Вторая жизнь музея: возрождение утраченного и воплощение нереализованного. Сборник статей
As public institutions that serve society by conserving and communicating the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity, museums aim to provide opportunities for social groups to engage with their unique collections and gain ‘unforgettable’ experiences (López-Sintas et al., 2012). As with many other cultural institutions, museums are highly dependent on national histories, traditions and funding, and vary widely by organizational structure, audiences and exhibits.
Through an analysis of the Boris Yeltsin Presidential Center, a memorial complex opened in Yekaterinburg in 2015, Boltunova examines the formation of memory of Russia's first president Boris Yeltsin and, more broadly, of the 1990s. The new museum's collection is interpreted in the context of American and Russian cultural and historical traditions. Boltunova pays particular attention to the memorial strategies that emerged during Russia's imperial period. She demonstrates how imperial-era standpoints became the foundation for the creation of the Soviet formation of memories about leaders, and addresses the question of how useful they proved for the formation of memories about Yeltsin.
The article is devoted to the history of the formation of museums in the places of the former Gulag camps in the Perm region, primarily the "Memorial complex of the history of political repressions" in Kuchino village, better known as "Perm-36". The conditions of its creation and conflicts around the museum are considered, continuing until the change of its leadership in 2013. Drawing on the experience of working with the "negative heritage" in Europe after World War II, the article demonstrates the features of preserving and using such resources in Russia by the example of the Perm region, where were preserved the remains of the former Gulag camps. Unlike Germany and Poland, where the places of former Nazi concentration camps were turned into museums and memorial complexes as early as the late 1940s, Russia began to work with the legacy of the Gulag only after the collapse of USSR. In post-Soviet Russia, Stalinist camps are almost not preserved: most of them have collapsed from time, and the surviving buildings are most often at a distance from populated areas, especially in the north and north-east of Siberia. The main emphasis is the role played by former prisoners, guards and historians in creating museums. The article traces the differences in the perception of Stalinist repressions among the participants in the process of memorialization. So, in response to the creation in 1994 of the memorial complex "Perm-36" on the site of the former Gulag camp, where the Stalinist repressions and the Gulag were shown from the standpoint of the victims, on May 9, 1998, on the site of another previous camp in the village of Tsentralny was established another museum, its exposition tells the story of the correctional institutions and the camp schedule from the point of view of personnel and employees of the state correctional system. Prisoners in it are considered exclusively as criminals, regardless of the article on which they were convicted. Despite the fact that "Perm-36" in its structure is an analogue of the memorial museums on the sites of the former concentration camps of Nazi Germany, the approaches and conditions for its creation were completely different. In Europe, most of the former camps were restored and museumed at the expense of the Ministry of Culture of Germany, Poland and other countries where the concentration camps were located, while in Russia these were private proposals from below. This leads to the fact that the "different memories" of people about the Soviet camps of the Gulag system are represented differently in museums, reflecting opposing views and assessing the events of that time.
Contemporary museums of memory are united by an important social function of perpetuation and edification, but each museum is contextual and creates its own form of representation, rhetoric, and a measure of performance memory of past events. Describing and understanding specific genres as social actions in a particular social and political context allows researchers to explore museums more effectively. A prerequisite for this efficiency is perhaps the performativity of current styles of museum exposition, as well as tracking the resonance as a response to the coherence of the content and form of museum practice. Thus, a museum visitor is not only an object of a directed museum narrative that has social and rhetorical-moralizing tasks, but also a subject resonating in interactive commemoration mode, experiencing and emotionally responding to a participant in the interaction. So, the object of this article is emotions and affects, generated intentionally or spontaneously in relation to plots of institutionalized commemoration. Empirical cases, designed to illustrate the production of emotions and affects, will cover a wide repertoire of commemoration - from restrained to pathetic, museum and extramusean, imposed and spontaneous.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.