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 "ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i muzeach" wg kryterium: Wszystkie pola

  Lista filtrów
Wyrównaj
    Wyświetlanie 1-5 z 5
    Tytuł:
    W sprawie nowelizacji "Ustawy o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach"
    PROPOSAL FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAW ON PROTECTION OF CULTURAL GOODS AND MUSEUM PRACTICE
    Autorzy:
    Pawłowski, Zbigniew
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/539084.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1976
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    Ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i muzeach
    nowelizacja ustawy o ochronie dóbr kultury
    zabytki w rękach prywatnych
    dotacja na roboty konserwatorskie
    społeczny opiekun zabytków
    Opis:
    The author, dealing for several dozen years past with social protection of historical monuments, discusses the legal aspect of monument protection against the background of the relevant Law of 1962. What is tackled in greater detail is the question of the possibilities of saving monuments which are privater or social property. Stress is laid on lack of coordination between the provisinons of the Law and those binding on other ministries and bodies liable to command of historical buildings and monuments (e.g. the Ministry of Agriculture). A postulate is made for incorporating in the Law of a more explicit ban on building work being conducted on the area of, or within, historical monuments without the permission of the Head of the Voivodship Conservator’s Office. The final part of the article is devoted to the importance of, and the part played by, social coustodians of monuments who encounter in their work lack o f understanding on the part of the local authorities and users of historical buildings as well as other monuments. The author concludes in a postulate for amending the Law of 1962 in regard to all the questions raised in his article.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1976, 4; 295-297
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Dziesięciolecie Ustawy o Ochronie Dóbr Kultury i o Muzeach
    THE TENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND MUSEUMS LAW, 1962
    Autorzy:
    Malinowski, Kazimierz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/537259.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1973
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i muzeach
    Towarzystwo Opieki nad Zabytkami Przeszłości
    powstanie służby konserwatorskiej
    dobra kultury
    Opis:
    It is namely this tenth year elapsing from the date on which The Cultural Property Protection and Museums Law has been passed in the Polish Seym that gave the author rise to write his article where he reminds that the above Law may be regarded as a consequence of the progressively, from the 18th century onward, growing respect for antiquities. At the same time the author points to the fact that this Law contains a number of provisions that are extending both scope of notions and range of activities in conservation and in museums in this country. From among the newly adopted conceptions to be emphasized here deserves the term „cultural property” but at the same the fact of retaining of the term „historical monument” with the use of which the Law determines the objects of cultural property that are recorded in museum inventories or in those kept by the Voivodship Conservators. As especially important the author considers the first article of the Law reading as follows: „The protection of cultural property is an obligation for the State and the duty of its citizens”. This basic statement is followed by all further provisions. Under the term „cultural property” also the modern objects are meant provided, hovewer, that they can prove important from the point of view of the nation’s cultural heritage and development of its culture. According to the author’s further reasoning the Law extends its legal protection also to battlefields and to sites connected with the Nazi persecutive actions during the last war, to objects of material culture, to monuments of nature, etc. While providing the possibility to act in many different ways the Law at the same time requires that the all conservation tre a tments be based on scientific assumptions. As a fu rther consequence of obligations that by the force of the Law in question were put on all citizens the following can be considered: the calling into being of advisory bodies supporting the Minister of Culture and Arts and those acting at Voivodship Conservators Offices; the provisions determining the use to be made of historical monuments as well as those settling the manner in which they should be made accessible to the public; or, finally, those dealing with their popularization and social contributions for the sake of their protection. The due attention has been devoted to individual collectors who were granted with a number of special privileges. What concerns museums it must be considered as appreciable that in addition to the term „museum” has been introduced that of „collection of exhibits” who are otherwise called the „museum objects”. As fully adequate as to its ability to characterize the museums practice is to be regarded a review of functions that should be performed by a museum; of them, of course, as the most important are to be considered those scientific and educational. However, it must also be stated that the ten-year experience has shown not only the advantages resulting of the Law under discussion, but also pointed to some failures the sources of which, according to the author’s opinion, must mainly be sought in the executive regulations. So, for example, as the author suggests, the Voivodship Conservators should be supplied with decisive powers while collaborating with the local authorities responsible for spatial development and townplanning; an ex officio recording of the movable monuments of the past should be made also more extensive, and especially in cases where they are kept under unfavourable conditions; obligatory practices should be introduced for persons graduating in movable monument conservation divisions a t the high schools; and, finally, much more care should be devoted to decisions concerning the cancelling the historical buildings in a Register of Historical Monuments and their demolishions. There is no doubt that provided that the more thorough consideration be paid to these decisions it would become possible to safeguard a considerable number of objects without any more serious disadvantages or burdens to national economy. Toward those demanding th a t serious alterations or amandments be introduced to the Cultural Property Protection and Museums Law the author of the present assumed a critical or even negative attitude as it is his view th at a document of such fundamental nature as a Law should be one sound enough and, thus all its provisions represent an obvious standard or even a habit governing the attitudes of the society. It is then only that it will be possible to hope th a t our cultural heritage might survive without any further losses.
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1973, 2; 85-88
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Czy ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach dojrzała do nowelizacji : artykuł dyskusyjny
    IS THE REVISION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND MUSEUM ACT NECESSARY?
    Autorzy:
    Sieroszewski, Władysław
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/537878.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1971
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ustawa o opiece nad zabytkami
    nowelizacja ustawy
    ochrona dóbr kultury
    pomnik historii
    uprawnienia WKZ
    pojęcie zabytku
    Opis:
    Analysing the Act of February 15, 1962 covering the problems of cultural property protection and museums in view of experiences gathered during nine years elapsed from the date of its coming into force the author expresses an opinion that, considering the problem from a general viewpoint, though it has satisfactorily wiithstood the test of practical application and considerably contributed to stabilization and to making the protection of cultural property in this country more efficient some of its detailed provisions, no doubt, require corrections and amendments. Remarks made by the author to particular articles of the Act in question are listed below. Above all the article 4 seems to him to be inconsistent and even conflicting with some others elsewhere in the text (e.g. articles 18 and 4*1). He also advances c ritical opinions as to the definition of „an evident historical monument” considering it as being not precise enough and thus causing misunderstandings and controversial interpretations. Furthermore, commenting the article 6 concerning the „monuments of history”, the author suggests the abolition of their compulsory inscription in the International Register of Cultural Property under Special Care in accordance with provisions of the Hague Convention of 1954 since the stipulations accompanying this particular provision practically make it impossible ,at all to declare a monument as „a monument of history”. The author also suggests the need to define more precisely in the Act itself or in regulations issued on its basis by the Minister of Culture and Art the responsibilities of historical monument conservators at the district and town levels (article 8) and, in addition, to include to th e Act provisions with respect to voivodship offices of historical monument documentation which, although already put into being, have not up to now been provided with ,an unquestionably legal basis for the ir activities (proposed article 8 a). It also seems to the author to be necessary to call a new advisory body assisting the Minister of Culture and Art able to replace the freshly abolished Council of Culture and Art (article 10). To protect the sites of archaeological interest the author proposes to include them provisionally to the Register of Historical Monuments. On completion of excavations and examination of cultural s tra ta and with the relics found transferred to a respective museum such a reg istration should automatically be cancelled (article 1/6). Other proposals regard the augmenting the au th o rities of conservators to enable them to make examinations of alleged cultural property at any place it can be found which th e procedure has been made difficult according to existing provisions requiring from conservator to agree previously this examination with the owner of cu ltu ral property (article 18). At the isame time, however, th e author declares himself for confining the number of cases and reducing the time of temporary requisition of cultural property endangered by destruction, damage or illicit exportation. This temporary requisition could, for instance, last three years and a fte r th a t period the cultural property should be alienated or returned to its owner or user (article 37). With regard to collections (article 55 and the next ones) the author proposes to reserve to the Minister of Culture and Art the right tp define precisely what requirements should be fulfilled by a collection th a t it could be considered as one in accordance with provisions of the Act, and also how it can be augmented and managed by the owner. In addition to 'the above, the author puts forward a number of proposals aimed a t harmonizing the Act’s provisions with Other acts published a fte r its coming into force and particularly with an uniform te x t of th e Building Repair and Reconstruction Act in its version from il968 (article 32), the Code of Civil Laws from 1964: (article 24) and the Code of Criminal Laws from 1969 (articles 73—> 79) and also at enabling to adapt to provisions of the Convention of 1969 referring to measures that should be undertaken to prevent the illicite imports, exports and tran sfe rs of cultural property (new articles 76 a, b, and c).
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1971, 3; 163-172
    0029-8247
    Pojawia się w:
    Ochrona Zabytków
    Dostawca treści:
    Biblioteka Nauki
    Artykuł
    Tytuł:
    Co wnosi nowego ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach?
    Autorzy:
    Malinowski, Kazimierz
    Powiązania:
    https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/536235.pdf
    Data publikacji:
    1962
    Wydawca:
    Narodowy Instytut Dziedzictwa
    Tematy:
    ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury o muzeach
    radziecka uchwała o ochronie zabytków
    czechosłowacka ustawa o zabytkach kultury
    ochrona zabytków w Niemieckiej Republice Demokratycznej
    użytkownictwo zabytków
    Źródło:
    Ochrona Zabytków; 1962, 2; 3-10
    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