Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

English (EN)·Polski (PL)·Yкраїнський (UK)
Przejdź do strony domowej biblioteki Centralna Biblioteka Wojskowa Link otwiera się w nowym oknie Logo biblioteki Prolib Integro - strona głównaCentralna Biblioteka Wojskowa

Wyszukujesz frazę "Lista Światowego Dziedzictwa" wg kryterium: Temat

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5
    Tytuł:
    ZGROMADZENIE OGÓLNE PAŃSTW STRON KONWENCJI ŚWIATOWEGO DZIEDZICTWA UNESCO Paryż, 23-28 października 2009 r.
    GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE UNESCO CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE Paris, 23-28 October 2009
    Autorzy:
    Piotrowska-Nosek, Katarzyna
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/536676.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2008
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    UNESCO
    Paryż
    Konferencja Generalna UNESCO
    Fundusz Światowego Dziedzictwa
    Komitet Światowego Dziedzictwa
    Zgromadzenie Ogólne
    Lista Światowego Dziedzictwa
    monitoring
    Opis:
    A General Assembly of the States Parties to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage took place at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris on 23-28 October. Its participants meet every two years at a UNESCO General Assembly to make decisions concerning the dues for the World Heritage Fund and to elect new members of the World Heritage Committee. The General Assembly passed a resolution introducing changes into the Committee voting system. This year’ s election was held in accordance with the newly accepted principles. The Committee is now composed of 12 new countries: the United Arab Emirates, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, France, Cambodia, the Republic of South Africa, Thailand, Estonia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Mali and Mexico. For the duration of a mandate, which lasts for a maximum of six years, the Committee members, cooperating with advisory organisations and the World Heritage Centre, monitor the state of sites on the World Heritage List and decide about new entries. The General Assembly also discussed the future of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in connection with its coming 40th anniversary and the challenges stemming from its global character. It is worth stressing that for the first time in the history of the Convention the debate about its future involved all the states which had signed it and which wish to have impact upon its progress.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2008, 4; 14
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Wśród cudów świata
    Autorzy:
    Marcinek, R.
    Myczkowski, Z.
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/218633.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2003
    Wydawca:
    Stowarzyszenie Konserwatorów Zabytków
    Tematy:
    UNESCO
    Lista Światowego Dziedzictwa Kulturalnego i Naturalnego
    List of World Cultural and Natural Heritage
    Źródło:
    Wiadomości Konserwatorskie; 2003, 13; 5-8
    0860-2395
    2544-8870
    Pojawia się w:
    Wiadomości Konserwatorskie
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Wpisanie na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO jako proponowana forma ochrony w polskim systemie ochrony zabytków
    Inclusion on the UNESCO World Heritage List as a Proposed Form of Protection in the Polish Monument Protection System
    Autorzy:
    Szmygin, Bogusław
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/24200988.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2022
    Wydawca:
    Stowarzyszenie Konserwatorów Zabytków
    Tematy:
    Lista Światowego Dziedzictwa
    UNESCO
    polski system ochrony zabytków
    formy ochrony zabytków
    UNESCO World Heritage List
    Polish monument protection system
    monument protection
    forms
    Opis:
    50. rocznica uchwalenia Konwencji w sprawie ochrony światowego dziedzictwa kulturalnego i naturalnego (1972) sprzyja podsumowaniu jej dokonań i ocenie wpływu na ochronę dziedzictwa. Ruch Światowego Dziedzictwa osiągnął znaczący sukces ilościowy, merytoryczny, wizerunkowy. Wypracowano unikatową, uniwersalną metodologię oceny dóbr dziedzictwa i standardy ich ochrony – są one oparte na współczesnym podejściu do ochrony i zarządzania dóbr kultury. Ochrona dóbr kultury Światowego Dziedzictwa odbywa się w ramach krajowych systemów ochrony zabytków. Standardy, metodologie i procedury krajowych systemów ochrony nie są spójne z systemem UNESCO. Dlatego ochrona i zarządzanie dóbr UNESCO nie mogą być realizowane w pełni. Dorobek, jakość i trwałość systemu Światowego Dziedzictwa uzasadnia włączenie go do krajowych systemów ochrony. W Polsce możliwe i zasadne jest uznanie „wpisania dobra na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa” jako jednej z ustawowych form ochrony zabytków (art. 7).
    The fiftieth anniversary of the Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage (1972) is conducive to taking stock of its achievements and assessing its impact on heritage protection. The World Heritage movement has achieved significant quantitative, substantive, and image-related success. A unique, universal methodology for assessing heritage sites and standards for their protection have been developed—they are based on contemporary approaches to the protection and management of cultural sites. The protection of the World Heritage cultural sites is carried out within the framework of national systems of monument protection. The standards, methodologies and procedures of national protection systems are not consistent with the UNESCO system. Therefore, the protection and management of the UNESCO sites cannot be realized in full. The achievements, quality and sustainability of the World Heritage system justify its inclusion in national systems of protection. In Poland, it is possible and reasonable to recognize the inclusion of a site on the World Heritage List as one of the statutory forms of monument protection (Art. 7).
    Źródło:
    Wiadomości Konserwatorskie; 2022, 72; 7--19
    0860-2395
    2544-8870
    Pojawia się w:
    Wiadomości Konserwatorskie
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Jasina – cerkiew Strukowska z Listy UNESCO na tle innych świątyń huculskich
    Yasinia – the Strukivska tserkva from the UNESCO World Heritage List compared to other Hutsul temples
    Autorzy:
    Witkowski, Włodzimierz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/535679.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2015
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    cerkiew huculska
    cerkiew drewniana
    architektura drewniana
    Jasina
    Huculszczyzna
    Zakarpacie
    Lista światowego dziedzictwa
    UNESCO
    Hutsul tserkva
    wooden tserkva
    wooden architecture
    Yasinia
    the Hutsul Land
    Transcarpathia
    UNESCO World Heritage List
    Opis:
    In 2013, the tserkva dedicated to the Ascension, and traditionally called the Strukivska tserkva, in Yasinia, in the district of Rakhiv, in the Transcarpathian area, in the Hutsul Lands, was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List, together with fifteen other wooden tserkvas in Polish and Ukrainian Carpathian region. Due to his long-lasting supervision over inventory measurements of the Hutsul folk architecture and wooden sacred architecture in the Hutsul Lands and in the Pokuttya region, the author makes a detailed presentation of this temple, which is known in Poland mainly in tourist and sightseeing circles, and compares it with other Hutsul tserkvas with similar plan characteristics. The article contains presentation of the history of this tserkva, which was built in 1824. Its traditional name is supposed to originate from the surname of a Hutsul shepherd, Ivan Struk, who probably founded it as a votive offering for a miraculous rescue of a flock of sheep in winter, which is a theme of a legend that is popular in this part of the Hutsul Lands. On the basis of the field studies that – among others – resulted in making measurement documentation by architecture students from the Lodz University of Technology, under the supervision of the author, there are discussed characteristics of the log construction, with consideration given to the use of squared timber, corners with dovetail joints and cut endings of logs, which is common among others in wooden sacred architecture in the Transcarpathian area, but more seldom in the Galician Hutsul Lands. The temple has no choir gallery over the vestibule for women, which is atypical in Hutsul tserkvas, yet here it is a result of very small sizes of the object. In the tserkva there has been preserved a valuable baroque iconostasis, unfortunately with icons that have been painted on the former paintings recently. A high artistic value is represented by a few other elements of the decor: single icons, processional crosses and banners. Another interesting element is a severe decoration of wooden construction arches at the junction of nave square and side arms, with the characteristic wooden volutes, which is unique for the Hutsul Lands but known for example in the Podhale region. It is one of the two tserkvas of the Hutsul type situated on the South of the Carpathian arch. Other wooden tserkvas in this area belong to totally different types of spatial forms, which are not related to the Hutsul Lands. Due to its plan and shape the one-dome Strukivska tserkva may be classified to the group of a dozen or so recognised wooden temples mainly from the Galician Hutsul Lands and the Pokuttya region that are based on a spatial pattern of a central building on the Greek cross plan, which is composed of five squares, with the middle one being bigger than the remaining ones. This group may comprise both elder (the end of the 18th c. – the beginning of the 19th c.) traditional one-dome Hutsul tserkvas, such as: Deliatyn (1785, extended in 1894, 1902, 1911- -1912), Velyka Kam’yanka (1794), Zelena, the district of Nadvirna (1796, later extended), Zhabye Slupeyka (about 1800, extended in 1850, does not exist), Dora (1823, extended in 1844), Lojeva (1835), Bili Oslavy (called the lower one, 1835), and fivedome objects from the 2nd half of the 19th c.: Tlumachyk (1852, does not exist), Knyazhdvir (1864, does not exist), and Havrylivka (1862, not examined by the author yet), and also the threedome tserkva in Hvizdets (1855), in which the side arms are narrower (rectangular, not square). Whereas, three temples from the parish of Mykulychyn, designed by professionals: Mykulychyn (1868, designed by the architect J. Czajkowski), Tatariv (1912, designed by the architect Franciszek Mączyński from Cracow, polychromes made by the painter Karol Maszkowski, also from Cracow) and Polyanytsya Popovichivska (1912, does not exist), the so called new tserkva in Vorokhta (the 30s of the 20th c.), the tserkva in Zarichchya (1943, designed by the architect Lev Levyns’kyi), are creative interpretations of the original pattern. The two latter ones may be classified simultaneously to a large group of tserkvas in the national Ukrainian style. Similar characteristics are probably to be found in the tserkva in Tysmyenichany (1865), not examined by the author yet. A few tserkvas were extended from the classic three-part plan to the ‘cross’ plan with an enlarged nave square by means of adding side arms; for example: Krasne, the district of Rozhniativ, earlier the county of Kalush (about 1840, extended, 1899 rebuilt) and Chornyi Potik, (the 19th c?). The Strukivska tserkva is decidedly the smallest one in the discussed group (side of the nave log construction is about 5 metres long), which may be explained by the fact that it was a private, peasant foundation. Tserkvas that belong to the pattern described above are situated in a quite compact group in a relatively small geographical area, which may be basically associated mainly with the upper Pruth valley from Vorokhta to Zabolotiv. Some of them are located by roadsides that lead to major tracts or to the Pruth valley. The river and trade routes at its banks contributed to spreading of the pattern, yet it did not spread beyond these tracts. Maybe, in the course of some further studies in the areas of Pokuttya, at the North of the Pruth river, which have been less explored yet, it will happen to find some other examples of objects with the same original plan. The pattern of the tserkva at the Greek cross plan with enlarged nave square was present (though very rare) not only in other regions of former Galicia, but also in Northern, middle, and Eastern lands of Ukraine. However, tserkvas of this type did not exist in a compact group in such a small area as in the discussed region of the Hutsul Lands and Pokuttya. Due to its morphology the group described as the cruciform tserkvas with enlarged nave square presents a set that may be distinguished from the remaining types of wooden temples in the Hutsul Lands and Pokuttya, and may be referred to as Western or – to be more precise – North-Western type the Hutsul wooden tserkva with two variants and older and younger variations. It is not only the fact of identical scheme of groundfloor plan and similar sizes that is significant here, but also the time when the temples were built (the end of the 18th c. – the beginning of the 2nd half of the 19th c.). An additional fact that in this area there were built a few other tserkvas the forms of which present an interpretation of the original pattern indicates that the pattern was so marked in the described area that it was also observed by professionals, who as early as in the 2nd half of the 19th c. and the beginning of the 20th c. wanted to respect consciously the local building traditions, which presented an inspiration for them. The Strukivska tserkva in Yasinia constitutes a very important element in this interesting group of temples. It is an ‘import’ of the pattern of ‘cruciform’ tserkva from the Galician Hutsul Lands to the Transcarpathians. It was built at the same time when the model of ‘cruciform’ tserkvas with enlarged nave square was spreading to the North from the main Carpathian arch. It represents a high level of building technique, with some distinct features that were characteristic of the area. It has been preserved in a relatively pure form, not ‘spoiled’ (as some other Hutsul tserkvas) with extending, rebuilding, or changing materials for covering walls and roofs. At present, it does not demand any important conservatory works. The inscription of this tserkva on the UNESCO World Heritage List seems thoroughly justified. In the group of eight Ukrainian wooden tserkvas that are inscribed on the List, as many as two come from the Hutsul Lands and Pokuttya, which is a clear evidence for the role of this region for the Ukrainian culture. Translated by Joanna Witkowska
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2015, 2; 7-39
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Niematerialne dziedzictwo kulturowe w świetle ochrony i promowania różnorodności form wyrazu kulturowego
    Intangible cultural heritage in the light of protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions
    Autorzy:
    Ratajski, Sławomir
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/538459.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    2014
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    UNESCO
    niematerialne dziedzictwo kulturowe
    Konwencja w sprawie ochrony niematerialnego dziedzictwa kulturowego z 2003 roku
    Konwencja w sprawie ochrony i promowania różnorodności form wyrazu kulturowego z 2005 roku
    Konwencja w sprawie ochrony dziedzictwa kulturalnego i naturalnego z 1972 roku
    Program UNESCO Pamięć Świata
    społeczność lokalna
    tożsamość
    dziedzictwo materialne
    zrównoważony rozwój
    kultura
    dialog pokoju
    dialog kultur
    różnorodność wyrazu kulturowego
    lista reprezentatywna niematerialnego dziedzictwa kulturowego ludzkości
    lista światowego dziedzictwa
    polityka kulturalna
    polityka rozwojowa
    kultura narodowa
    kultura lokalna
    dobra kultury
    przemysły kultury
    Milenijne Cele Rozwoju ONZ
    prawa człowieka
    Opis:
    The article refers to two UNESCO conventions adopted by Poland in recent years: The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of 2003 and the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of 2005. On one hand, comparing the content of these documents allows better understanding of the keynote of the concept of safeguarding intangible national heritage applied by UNESCO, and, on the other hand, this guiding principle shows the long distance covered while shaping the vision of cultural heritage over forty years from the establishment of the Convention on Safeguarding the Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972. To complete the picture, UNESCO’s “Memory of the World” Programme of 1992, concerning safeguarding the documentary heritage, including the digital heritage, must be mentioned. These documents capture the diverse landscape of human cultural heritage, being complementary to each other. They are permeated by the principles of the protection and promotion of the heritage to varying degrees: equality, diversity, equivalency, share in the sustainable development, importance of an individual creator, and also an important role of the local community in this process. They indicate the evolution of the development conditions based on the cultural awareness, sense of identity, formed in the process of gradual identification of one’s own tangible and intangible heritage. They emphasize the possibility of a significant participation of culture in development. The Preamble to the Convention from 2005 contains provisions which formulate principles in a clear way, and also shed light on understanding other UNESCO conventions and programmes, especially on the particularly important Convention from 2003. The principle of non-evaluation, which applies to making new entries on the Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, so difficult to understand in the light of the experience related to the application of the criteria for making new entries on the World Heritage List, in accordance with the Convention on Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage from 1972, gains importance in the perspective of “cultural diversity forming a common heritage of humanity” and being “a mainspring for sustainable development for communities, peoples and nations”. The Convention emphasizes the importance of culture for social cohesion; developmental role of exchanges and interactions between cultures based on freedom of thought, expression and information, as well as diversity of media; the importance of linguistic diversity; the importance of vitality of cultures, including for persons who belong to minorities and indigenous people, as “manifested in their freedom to create, disseminate and distribute their traditional, cultural expressions and to have access thereto, so as to benefit them for their own development”. These statements give special meaning to the main thoughts of the Convention of 2003, which indicates the fundamental importance of the local community and individual carriers in ensuring vitality of the intangible heritage as a basic condition for its protection. Hence the differences in determination of goods added to the lists established on the basis of the Convention of 1972 and of 2003. In the first case, the dominating principle is the principle of selection of the most outstanding works in a given field, based on the methodology determined by specialists using the criteria of European historical and aesthetic tradition. In the case of the Convention of 2003, there was a clear evolution towards the recognition of the values of cultural phenomena rooted in the local context, proving, first of all, the diversity and authenticity of these phenomena, with their significance in creating the culture for the local community and as a manifestation of their identity, and, with the use of tools for the protection of these phenomena/ elements, may participate in the dialogue of cultures on the national and global scale. The process of the implementation of the Convention gives a huge chance to prepare a methodology consistent with the assumptions of the Convention of 2003, by means of activities that aim at creating the national register of the intangible heritage, and thus recognize, disseminate and maintain the richness of intangible culture in Poland which, as a result of a well conducted cultural policy consistent with the principles of the Convention of 2005, should be present in the developmental processes of our country in a creative manner.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 2014, 1; 5-18
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
      Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5

      Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies