The culture of various peoples and countries is expressed in the architecture and art objects of their cities. For thousands of years, builders, architects and artists have created a unique image of each of the cities. Transmitting their efforts into photographs is the topic of this lesson.
Photographing landmarks and architecture
The city is a single entity that includes the architecture of streets, monuments, temples, parks, embankments, people and animals. Of course, every city, and especially cities with a wealthy
historical past, have their own unique character and a certain "melody". For the cities of the East, one rhythm is characteristic, for small European towns - another, for
of huge megacities - the third one... In fact, people and buildings are a single living organism, but in order to get good "urban photos", you first need to catch the Mood of the City.
It is easier for someone to see something interesting in an unfamiliar place, having barely left their suitcase at the hotel, while someone needs to look closely at the life of a metropolis or a small town for some - perhaps a long - time.
Of course, at first it is desirable to get acquainted with the place where you are going, in absentia. To do this, in addition to obtaining general information about those places, you can look at photos of the city in advance and decide on “points” that might be of interest to you. This does not mean that you need to "trace-line" someone's photos, but still you should not forget: in most cities there are sights - and there are their traditional advantageous angles, which, of course, there is no need to ignore.
It is imperative to take into account climatic features, since, for example, in many Asian cities it can be very hot and dusty during the day, in addition, so many people can gather on the streets that it will make shooting very difficult. As a rule, the best information about local features is described in guidebooks for free travelers (Lonely Planet and other similar publications).
Light
As in any other photography, the main thing in urban photography is light. Lighting features can make the most banal place unusual, especially if you find yourself there at a non-standard time.
I know from personal experience that the best time for city photography, especially in Asia, is the very early morning. Not only is the lighting during peak times (some time before sunrise and a couple of hours after it) interesting in itself - at this time, as a rule, there are very few people on city streets, that is, the space is at your complete disposal! Even if the heat of hell awaits you during the day, in the morning the streets are usually quite cool; only rare people are busy with their own affairs. In Europe, residents do not always respond well to shooting, so you will not interfere with them, and they will not disturb you. Although, it is impossible not to notice, the presence of a small number of people in the frame really enlivens the picture: we are talking about “history”, the uniqueness of the moment ...
Also, one of the most interesting lighting options for urban shooting is shooting at night and evening turning into night. During this magical time, European cities and metropolitan areas are beautifully illuminated, so they are a completely different sight at night than during the day. The best time here comes at the moment when the backlight is already turned on, but the night has not yet completely "descended" on the city.
In Asia, the nights are very dark and start quite early. The main sights are usually not highlighted, so shooting has certain features - in the evening it is better to switch to shooting illuminated details.
Often, after dark in cities - for example, in Kathmandu - dim lights turn on in numerous small shops or workshops. Despite the lack of full-fledged evening lighting, the city turns into a kind of “Tale of 1001 Nights” - wherever you look, everywhere, in small arches, shops, street cafes, some kind of life takes place that looks very attractive: it seems to be “highlighted” from the darkness small lamps...
But, I must say, for such shooting you need a fast telephoto lens and a modern camera that allows you to shoot at high sensitivity (ISO) in order to get a sufficiently fast shutter speed (to avoid blurring) for moving objects in dim light.
During the day, in bright sunlight, modern office buildings look good in the photo. Contrasting sunlight only emphasizes the sharp edges of modern design. If the building is glass, then very interesting scenes can be reflected in its many windows.
At this time, you can also take interesting photos inside, in the interiors of temples or other old buildings, where bright sunlight breaks through a few windows on the walls.
Of course, unusual weather events are also interesting for urban photography - for example, a full moon, a pre-stormy sky, predawn haze or thick fog, which can make photographs of the most traveled tourist places unusual.
As for the technical side of urban photography, since the contrast in shooting is usually high, you need to set the exposure for important details that you focus on. If it is necessary to convey the details of the object in the shadows, the exposure is set according to the shadow areas. At the same time, keep an eye on possible light knockouts (overexposed areas). Perhaps they will appear, but if they are small and not in the main storylines, then this is not so scary.
Rule of thirds
For a balanced urban landscape composition, as in a normal landscape, use a shutter speed related to the rule of the "golden ratio" - "rule of thirds", placing important compositional elements at the intersections of lines drawn at a distance of a third from the edges of the frame.
Using a tripod and tools
You will definitely need a tripod for shooting in regime time and for night shooting. The need to carry it with you, of course, complicates moving around the city somewhat, but eliminates the likely blurring at slow shutter speeds. By the way, if your lens is equipped with a stabilizer, then it’s better to turn it off when shooting from a tripod, since it won’t be able to help you in this type of shooting, but it’s easy to interfere ...
With a tripod, the shutter speed can practically not bother you (in the city, 30 seconds is usually enough for night shooting: a special remote control is not needed) - you can apply interesting effects. For example, you can twist the aperture to values 11-14: the light sources in the photo will turn into small stars with rays.
Also, at a slow shutter speed, shooting traffic will give traces of beautiful tracks from the headlights of cars. To use this technique, it is better to choose a shooting point higher.
With a tripod, you can also get very interesting photos when shooting fountains. If the shutter speed is short, the water droplets will freeze; if it is long (2-3 seconds), the fountain will turn into long matte jets. Fountains are very beautifully illuminated in the evenings - here you will most likely need a tripod too. Try experimenting by shooting the entire fountain, separately, as well as its details.
When shooting from a tripod, always put a lens hood on the lens so as not to catch the so-called "hares": these are side flares from other light sources, which are usually quite a lot in the city. As with night photography of any other landscape, you must use the self-timer to release the shutter (unless you use a special remote control or cable), otherwise moving your finger on the shutter button will blur the image.
Sometimes the camera's autofocus cannot focus on the point you want. Then either switch the camera to manual focus mode and focus manually, or illuminate the subject with a flashlight to help autofocus focus. If there is not enough light for hand-held shooting, and you don’t have a tripod with you, use improvised means: you can put the camera on a fence, lean it against a tree trunk or embankment fence; a good impromptu tripod can serve as a bag of cereal.
When shooting interiors in dark buildings without a tripod (such as this Buddhist monastery, for example), you can use the ability of wide-angle lenses to capture in the frame
maximum space. That is, you can put the camera on the floor or a very low shooting point, slightly lift the lens up (this can be achieved by removing, for example, a lens hood from the lens and placing it under the lens) and shoot with a shutter delay, as in night shooting. A good option when shooting in a dark room without a tripod will be a trick to shoot in series - several shots from a long series may well turn out to be sharp.
Fragments of architecture
Shooting the city will be incomplete if you do not photograph the details of architecture - they can be very interesting. Here, of course, the key rule is to carefully look around: you need to turn into a kind of radar, since some elements are not so easy to notice. The ability to find and isolate unusual details from the overall picture develops well with shooting experience.
Of interest may be ancient lanterns, balconies, elements of embankments, temples, shop signs, arches, domes of temples, unexpectedly found small monuments in unusual places - and even elements of urban communications! Often the handles on the doors of old buildings, old doors and windows look very unusual.
The combination of old and new looks interesting - for example, the reflection of the image of the old church in the glass walls of an office building.
Sometimes an expressive fragment of a building can say more about it than the general plan. Old buildings, for example, often feature interesting stone carvings or small sculptures on the façades. In addition to observation, the ability to remove unnecessary details from such a frame, leaving the main thing, will be very important.
Although, of course, for the completeness of the photo essay about the place you visited, you need both fragments and general plans.
When shooting fragments, close the aperture to get a greater depth of field.
Rhythmic frame pattern
By finding elements similar in color, texture and shape, you can catch the graphic rhythm by arranging these elements so that they repeat. This is a very popular technique in urban photography. Such elements can be lanterns on the embankment, windows in a building, lattice elements, temple arches, trees, poles or cars in the parking lot (well, the shadows from them).
A telephoto lens is best suited for photographing rhythmic patterns, given its ability to “compress” distance. At the same time, the graphic rhythm is well emphasized when shooting not from the front, but from the side. Such photos look very interesting in black and white.
Excursions Taking pictures on excursions, you can take a lot of interesting photos. True, in such a shooting there is also a not too pleasant moment: since you are most likely not alone on it (two are almost ideal), other members of the group will interfere with you. You can avoid this if you overtake the guide a little and take the best point first. Or vice versa: wait until the main part of the group takes a picture of what they wanted and move on.
Do not abuse pictures like “Me and the fountain”, “Me and the temple”, “Me and the statue”: these pictures, as a rule, will be in the majority of your group ... and what semantic load do they carry? Show that you really were there? Or the goal is to put the photo on a social network without fail? If you really want to take a photo with a beautiful background in an interesting place, take a few of these photos, but do not turn it into a boring endless series. Remember: the main goal of artistic photography (if you want to get a truly artistic photo) is to make photographs that are interesting not only to you or those who know you, but to interest those who do not know at all the backstory that connects you to this place.
If your goal is to show in the photo that you "were in this place", it is better to take a picture or photograph your loved ones against the background of a sign with the name of a famous street or some popular attraction.
Optics and geometric distortion
When shooting with wide-angle lenses, such geometric distortions as buildings “falling” towards the center of the frame are not uncommon. If this bothers you a lot, these distortions are now well corrected when post-processing photos using Photoshop or any popular RAW converter. Although the best option would be to artistically beat these distortions in your favor.
The longer the focal length, the less these distortions, that is, when shooting with a telephoto lens, buildings, people or streets in the distance will not fall into the center of the frame.
The ideal option would be to shoot with two cameras, one of which is equipped with a wide-angle lens and the other with a telephoto lens: this will give you more speed. If this option does not suit your budget, then a universal zoom lens with a wide range of focal lengths and optical image stabilization will be very convenient for city shooting.
panoramas
For large view spaces, use panoramic shooting. At the same time, as in a natural landscape, it is better to shoot such scenes from the highest vantage point.
Examples of photos on the topic of the lesson
As in any other photography, the main thing in urban photography is light. Lighting features can make the most banal place unusual, especially if you find yourself in it in
non-standard time.
This photo of Prague was taken on a partly cloudy day. The city looked gray under the veil of clouds, but after waiting fifteen minutes, an interesting streak of light appeared, which brought the photo to life. Prague. Czech Republic.
The presence of even a small number of people in the frame really enlivens him, gives him some history, the uniqueness of the moment. Without people, this street would be too empty. Czech krumlov.
One of the most interesting lighting options for urban shooting is shooting at night and evening turning into night. During this magical time, European cities and metropolitan areas are beautifully illuminated and at night they are a completely different sight than during the day. The best time here comes when the city lights are already turned on, but the sky is not yet black, the night has not yet completely descended on the city.
»
Inside temples or other old buildings, during the day you can take interesting photos when bright sunlight breaks through the few windows on the walls. Prague. Czech Republic.
With a tripod, you are practically unlimited in shutter speed (in the city, 30 seconds for night shooting is usually enough and you don’t need a special remote control) and you can apply interesting effects. For example, you can twist the aperture to values 11-14 and the light sources in the photo will turn into small stars with rays. Moscow. Russia.
Just like with night shooting of any other landscapes, you must use the self-timer to release the shutter (unless you use a special remote control or cable). Otherwise, moving your finger on the shutter button may blur the image. Moscow. Russia.
When shooting without a tripod interiors in dark buildings, such as this Buddhist monastery, you can use the ability of wide-angle lenses to capture in the frame
maximum space. That is, you can put the camera on the floor or a very low shooting point, slightly raise the lens up (this can be achieved by removing, for example, a hood from
lens and placing it under the lens) and shoot with a delayed shutter release, as in night shooting. This is exactly how this photo was taken, with the help of a lens hood placed under the lens. Thangboche Monastery. Nepal
Shooting the city will be incomplete if you do not photograph the details of architecture - they can be very interesting. Here, of course, the key rule will be to carefully look around, turning into a kind of radar, because some elements are not so easy to notice. The ability to find and isolate unusual details from the overall picture develops well with shooting experience. Prague. Czech Republic.
Of interest may be ancient lanterns, balconies, elements of embankments, temples, shop signs, arches, domes of temples, unexpectedly found small monuments in unusual places, and even elements of urban communications. Often the handles on the doors of old buildings, old doors and windows look very unusual.
Prague. Prague Castle area. Czech Republic.
»
Sometimes, an expressive fragment of a building or sculpture can say more about it than the general plan. In addition to observation, the ability to remove unnecessary details from such a frame, leaving the main thing, will be very important. Close-up of the head of the statue of one of the incarnations of Shiva - "Black Bairab" on Durbar Square
square in Kathmandu, Nepal.
»
Although, of course, for a full-fledged photo essay about the place you have visited, you need both fragments and general plans. General view of the statue of one of the incarnations of Shiva - "Black Bairab" on
Durbar Square in Kathmandu, Nepal.
»
By finding elements similar in color, texture and shape, you can catch the graphic rhythm by arranging these elements so that they repeat. This is a very popular technique in urban photography. Such elements can be lanterns on the embankment, windows in the building, elements of lattices, arches of temples, trees, even poles or cars in the parking lot or shadows from them. Here the rhythm creates a repetition of the forms of arches inside the Catholic church. Kutna mountain. Czech Republic.
»
The longer the focal length, the less geometric distortion. That is, when shooting buildings, people or streets in the distance with a telephoto lens, they will not fall into the center of the frame. Prague. Czech Republic.
s"
For large viewing spaces, use panoramic shooting. At the same time, as in a natural landscape, it is better to shoot such scenes from the highest vantage point.
Panorama of two horizontal frames. Czech krumlov. Czech Republic.
»
Light is critical to getting a good photo. It makes the moment unique, non-repetitive. The photo shows a brief moment of a short winter sunset on a frosty evening. Moscow. Russia
Tasks for the lesson
Learning to shoot architecture Well, it's time to practice shooting architecture. Try to find interesting subjects for shooting in the city and send in two of the best photos taken at different times of the day.
As can be seen from the previous presentation, the content of the concepts of "architectural monument" and "restoration" has changed over time. These concepts, having arisen relatively late, were interpreted differently depending on the philosophical, artistic and other ideas of each individual period. At the same time, they tended to become more complex, enriched due to more and more multifaceted consideration of the connections that arise between the architectural work of the past and the world of modern man.
In different European countries, the terms “monument”, “historical monument”, “architectural monument” are used to designate what we call an architectural monument. In our country, the term “monuments of antiquity and art” was used in the past, and at present the concept of “monument of architecture” is included in the more general concept of “monuments of history and culture”, or, even more broadly, “cultural heritage”. These terms reflect the dual value of the buildings that we classify as monuments - historical and artistic. To imagine the fullness of the significance of monuments for modern man, such a division is still not enough, since each of these two main aspects of the value of monuments is far from elementary, representing a very complex combination of various aspects.
Thus, the historical value is manifested not only in cognitive terms, but also in terms of emotional. The fact that this building is a witness to events either very distant or significant for the history and culture of a given area, country or humanity as a whole, gives it a special significance in the eyes of contemporaries. This side of the value of old buildings is reflected in the recognition by the existing legislation of a special category of monuments - the so-called "monuments of history". Historical monuments may include structures that do not have architectural and artistic value and are of interest only as a reminder of certain historical events or persons. However, this special value no less often extends to artistically valuable buildings included in the state lists under the heading "monuments of architecture." Thus, the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, built by Aristotle Fioravanti during the formation of the Russian national state, is not only an outstanding monument of architecture, but also the most important monument of the formation of Russian statehood. The ensemble of Tsarskoye Selo is inextricably linked with the names of Pushkin and many other figures of Russian culture and is valuable for modern people for this memory no less than for high artistic merit. A special category is represented by structures erected in memory of a certain event (triumphal arches, obelisks, memorial temples, etc.).
In cognitive terms, the historical value of a monument is expressed primarily in the fact that it serves as a carrier of information about the past, i.e. historical source. This information has versatility and manifests itself in very different areas, which allows us to consider the monument as a specific and complex historical source. From the point of view of historians, direct evidence of the monuments about the social structure of society is of paramount interest. Thus, on a huge scale, the southern Russian churches of the 10th-11th centuries, towering among small wooden and earthen buildings, the essential features of the social structure of Kievan Rus were clearly manifested.
The specificity of architecture as an art, which includes engineering and technical aspects, allows us to see in the works of architecture a direct reflection of the level of development of production forces: the embodiment of engineering knowledge, the product of material production. The typological features of the surviving buildings of the past carry precious information about the way of life of remote eras. From this point of view, the ancient structure is considered as a monument of material culture. But since architecture is to the same extent an art that operates with an ideological and figurative language, monuments serve as the most important historical evidence of the ideology and spiritual culture of various eras.
Not being a fine art, architecture does not express ideas in such a direct form as painting or sculpture, therefore, in architectural monuments, for the most part, one can find a reflection of the most general features of the worldview of any historical period. However, this expression can be exceptionally strong and vivid. Suffice it to recall a Byzantine temple or a Gothic cathedral. The information delivered by monuments as works of art is also very diverse. For example, the Romanesque building technique of the buildings of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' of the XII century. and the similarity of their sculptural decoration with Western monuments provide important historical evidence of the cultural ties of this era and the migration of artels of builders and sculptors, characteristic of the Middle Ages.
It is quite clear that all the listed aspects of the significance of a monument as a historical source are valid when considering not only parts of the monument dating back to the time of its appearance, but also all later layers, each of which reflects the features of its historical era in many ways.
No less obvious is the presence of artistic value in architectural monuments. The works of architects of the past, whether they are buildings of the ancient, medieval period or modern times, are capable of evoking a keen aesthetic experience in a modern person. Previously, in the evaluation of ancient buildings as monuments, it was precisely this side that prevailed, although the concept of artistic and, accordingly, the criteria applied to individual buildings changed significantly. Classicism proceeded from the idea of the existence of unshakable timeless laws of beauty, comprehended by the mind and embodied in samples of ancient art. When applied to specific monuments, this meant recognizing the right to such a title only for the buildings of classical antiquity and removed the question of the significance of the layers of subsequent eras. Romanticism was more flexible in assessing the works of the past as monuments, transferring this concept to later eras and to manifestations of national stylistic features. At the same time, however, the poeticizing of individualism, and in particular of the artistic and creative person, characteristic of romanticism, gave rise to a tendency to see in the monument not so much this historical concreteness, but the author's intention behind it, distorted by time and even perhaps not yet embodied. Arguing with the romantics, the supporters of archaeological restoration, without denying the artistic value of the monument, nevertheless brought to the fore the historical value, the significance of the monument as a document. At present, the tendency to see in the monument the unity of the artistic and the historical prevails, which in reality can not always be quite clearly divided.
The modern approach to considering the artistic value of a monument is based on the position that a monument always carries out its emotional and aesthetic impact in a certain context. First of all, it is the context of modern culture, which includes a developed attitude towards art in general and towards the art of the past in particular. The historicism of thinking inherent in the consciousness of the people of our century allows us to perceive phenomena that belong to very different artistic systems much more widely and more flexibly than it was in the past. The world of a modern cultured person includes the obligatory knowledge of art samples from different countries and eras, with which he involuntarily compares the work being evaluated. The assessment of an architectural monument inevitably includes associations related to familiar phenomena related to the sphere of not only architecture, but also literature, painting, music and other types of art. This causes the complexity of the aesthetic perception of the monument as a work of architecture, and our perception cannot claim to be adequate to the perception of contemporaries of its creation, which took place in a different context and included a different circle of associations.
But the monument is not only included in the context of modern culture. A monument that actually exists today, with all the changes and additions accumulated during its centuries-old life, can itself be considered as a context in which artistic elements of different times are combined. Rebuildings, additions, and even losses by no means always lead to the destruction of a monument as an artistic whole, sometimes modifying it, creating a new whole with new esthetic qualities. The Moscow Kremlin with towers topped with high stone tents 200 years after they were erected is no longer a work of architecture of the 15th century, nor is it a work of architecture of the 17th century, but a unique fusion of artistic elements of both centuries, but in separate parts and more recent times. The Winter Palace of Rastrelli with the latest interiors of the classicism era, despite the loss of the author's interior decoration, despite the difference in styles, is an artistically integral building, the image of which is built on a complex system of interaction of elements from different times. The examples given are the most obvious, but in many other buildings that have undergone one or another change in the later years of their existence, parts of different times and different styles enter into one or another relationship, which ultimately determines the unique individuality of each monument. This also applies to outstanding structures, and to the so-called ordinary buildings. Later layers should be assessed not only as having or not having artistic value in themselves, but also as elements included in the general artistic system of the monument. In this regard, it is not only the changes made by the hand of man that are significant, but also those that bear traces of the destructive action of time. Thus, the ruins of an ancient building have a great aesthetic expressiveness, different from that which this building had many centuries ago. Traces of the long existence of the monument, the so-called patina of time, not only obscure and distort information about the work of art of the distant past, but also carry their own emotional information about the life of the monument in time, which is an important part of its current aesthetic perception.
For an architectural monument as a work of art, there is another context, outside of which it is unacceptable to consider it, according to modern concepts. This is the context of its architectural and natural environment, the environment that the monument forms and on which, in turn, its artistic perception depends to a large extent. The context of the environment is no less subject to transformation in time than the context of the monument itself. Changes in the material conditions and social way of life of people inevitably affect the appearance of their environment. The older the monument, the less, as a rule, the character of its contemporary environment corresponds to that which existed at the time of its creation. This is especially evident in large cities involved in the process of urbanization. Irreversible changes take place even where, it would seem, there are no cardinal redevelopments and restructurings. The appearance of asphalt instead of wooden or stone paving, the installation of modern street lighting, the introduction of urban vehicles actively influence the perception of both the environment and the individual monument. The natural environment of the monuments is by no means stable either: the trees grow, the landscape is constantly changing.
Changes in the architecture of a separate building occurred in parallel with changes in its environment. Later stratifications of the site reflect this relationship in different ways. Many alterations of ancient buildings were dictated by compositional considerations caused by a change in the nature of the relationship between the monument and its environment. Thus, the appearance of high onion domes on the Kremlin cathedrals is certainly associated with a general change in the silhouette of the Kremlin, in particular, with the superstructure of the towers. In turn, the appearance of high tent tops on the towers was largely due to a change in the urban situation, the transformation of the Kremlin from the fortified center of Moscow, surrounded by a relatively small suburb with low buildings, into the central ensemble of a large and densely built-up city. The color scheme of the Kremlin ensemble has also changed: the colorful combination of red-brick and white coloring of the central cathedral group with the inclusion of polychrome gave way to the predominance of plain white, which corresponded to a larger urban planning scale. Such compositional connections must be taken into account in the artistic evaluation of the monument.
In addition to compositional connections between the layers of the monument and the elements of its environment, there are connections of a stylistic order. Both the alteration of the monument and the change of buildings around it, not always connected with each other by an obvious compositional dependence, were carried out to a certain extent synchronously, due to which the monument received layers that, to one degree or another, corresponded to the style of the new elements of its environment. Sometimes, at the same time, they tried to completely bring the architectural language of the monument to the character of the architecture of the new period, sometimes they limited themselves to individual additions that introduce new stylistic features into the architecture of the building. As a result, very complex combinations of stylistic order arose between the monument and its architectural environment, far from the embodiment of any one style. The complexity of such relationships does not mean the absence of artistic unity. In the course of the long life of a monument and its surroundings, harmony of a higher order is sometimes created. Of course, completely different situations are possible and actually occur, when there is not an artistic connection, but an irreconcilable dissonance. In this area, as in others, an individual assessment is required based on a comprehensive consideration of various aspects.
Such a complex understanding of the aesthetic nature of the monument is largely due to the historicism of consciousness inherent in the modern worldview, which manifests itself not only in the sphere of theoretical thinking, but also in the artistic and emotional sphere.
The main goal of carrying out any work on an architectural monument is to extend its life as a structure of multilateral value. Most directly, this task is reduced to conservation, i.e. to a set of measures aimed at protecting or strengthening the structure in its current form. Conservation is unanimously recognized as the main type of work that should be carried out on monuments.
An important condition for extending the life of a monument is its active inclusion in the life of modern society. This goal is achieved in two ways: by emphasizing the artistic and historical value of the monument (restoration) and by endowing it with a practical function (adaptation).
Unlike conservation, restoration (the literal translation of the term into Russian means “restoration”) involves the introduction of certain changes into the structure, dictated by the awareness of its special significance as a monument. Because of this, restoration is always a violation of the existing system of relationships. Therefore, it is customary to consider it as an exception, due to a number of limitations.
One of the main theoretical premises on which modern ideas about restoration are based is the recognition that the artistically valuable object that determines its direction is not the creative concept of the ancient master, but the monument that exists in our time with its losses, later stratifications and established links with architectural and spatial environment. The old system of ideas, according to which the restoration was understood as a new adequate embodiment of the idea, is completely rejected. The idea of a repeated creative act, in which the restorer is identified with the creator of the restored work, is an illusion that does not take into account the huge difference in the artistic worldview of the masters of past eras and modern man. The restorer influences not the ideal artistic image of the monument, but its material structure. The monument in its reality appears as a keeper of artistic and historical information, which, however, can be present in it not only explicitly, but also in a hidden form, as if potentially. The intervention of the restorer is able to reveal the hidden part of this information, at best, with more or less exhaustive completeness. Referring to an example from an adjacent area, one can recall an ancient icon that preserves the remains of ancient painting under a late record. The value of the monument belongs to this pictorial layer revealed by the restorer, and not to the author's intention of the icon painter.
From the position that the restoration is focused on this existing structure, and not on the plan, it follows that its goal should not be either a return to the original appearance, or the restoration of a later formed, but also lost appearance (the so-called "restoration at the optimal date" ), but the maximum disclosure of the artistic qualities of the monument that has come down to us and its historically valuable features. Artistic qualities are understood in this case in the sense that was mentioned above, i.e. they include the entire context of artistic relationships that have arisen between the original parts of the building and later layers, as well as between the monument and the historically developed architectural and spatial environment.
For the same reason, it is fundamentally not allowed to erect parts of the structure that were not carried out at the time, even if they were part of the likely author's intention. This provision remains valid not only when the original idea is reconstructed on a guess (as was often the case in the restoration practice of the 19th century), but also when we have seemingly indisputable materials in the form of author's drawings. There are many examples of how the final formation of the architectural appearance of buildings of the past took place during the construction process, when the architect himself refined and revised the previously drawn up project. This is confirmed, in particular, by comparing the design drawings of Bazhenov and Kazakov with the buildings of the Tsaritsyno palace complex erected under their leadership. The unrealized version of the project retains its independent significance for us as a monument of the artistic thought of its era, but only a really embodied work can be considered as an architectural monument and as an object of restoration.
Modern theory establishes a fundamentally different attitude towards stratification than that which took place during the period of dominance of stylistic restoration. They are recognized not only for their own historical and artistic value as independent works reflecting the peculiarities of the culture of their time, but also for their role as components of the monument as a whole. They not only obscure and distort the original artistic design of the structure (according to previous ideas, it was predominantly, if not the only valuable one), but they are also capable of complicating and enriching the artistic structure of the monument. The Venice Charter clearly indicates that the cleansing of the monument from complicating layers, the unity of style is rejected as the ultimate goal of restoration.
Recognition in theory of the value of later layers should not be dogmatically perceived as the need to preserve any additions to the monument. Late plaster covering the ancient painting, a faceless utilitarian extension to the facade, the newest laying of an arched passage not only do not carry artistic information, but in the most direct sense obscure, distort the valuable that is really present in the monument. The Italian Charter of 1931 described this kind of stratification as "devoid of meaning and meaning." Not always, of course, the differences between valuable and non-valuable accretions are quite obvious, and a carefully balanced, differentiated assessment of each individual case is necessary.
Another general requirement for restoration is maximum preservation of authenticity. Authenticity is important from many points of view. An ancient building, replaced by a new copy, loses its value as a historical witness of the past, retaining only the value of a visual illustration. As a monument of material culture, it no longer exists. But even as a work of art, a copy cannot claim to be adequate to the original, no matter how perfect it may be. Moreover, an indispensable condition for the full perception of a work of art is the viewer's awareness of its authenticity. The partial loss of authenticity, to one degree or another, is almost inevitable during restoration, is also sensitive. From this, first of all, follows a special attitude to the replacement of damaged elements of the building. Contrary to the usual repair and construction practice, priority should be given to special strengthening methods, and only in extreme cases is it allowed to replace the original material, which should be considered a necessary evil. This general proposition is true to varying degrees in different cases. It is not indifferent whether we are talking about a centuries-old building or a relatively recent building, about the most artistically active elements of the monument - carved details, murals, ordinary wall laying or hidden structures. The more historical or artistic information is contained in one or another element of the monument, the more mandatory the requirement to preserve authenticity becomes.
Recognition of the value of authenticity imposes restrictions not only on the replacement of dilapidated elements, but also on new additions made to the monument during restoration, which should not have the character of falsification. The fundamental solution to the problem was suggested by theorists of archaeological restoration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries: the use of a system of techniques for artificially highlighting new inclusions, the so-called signation. But since the distinction between the original parts of the monument and restoration additions is carried out due to one degree or another of the integrity of its perception, determining the methods and measures of signification is far from a simple problem. In each individual case, an individual approach to the system for identifying restoration additions should be developed based on the specific situation.
Even under the condition of a conscientious signing, new additions made during the restoration, depending on their quantitative ratio with the preserved ancient elements, can have a negative impact on the perception of the monument as a whole, “compromise” it as a genuine work of antiquity. In order to avoid this undesirable effect, it is necessary that the original prevail over the restoration in the monument, and not vice versa. In the practical implementation of this requirement, however, it is important to take into account what we mean by a monument: a fragment of an ancient building, a structure as a whole, an architectural ensemble. Depending on this, the same action of the restorer can be considered as unacceptable, lawful or even necessary. Thus, a significant restoration of one of the symmetrical outbuildings of the estate, bordering on its complete reconstruction, if considered only in relation to this outbuilding, would probably be a violation of the norms of restoration in its modern sense; at the same time, being correlated with the restoration of the estate as a whole, it will turn out to be just as legitimate as the restoration of the lost column of the portico would be. Thus, the inclusion of the assessment of the monument in the ensemble and urban planning context can lead to an expansion of the area of possible restoration solutions, while allowing to remain within the framework of the previously formulated general principles of restoration.
The possibility of restoration additions is also limited by the condition of the reliability of the reconstruction, which must be based on a strict documentary basis. According to the Venice Charter, restoration must stop where the hypothesis begins. Documentation of restoration has two sides. First of all, this is proof of a fundamental order, confirming that this element of the monument really existed and existed in the exact edition that was provided for by the restoration project.
However, even with an impeccable fundamental justification for the restoration, determining the size, pattern, texture of the lost element is possible only with varying degrees of approximation. The building culture of the past, based on artisanal methods of production, is characterized by deviations from the ideal geometric shape, individual interpretation of each individual detail. Less or more, but in any case, the fixation drawings also have a finite degree of accuracy. From this point of view, the documentary justification of the restoration always remains relative, and the criterion for the admissibility of recreating the lost elements is not absolute accuracy, but only relative, the degree of which depends on the conditions of visual perception. The notion of a monument as a real structure makes it necessary to give preference to direct material remains over all other types of sources when evaluating the documentary justification for restoration. On a par with them, fixation data can be put, performed in accordance with modern standards of scientific research. But in all cases, a comparison of the entire complex of materials remains a prerequisite.
Invading the existing system of artistic relationships in order to identify certain important qualities of the monument, the restorer must carefully consider what the new artistic whole created as a result of restoration will be like. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the integrity of the perception of the monument, taken separately, and its connection with the architectural and spatial environment. In this respect, restoration includes elements not only of scientific analysis, but also of creativity. The means available to the restorer to achieve a new artistic unity are relatively limited, but should not be underestimated. First of all, this is a correctly found ratio of the measure of disclosure and recreation. Much in the perception of a monument also depends on the skillful use of modern elements introduced into the monument, which serve to ensure preservation, fill gaps, etc. The height and extension of the roof, the design of the joinery, the color scheme, in cases where they are not unambiguously determined by the actual restoration requirements, should be used as a means of creating artistic harmony.
The provisions outlined above fix only the most general principles of restoration. In almost all theoretical works in this area, it is noted that monuments and cases of restoration have an infinite variety that does not allow for a dogmatic approach. Therefore, there is not and cannot be a set of strict requirements that the restorer must mechanically comply with. Restoration should be considered as a specific creative process. At the same time, the decision on the fate of the monument cannot be entrusted to the judgment of one person, no matter how highly qualified he may be, but is confirmed by an authoritative circle of specialists.
Already in ancient times, the rulers were well aware of the influence of monumental structures on the consciousness and psyche of people. monuments with their greatness they give an emotional charge, inspire respect for the history of their country, help to preserve a significant past. They are designed to instill in citizens a sense of pride in their ancestors. Sometimes monuments are erected to living people who distinguished themselves by something good.
Quite a bit of time will pass, and there will be no survivors of the Great Patriotic War. The presence of a monument that tells about the feat of the Russian people will allow descendants not to forget about these years. In any locality of our country, you can find stone evidence of this cruel time. There is an invisible connection between monuments and society. The historical and cultural environment, of which monuments are a part, influences the formation of the worldview of each inhabitant.
In addition, historical and cultural monuments are information that is needed to predict future processes. Science, using such archaeological material as monuments, not only restores what happened in the past, but also makes predictions. In architectural terms, monuments help to organize space, play the role of a visual center of public space.
For an objective understanding of cultural and historical processes in society, it is important to preserve monuments. Attitude towards them is determined by the position of society towards its past and can be manifested by ignorance, care and deliberate destruction. It depends on many factors - on the level of education and culture of the population, the dominant ideology, the position of the state towards its cultural heritage, the political structure, the economic condition of the country. The higher the education, culture, economy of a society, the more humane its ideology, the more consciously it relates to its historical and cultural heritage.
Any city in the world has its own architectural face. Cities built several hundred years ago can boast of something that modern, young cities do not have: their history and unique architectural appearance, a certain special spirit, the imprint of people and events that is characteristic of this particular place. Arriving in a resort or historical city, we start our walks from the historical center, from the "old town". Old, not big houses, narrow streets, local flavor… No one goes anywhere to see sleeping areas or identical panel high-rise buildings. Skyscrapers are interesting only where they really impress with their grandeur: in the Emirates, New York, Shanghai, for example. That is why it is so important to preserve what already exists, what has come to us from the past, what has a history, a special unique aesthetics and uniqueness. For yourself, your self-consciousness, for the continuity of generations, for the preservation of the beauty of the past. Cities that understand this become attractive to tourists and loved by their own residents. Many times in Ufa and other Russian cities, I heard words of admiration from foreigners about our historical and architectural monuments, in particular, wooden architecture.
There is an opinion: wooden houses have a short age, and there is no point in restoring them, because. they do not live long. However, scientists from Tomsk State University, together with scientists from Stuttgart and Darmstadt, conducted a study of one of the wooden monuments of federal significance in the city of Tomsk and found that the duration of operation of this wooden building, which is more than 100 years old, with proper operation can be up to 400 years. What can we say about stone monuments of architecture, if, with proper care, wooden structures can last up to 400 years?
The oldest surviving wooden monument in Russia, the Church of the Deposition of the Robe from the village of Borodava, erected in 1485 and moved to the city of Kirillov, stood almost without restoration until 1950, and after restoration it is now in excellent condition. Over 500 years!
So to say that the age of century-old wooden houses has already passed is not true. They can and should be preserved, the only question is proper care and restoration.
In Europe, the attitude towards historical and architectural monuments is much more careful, they honor and are proud of their history and cherish its architectural heritage. Probably, many watched the program "Eagle and Tails", where they showed houses in Lithuania, in Vilnius. These houses are very reminiscent of Ufa, and cost more than a million dollars, because it is a cultural heritage.
Houses in Vilnius
In Norway and Finland, only objects of national importance are restored exclusively from the state budget (there are only 200 of them in Finland), while the rest, as a rule, are preserved by the joint efforts of the owners and the state. In the Bulgarian city of Nesseber and the Finnish Rauma, included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, 600 wooden monuments are preserved, in Swedish Bergen - 40.
In the ancient Finnish town of Rauma, quarters of wooden historical buildings have been preserved. Old Raum is the largest historical wooden town in the Nordic countries. In total, there are about 600 buildings of the 18th and early 19th centuries, most of which are privately owned. Here, a mechanism has already been worked out for providing state assistance to owners of buildings for their repair and restoration. As a rule, state aid is 40% of the cost of the work.
In order to support the preservation and development of Old Rauma, the Old Rauma Foundation has been established, which collects funds for the preservation and development of the old city, and also offers loans for the renovation of historical buildings at central bank rates.
Old Rauma, Finland
Trondheim, Norway 
This indicates a respectful attitude towards architectural monuments both by the state and by the people themselves, in whose private ownership most of these houses are located.
But even in Russia there are successful examples of the preservation and restoration of historical and architectural monuments.
As, for example, in Tomsk. The city, founded in 1604, is home to 500,000 people. The uniqueness of the historical heritage of Tomsk lies in the preservation of urban wooden buildings dating back to the 19th-20th centuries.
In total, there are about 3 thousand wooden buildings and structures in Tomsk. Of these, about 1.5 thousand are objects of historical, architectural value or forming a historical environment as a background building. The program for the preservation and revival of wooden architecture in the city of Tomsk and the Tomsk region, which originated as a civic initiative, then taken under the patronage of Governor Viktor Kress and received the status of an official document 5 years ago, includes 701 objects. For comparison: in the Bulgarian city of Nesseber and the Finnish Rauma, included in the UNESCO World Heritage List, 600 wooden monuments are preserved, in Swedish Bergen - 40. Thus, in terms of the number of preserved wooden buildings, Tomsk is ahead not only of domestic Vologda and Irkutsk, but also of the world centers of wooden architecture. Although, of course, there are problems here too.
Since 2005, about sixty wooden buildings have been restored. About 380 million rubles were spent from the budget for this. At the same time, there was no separate article in the budget for the restoration of wooden houses. Little by little, the money was being squeezed out. Another 70 million were raised from investors and another 20 million from the federal budget.
And here is such a case: the Sapozhnikova House, a monument of wooden architecture in Tomsk, was resettled, set on fire several times and finally burned down completely - the next day after the completion of the Russian-German summit and the departure of VIPs from Tomsk. The public then made a big scandal with a rally near the burned house and a letter that collected one and a half thousand signatures. There are almost 2 times more residents in Ufa, but when the Archdefense collected signatures for the preservation of architectural monuments, there were only about 200 of them. Maybe we, as residents of our city, need to become less indifferent to our cultural heritage? After all, there is still something to save. Some corners of the city have remained almost the same as 100 years ago, and there are still wonderful monuments of wooden architecture.
Already in ancient times, the rulers were well aware of the influence of monumental structures on the consciousness and psyche of people. Monuments with their grandeur give an emotional charge, inspire respect for the history of their country, help to preserve a significant past. They are designed to instill in citizens a sense of pride in their ancestors. Sometimes monuments are erected to living people who distinguished themselves by something good. Quite a bit of time will pass, and there will be no survivors of the Great Patriotic War. The presence of a monument that tells about the feat of the Russian people will allow descendants not to forget about these years. In any locality of our country, you can find stone evidence of this cruel time. There is an invisible connection between monuments and society. The historical and cultural environment, of which monuments are a part, influences the formation of the worldview of each inhabitant. In addition, historical and cultural monuments are information that is needed to predict future processes. Science, using such archaeological material as monuments, not only restores what happened in the past, but also makes predictions. In architectural terms, monuments help to organize space, play the role of a visual center of public space. For an objective understanding of cultural and historical processes in society, it is important to preserve monuments. Attitude towards them is determined by the position of society towards its past and can be manifested by ignorance, care and deliberate destruction. It depends on many factors - on the level of education and culture of the population, the dominant ideology, the position of the state towards its cultural heritage, the political structure, the economic condition of the country. The higher the education, culture, economy of a society, the more humane its ideology, the more consciously it relates to its historical and cultural heritage.
What only does not exist in the world of monuments! Grateful humanity erected majestic buildings in honor of the dead just rulers, brilliant musicians and poets. In the prehistoric era, heads of state did not want to wait for their own death and built monuments to themselves during their lifetime. Monuments are erected in cemeteries and in the center of city squares. Why do people in all countries and at all times do this?
Mankind began to put at the dawn of civilization. Scientists are still finding the oldest stone sculptures created by primitive sculptures and still raising questions and debates about what or who they are. One thing does not cause controversy - all images of fictional or real creatures had a cult value. The first monuments were created as objects of worship, magical supernatural powers were attributed to them. Later, deceased leaders and respected members of tribes and ancient communities began to be endowed with magical powers. People began to create monuments to perpetuate and exalt. This function is preserved and . Statues depicting generals, rulers of states or great writers can be seen in any country. Grateful descendants pay tribute to the talents or heroism of their great compatriots. But in the history of mankind, monuments were erected not only to the dead, but also to living people. The cult of a living person and his deification were especially pronounced in ancient Egypt. Pharaohs built tombs for themselves and erected their statues next to those of their many gods. This tradition was later picked up by emperors in the ancient world. Monuments were erected to them during their lifetime, and the emperors could enjoy divine honors and glorification of their merits even before the inevitable departure to another world. However, the passion for exalting one's own person among the greats of this world can be observed today. Lifetime monuments were erected to Kim Ser In, Stalin, Turkmenbashi Niyazov, Mao, and the full list is not limited to these names. As a rule, the initiative to build monuments to a glorified person came from this person himself or his faithful associates. The presence of monuments to living people is considered by many sociologists as one of the proofs of an unhealthy society and a totalitarian system in the country. With the development of society, the monuments became more and more diverse. Not only people, but also animals began to be honored to be immortalized in bronze and marble. There are monuments to rescue animals who died in the service. For example, in Paris there is a monument to St. Bernard Barry, who saved the lives of people caught in an avalanche. In Japan, you can see a monument to dog loyalty. It was erected in honor of the dog Hachiko, who for several years came to the station every day and waited for the arrival of his deceased owner. In many European cities, there has recently been a trend to erect unusual and funny monuments. In Washington there is a monument to people standing in line, in Bratislava you can see a monument to a plumber sticking his head out of a sewer manhole, and in Paris to take a picture next to the monument to a finger. Such structures do not have any important social function, they are made for the mood, decoration of the city and attracting the attention of tourists to it. Human memory is short, life goes on as usual and new heroes constantly appear. Monuments do not allow mankind to forget about the most important milestones in its history, about people and events that we would like to always remember.
