Degraded heritage is a huge resource for reuse
The right to heritage and cultural landscape is a universal right of the human being, but education and community work are needed to become aware of this right, believes Mirela Duculescu, art historian, PhD lecturer at the National University of Arts in Bucharest and program coordinator at the Pro Patrimonio Foundation.
Since 2000, the Pro Patrimonio Foundation has been working to protect and rehabilitate valuable buildings, but it does not do so just for the sake of saving bricks or planks. They always try to involve communities: either act at their request or contribute to their education, especially in the case of poor localities.
Among the foundation's programs there is one through which it aims to save 60 wooden churches with the support of Europa Nostra and World Monuments Fund, the restoration of the George Enescu House in Botosani County, as well as the creation of a network of craft centers besides the monuments. We talked to Mirela Duculescu, art historian and program coordinator at the Pro Patrimonio Foundation, about the importance of such missions.
Chronicles: How did the first initiative you had in the field of protection, heritage conservation, come about? What was more complicated at first? What went easier?
Mirela Duculescu: The retrospection of my own memory somehow takes me to my childhood and adolescence – when I took possession, on foot, with the neighbors, the neighborhood around the Icon Garden in Bucharest, an urban historical tissue imbued with what we call today patrimony in a broad sense (at that time I did not know that the concept existed, to me the whole neighborhood seemed to me a natural "home" with which I identify even now) – and then to the years of university formation, when I began to approach at the level of knowledge through scientific research of "objects" of interwar architecture, the notion of monument, philosophies and restoration practices.
I would say that topophilic affective memory does not indicate to me a first initiative, but a gradual process of accumulations, questions, experiences and experiments with friends, meetings with remarkable professionals who have shaped my perception and choices. Everything went naturally, and I let myself be carried away by the experimental direction towards doing beyond and before theorizing; I created, invented, tested and refined practical models, working in fruit-bearing teams (one of my joys), having in mind that heritage is not a thing in itself that exists for itself, that it is a legacy passed down on the basis of historical ideas, flexible criteria and values built by people (European citizens or not). In my perception, heritage (monument, book, letter type, constructive techniques and crafts, printing techniques, etc.) has a life of its own, is not an elitist concept, is intended for life, habitation and thrifty use.
In short, from theory I naturally switched to practice, then to theorizing derived from practice and case studies, including education (the work of the last ten years under the umbrella of the Pro Patrimonio Foundation). It was complicated to choose the method, how to interact and position myself in relation to what we call in contemporary times cultural heritage, how to keep an alert mind that makes quick decisions and that reconciles without cognitive dissonance scientific theory with the harsh and so unpredictable reality on the ground (I mean including communities).
What's the most important achievement for you? in the field? At the professional level, what if we look at the organization that you belong to, but also at the sector level?
I love all my children equally, regardless of the duration of the project, medium and long-term impact, the degree of innovation in the practical model created with colleagues under various organizational formulas and forms of civic activation: Street Delivery, cultural heritage routes with integration of historical monuments, production and activation of communities, public space and urban design; the losing battle for the Matache Hall monument and the neighborhood in the area; saving in its own way the wooden church from Urși village, jud, Vâlcea, together with an army of specialists, friends, volunteers and locals, under the baton of Pro Patrimonio. It's a whole tribe of children, I've only listed the most well-known. Nota bene, I have other progeny: an assumed practice is the conception, writing, consulting, editing of materials on various media (print, audio, video) to accompany this heritage reintegrated into everyday habitation, I hope, and reveal as a chronicle for other generations the process from within (the diversity of cases, the issue of conservation-restoration principles, the steps followed, relationship with the authorities, lack of resources, community work, etc.).
What does the relationship with the community look like? Do you feel that you are supported in your mission? If so, does this support also translate into concrete actions (involvement through volunteering, donations, etc.)?
The involvement is bidirectional from the perspective of the Pro Patrimonio Foundation: we act, react and interact in places (at national level) where we are asked for help by communities that get involved with us in saving the architectural and landscape heritage (I come back with the exemplary case of the solidarity community in Urși village – volunteering, donations in kind / accommodation, meals, material, electricity for the construction site, etc.; obviously, we also encounter more nuanced situations, with poor, disadvantaged communities, here we intervene in the long term with early education for heritage, the case of the Olari mansion in Olt or of the Enescu house in Mihaileni, and/or education for the culture of the urban or rural built environment, Baukultur).
On the other hand, the foundation's actions function as a boomerang, because visibility and results become a catalyst for an avalanche of civic requests and complaints for the resolution of which there should be a network of Pro Patrimonio foundations in various places in Romania, following the model of the Federation of Community Foundations in Romania.
Personally, I believe that the right to heritage and cultural landscape is a universal right of the human being, but education and community work are needed to become aware of this right.
What do you think are, at the moment, the big obstacles for NGOs in this area? Will there be more/less support, interest from the authorities, from the community?
I believe that the community response is partly suggested in paragraphs 2 and 3; I would also add, in a random order, the lack of continuity in the implementation of coherent public policies for heritage (when there are realistically formulated), bureaucracy, lack of specialists in administration, lack of education at national level, lack of craftsmen, precariousness of resources, etc.
As for the great obstacles for non-profit organizations dedicated to heritage (which the Pro Patrimonio Foundation has terribly struggled to overcome so far), if I were now to personally choose one, it would be derisory funding (I am not discussing the reasons now, I just wonder if a new species should not emerge: fundraiser patrimony). Paradoxically, the degraded or ruined heritage in Romania that requires emergency rescue, rehabilitation, conservation, restoration, represents a huge resource for reuse adapted for our generation, but also for those who will come, sustainability and ecology in consonance with the New European Bauhaus (NEB) plan. Simple: we have a heritage, what do we do with it?
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
No comment yet, add your voice below!