About some approaches to the creation of an axiological theory of monuments in the contemporary western humanities

Nowadays there are different approaches to the concept “monument”. It depends on, in which science this problem is discussed. Firstly the value characteristic of the monuments in scientific literature more detailed was elaborated towards the objects of architecture. But over the time the sphere of using of this approach significantly expanded. It caused close attention of art researchers and scientists to the axiological aspect of the cultural heritage as itself. One of the first researchers, interesting in this problem, was Austrian theorist of art and historian A. Riegl, who introduced into the scientific turnover two concepts: “intentional monuments” and “non-intentional monuments”. Considering this, he created dual value structure that was presented, on one hand, by the values of history and of history of arts, and, on the other hand, by the utilitarian and hedonistic values, As a result A. Riegl appealed to pay attention not just to the art value of monument and its antiquity, but also to the utilitarian value. Worthy classification of the monuments proposed French scientist R. Debray, dividing them into three groups: 1) monument-message, 2) monument-trace, 3) monument-form. All these mentioned types of monuments, according to the author, are able to transform one into another: for example the Eifel tower at first was a monument-form (just an architectural construction), then it became monumentmessage, proclaiming the triumph of science and technique in the epoque of Modern, and at least it was presented as visual brand of Paris, well-known around the world. American scientists J. Trainter and J. Lucus present the problem of value of the cultural heritage in another way, that's why they create some alternative manners to determinate the value of the monuments of culture. They propose not to determinate the value of this or that object but its “non-value”, that, according to them, will minimize the risk of illegal exclusion from the list of monuments those, which must be conserved. Also American archeologist W. Lipe contributed into the discussion of problem of the value of cultural objects. He shared the critical spirit towards the supporters of the “immanency of values” and proclaimed, that the last ones are considered by individuals and groups, depending on their psychological and intellectual skills. That's why everything, that was rest from the past, is a potential cultural resource. Considering all this we can say that theoretical thought of the West is not on the same place: it plunges dipper and dipper into the studies of researching object, finds out its before hidden sides and aspects, looks for new functions and their connections. However this diversity of positions (multiper-spectivism) gives the reason to a certain skepsis while presenting the results of work that was made, because the unitary typology of the value isn't created yet and different specialists are prone to use their own classifications that aren't correlated to each other.

Keywords

Authors

References