TWO PERSPECTIVES ON THE ACT ON MUSEUMS

In the paper the analysis of two newly published commentaries (2021) on the Act on Museums is conducted: the first commentary by A. Barbasiewicz, a lawyer specializing in cultural heritage, and the other by a team of scholars: Z. Cieślik, I. Gredka-Ligarska, P. Gwoździewicz- -Matan, I. Lipowicz, A. Matan, K. Zeidler specializing in administrative proceedings and legal protection of historic monuments. Both publications represent various perspectives on the same issue, thus complementing one another. The difference in the approach makes them both useful to experienced practitioners on the one hand and those who happen to confront these topics for the first time one the other. Importantly, both have been written in a clear language comprehensible to non-lawyers. Their high-rating cannot be diminished by the few critical remarks formulated in the paper.

A FORGOTTEN HERO: JAN MORAWIŃSKI (1907–1949)

Notes of a Curator at the National Museum published in 1970 in the second volume of the book Struggle for Cultural Goods is the only generally available testimony to saving the Wilanów historic monuments by Jan Morawiński, a forgotten hero from the times of WW II. Additionally priceless because of Morawiński documenting the looting of 137 paintings belonging to the pre-WW II Branicki collection at Wilanów. The above-mentioned Notes were published by the Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy after the manuscript kept in the private archive of the author’s daughter Agnieszka Morawińska. The notes, however, resemble pieces of paper torn from a notebook in which an earlier chapter is missing. The missing chapter does exist, yet for unknown reasons was omitted in the two-volume Struggle for Cultural Goods. Warsaw 1939–1945 edited by Prof. Stanisław Lorentz. The present paper is based on Morawiński’s hand-written testimony, supported by archival sources and recollections of his colleagues from the National Museum in Warsaw (MNW). From August 1939 to August 1944, Jan Morawiński, together with others, was involved in saving precious museum exhibits in the Museum building, but also throughout Warsaw. He was involved in packing the historic monuments into crates which were to help them survive the toughest times, and he helped to put out fires at the Museum, risking his own life. Moreover, he rescued the Royal Castle collections during the hardest bombing of Warsaw, transporting them to the storages in Warsaw’s Jerozolimskie Avenue. For his dedication he was awarded the Virtuti Militari Cross of the 5th class by Gen. Juliusz Rómmel. After Warsaw’s surrender, he was assigned Head of MNW’s storerooms and inventories: when Director Lorentz was absent, he acted as his deputy. In the first period of the Nazi occupation he courageously faced German officials. Furthermore, he headed the clandestine action of inventorying and documenting German destructions and plundering. The knowledge amassed in this way was extremely helpful in the restitution of the looted historic monuments, not only museum ones. He also contributed to documenting the destruction of the Warsaw Castle. Imprisoned by the Nazis, he went through Gestapo’s hands at Daniłowiczowska Street in Warsaw. Later on, he became manager of the Museum of Old Warsaw in the Old Town, at the same time acting as a guardian of the Wilanów collection. Following the defeat of the Warsaw Uprising, he participated in the so-called Pruszków Action in whose course he was badly injured.

SUPERVISION OF MUSEUM ACTIVITY

Supervision of museums should be perceived taking into account both specific regulations: addressed directly to museums, particularly in the Act on Museums, as well as general regulations assuming supervision mechanisms in different respects, e.g., construction process or HR. This complex perspective: systemic and normative, is essential not only with respect to the supervision in a narrow basic meaning of the term, associated in the first place with an inspection of the supervised entity and application of respective executive actions, e.g., undertaken in the form of administrative decisions, but also the supervision in a broader perspective, understood as a whole range of support provided to a museum, including issuing recommendations, evaluations, and opinions important for its operation. In the context of ‘external’ supervision implemented by appropriate organs and entities, the following are of basic importance: the museum’s organiser (founder) supervision, constituting one of the organiser’s basic statutory responsibilities, as well as the supervision of the minister responsible for culture and preservation of national heritage, with respect to e.g., the preservation and care of historic monuments and museum operations; additionally, it is the matter of conservation supervision performed by Voivodeship Conservators of Historic Monuments as organs specialized in the preservation and care of historic monuments, the latter constituting, e.g., museum collections. As for the ‘internal’ supervision aspects, the role of museum councils, obligatory in public museums (state ones or organised by local governments), needs to be emphasized. Their statutory responsibility is to e.g., supervise how museums fulfil their responsibilities with respect to the collection and the public, in particular how they fulfil the goals as specified in Art.1 of the Act on Museums. The questions of supervision are also important for non-public museums (their founders) which in the event of violating either the Act’s provisions or their own charter have to be prepared that supervisory activities might be applied to them, up to the ban on their further operations.

The Writing and the Bronze: Commemoration as Historiography

Historic monuments are the most public and recognized forms of commemoration. In Canada, as around the world, many monuments have come under fire recently for celebrating a vision of the past that is no longer palatable to large segments of the population. The heroes and events they enshrine have been denounced by many as tributes to racism, yet they are valued by others as aspects of our collective history and a celebration of our national heritage. Both these positions gloss over the complexity of the historical act of raising monuments and interpreting their historical meanings. Monuments in Canada, like all forms of commemoration, are reflections of the historiographical and methodological trends contemporary to the discipline of history at the time of their creation. Changes in methods and interpretations have thus also affected their meaning over time. Thus, monuments are not straightforward representations of history but, instead, layered expressions of historiography in physical form. Ascribing to them singular meanings obscures the complexity of the societies that constructed them and simplifies their connections to public life.

CHARMED BY THE KARKONOSZE MOUNTAINS: PRZEMYSŁAW WIATER (1958–2020)

Przemysław Wiater PhD was a historian, art historian, museum curator, and a regionalist. In 1994–2020, he worked as a certified curator at the Carl and Gerhart Hauptmann House in Szklarska Poręba. In February 2020, he became Director of the Karkonosze Museum in Jelenia Góra. Furthermore, in 2008–2017, he ran courses at the Higher School of Management in Legnica. Committed to recovering historic monuments from Lower Silesia, he also served as a councillor for several terms of office in Szklarska Poręba, where he lived. An outstanding regionalist, Wiater focused on investigating the history of Lower Silesia, particularly the Karkonosze and Izera Mountains. He was the first to undertake research into the local tangible and non-tangible cultural heritage, popularizing it in publications describing the history of Szklarska Poręba, Walloon mineral and gem prospectors, old herbalists and laborants, history of glassworks, or the figure and legend of the Spirit of the Mountains. Having discovered the phenomenon of artistic colonies, he popularized it and adapted to harmonize with contemporary times. His idea was to culturally integrate the region basing on historical cultural contents and the heritage imported by post- -WW II settlers. Sharing his knowledge in a popular way, he infected others with his passion, particularly young people to whom he provided support and inspiration. It was at his instigation that the W.E. Peuckert Guild of the Sudety Mountains Guides was formed; member of the Chapter of the Sudety Mountains Walloon Brotherhood, he was also the knight of the informal Society of the Evening Castle, additionally cooperating with the Izery Society. Originator of the Izery Retro Run and the Flannel Rally, he inspired the formation of several tourist routes, such as the ‘Juliusz Naumonowicz Walloon Hiking Trail’, contributing to the creation of the ‘W.E. Peuckert Trail’ and the Polish-Czech ‘Laborants’ Trail’.

Visibility as a Requirement for Protection of the Surroundings of Immovable Cultural Property: Paradigm, Incomprehension and Questions

The legal protection of historic monuments, under the framework of Algerian legislation, automatically implies the protection of the surroundings of the latter, defined in relation to a visibility relationship, determined at a distance of at least 200 m. Strongly influenced by the French colonial legislative heritage, does this approach really beocme valid and justified? Especially for listed buildings included in the medinas? What dimension should visibility have and how should it be addressed to ensure the effective enhancement of cultural heritage?