Kultūros paveldo skaitmeninimo procesai ir jų įtaka sovietinio architektūros palikimo įpaveldinimui

LTPasitelkiant sovietinio laikotarpio architektūrinį paveldą kaip atvejo studiją, straipsnyje aptariamos paveldo ir virtualiosios aplinkos sąveikos. Apžvelgus XX a. architektūros bei sovietinės architektūros įpaveldinimo patirtis, tekste daroma prielaida, kad šio laikmečio palikimas, liudijantis reikšmingą šalies istorijos etapą, dėl savo specifiškumo, lyginant su kitomis epochomis, reikalauja originalaus ir kūrybiško požiūrio į paveldosaugos procesus. Virtualusis paveldo įprasminimas tekste pateikiamas kaip vienas iš galimų novatoriškos prieigos būdų. Aptarus šiandieninės Lietuvos skaitmeninimo politiką argumentuojama, kad požiūrio kaita būtina ne tik paveldosaugos sistemoje, tačiau ir Lietuvos skaitmeninimo politikoje. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Sovietinės architektūros paveldas; Tinklaveikos visuomenė; Skaitmeninimas; Kūrybiškumas; Kultūros politika; Soviet architecture heritage; Network society; Digitisation; Creativity; Cultural policy.

ENThe junction of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, in addition to the other changes, brought digitalisation to the sphere of culture – an entirely new form of image and data generation, storage and distribution. The amount of information obtained online increases with every day and the process constantly amplifies the field of cultural knowledge. This has brought not only a huge flow of information but also new forms of communication and content creation techniques, which inevitably touches various aspects of the cultural life of humanity. Thus, the article analyses how these processes are reflected in a specific area – the inheritance of Soviet architecture legacy. Although the twentieth century gave us an enormous scale of urbanised areas and undoubtedly remains one of the most important signs of human civilization, it is likely that the majority of this legacy will disappear because of quantitative overload, functional and technological reasons and, ultimately, because of aesthetic preferences. It is obvious that in order to keep the memory for future generations about this exceptional testimony, we have to go beyond the usual practices of heritage conservation and find unconventional, innovative and creative approaches. Digital substitution as a documentary source instead of preserved material forms, virtual heritage communities which constantly create and interpret the content, attractive educational methods, new forms of communication, and in the end, completely new forms of content interpretations open up hitherto unused possibilities of heritage practice. In this way, digital technologies could contribute to the successful heritage processes of Soviet legacy, and at the same time provide the impetus for adjusting the traditional processes of heritage examination, where attention is concentrated more towards ideas and their cultural interpretation, than the preservation of the physical form.However, after a brief review of key Lithuanian documents and financial mechanisms related to the digitalisation of cultural heritage, it might be noticed that the process is more concerned with the mechanical reproduction of digital images but not with the active interpretation and content. This function is reserved for enthusiasts and the interpretation of cultural heritage is still in the professional field associated with traditional forms such as books, lectures etc. [From the publication]

• Kultūros paveldo skaitmeninimo koordinavimas Europoje : Lietuvos perspektyva / Rolandas Kvietkauskas, Regina Varnienė. Knygotyra. 2005, t. 45, p. 108-122.
• Kultūros paveldo vertinimo metodologinės perspektyvos bendrųjų mokslinių paradigmų kaitos kontekste / Vytautas Petrušonis. Journal of architecture and urbanism. 2012, Vol. 36, no. 1, p. 1-8.
• Lietuvos kultūros paveldas skaitmeninėje terpėje / Nerutė Kligienė. Informacijos mokslai. 2004, t. 31, p. 82-93.
• Moderniosios architektūros paveldas Lietuvoje : teorinis aspektas / Marija Drėmaitė. Journal of architecture and urbanism. 2012, Vol. 36, no. 3, p. 149-160.