Alternative discussion space

September 23rd, 10.00-18.00

Vilnius county Adomas Mickevičius public library, Great hall

Attention - Discussions can be viewed live on the Heritas Youtube page.

Discussion
10:10-11:35
Moderator Matas Šiupšinskas

Panellists:
Vytautas Biekša, Principal Architect at architecture practice Processoffice - “Cultural Heritage – Cognitive Technology”

Robertas Zilinskas, Expert of Immovable Cultural Heritage, Practicing Architect, Researcher, Expert - “Engaging the Past – Now and in the Past”

Giedrius Juozapavičius, Consultant, Author and Host of radio show Rinkodaros guru (Marketing Guru), Member of the Board of the Lithuanian Marketing Association - “Life between the Walls of Restored History”

The employment of heritage sounds overly pragmatic. As if everyone and everything around should be employed and in this way contribute to the common good. But the real question is not whether we have a utilitarian ability to harness heritage as a workhorse, but whether its uses are meaningful in general. Are the signs of the past active players rather than only passive walk-ons in these days? It is through action, through the active repetition that rituals, traditions, memory, and eventually culture, get created. Heritage must necessarily be engaged to make it relevant and close. Such engagement does happen by default. For heritage to come into use, someone must have an interest in its employment and engagement. Is it the owner’s wish to make money? Or may be the public interest to know the past? Or maybe the willingness of the city or institutions to expand the range of their activities?

Here it becomes problematic: firstly, the interests of stakeholders do not always match, and, even where they match, they do not necessarily have the same understanding of the means to achieve the goal; secondly, activities can both contribute to the preservation of the past and destroy its witnesses. This discussion will focus on the change in views on heritage engagement and its necessity over time; on the challenges encountered by a manager who is willing to reconcile business with preserving the “spirit of the past”; and how more intensive or creative heritage use can help avoid excessive interventions.

Matas ŠiupšinskasArchitect, PhD student of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University. Former team member of the Studio of Architect Rolandas Palekas, internships in Luxembourg, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The field of interests covers, but is not limited to, the history of urban planning, development of mass construction, urban morphology, and the heritage of Soviet architecture.

National Museum of Art of Latvia. Aut. Norbert Tukaj, 2016 m.

Discussion
11:50-13:15
Moderator  prof. dr. Marija Drėmaitė

Panellists:
Rūta Leitanaitė, Architect, Chairperson of the Architects Association of Lithuania“Integrated Renovation of Apartment Blocks – Can we Do Better?”

Dr. Viltė Janušauskaitė, Architect, Heritage Protection Expert, Lecturer of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University“Lazdynai – to UNESCO?”

Dr. Rasa Antanavičiūtė, Art Researcher, Director of the Vilnius Museum“Through Grandma's Window – Virtues and Flaws of Viršulai”

Interpretation is a source of life of heritage. Until interpretation does not make an item of heritage speak, it is only a mute and unknown matter. By interpreting, we “charge” heritage with meanings. And the meanings as such are created and redesigned by us so that we could better understand who we are and what the past means to us. It is this persistent desire to understand, this creation and recreation of meaning that makes heritage not only alive but also a renewable resource. “Heritage – a renewable resource” – sounds optimistic and defies the idea that tangible heritage keeps vanishing eroded by time.

The topic of this discussion is the new heritage – multi-apartment residential dwelling districts. When the time comes for their renovation, that brings along the question – are they valuable in any regard and, if so, how? Can a value derive from something which has come into existence as large-scale residential construction? Should any criteria of a unique artwork apply to this architecture or are they objects with social and historical value in the modern society geared towards sustainability? Is repetitive architecture valuable as heritage in general and is it worth preserving at least one residential district of mass construction as a symbol of the times and the most prevalent form of residential dwellings in Lithuanian in the second half of the 20th century? What do residents think about the intentions to protect such districts? What and how a preserved district of multi-apartment houses could tell?

Dr. Marija Drėmaitė – Historian of Architecture, Professor of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University, Member of the Research Council of the Council of Europe Joint Programming Initiative on Cultural Heritage, Researcher of the 20th century architectural and industrialisation heritage.

Aut. Edgaras Kurauskas, 2019 m

Discussion
14:20-15:45
Moderator Assoc. Prof. Dr. Justina Poškienė

Panellists:
Dr. Irena Vaišvilaitė, Historian of Culture, Ambassador, Professor of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University - “Cultural Routes as a Form of Heritage Communication”

Dr. Indrė Užuotaitė, Art Researcher, Lecturer of Vilnius Academy of Arts, Researcher of Museum of Wooden Urban Architecture - “Visions and Risks – Communication on Wooden Urban Architecture”

Dr. Laura Prascevičiūtė, Director of Daugyvenė Museum-Reservation on History of Culture - “Daugyvenė Museum-Reservation on History of Culture – A Case of Heritage Communication”

Sharing information, impressions and feelings is all part of heritage communication. The communicative interaction of heritage researchers, promoters, communicators and visitors helps transform relics of the past into a component of modern culture. Communication not only is a necessity in making heritage relevant, but also an important tool for its preservation. Thus, the persistent search for the most effective forms of communication, contents, ways of interaction between different societal groups is a very important constituent of modern heritage protection practice.

This time, heritage researchers and practitioners are invited to share experiences and insights on how to convey various objects of heritage which are spatially remote. We will discuss the phenomenon of cultural routes as heritage communication, the challenges and opportunities of communication between heritage museums and museums-reserves.

Dr. Justina Poškienė, Archaeologist, Associated Professor of the Faculty of History of Vilnius University. Practical experience in the field of heritage protection gained at the Immovable Cultural Heritage Assessment Council of the Department of Cultural Heritage, the Directorate of the State Cultural Reserve of Kernavė, various working groups and heritage research and dissemination projects. Areas of interest: historical archaeology, history and practice of archaeological heritage protection, management issues of immovable cultural heritage.

Theatrical commemoration of the 900th anniversary of the founding of Kernavė on the mound of Mindaugas' Throne. Author unknown. 1940 Collections of the Directorate of the State Cultural Reserve of Kernavė.

Discussion
16:00-17:25
Moderator  Renaldas Augustinavičius

Panellists:
prof. Julius Ptašekas, Paliesius manor owner - "Functional authenticity of a private cultural heritage object and the function of cultural dispersion"

Mindaugas Vanagas, CEO of UAB Citus Group - Is it Worth Making it Authentic? The Case of the Military Telegraph Station of Kaunas”

Dr. Inga Urbonaitė-Vadoklienė, Architect, Leader of VšĮ Idėjos miestui - “Engagement of Cultural Heritage by Preserving Authenticity. Mission Possible?”

17:25-18:00 - Conclusion

To rephrase Gregory John Ashworth, most important are the meanings carried by things, but things represent what we can preserve. This is the cornerstone of the tangible cultural heritage. When confronted with the material matter of meanings, the natural limitation is not only the physical form, but also the resources necessary to preserve such form. Perhaps this is why one of the most common causes of heritage conflicts is the lack of human commitment to contribute to conservation with time, assets and money. This brings along a dilemma – is it worth being authentic? That is more a rhetorical question, because different things matter to different individuals, so we allocate resources differently; however, it becomes relevant when common finances are used to preserve authenticity or when there is a global demand for authenticity. Some critical or most fervent cases can heighten to the extreme. The projects of Paliesius Manor, the Telegraph Station of Kaunas Fortress, the Central Post Offices of Kaunas and Klaipėda are several of them. With these projects in mind for reference, you are invited for a discussion what lessons are taught by heritage conflicts.

Renaldas Augustinavičiusactive in heritage protection since 2002. Former employment at the Cultural Heritage Centre, the Department for Cultural Heritage and the Ministry of Culture; Director of the State Cultural Reserve of Vilnius Castles. Experience in the areas of stock-taking, management, control and administration of cultural valuables. Since 2007, lecturer at Vilnius University on heritage protection, application of geo-information technologies and statistical methods in archaeology.

Kaunas central post office. Operational hall. Aut. Milda Bugailiškytė