You're viewing a single thread.
that's wild, their policies go back only a single century? it'd feel so weird to be calling something from the 1920s a priceless cultural artefact lol. 1900s is modern times!
Russia went through two fundamental changes in the last century, with very little remaining of the previous state or culture associated with it. So yes, an art object from 1900 that went through a revolution, a world war and a collapse of soviet union is a valuable artefact.
To add: Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property’ means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: . . . (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; (f) objects of ethnological interest; (g) property of artistic interest, such as: (i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand);
https://theblueshield.org/defining-cultural-heritage-and-cultural-property/
Russia is not unique in that. i'm just saying it's weird to imagine a time and place that's so vivid in our memory today could be in the same category as 'real' history. it's not advocacy for pinching a russian painting
Althrough i am sure there are people over a hundred years alive today, i sincerely doubt russian empire is vivid in anyone's memory. Where do you think "real" history starts at?
I am sure there are people over a hundred years alive today
i can watch movies and listen to music recorded then. there's objects and buildings that old all over. you can read what people back then wrote almost effortlessly. there's millions of photographs!
That still doesent change the interternational definitions of a cultural property. I dont get why you are so stubborn about it. It is called cultural property, not ancient.
i don't know why you chose to interpret 'a century doesn't feel that old to me' comment as some kind of attack on the concept of protecting cultural objects, but here we are. i was never arguing with you
Your original comment seemed mildly insensitive to me
While 1900s sounds funny, you have to put the line somewhere. Consider that the oldest buildings today in the USA, (like for example the Jamestown Church) are basically yesterday when compared to random buildings still in use in Europe, like the Aula Palatina, some random ass church in Germany built in the year 300.
Well there's also the fact that settlers more or less intentionally bulldozed all the old shit in the US.
i've drank at a pub that was older than the usa
weird to think about lolsure, i appreciate it's historical it's just funny when you're used to 'history' being so much more remote than somewhere you could reasonably orient yourself in.