments). Let us emphasize that in terms of the retrospective formulation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site, the intangible values inherent in the Object are included as well. In terms of development of the presented formulation, in this paper, we propose to consider elements, components and attributes of the World Heritage Site of religious significance as intangible, in particular, the way of monastic life; liturgical, historical, memorial and other functions of the Site. The preservation and maintenance of these functions allows

the preservation of a genuine historical and cultural environment. In this regard, it should be reminded that in the UNESCO World Heritage Guidelines, among the criteria of authenticity is listed the historical function of the World Heritage Site, which can constitute the subject of protection itself. Being unable to describe the centuries old history of the Object of cultural heritage of Federal Significance "The Ensemble of the Solovetsky monastery and individual buildings of the Islands of the Solovetsky archipelago, 14th century -- first half of the XXth century", let us analyze the typology of its intangible attributes.

Fig.2. Prepodobny Job (in schema Jesus) of Anzer. 21st century icon.

We suppose that the rich intangible heritage of the Solovetsky monastery, the most valuable sacred object of the Russian North, should be revealed in all its diversity. Let us compare it with some provisions of the Convention, elements, components and properties (attributes) of the World Heritage Site. 60

The International Convention reminds about "the importance of the intangible cultural heritage as a mainspring of cultural diversity and a guarantee of sustainable development" as well as "deep-seated interdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible cultural and natural heritage". It is difficult to imagine a tangible object of cultural heritage without the intangible component. The present Solovetsky monastery, the direct heir of the ancient Solovetsky monastery, is the true bearer of the image of the Orthodox Russian monasticism in the harsh conditions of Near Arctic region. At all times, moral courage and reasonable way of life allowed and still allow the inhabitants to strictly adhere to the monastic Charter, liturgical in the first place. On the other hand, the issues of careful natural development for economic purposes have always been solved with the highest creative approach while respecting traditions. The activity of development of original methods in construction by monks and monastery laborers of Solovetsky monastery was characterised by reasonable solutions, possessing technological value and reaching the levels of invention at times, for instance: technologies of construction of fortress walls, sea and lake dams from a natural boulder; production of unique Solovetsky brick; construction of one of the first hydroelectric power plants in Russia; arrangement of Filippovsky fish traps and many other things. There is evidence of the cultivation of southern fruits and berries in the harsh conditions of the North; etc. All works in the Orthodox Russian monastery on the arrangement of tangible objects and nature management carry an intangible unifying idea and purpose: life for God in harmony with the world. At the same time, the Solovetsky archipelago has preserved its cultural diversity as much as its possible: in addition to all kinds of monastic settlements, prehistoric archaeological sites, evidence of the camp period and so on can be found in the Solovki area. The Convention notes that "the universal will (is) to safeguard the intangible cultural heritage of humanity" Safeguarding of intangible heritage and

memory is inherent in humanity, but it is especially characteristic of the Orthodox religion and constitutes the very essence of the Russian Orthodox Church in General and monastic life in particular. Storage of the ancient Church Slavonic language, Church Statutes,

Fig.3. Cross Procession around the monastery fortress. Photo By M. S. Skripkin. including the Liturgy of the Hours, Church singing, decoration and vestments, labor and prayer obedience, the entire structure and life of the monastic organism demonstrate not only the preservation, but the full life of the intangible aspects of the heritage in the Charter and Tradition. The Convention states, that " communities, in particular indigenous communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals, play an important role in the production, safeguarding, maintenance and re-creation of the intangible

cultural heritage, thus helping to enrich cultural diversity and human creativity,". The leading role in the creation of intangible components of the heritage of the historical and cultural complex of the Solovetsky Islands surely belongs to the Russian Orthodox Church. However, during its history there were individuals who made a special contribution to the emergence and development of the Solovetsky monastery and its intangible attributes: the founders of the monastery, prepodobny Zosima, Savvaty and German of Solovki, as well and a host of saints who left a rich spiritual legacy to future generations; Metropolitan Philip, who led the creation of the main Solovetsky architectural masterpieces in stone (Spaso- Preobrazhensky Cathedral, etc.); architects Ignatii Salka, Stolypa, Trifon Kologrivov, who erected architectural masterpieces of Solovki and who developed a unique technology of boulder masonry; many of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Solovki, who suffered because of the faith; scientists P. K. Kazarinov and A. A. Evnevich, who, while being prisoners of the Solovki camp, made the professional studies of monastic monuments; and many others. The Convention also emphasizes "the invaluable role of the intangible cultural heritage as a factor in bringing human beings closer together and ensuring ... understanding among them". For centuries, intangible attributes of the Solovetsky islands heritage, both cultural and natural, keep attracting a lot of people of different beliefs. The spiritual, cultural and natural heritage of the Solovki is extremely integral. Pilgrims, who come to the archipelago, can not but admire the beauty of Solovetsky nature with its intangible attributes: landscapes, irresistible in terms of memorial and aesthetic impact, including sound ones (bell ringing against the background of the cries of seagulls, noise and smell of the sea; just silence). Tourists who visit Solovetsky archipelago with goals, which are distant from spiritual ones, are impressed by the so-called "genius loci»: associative landscapes, saturation of space with historical memory, etc. Everyone are united

by that intangible component of Solovki, the particle of which which everyone takes away with themselves.

Fig.4. Evening waves, the island of Anzer.

According to the Convention, "intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities ... recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. - "oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage" are fully represented in the Russian Orthodox Church tradition: modern liturgical Church Slavonic language, tradition, including monastic traditions, etc.; 64

Fig.5. Night Service.

"performing arts" (as applicable) among the extensive archival religious heritage, special Solovki liturgical chants, bells, the tradition of temple and extra- temple singing of worshippers and so on have survived to the present day. - "social practices, rituals and festive events" - annual circle of Orthodox Church feasts, great and small, including local ones, as well as the tradition of veneration of sacred places, rites, worship of sacred places, established pilgrimage and pilgrimage traditions, routes, paths. According to M. E. Kuleshova, places of religious veneration presuppose the performance of ritual actions, a certain type of behavior, and saturation of the territorial sacred complex with semiotic objects. All these forms of intangible heritage, which characterizes the material heritage, the territorial complex, which is relevant, for example, to a place of interest, is always a dynamic system. For example, the appearance of baths, chapels and crosses comes along with Holy springs. Along the pilgrimage route you will need to equip places of rest, and so on. The processes, which characterize the specific

Fig.6. The rank of fruit blessing location should be supported, which should be taken into account when formulating the subject of protection. A special role in the sacred spatial marking of the Solovki belongs to the custom of installing eight-pointed crosses of different purposes. The cross as a sacred symbolism is an integral part of the Solovetsky archipelago. In our opinion, taking into account the monastic fortress, sketes, hermitages, monastery facilities and huts located throughout the archipelago, the worship crosses form a strong sacred framework of the islands, which corresponds to the spiritual function of the Object. Speaking about associative landscapes, it would be correct to consider intangible attributes as the content of associations ; "knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;" - is the topic rich in examples. There were many workshops, industries and crafts in the monastery: icon-paintning, making of especially durable Solovetsky brick, ship- building, hunting and

Fig.7. Preserved votive crosses on Kolguev cape (island of Anzer). fishing, own quarries where amazingly smooth flagstones were made etc. And today, the revived Solovetsky monastery has several traditional workshops, and is engaged in agriculture and fishing on historical sites on a modest scale so far. There is a remarkable cross-cutting workshop in which wooden crosses of different sizes are made: from baptismal to memorial crosses, which are characteristic of the archipelago (more than 10 m in height). Including crosses produced using the historical tradition of archipelago. Nature management on Solovki and characteristic approaches to the formation of vast farmland, which significantly influenced the appearance of the archipelago, is a separate topic. Historical namings of objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture), as well as geographical objects (hills, lakes, roads, sections of the sea coast, etc.), i.e.

Fig.7. On the bell-tower. Photo By M. S. Skripkin. historical toponymics is the important intangible component of Object which is protected.. The intangible components and attributes of the UNESCO world heritage Site ore Solovki islands are equally in need of protection, which according to the Convention " means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, ..., as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage.". Here is a quote from the Russian " guidelines for determining the subject of protection of cultural heritage..." in terms of determining their intangible attributes "5.1.Intangible and tangibles features of the object of cultural heritage. Methods of formalization of value-related characteristics. Each object of cultural heritage is defined by a set of tangible and intangible features.. The method of formalization of intangible features (aspects of historical and cultural value) is their structuring into separate elementary intangible 68

characteristics. 5.2. Aspects of historical and cultural value of the object of cultural heritage. The following are the main intangible value-related characteristics of a cultural heritage object (excluding objects of archaeological heritage , which are the result of the process of structuring into elementary intangible characteristics. These elementary intangible features for the purposes of this Methodology include: 1. "Dating" – date (time) of creation of object or date (time) of the historical event connected with object. 2. "Historical (memorial) value" – documented or widely known (in some cases – legendary) connection of the object with historical events or personalities, life, cultural context, etc. 3. "Historical and artistic value" - is determined by the level of artistic quality of the object. 5. "Rarity" -- is determined by a small or single number of preserved objects of a particular historical period, typology, as well as trends in architecture, ... or extant works of authorship. 6. "Authorship" - a characteristic determined by the personality of the creator of the object 7. "Historical function" is the original or historically significant functional purpose of a cultural heritage object.» Sujeong Lee, a well-known South Korean expert in the field of cultural heritage preservation took part in a round table discussion “Preservation of intangible value of cultural heritage sites" at VII Saint-Petersburg International Cultural Forum. We fully support her opinion, that often the intangible components and attributes of cultural heritage are more important than the tangible ones. We believe that this is especially true for objects of cultural heritage of religious significance.

Fig.8. Birch-cross on the slope of Golgotha mountain, Island of Anzer

Tatyana Yakovleva The chief architect of State Budgetary Cultural Institution "Gatchina State Museum-Reserve", St. Petersburg, e-mail: [email protected]

It was recently, it was a long time ago...

"In the beginning was the Word."

Dear readers, I suppose you will agree that any historical complex, and even more so an imperial residence, is an integral universe model that encapsulates architectural style preferences of the owner and the architect, and reflects the spirit of the era. In this article, I will try to shed some light on the value aspect and significance of a cultural heritage object, illustrated by the case of the Gatchina Palace. Many articles and books have been written about this complex of palace and parks that celebrated its 252nd anniversary and remained imperial for more than a century. The deeper we delve into the story of its making and existence, the more we time travel in our minds shifting from one century to another, the more dense time seems to be, the closer to us the "deeds of bygone days" and "legends of ancient times." The Gatchina Palace has always been shrouded in mystery, but no one remembers when it began, what exactly caused it, what was a pure coincidence or invented on purpose. Nowadays, an increased flow of information causes the feeling of time slowing down. Today we can quite easily recall the time when the Gatchina Palace was built, to observe various interesting periods of its history. Gatchina (Hotchino), previously part of the Izhora land, was returned to Russia during the Great Northern War (in the early 18th century) and did not immediately become the royal residence. We will not discuss here the times and history of Gatchina Manor that preceded the reign of Catherine the Great. Archival records indicate that in 1765 the Empress bought the land of the manor from the family of Prince Kurakin and gave it to Count Grigory Grigoryevich Orlov. The origin and early development of this complex of palace and parks lasted nearly 20 years while

Count Grigory Orlov owned the estate. The history of the palace was marked not only by the personality of the count, but also by his relationship with the Empress. It was probably Catherine II who recommended the count to approach Antonio Rinaldi, the Italian architect who had already distinguished himself in the Russian Empire by buildings in Oranienbaum and Little Russia. The palace was founded on May 30, 1766. After trespassing the magical portal, we stand in awe, fascinated by the unspoiled beauty of the picturesque landscape in front of us, covered with forests, hills, copses with bright lawns, and a silvery ribbon of water winding in the middle. Two men can be seen on the vast observation platform, peering into the distance and enthusiastically staring at a large sheet of paper: the young nobleman is the illustrious Count Grigory Grigoryevich Orlov, and the other man of venerable age is Antonio Rinaldi, a prominent architect. They probably foresee the majestic contours of the monumental royal hunting lodge and the park around it, reminiscent of English models. A sophisticated master of European architecture committed to traditions of his native Italy, the architect managed to demonstrate not only his professional skills but also poetic vein with a subtle feeling of Russian nature and the low-key beauty of the natural stone of the north. The fusion of the tranquil, picturesque landscape, white nights, age-old pines, the smell of lilac and lime trees, and the mirror-smooth water surface along with precise calculations made with the help of pencil, compass and ruler, created a unique complex of palace and parks noteworthy for its design planning and architectural decorations. The castle has survived the times of prosperity and oblivion, and remains an eloquent witness to centuries-old events. In addition, we inherited a mystery concerning the spatial design of the palace. The principle of a paradoxical combination of forms and two architectural styles, baroque and classicism, has generated a romantically diverse yet a coherent and harmonious complex. Elegant shapes and proportions, grandeur of scale, the natural stone facade, severe poetry of the front part of the palace facing a wide

square, a spectacular three-level central architectural volume and semicircular flanking galleries remind of Italian Palazzo style. In contrast, the volume adjacent to the opposite side facing the park and the Silver Lake is built in austere style of an English hunting castle. The core idea of the castle was embodied by the spring of 1774; in May, Catherine inspected the palace, "had tea in the rooms" and "had a rest" there. Throughout the 1770's, the work on decoration of the palace was ongoing, and the planned construction works were completed in 1781. It took 15 years to fulfill Count Orlov's dream. According to contemporaries, the palace was the main central three-storey building with ceremonial and living rooms. The main rectangular building decorated with Corinthian columns was flanked by two more buildings. On the park side, the three-storey main building was framed by the Clock Tower and the Signal Tower reflected in the Silver Lake. The main building is connected to the rectangular housing facilities with courtyards of the same shape (the Kitchen and the Horse squares, later Arsenal square) through open semicircular galleries, later rebuilt by the architect Vincenzo Brenna. The ceremonial courtyard, a court d'honneur with green lawns and driveways, was located between the palace buildings. Grigory Orlov, who received in 1772 the title of Prince, went to Europe, and then to Moscow, where he died, so he did not have enough time to enjoy life in his new home. In 1793, after the death of Grigory Orlov, Catherine the Great acquired the Gatchina Manor with all the buildings from his heirs and presented it to her son, Grand Duke Paul Petrovich, the future Emperor Paul I. Most people connect the Gatchina Palace with Paul I's name and consider this Emperor the founder of the whole complex of palace and parks, the "genius of the place". Let us try to elaborate on that issue. The construction of the palace had three main phases. As we have seen, the first one is associated with the life of Grigory Orlov and the architect Antonio Rinaldi (1766-1781); the second one is related to the Emperor Paul I and architect Vincenzo Brenna (1793-1801); the third phase is characterized by large-scale reconstruction, due to the ideas of the Emperor

Nicholas I and the architect Roman Kuzmin (1844-1856). A special importance attaches to the reign of the Emperor Alexander II, who completed the construction of the new palace and park, and equipped the palace with the latest engineering technology. Without a doubt, the short legendary reign of the Emperor Paul I has left a distinctive mark on the lifestyle in the country, which certainly affected the fundamental changes in the life of the town of Gatchina, as well as the appearance and order of the palace and parks. Large-scale changes were implemented by the architect Vincenzo Brenna. The Italian master adjusted the structure of the facades and many interiors of the palace, which gave them a more solemn and magnificent look. He made it in such a graceful and natural manner that only professionals can tell the difference between Rinaldi's work and Brenna's creativity. First of all, during the reconstruction, Brenna rearranged the open loggias of the two semicircular wings of the Gatchina Palace into closed galleries. These two galleries, later named the Greek gallery and the Armory gallery, were needed not only because open loggias were unsuitable for the harsh Russian winter but also due to urgent requirement for additional ceremonial rooms, as the Small Court of the Grand Duke Paul Petrovich was rapidly growing. The Greek hall dates back to 1798 and has been affected by the historic and artistic trends of the period. The late 18th century was characterized by the European high society's fascination with the ancient history and culture. This phenomenon gave rise to the new "classical style". The idea of a small palace museum dedicated to the art of Ancient Greece and Rome had been elaborated by the Grand Duke Pavel Petrovich and his wife Maria Feodorovna during their earlier journey to Europe. The future imperial couple purchased Italian copies of marble sculptures and busts of the prominent figures of antiquity. The architect Vincenzo Brenna used the principles of the classical style in the decoration of the ceremonial interiors of the Main Building, the Greek, Chesmen and Armory galleries; a significant reconstruction was also carried out on the court territory. It

was while Paul was a Grand Prince and then the Emperor that the appearance of the park was formed. The green carpet of the lawn in front of the palace was replaced by the parade ground for parades and training of the garrison of Pavlovsk. Moats filled with water around the parade ground, and Bastion Wall have emerged. The park was still dominated by English-style landscapes, including the White Lake and the Silver Lakes and coastal areas as the centerpiece. The main focus of the park is undoubtedly the water system of lakes and islands, partly natural and partly artificial and masterfully scattered on the surface. Lakes have become a kind of lookout points for panoramas and landscapes of the park, lively bridges and pavilions picturesquely scattered all around. The area located south of the palace, in its immediate vicinity, was redesigned; Private Garden and the adjacent parks (the Lime Tree Garden, Upper and Lower Dutch Gardens) were laid out in a formal style. The Upper and Lower Botanical Gardens emerged on the south-east. A vast Silver Meadow with magnificent oaks descended towards the Silver Lake. How many things were thought out, talked about, and felt in these alleys and on the shores of these lakes? Meanwhile, the years passed, the 19th century has arrived, and architectural styles have changed; the new owners of the palace faced other urgent and promising tasks. After the tragic death of the Emperor Paul I in 1801, Gatchina was in possession of the Empress Maria Feodorovna. Her favorite royal residence was Pavlovsk, but she also took care of her husband's beloved Gatchina Palace and parks. In general, she did not make any noticeable changes, except for repairs in the palace managed by the architect Andrei Voronikhin between 1807 and 1812. According to the will of Maria Feodorovna, after her death in 1828, Gatchina and surrounding lands passed on to her son, the Emperor Nicholas I. Nikolai Pavlovich treated Gatchina mostly as the residence of his father, the Emperor Paul I. The Empress intended the Main Building of the Palace to remain in its original

state. The building was renovated, its rooms were used only on ceremonial occasions; the rooms of Paul I became memorial. By the mid 19th century, the large royal family and its entourage needed not only additional living rooms and ceremonial rooms in the residence but also comfortable environment. According to the ideas of the Emperor Nicholas I, a large-scale reconstruction of the Arsenal (formerly Horse) and Kitchen squares was carried out. This radical restructuring was made in the period of changes in architectural styles, when classicism was replaced by the so-called historicism that comprised various artistic styles and dominated in Europe and Russia between the 1830s and the 1890s. The ideas of the Emperor were embodied by Roman Ivanovich Kuzmin, the academician of architecture, in 1844-1856. The Arsenal Block has become almost an independent palace with more than two hundred rooms. The most prominent halls are decorated in the Renaissance style: the Rotunda with a coat of arms, the Marble staircase with an entrance hall, foyer and galleries; Gothic and Chinese galleries are in the neo-Gothic style; Arsenal Hall is the most spacious hall in the whole palace, decorated with hunting trophies. The private apartments of the Emperor Nicholas I, which later became memorial, and the rooms of his wife Alexandra Feodorovna located along the eastern part of the square, are decorated in the Rococo Revival style. Such a variety of architectural styles and artistic techniques did not spoil the appearance of the palace, but rather made it more lively, diverse and luxurious. The Gatchina Palace complex attained its final form in the mid 19th century. The Emperor Alexander II brought some diversity into court life after he relocated imperial hunting, a traditional royal hobby, from Peterhof to Gatchina. Due to this, the "Menagerie" Park adjacent to the Palace Park was reconstructed, and Jäger's Sloboda was built in the town. The Emperor Alexander III and his family spent here more than half of year over 13 years and played an important role in the history of the Gatchina Palace. The Emperor carefully protected and improved the complex of palace and parks

and enriched the art collections. According to the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, "During the reign of Alexander III, the Gatchina Palace finally became what it was supposed to be, the workplace of Russia's busiest man." After the death of the Emperor Alexander III, the Palace passed into possession of his widow, Maria Feodorovna. The last to leave the Palace was their youngest son, Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich, who was arrested and shot in 1918. Thus ended the era of the Romanovs, who became an integral part of the spirit of the complex. A further hundred-year history of the palace was extremely dramatic, because the 20th century plunged it into a vortex of unpredictable events. In 1917, the figures of the February Revolution established the Artistic and Historical Commission, which transferred works of art from suburban palaces to the Russia's largest museum, the Hermitage. In May 1918, under the new Bolshevik government, the palace was granted the state museum status. The country's cultural policy in the 1920's demanded to transfer most of the items to other newly established museums. At the same time, historical and cultural artifacts were being sold abroad. The palace was heavily damaged during World War II. When Nazi troops entered Gatchina, only a part of the museum exhibits had been evacuated. In the post-war period, its premises were used by various unrelated institutions. All the splendor of the palace interiors was nearly lost. In May 1976, third-party organizations began leaving the buildings of the complex before the comprehensive scientific restoration and museification. The second birth of the museum took place almost seventy years later, on May 8, 1985. Three halls of the Main Building were opened for public. The recent history of the palace is a little more than 40 years. Just recently, 10-12 years ago, we could only be proud of the restoration of the premises in the Main Building which has been carried out since 1976. A lot has been done over thirty years, and the quality of work is excellent. This is illustrated by eleven ceremonial rooms in the Main Building, the Grand Marble staircase, galleries, rooms on the first and third floors, and an underground passage.

The new Director of The Museum, Vasily Pankratov, made some bold changes and accelerated the restoration project, reconstruction and repair of the rooms in the Main Building, the Eastern and Western semicircular galleries, and a large part of the Arsenal and Kitchen square. The Greek gallery, the Rotunda with a coat of arms, the Marble staircase and many other rooms have risen from the ashes. An installation dedicated to the Emperor's private chambers was arranged in the premises on the mezzanine floor, where Alexander III and his family lived. Nicholas I's private apartments and the Arsenal hall are being prepared for the opening, the Chinese gallery will be the next. The design of the Chesme Gallery, where the conservative restoration method was used, is a kind of reminder of the losses of the war years. Restoration is based on, among other things, watercolors by Eduard Petrovich Hau, who made them between 1860's and 1880's, as ordered by the Emperor Alexander III. An essential contribution is made by photos by Fyodor Lvovich Nikolayev, who collaborated with the editorial board of the "Old Years" journal, and photos taken during a pre-war inventory, which captured the palace treasures thanks to the palace staff member Mikhail Antonovich Velichko. The formula for creating works of art, including architecture, seems extremely simple: "Non-material – material – non-material." It is a kind of endless creative and spiritual chain reaction, which is fertile ground for the growth of new architectural masterpieces that shape aesthetic and artistic taste. The transformation of the non-material into the material is inevitable, as there is a belief that thoughts and words can truly make a difference. The raindrops of creative ideas simultaneously came down on the heads of absolutely different yet always talented and inspired artists across the globe at all times. Of course, many architectural achievements are due to acquaintance with the avant-garde architectural and artistic style trends. The passion for travel and the unknown has always been present in artists. In the days of electronic technology, we can learn about other people's thoughts and ideas in a matter of seconds, but what matters is that we do not steal intellectual property and offer avant-garde solutions that can improve

and embellish the earth. Architectural trends may pass and fade, but style, utility and beauty remain. Even years after the first meeting with beauty, that children's delight remains unchanged.

Sosnovskaya A. M. Pushkina V.S.

Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (North-West Institute of Management of RANEPA), Saint- Petersburg, Russian Federation; KGIOP e-mail: [email protected]

Reconstruction of Historical Practices of the Cultural Heritage of St. Petersburg

Restoration and conservation of historical monuments, architectural and landscape objects is on the agenda of the committees for urban planning and tourism of all cities of Russia, especially in St. Petersburg, as the first UNESCO world heritage site in Russia. On the round table "Preservation of intangible value of cultural heritage sites" organized by KGIOP at VII Internationional Cultural Forum in 2018, the Vice-President of ICOMOS Clara Arokiasami has stressed the importance of the preserving of intangible heritage, brought examples of study and preservation of different locations and events in the UK, showed the importance of initiatives and projects of civil society communities' projects, the leading role of curators and artists for update and maintenance of cultural values [1]. UNESCO documents pay special attention to the preservation and reproduction of intangible heritage. Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage defines it according to 6 criteria [2]: “Intangible cultural heritage” means (1) the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated

(2) by communities and groups in response to their environment (3), their interaction with nature and their history (4), and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity (5), thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage (6) as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development. World heritage sites are thus used not only as monuments but also as animation spaces. To realize its potential for creative artistic reconstructions, many questions need to be asked. How does a particular historical object come into contact with its context and the lives of modern people? How does it maintain the identity of the citizen? In what kind of movement trajectores it is inscribed? What is the message of communication?

Cultural initiatives around the object are extremely important, as in the long term, such initiatives securely bind the object to its context, contributing to the preservation of stories in the collective memory of citizens, the development of skills of preservation of the object in the local population. The social cohesion of people around a heritage site confirms group territorial identity. The cultural value of a heritage object may refer to intangible qualities such as social structure, economic needs and political context, may be associated with famous events, persons or works of art, literature, science or music. The intangible qualities of an object can include processes associated with that object. Such processes affect the perception of people, which is the essence of

the term "economy of impressions" - for example, creative performances, art installations, exhibitions and reconstructions. In the framework of the city project to promote St. Petersburg and the surrounding palace complexes as a UNESCO world heritage site, during 2016- 2018 students of SPIU Ranepa with the support of KGIOP studied the intangible heritage of the city, collecting stories, observations, interviewing citizens, working by the method of included observation at selected research sites -- the result of cooperation included articles in magazines and performances in internet and television projects. More than thirty student research papers pursued a common goal — to capture a unique code of the city in the perception of its citizens, which communicates the culture, values and consistent identity of the cultural capital of Russia. One of the student projects of 2017-2018 is the study of the history of balls of the city and the creative reconstruction of balls. In December 2017, a ball was held in the mansion of P. N. Demidov, in December 2018 - in the mansion of A. A. Polovtsev [3].

The argument of the successful business plan of the projects of V. Masleeva (now the master of St. Petersburg State University) was the idea of the authenticity and complexity of the reconstruction: "Currently, St. Petersburg continues to be famous for its interest in the reconstruction of ballroom culture. However, no ball has ever been held with an insight into the historical era, in the intricacies of the XIX century. In this regard, an idea was brought up to revive the tradition of organizing balls according to historical documents, recreating the atmosphere of the XIX century. At the same time it is necessary to hold other events, introducing residents and visitors to the cultural and historical heritage of St. Petersburg. It is the reproduction of historical data that differentiates our project from competitors. The aim of the project is to introduce the residents and guests of

St. Petersburg to the architectural history of the city through the ballroom and literary culture, and the objectives of the project are to create a portal of the palace history; prepare the target audience for ballroom culture, which includes training in the history of dance, costume, etiquette, familiarity with the architecture of the palace; conduct authentic balls taking into account the history of each Palace; recreate literary living rooms." The given project, choreographed and theatrical, corresponds to the spirit of the city as described by Yuri Lotman [4]. UNESCO's requirements for such qualitative indicators of heritage as creativity, spiritual realization, beauty, historical continuity, construction and support of identity, authentic perception, in our opinion, can be realized in projects of this type. Audience survey To find out the interest and motivation of modern people to such an event as a ball, a survey was conducted in the social network "Vkontakte" from September to October 2017. The survey was conducted in two groups of contemporary Russian writers, which characterizes the audience as having an interest in literature, culture, history and spiritual quests. A total of 872 people took part in the survey, including 70 men and 802 women (643 people from Russia, almost half of whom are from St. Petersburg, and 227 people from other countries). The survey was closed, i.e. options for answers were offered, and consisted of one question in the form of a case study: "Imagine being invited to a ball. Your reaction?» Further, the answers were proposed, compiled according to the psychology of motivation and taking into account the available online surveys of this type. The largest number of respondents chose the option: "The ball is magical, so I will accept the invitation!". This answer shows the interest in ballroom culture among modern people, but at the same time the ball is perceived as something unreal, ideal, on the verge of magic, something that may not exist at the present

time, and is forgotten far in the past. On the one hand, this is the area of fantasy, dreams, romance -- irrational desires of the unconscious, on the other -- a desire for a holiday, as a special time of unreal roles (carnival, according to M. M. Bakhtin), which allows to visit different game spaces, images, thus removing the fixation on worries, and restoring the psyche after social routine and stress thanks to new impressions and the work of artistic imagination. It is the imagination of each participant that completes the reconstruction of the full coherent picture. Participating in a ball is like reading a book, when certain markers refer to feelings and memories, allowing you to experience an imaginary action here and now and your ideal image in it. This is how psychology works at a fundamental level, providing us with continuity and consistency of impression and sensation. The second place with a small margin is divided by the options "I'd agree, they say, there are beautiful receptions" and "I'd agree... what if I meet a lord (or lady) there?", and it is interesting to note that these options were chosen by the entire male audience. Receptions and food are motifs, on which ballroom posters (which were also investigated in preparation for reconstruction) became to focus at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. The history of the 20th century Russia is the history of deprivation and hunger at many stages, and perhaps this motivation is an echo of the desire for free food. Impression management at this ball was thought out in such a way that the participants were plunged into a carefully orchestrated and structured performance, in which a change of activities, surprises and treats diversified the actions and impressions of the participants of the ball. Treats were provided by sponsors. Participants bought a ticket and no longer paid for anything, which created a sense of relaxation, hospitality, care. By authentic is meant what is not related to money -- relationships, sincerity, care. The "all included" option allows to relax the audience as much as possible. And, indeed, at this ball soon created the impression of a warm welcome from friends, where the hosts were the

Masleev family -- Victoria organized and led the ball, her father organized a buffet, her mother watched the guests, so that no one was bored. In the second answer - about acquaintance and romantic meeting the motivation of visit, which stretches to the modern world from far XIX century is revealed. Previously, balls served as a places to make a beneficial acquaintance or where hearts were united in a dance. This belief has persisted to the present day. In facts young girls got acquainted with cadets who are able to dance "on duty" and with pleasure participate in balls. The next answers in in descending order were "' l will go, of course! I love dancing...", "I'd refuse I hate dancing and noise", " I'd refuse, because I do not like balls at all... Why do they even needed?". About 50 people from the general audience, who responded to the survey, refused to go to the ball. Some argued their refusal in this way -- they assumed that, once at the ball, they and other people will be confused and embarrassed to dance and invite others to dance, or fear that they will not be invited, because they have not acquired the culture of ballroom communication, so it is better to immediately refuse the invitation than to try to overcome their fears, feelings of shame and awkwardness and learn the cultural practices of our ancestors. It is interesting to note that the audience from other countries considers the ball extremely magical and no respondent would refuse the invitation. It is possible that the refusals of Russian respondents are associated with a mentality of non- participation and avoidance of collective events or a lack of understanding of this cultural practice. In the modern world, ballroom dancing is beginning to replace club dancing, which is far from the traditions of the ball. It seems clear that middle-aged people who want to dance, but feel its inconvenient to go to the club, choose the ballroom form of dancing. However, as the balls showed -- young people from 20 to 30 years in the mansion of P. N. Demidov, and from 15 years in the mansion of A. A. Polovtsev -- with interest took part in master classes and preparation for the ball.

Modern young people consider ritual, built on the basis of the scripts while taking traditions into account, balls as a kind of historical performance in which they play a role. They move as if on stage in real time, and it causes a sense of euphoria, especially when all the participants of the ball correctly performed all the pas and movements and enjoyed the dance. Anyway, why didn't many people accept invitations to this event? Yet another, psychological hypothesis is the inability to relax and visit that fairy tale about which all everyone dream — this psychological script is written down in consciousness and subconsciousness of Europeans through fairy tales and all identical stories of mass culture since the childhood. About 50 people on the first ball, and more than 100 on the second trained from beginning to end and turned out to be at the Christmas ball. This reconstruction of ballroom practices — literary salon, tours, romances, contests, etiquette, script, dance, music — was preceded by careful study of historical materials and development of play events. Lots of data were found in archives, libraries, in interviews and conversations with experts and old residents of palaces, as well in the mass-media of different years. There are quite a lot of posters of balls of St. Petersburg and Petrograd from 1895 to 1923. Semiotic analysis of poster images allowed to reconstruct not only the practices, but also the values and functions of the ball as a communicative process. The ball is a very special event in the life of a person of the last century, a cultural practice that performed many social communicative functions. Yu. M. Lotman paid attention to the function of group identification: "The private life of a nobleman was realized here: he was neither a private person in private life, nor a civil servant in public service — he was a nobleman in noble society, a man of his class among his own" [5]. In the XXI century the interest to the balls has not diminished, and posters, thanks to hi-tech have become much brighter. The image came to the fore,

replacing the text message. Modern posters are not drawn, but are created in special computer programs. Frames from famous movies and cartoons are usually used as background images. On the posters of the XXI century it is not always possible to see the dress code of the ball and the script of the evening, as it was throughout the ballroom tradition of the city. The beginning of the balls shifted to the evening depending on the age of the audience. These points were carefully considered and prepared types of event and organized as a mono-performances and mono-events. For the event, a group was created in social networks, a corporate identity was developed, including: corporate color, logo, main slogan. At the first stage of the project it was necessary to attract the attention of the target audience. Advertising was carried out in the most popular social networks, where the majority of the target audience is found. The organizers also were looking for partners who provide information support, "word of mouth" has also worked. Partners and sponsors were involved, tickets for the events were sold at affordable prices for the target audience. One of the important stages in the preparation for the balls was to teach the target audience the dances that were danced in this very mansion. Recreating dance literacy is one of the important tasks of this project. During the events, the preferences and reactions to a particular proposal from the Directors of the event to the target audience were studied. Interests, choices, tastes, motivations, fears were revealed. Step-by-step plan of the first ball End of June-July -- study of historical facts about the ballroom culture and connection with the architecture and locations of the city. Creation of corporate identity of the project.

July-August -- detailed study of selected dates and eras, selection of dances for master classes, drawing up a list of dances for each ball with a teacher and dance master. September - the beginning of master classes and dance training. Planning in preparation for the ball: * search for partners and sponsors; * information notification about the upcoming event; * search for forms and solutions to tell the residents about the history of the Palace through the practice of balls, literary salons and musical meetings. October -- continuation of ball preparations. Communication and information in the Vkontakte group. Since September 2017, interested participants have been attending paid and free historical, literary and dance master classes in preparation for the ball, prepared historical costumes (for example, as a result of a master class on the history of fans), made hairstyles. The photos show how the costumes and hairstyles of the participants have improved in 2 years. In the day of the ball, the atmosphere of the holiday and the era was supported by manners of masters of ceremony and participants, the alternation of the activities that gave the reference to the past, the culture of Imperial Russia. Dances — 14 dances at all -- were alternated with historical remarks, stories, explanations of the meaning of dance steps, advertising breaks, tastings, buffet, a tour of the Palace, photo shoots, quizzes, competitions for the best costume, poems, romances, music, artistic improvisation. According to the surveys, women and men from 40-50 years and older choose historical reconstruction as a unique and authentic experience in search of salvation from shopping centers, gas stations, popular culture, TV shows and social networks: "preparing for the ball gives inspiration and arouses interest in the era, gives a sense of continuity, a sense of roots", " an intelligent person is interested in delving into history, correlating many themes and impressions at once: what is

known from books and films, the history of dance, clothing, architecture, city", "physical participation in dances, learning the meaning of dance elements and communication with a partner is a special, lasting, not a single-day experience", "people over 30 and older are not interested in going to the disco, but still they want to dance, want to dress up and interact with other people". The ball appeals to two deep psychological drives -- a search of romance of a bygone era, a reunion with the culture and identity of St. Petersburg, the search for their own experience of living through and understanding of historical practices, as well as a deeply rooted European narrative -- a tale about Cinderella, which is an archetype of a miraculous transformation, promising renewal of social status due to meeting strangers at the ball. *** We have considered the psychological motives, as well as the sociological functions of balls in St. Petersburg, which since their inculcation in our land have a communicative function, first of all, allowing to communicate at a close distance, without violating decency. Balls served the function of group identity, which implies unity with the people of same class (today – of same spirit) and differentiation from others, for example, in terms of education. Capitalist trends of the late XIX - early XX centuries made balls open to different groups and classes, since they have become a means of earning and attracting money, centers of entertainment and animation - balls became a platform and subject of PR activities. Balls in St. Petersburg mansions implemented in 2017 – 2018 were primarily aimed at popularizing the history of architecture and cultural heritage of St. Petersburg. Through the recreation of ballroom culture an opportunity appeared to tell the story of the way of life of the nobility of the twentieth century in an accessible and informative form. Through interactive practices that are authentic, meaningful, conscious impressions -- according to psychology and the economics of impressions -- the history of everyday life will forever remain in the hearts and minds of people.

Such vivid and authentic impressions and absolutely enthusiastic responses of all participants certainly belong to the concept of sustainable development and social well-being, according to UNESCO documents. Reconstruction on the basis of scrupulous studying of balls of concrete palaces of St. Petersburg, discourse of an epoch as it is represented to us, allows to revive the ballroom culture and to comprehend anew communicative functions of this cultural practice which is a part of an intangible heritage of the city and corresponds to qualitative criteria in UNESCO requirements to objects of the world heritage, and will promote its popularization both among Russians, and abroad.

References and sources 1. Clara Arokiasamy (UK) Intangible Cultural Heritage and the UK Experience, lecture URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1ncNYZ76fU(accessed: 04.02.2019). 2. UNESCO. Managing Cultural World Heritage: Guide Paris, 2013. 322 p. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://mkrf.ru/upload/mkrf/mkdocs2014/17_12_2014_1.pdf (accessed: 04.02.2019). 3. Vkontakte group "Ballroom stories of the past". URL: https://vk.com/history_factsspb Photo albums-URL: https://vk.com/albums-157361792 (accessed: 04.02.2019). 4. Lotman Yu. M. Symbolism of St. Petersburg and problems of semiotics of the city / / History and typology- of Russian culture. SPb. : Iskusstvo-St. Petersburg, 2002. Pp. 270-280. 4. Lotman Yu. M. Conversations about Russian culture. Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII — early XIX century.) SPb., 1994. 6. Posters of Petersburg-Petrograd balls from 1895 to 1923[Electronic resource]. URL: http://s30556663155.mirtesen.ru/blog/43656144280/Afishi-balov-Peterburga- Petrograda-s-1895- po-1923-godyi?domain=mirtesen.ru&paid=1&pad=1 (accessed: 04.02.2019). 7. Sosnovskaya A. M. Semiotics and semantics of advertising and public relations. SPb. : 2013.

References

Lotman Yu. M. Symbolics of St. Petersburg and problem of semiotics of the city // History and typology of the Russian culture. SPb. : Art SPb, 2002. P. 270-280. (In rus) Lotman Yu. M. Conversations about the Russian culture. Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII — the beginning of the 19th century). SPb., 1994. (In rus) Sosnovskaya A. M. Semiotics and semantics of advertizing and public relations. SPb., 2013. (In rus) About the authors: Anna M. Sosnovskaya, Associate Professor of the Chair of Social Technology of North-West institute of management of RANEPA (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation), PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, [email protected] Victoria S. Pushkina, KGIOP, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation.

Anna Mikhaylovna Sosnovskaya, Olesya Yuryevna Orlova Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (North-West Institute of Management of RANEPA), Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation; Committee for state control, use and protection of historical and cultural monuments, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation, e-mail: [email protected]

Intangible Heritage and Identity of Millenial Generation of St. Petersburg

As part of the educational activities of the Committee for the State Inspection and Protection of Historic and Cultural Monuments (KGIOP), together with the SIU RANEPA, we explore the practices, opinions and values of the youth of Saint Petersburg. Our work with young people triggers their reflection and focuses on the theme of intangible heritage, which is difficult to comprehend and elaborate even for experts. We have collected the statements of the youth of the millennial generation. This is a valuable material that allows to compile and highlight certain semantic groups, the subject of statements, and the form of verbalization. Thus, the dictionary is formed which shows how millennials talk about Saint Petersburg and their place in Saint Petersburg. Russian researchers believe that millennial generation appeared between 1984 and 2000. This generation is heavily influenced by digital technologies in all spheres of life. It is also called Generation Y (Gen Y), or the Me Me Me Generation. Their narcissism and sense of self-importance exceeds the norms of previous generations. It can be noted that individualism, self-concentration and increased self-awareness have played a controversial role in the study. On the one hand, young people have their own opinion and want to share their views and feelings, they need attention from the engaged researcher, but on the other hand, it

becomes clear that such reflection is not expressed in behavior, in active participation in protection, transformation and use of the environment. Many statements are characterized by distant relations with the city without affinity and responsibility. In the course of projects with schoolchildren, young people are getting interested in the city and develop their ideas about it, about the environment and valuable heritage that we need to protect and cherish. This focus and discussion transform their stance and empower them with responsibility. Project activities and promoting students to offer initiatives for urban environment are new forms and methods of interaction between the city and younger civil society. One of the relevant issues of urban marketing is the identity consistency of urban space. Local identity in sociological studies is most often defined with the help of attitudes that stem from it: "Regional identity is the will to live and develop in a given territory..." If energy is the ability to work, then identity is the ability to perform social, cultural, civic, and economic activity. Regional identity is a person's sense of belonging to a certain geographically limited community, a region that is characterized by territorial, historical, cultural, political, legal and linguistic integrity. How does a particular historical object come into contact with its context and the lives of people today? What is the contribution of a particular heritage site to the social sustainability and the development of the city? Cultural initiatives are important in the long term, as they link the site to its context, contribute to the long-term preservation of the object, and promote heritage conservation skills of local population. Focusing on quality of life and well-being as the ultimate goals in global and national development programs suggests that such aspects as creativity, self- realization, knowledge and beauty can find their place in official statistics on social sustainability if "culture" and heritage are recognized as valid and significant

components of sustainable development. In addition, increasing attention is paid to the contribution that cultural heritage can make to the sustainable development of the city and the social integration of the population. Increased global requirements for the management of heritage sites through the formation of a value-based approach to these objects also include requirements for the protection of intangible assets at sites (communities, culture and knowledge) and ensuring the viability of communities that transmit intangible values. Cultural value can refer to intangible qualities, such as social structure, economic needs, and political context in particular space and time. It can be associated with famous events, persons, or works of art, literature, science, or music. Attributes of value may represent physical qualities or materials, but they may also be processes associated with the object that affect the physical qualities of the object and/or the perception of people, such as social programs or reconstruction. In the course of the city project on popularization of the UNESCO world heritage site "Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments" (HCSPRGM), RANEPA students together with KGIOP studied the intangible heritage of the city in 2016-2018, collected stories and observations, and interviewed citizens using the method of participant observation at selected research sites [1, 2]. Saint Petersburg is certainly a place with a strong regional identity, the city that constantly attracts a lot of tourists and in recent years has consistently topped the tourist rankings of European cities. What are the parameters of authenticity of a city and urban culture? According to the experience economy and the theory on the search for authenticity, each person perceives authenticity individually. If a product, place, or practice appeals to a person's values and corresponds to his/her self-image, then the object with which the person comes in contact is perceived as consistent, authentic, and

attractive. Thus, the authenticity of any place and event is in the minds of people, or the target audience. Authenticity is experienced as adequacy, genuineness and consistency of what is happening, a certain comfortable environment and an aura of relevance. Based on surveys and monologues of schoolchildren, we have reconstructed such intangible values as the personal concepts and values of the millennial generation and the features of their urban identity. Intangible assets cannot be defined without understanding how they are preserved, reproduced, and transmitted. It is possible to convey knowledge, let alone a sense of authenticity, through the form of texts, practices of participation and reconstruction, and consequently, through an indirect materialization. Further work on this topic implies identification of the forms of preservation, reproduction and translation of intangible components, the so-called objects of cultural heritage, according to the value approach to the assessment of cultural heritage and objects of cultural heritage in particular, which is used throughout the world. This enables a comprehensive assessment of the cultural, economic, sociological and other components of the value and, what is extremely important, a full and correct translation of these values into popularization to form an objective view of the cultural heritage of our city, especially among young people. After several years of cooperation with schools in Saint Petersburg, we conducted an online survey of schoolchildren: How do schoolchildren and students verbalize the tradition and the spirit of the city, culture and intangible heritage, love for the city? How do they identify themselves? What practices construct their local identity? What residential trajectories young people prefer in the city? The survey also had an educational function, as it helped to assess the knowledge students gained and retained on this topic. Particularly, do they know that a cultural heritage object is included in the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites?

Open questions of the online questionnaire for schoolchildren: What distinguishes Saint Petersburg from other cities in the world? How does a citizen of Saint Petersburg look like in the 21st century? What is the "spirit of Saint Petersburg"? are projective in terms of psychology, which allows to reconstruct practices and values of respondents. The question about distinction corresponds to our view that identity is related to the basic need to belong to a group and distinguish one group from another. The question about the spirit of the city allows us to understand the significant practices of the place, i. e. the actions and functions performed by the younger generation. The question about the qualities of an ideal resident of Saint Petersburg refers to projective identification, self-image, self- reflection and self-description. We wondered if there are significant differences in the perception of self-identity and identity of the city of young citizens from previous generations, stereotypes and traditional views. The question about the spirit of the city, which is "great, powerful, fabulous, poetic, old-fashioned, multifaceted, and beautiful", allowed us to understand the significant practices of the place, i. e. what typical, meaningful and symbolic actions young people perform in the city. Let us give one example in full: "We are all united by St. Petersburg. It is not just a city, it is a whole phenomenon, a kind of portal, an intercultural thing with incomparable energy. Once you feel the air of Petersburg, you already get an IMPRESSION, and it will never disappear without a trace, because on a sensual level, Petersburg is unmatched. St. Petersburg has always been a subject of discussion, and any description of it reflects the FEELING. This city is a distinctive mix of natural features, urban significance and mental structure of its residents and guests, a kind of "thing-in-itself", which many people try to analyze, and almost all fall into the trap of such a multi-layered structure that living here becomes pure creativity. That's why people strive to visit it at least once, then often come here again and again, and everyone is wandering the streets, roofs, canals, embankments, courtyards, as if they have an irrestible inclination here towards creative perception and a long walk." (13 years).

Our sociological research is an attempt to identify the characteristics and values of a resident of Saint Petersburg in the 21st century. At the same time, this study is not limited to the particular region, because a person born in another city can also consider himself/herself a St. Petersburger in terms of inner feeling. A St. Petersburger is "a person who lives in Saint Petersburg and feels part of it." A special attitude to the urban space is formed based on these sensations and the spirit of the city. More than 85% of respondents were born in Saint Petersburg. The rest came from such cities as Omsk, Penza, Moscow, Yoshkar-Ola, Zaozersk, Novy Urengoy and others. At the same time, 95% of respondents consider themselves St. Petersburgers. This suggests that, whatever the place of birth, a person can call himself/herself and feel like a St. Petersburger, based on other criteria. These may be criteria such as identification with a place of work, study, membership in a sports club, scientific interests, aesthetic values and an understanding of the architectural features of a city, a poetic mood associated with movies and photography, and fantasies associated with cultural figures. Identification is a way of understanding another person (or a city as well) through conscious or unconscious identification of him or her with oneself; this is an attempt to understand the state, mood, self-esteem, attitude to the world of the subject or object, to imagine him or her in one's own place. "What distinguishes St. Petersburg from other cities in the world?" Most of the respondents' answers showed that the environment in which the individual is located forms his idea of the city. Thus, according to young residents of the city, the biggest difference between St. Petersburg and other cities is culture and beauty. They also said that St. Petersburg “is the cultural capital everyone know about”, the city is distinguished by its “ancient memory and beauty”, “grandeur and hospitality”. Young people are aware of the speed of the diverse and numerous processes that take place in the city: “By the standards of large European cities, St. Petersburg is relatively young, only 315 years old. But even during these 300-

something years, it experienced many events that European cities did not even hear about, gave rise to outstanding people and the greatest discoveries that shaped modern science and culture. ” St. Petersburg is a world heritage that young people characterize with such epithets as “hero city”, “symbol city”, “cultural capital”, “Venice of the North”. These are the unofficial names of the city that are heard by every citizen and guest of the Northern capital. If we talk about the physical appearance of the city, young St. Petersburgers highlighted the "grandeur of architecture", "sights", "bridges and museums". The unique architecture and structure of urban space make it possible to speak of St. Petersburg as a “monument city”. This is another unofficial symbolic name of the city, which is significant for young people and is a marker of differentiation in the analysis of the distinctive features of the city in the world. It is curious that the students paid less attention to the social aspect, that is, to people who live in this city, protect it and make it unique. However, “warmth of people”, “attitude and behavior of people” and “kindness” were noted. These few interactive and communicative psychological qualities, manifested in the perception of our respondents, are the initial stage for depicting a portrait of a St. Petersburger of the 21st century. After we have analyzed the survey data, we can confidently say that, according to young citizens, a St. Petersburger of the 21st century is modern (“a person inseparable from his phone”, “a fashionable intellectual leading a healthy lifestyle, jogging along the St. Petersburg embankments, a bit conservative”), a cultural, intelligent, educated and erudite person. Some young people even note the level of education; in their opinion, these are mostly art historians and architects, those people who come into contact with the cultural heritage more often. In particular, the following characteristic was proposed: "the one who cares for the city, who helps it, talks to it and the one who protects it and does not abandon it." Thus, the city becomes not just the place of residence of an individual, but also an

object of self-expression, communication, care, and interaction. The city is treated as a friend, a part of the personality: “St. Petersburger of the 21st century is a person who connected his life with this city. ” The study of the regional identity of the youth of St. Petersburg resulted in the conclusion that the consistency of identity of the urban space is achieved by its correspondence with the personal identity of the city residents. We have distinguished the following components of such an identity: the incorporated physical space of the city, such as images and symbols of significant sites and locations; cognitive and information field, such as the field of knowledge, urban attitudes and myths, the field of constant choices, the focus of attention, interest and preferences; social space as a field of meaningful interactions and communications, a sense of group identity and belonging to the history and fate of the city. The younger generation perceives the city and themselves in it rather conservatively and stereotypically, which is reflected in the findings of our survey, but these are fairly well-known patterns in the discourse of studying the identities of St. Petersburg and St. Petersburgers: 1) the monumentalization of representations of the great city; an attitude to the city with reverence and very remotely. The city is a frame that presents certain requirements, and this is perceived an imperious position and coercion; 2) beauty is the common property of the inhabitants of the city. Aesthetic values are strong emough, and urban space develops a certain taste; 3) knowledge of reference texts of Russian culture, poetry and intertextual thinking; 4) romantic feeling and creativity. A romantic worldview involves psychological extremes and polarities: feelings range from depression and dismay to delight; there are preferences for special sensations achieved by excursions to roofs, cemeteries, courtyards, a search for a sense of mysticism, magic, mystery. Young townspeople were the least conscious of the social aspect of identity, although it implies the intangible heritage of the city, which tells about the values

of the social group, the joint past experience of survival and victory. The intangible heritage in the form of stories, practices, visual narratives is easily incorporated by members of the group and becomes a solid basis for regional identity. Identity is associated with the basic need for belonging to a group and distinguishing one group from another. It seems to us a serious omission that this particular component of identity is underdeveloped. Our further goal is enlightenment and drawing attention to the intangible heritage of the city, social practices and communication initiatives with the city.

REFERENCE 1. Sosnovskaya, A. M., Mikhaylov, A. V., Orlova, O. Y. (2018). Intangible heritage and identity of St. Petersburg youth. Management Consulting, no. 2, (110), pp. 88-99. 2. Orlova, O. Y., Morozova, O. A. (2018). Exploring the legacy of the KGIOP. Architect. Herald, 21st century "Young Architect", no. 1 (66), St. Petersburg, pp.

120-123.

100

Irina Butorina, head of the Department of preparation of documents in the field of protection of cultural heritage of the St. Petersburg State institution "Center of information support of cultural heritage protection". Olga Morozova, chief specialist of the historical environment sector of The Department of cultural heritage protection zones of the Committee for the state preservation of historical and cultural monuments, e-mail: [email protected]

On the issue of preservation of intangible aspects of historical cities on the example of St. Petersburg

Keywords: historical environment, historic city, urban heritage, intangible heritage, intangible value, heritage preservation.

Recognition of the value of intangible culture has led to awareness of the dual nature of heritage in general, and the historical urban environment in particular. International documents of recent years have repeatedly emphasized the importance not only of the physical elements that determine the appearance of territories, but also of the traditions, knowledge, beliefs, rituals, artistic images and associations associated with them6. Being the key to the uniqueness and individuality of urban ensembles, they form the "spirit of the place" and, like

6 Xi’An Declaration on the conservation of the setting of heritage structures, sites and areas [electronic resource]. – ICOMOS, 2005. – URL: https://www.icomos.org/charters/xian- declaration.pdf (accessed: 28.02.2019); Quebec city declaration on the preservation of the spirit of place [electronic resource]. – ICOMOS, 2008. – URL: https://obzor.westsib.ru/data/files/kvebek.pdf (accessed: 28.02.2019); The Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas [electronic resource]. - ICOMOS, 2011. - URL: http://kgiop.gov.spb.ru/media/uploads/userfiles/2015/08/27/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0 %BB%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%82%D0%B0_2011.pdf (accessed: 28.02.2019); Recommendations on historic urban landscapes / / Acts of the General conference: 36th session, Paris, 25 October - 10 November 2011 [electronic resource]. - T. 1. Resolutions. - UNESCO, 2012. Pp. 63-69. - URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002150/215084r.pdf#page=68 (accessed: 28.02.2019). 101

tangible objects (buildings, structures, the surrounding landscape), need a special approach of preservation. This article discusses the features of preservation of intangible aspects of historical cities on the example of St. Petersburg. While being aware of the complexity and versatility of this object, in our work we will limit ourselves to a brief description of its historical significance and connection with literary works that are part of criterion vi of outstanding universal value, which served as the basis for its inscription in the World Heritage List. The historical value of Saint-Petersburg The formation of the national urban space is a process, among the participants of which are three differently organized forces such as the state, economic structures and society may be singled out7. St. Petersburg is not just a city developing under the prevailing influence of the state, it is a city based mainly on imperial principles, implying absolute control over space and centralized management, excluding any unauthorized spatial initiatives. The state tasks solved in the territory of the new capital, concentrated in St. Petersburg a number of the most important events and personalities, not only for Russia, but also for the world. The rich history of the city has served as one of the main sources of stable images-associations that form its collective perception: 1) " Window to Europe»; 2) " Cultural capital»; 3) "The cradle of the revolution»; 4) "Hero City". Such "meta-images" include many senses and meanings that are closely intertwined and complementary to each other. The idea of St. Petersburg as a "Window to Europe", on the one hand, reflects the history of its creation, which

7 Bokov A. N. Russian space in representations and in reality http://www.niitiag.ru/pub/pub_cat/rossiyskoe_prostranstvo_v_predstavleniyakh_i_v_realnosti (accessed: 03.03.2019) 102

marked the beginning of the European integration of Russia. At the same time, it corresponds to the further development of the city, which has become the main international port of the country and the center of business activity. Interaction with the rest of the world was not limited to the economic sphere. The foundation of St. Petersburg contributed to the introduction of Russia to the culture of Western Europe, which manifested, in particular, in the establishment of the first Museum, the Academy of Sciences, the Academy of Arts, etc. This, in turn, led to the understanding of the city as the center of scientific, research and artistic life of the country, which is the basis of the concept of "cultural capital". Artistic value of St. Petersburg Following the logic of P. Goldberg in the book " Why architecture is needed” 8we can conclude that art is the best conductor of holistic, sensual and emotional perception of architecture and urban space, and it allows us to understand the urban environment of contemporaries of a particular time. In this context, architecture is no longer just a witness to history and the physical expression of an era, it is the guardian of the spiritual experience of generations. What became of the majestic Imperial capital for its inhabitants, what features of the city became its main characteristics over the centuries, which subsequently determined what is considered to be the "spirit of the city" -- all of these things can be traced in countless literary descriptions, which could not fail to inspire such a complete and solemn image of the city. Experiencing the urban space and fixing their feelings in the works of art, they predetermined our vision of the city. For many authors St. Petersburg is a hero of the work, and not simply a place of action, the main features of which, according to the classics, were: 1) the duality of the nature of St. Petersburg; 2) clash of conflicting images: the city of solemn celebrations and tragic destinies “ the city is magnificent, the city is poor”;

8 P. Goldberger Why Architecture is needed, M.: Strelka Press, 2017 -264c.

103

3) solemnity and ceremonial appearance, sometimes seeming ruthless to its inhabitants; 4) a dear city, which always gave inspiration and became a real home for creative hearts; 5) cloudy, rainy, foggy and mystical city. Literally from the first pages of many works you can find vivid and lively descriptions of the city: "The Bronze horseman" by A. S. Pushkin, "Crime and punishment" by F.M. Dostoevsky, "The Road to Calvary" by A. N. Tolstoy, N.V. Gogol praising the life of "little man” in his works on the background of landscapes of St. Petersburg, "Northern elegies" of A.A. Akhmatova, N. S. Gumilev, O. E. Mandelshtam -- the list can be endless. The power of the image of St. Petersburg is emphasized in the expressive metaphor of Lydia Chukovskaya " Pushkin. Tyutchev. Nekrasov. Block. Akhmatova. Mandelstam ... These are all pseudonyms. The author is Petersburg".9 The relevance of ideas about St. Petersburg is confirmed in contemporary art (fine arts, theater, literature, music). Сontemporary art by turning to past seems to express agreement with once established ideas about the city and develops them in a consequential manner, which allows to form a stable, recognizable images of the city. An interesting phenomenon is a contemporary folklore. It is important, that development of folklore is natural social process, in which collective conceptions and attitude to the lived experience, memory and in principle generational values, a kind of "mirror of a soul” collective perception are unanimously and consentiently concluded. By considering folklore it is possible to trace how the intangible heritage endured by its inhabitants, can eventually generate the interesting unique product positively affecting development of the city, including economic one.

9 Code of St. Petersburg. The key to understanding heritage.- St. Petersburg, 2018, p. 36

104

It is possible to allocate some stages which intangible heritage passes during communication to its addressees: assimilation, rethinking, and ultimately the creation on its basis of a project that ensures the preservation of values and spiritual development of the city. One can cite a number of humorous statements about the everyday life of the city, its climate and inhabitants, which appeared on the basis of the classic images. So, for example, the ironic, which has already become a catch phrase “People move to St. Petersburg only out of love” or endless jokes about the weather such as: "Today it's St. Petersburg across Russia”(meaning rainy, cloudy weather). These humorous literary sketches dedicated to St. Petersburg, migrated to the youth flash mobs, and the most enterprising citizens create popular souvenirs or organize author's tours dedicated to various artists and " their St. Petersburg”, thereby involving and forming participation in the intangible heritage of St. Petersburg among a wide range of persons. Moreover, the emergence and development of such folklore is a good indicator, which allows to witness the attachment of residents to their environment and historical spiritual heritage, as well as to understand how deeply the image has been accustomed to the fabric of the city. It is also significant that presently modern urban researchers are interested in such areas as "Art as a way of urban transformation” and other similar areas, thereby recognizing the impact of art on the environment, the agents of which are people. Summary: The peculiarity of the considered historical and cultural aspects of St. Petersburg lies in their incompleteness, which, in general, is characteristic of the intangible heritage, which is understood, first of all, not as an object, but as a process10. The

10 Wain A. Conservation of the intangible: a continuing challenge [electronic resource]. – AICCM Bulletin, Vol. 35, 2014. – URL: http://www.academia.edu/10947763/Conservation_of_the_intangible_A_continuing_challenge (accessed: 15.02.2019).

105

image of the" cultural capital " reflects not only the past, but also the present of the city, associated with museums, theaters and research institutes located on its territory. The preservation of this historically established function implies the creation of conditions for its further implementation. This ensures continuity, which is the key to the sustainability and development of intangible elements. Russian law treats monuments, including historical settlements, as tangible objects whose protection focuses primarily on physical and visual characteristics. According to this approach, the subject of protection of St. Petersburg are historical buildings of museums, theaters, etc. At the same time, from the point of view of intangible heritage, the activities of these institutions as an integral part of the spiritual life of the city are subject to preservation. Careful attention not only to objects, but also to the processes that form the historical environment, determines the "living" connection between times. The rich artistic heritage of St. Petersburg makes it a unique environment in which world-famous Russian writers and other artists whose works are the property of the whole country can be venerated in places to them they had connection or were attached to. It is in St. Petersburg, where a countless variety of ways can be found for such purposes. Already today in St. Petersburg there are significant festivals dedicated to literature and its figures such as: "D-day" is an annual festival in memory of S. D. Dovlatov and his time, such events include round tables, creative meetings, installations, exhibitions, master classes and many other formats. On the example of such festivals, it can be concluded that the saturation of urban space with public mass events dedicated to the works of art made in St. Petersburg will allow to involve a significant number of people in the process of creative rethinking and " experiencing the city”, which in turn will allow the spirit of the city to remain a living entity, absorbing and reflecting the uniqueness of each generation.

106

Ryadova Maria Nikolayevna

Chief Architect of the State Museum Reserve "Tsarskoye Selo" , e-mail: [email protected]

Intangible component as a text for architectural landscapes

The elusive attractiveness of the Tsarskoye Selo ensemble is reflected in the array of works of art, such as painting, graphic art, poetry, and prose. But how can we describe this harmony of palaces, pavilions, architectural structures and parks and preserve it?

A number of Russian emperors, from Catherine I to Nicholas II, left their indelible imprint in Tsarskoye Selo, traces of their fame and personal life. A particularly significant contribution to its architectural image was made by Elizabeth Petrovna and Catherine II.

The great creators of "music frozen in stone" are Johann Braunstein, Savva Chevakinsky, Francesco Rastrelli, Charles Cameron, Giacomo Quarenghi, Vasily, Ivan and Peter Neyelov, Adam Menelas, Vasily Stasov, and creators of "park rhapsodies" are Jan Rozen, Johann Focht, Jakob Rechlin, and Johannes Busch. Each of them at different times and with different creative approaches created a perfect work of art. Each element (pavilion, monument, pond, bridge, etc.) has become an integral part of the whole, and conveys to visitors unique emotional experience and inspiration.

Tsarskoye Selo and Pushkin make a stable combination, but in addition to the “sun of Russian poetry” many prominent poets and writers were inspired by this place, wandered around the Tsarskoye Selo parks, experienced and skillfully “read” the melancholic canvases painted in these landscapes.

107

From the poem by Mikhail Lomonosov “The inscription on the new building in Tarskoye Selo” (1756):

An example is the Tsarsky house; whoever sees it is in awe,

And says that even Rome soon will be ashamed,

No one has ever shown so much skill in the whole world

As Elisabeth who cares all day and night about this place. [1]

Lomonosov gives elegant description of the grandeur of Russian imperial residences, which were based on Western models and created by talented foreign architects and park builders, but in Russia everything seemed brighter, richer, “more golden” and grandiose.

Thanks to the intangible qualities of the environment and its richness, inspiration for creativity appears. From the poem by Erich Hollerbach “Poems about Tsarskoye Selo”:

Here Pushkin cherished inspiration

And grew up in melodious silence.

Here Lermontov on a soared horse

Galloped to the squadron training.

The merry bees are swirling all around

While an iron discus thrower is listening to them,

Leaning towards the water with a calm face.

Pensive Anna dreamed here, 108

Together with a poet exquisite and strange, -

How sadly and early he died!..

Hollerbach wrote in his letter to his mother, “It was on the 11th evening at the Ivanovs in Tsarskoye. I really like them and Tsarskoye on the whole. They live in a house on the outskirts, and there is something rustic about it, an orchard, an old dog and a huge distance, the Smolny Monastery is visible on the horizon ... And one can feel the presence of Pushkin in the park near the palaces: "shining waters" and swans ... "[2].

But how can we preserve this feeling of presence of Pushkin?

There is no intangible component in such objects of cultural heritage under protection as “Catherine’s Park”, “Babolovsky Park”, “Alexander Park” and yet, doesn’t it create that sensual world filled with emotions into which architectural landscapes open the way for us?

Vera Arens “In the Winter Park” (1916):

I will pass through the Red Gate

By a slightly trodden path to the pond.

Sleeping goddesses guarding the garden

Are sleeping in frozen boards.

Dusk floats in the trees. It's snowing.

At the pond, behind the Hermitage, there's a turn.

I listen to the creaking of skis

It smells of Christmas tree and snow

And silence floats above the star

109

Reflected in a dark hole with swaying water.

Ten years later, in 1927, Vera Arens wrote another poem with easily recognizable images:

We went to the gate ''To my beloved army comrades"

Through a narrow path to the pond.

The golden inscriptions faded

But the trees are the same in the garden.

Rustling grass

And sky of unusual blue

We slipped quietly

Past the monuments of glory

Past home. It has two towers

And stands like a castle indeed!..

But I shall never be able to revoke the past

And yesterday's gone foverer.

The city of Pushkin (Tsarskoye Selo) was occupied on September 15, 1941. The tragedy of the Great Patriotic War almost razed the palace and park to the ground, and the memory of it, as a symbol of peaceful life, inspired restoration work that began already in 1944.

Anna Akhmatova "The Poem Without a Hero" (1942-1956):

And now I’d rather go home soon

Through the Cameron Gallery

110

To the mysterious frozen garden

Where the waterfalls are silent

Where all nine will be glad to see me

How once were you.

Over the island, over the garden

Won't we see each other

With our once clear eyes?

Won't you tell me again

This word that conquers death

And gives the answer to my life?

Olga Bergholts “As we entered, the heart trembled”

As we entered, the heart trembled ... Cruel shadows of death, deserts, emptiness ...

Where are the swans? Where are the muses? Where are the water streams?

That beauty we have known since infancy?

Where are our gardeners

who cherished peaceful gardens,

where are their blessed labors

for the happiness of man and nature?

111

The issue of preserving landscapes, disputes about concepts and the degree of preservation of the authentic historical environment has not been resolved so far. Where is the limit to which restoration or preservation needs to be carried out, what methods can convey the atmosphere and emotional state of previous eras, and how to save the spirit of time?

Following a historical plan does not always bring positive results if this process destroys the context that has already become essential and deeply personal for people today.

It is necessary to develop a method for studying and identifying the intangible component for architectural landscapes with memorial, aesthetic and emotional value.

References

1. Tsarskoye Selo Anthology. St. Petersburg, Publishing House of the Pushkin House, Vita Nova, 2016, 765 p. 2. Hollerbach E. City of muses. Tsarskoye Selo in poetry. SPb, Art-Lux, 1993, pp. 186-188.

112

113