Share:


Impact of memento value on the perception of cultural heritage: case study of the modern movement and dialect of Kaunas / Atminties vertė suvokiant kultūros paveldą: modernizmo judėjimo ir jo kaunietiškojo dialekto atvejo tyrimas

Abstract

Memento value in heritage is one of the most essential characteristics facilitating the association between the environment and its users, by connecting structures with space and time, moreover, it helps people to identify their surroundings. However, the emergence of the Modern Movement in the architectural sphere disrupted the reflection of memory and symbols which serve to root the society in its language. Furthermore, it generated an approach that stood against the practice of referring to the past and tradition, which led to the built environment becoming homogeneous and deprived of memento value. This paper focuses on the impact of memento value on the perception and evaluation of cultural heritage. Furthermore, it investigates the notions which are perceived to influence the appraisal of cultural heritage by applying them to the Kaunas dialect of the Modern Movement with an empirical approach.


Santrauka


Viena svarbiausių paveldo charakteristikų yra atminties vertė, užtikrinanti aplinkos ir jos vartotojų sąsajas, įtvirtinanti objektus erdvėje ir laike, dar daugiau – padedanti identifikuoti žmonėms juos supančią aplinką. Tačiau išsivystęs modernizmo judėjimas architektūroje nutraukė atminties ir simbolikos naudojimą architektūrinėje kalboje. Išsivystė priešiškumas praeities ir tradicijos tęstinumui praktikoje, dėl to aplinka tapo homogeniška ir netekusi atminties vertės. Straipsnyje tiriama atminties vertė suvokiant ir vertinant kultūros paveldą. Taip pat nagrinėjami aspektai, taikyti modernizmo judėjimo kaunietiškajame dialekte ir darę įtaką šio kultūros paveldo reikšmei.


Reikšminiai žodžiai: modernizmo judėjimas, atminties vertė, kultūrinė atmintis, Kaunas, kultūros paveldas, vertinimas.

Keyword : Modern Movement, memento value, cultural memory, Kaunas, cultural heritage, evaluation

Published
May 14, 2018
Abstract Views
25
PDF Downloads
29
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Coolican, H. (1994). Research methods and statistics in psychology (2nd ed.). Hodder & Stoughton.

Edson, G. (2004). Heritage: pride or passion, product or service. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(4), 337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352725042000257366

Galindo, M. P., & Rodriguez, J. A. C. (2000). Environmental aesthetics and psychological well-being: relationships between preference judgements for urban landscapes and other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain, 4(1), 13-27.

Graham, B. (2005). Senses of place: senses of time (pp. 3-14). Ashgate Publishing.

Haldrup, M., & Bærenholdt, J. (2015). Heritage as performance. In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research (pp. 52-68). Macmillan Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137293565_4

Howard, P. (2010). The rise of heritage. Journal of Asian Anthropology, 9(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1683478X.2010.10552593

Jankevičiūtė, G. (2017). Kaunas architectural guide. Architektūros Fondas.

Laurinaitis, P. T. (2017). Reflections of modernism in the temporary capital of Lithuania. Retrieved from http://www.autc.lt/en/ route/6

Le Corbusier. (1927). Towards a new architecture. Dover Publication.

Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press.

Paszkowski, Z., W. (2011). Timeless value in architecture. Czasopismo Techniczne. Architektura Journal, 108, 305-307.

Rautenberg, M. (1998). L’emergence patrimoniale de l’ethnologie entre memoire et politiques (pp. 279-291). L’Harmatan.

Vecco, M. (2010). A definition of cultural heritage: from the tangible to the intangible. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 11(3), 321-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.01.006

Send mail to Author


Send Cancel