 |
When the Association of Restorers came into being shortly
after November 1989 one of the main motives for its formation
was the awareness of the absolute necessity and immediacy
of finding solutions to a whole series of problems concerning
the legislative standing of the field of restoration work,
as well as the need for a basic systematic change
in the concept of care for the cultural heritage as a
whole. This awareness was based not only on intimate knowledge
of existing practices, but also and in particular on harsh
conflicts with the totalitarian power structures which
came to a head practically immediately after the passing
of the new Law on State Care for the Cultural Heritage
in 1987 – a Law which could not be evaluated from the
viewpoint of the preservation of the cultural heritage
and the viewpoint of actual restoration otherwise than
as a Law of liquidation. This was a struggle in which
the restorers´profession fought with all its strength
to defend its right to a bare existence.
We were convinced that, in the formation of a new legal
code in this sphere, we could make a fundamental contribution
in many matters to the legislative and executive bodies
of the new democratic state and that we had a certain
moral right and also duty to formulate our ideas and intentions,
that our duty did not lie »only« in the awareness and
fulfilment of the responsibilities of individual restorers
for individual works entrusted to them, but also in the
fulfilment of the joint responsibilities of the restorers´profession
as a whole for the entire cultural heritage of this country.
The fact that a legal standard is, in a legal state, a
quite fundamental prerequisite for the professional execution
of any human activity unless there exist such solid and
unsurpassable habitual criteria that the form of a written
law is unnecessary, which is unfortunately not our case,
need not be elaborated in greater detail.
We were convinced also that the protection of the cultural
heritage would hold from the very beginning a suitable
position in the structure of values and priorities of
a cultural democratic state. By protection I do
not mean some kind of lieutenancy of paternalistic state
power, but rather humble awareness of one´s joint responsibility
for the fate of things in the coming into being of which
we have no merit whatsoever, but which, thanks to their
unique and inimitable qualities, form in a quite
considerable manner and essentially the consciousness
of each one of us, having in this way a basic significance
for the identity of society and the state, and which,
apart from their spiritual cultural significance, also
have undoubted economic importance, helping to create,
again in a fundamental and inimitable manner, the attraction
of our countryside, villages and towns for the economically
extremely lucrative sphere of the tourist trade.
We were also aware of the paradox of the results of care
for the cultural heritage in the past and the unrepeatable
opportunities arising from these, a paradox lying in the
fact that, although most of our cultural and historical
heritage has been neglected and devastated in a horrifying
way, nevertheless, thanks to this programmed disinterest
of the regime, it is basically authentic. Even long decades
of ignorance cannot destroy an historical work as much
as an inexpert repair taking a few weeks and leading inevitably
to the destruction of the very foundation of the historical
value as a whole and in details. Works of art, including
architecture, which are the object of restoration, bearing
in their material basis a number of concealed spiritual
significances and values for the perception and approximation
of which an emotive artistic approach is needed as well
as a rational analysis, represent in the above context
the most vulnerable values – and this is a further
reason why we put the requirement of the formulation of
legally clear and professionally based regulations for
the execution of the activity of restorers in one of the
first places.
Practically in parallel with the establishment of the
Association of Restorers we began to consider the organisation
of this symposium with the conviction – today I may
call it a naive conviction – that at it we would acquaint
you with the concrete results of our efforts and that
thus we should contribute our part also to the promotion
and respecting of the professional status of restorers,
aimed at the legislative distinction of the restorer´s
profession on a European level, as it is formulated, for
instance, in the programme of the European Confederation
of Conservation Organisations (ECCO).
My role at this moment and in this place is all the more
unrewarding in that all I can do is state that it turned
out that our possibilities were insufficient, that our
expectations were not fulfilled, that an absolute minimum
has been done so far in the sphere of legislation of care
for the cultural heritage and often what has been done
is very problematical. The devastation of the cultural
heritage continues, although now it is no longer caused
by the directive system of class-ideological selection,
but by the dictates of money or the lack of it and the
raising of economic aspects above other values which cannot
be promoted promptly and efficiently with the present
state of legislation. With this a priori weakening of
one level, the level of protection of public interest
in the preservation of the cultural heritage, a weakening
which has, besides the legislative level, also further
aspects, one cannot even expect the achievement of desirable
and harmonising positively compromising solutions. I am
aware of the certain categorical generalisation of this
statement, nevertheless, exceptions to it rather only
prove the rule.
The legal situation which was today to have been described
as belonging to the past is still very much present. Professor
Stretti spoke here of the basic professional postulates
of the Czech school of restoration on which we attempted
to create the legal concept of the execution of the restorer´s
activity. The basic starting-point for this was the requirement
of the personal responsibility of the restorer for the
work entrusted to him with all that arises from this,
the standing of the restorer of works of art as a creative
artist carrying out his activity as the performance of
a freelance profession, because we do not consider
restoring on the material side as purely business activity,
and the establishment of a professional body, a chamber,
which would be a guarantor in relation to owners of cultural
works and bodies of state administration as regards the
professional ability of individual restorers, having the
appropriate authority to do so and bearing the appropriate
responsibility for its decisions.
The existing regulation of restoration in the Law on State
Care for the Cultural Heritage, the coming-into-being
and nature of which we have already mentioned briefly
in the introduction, and its executive decree was intended
to create a legal basis for a long-term, ideologically
motivated attempt at the socialisation of the field and
its degradation to the level of a mere craft or technique,
for it reserved the right to carry out restoration only
to organisations established for this purpose by the Ministry
of Culture of the time or possibly also others which received
special authorisation for this activity. This completely
negated the basic principle of the personal, legal and
professional responsibility of the restorer. Therefore,
right at the beginning of 1990 the Association of Restorers,
together with the State Institute for Care of the Cultural
Heritage and other specialised unit caring for the cultural
heritage, initiated the establishment of the professional
Commission for Restoration of the Ministry of Culture
of the Czech Republic in connection with the then intended
amendment to the Cultural Heritage Law. This amendment
was to have given the Commission a legal basis for giving
authorisation to carry out restoration activity to individual
physical persons and also to anchor new criteria for obtaining
this authorisation which would meet requirements for the
qualification of restorers. Through the delays of legislative
procedure, however, and the subsequent non-acceptance
of the amendment, which due to the delays came into conflict
with newly passed connected laws, this concept was destroyed.
From the very beginning, nevertheless, we saw the issuing
of authorisation for restoration activity by the Ministry
of Culture as a transitory, temporary measure, especially
for the following reasons:
|
|
– The process of granting authorisation
for restoration activity must be, in our opinion, guaranteed
by the absolute objectivity of the expert consideration
of the ability of the applicant on the basis of clearly
specified qualification criteria, laid down by the Law
itself. These criteria, in addition, must take into account
the objective possibility of acquiring professional preparation
in individual restorer´s specialisations, a possibility
depending on the existence or absence of specialised schools.
For this activity no administrative body of state administration
has or can have the appropriate professional capacity;
here it is necessary to stand in with the cooperation
of a voluntary professional gremium which has, however,
only an advisory vote. This makes the authority and responsibility
of individual stages of official procedure completely
illegible. The qualification criteria cannot, then, be
tackled in their whole width and complexity by the broadly
conceived cultural heritage Law, but only by an independent
legal standard.
– The issuing of authorisation necessarily become a single
formal act if retrospective means of control are not created
at the same time. The present structure of care for the
cultural heritage is not capable of ensuring this either
organisationally or professionally.
– The carrying out of restoration activity should be governed
by certain sublegal but nevertheless basic ethical and
professional principles, formulated in the internationally
recognised Code of Ethics. This pledge cannot be demanded
as one of the conditions for the granting of authorisation
by a body of state administration, but only by a professional
organisation which would accept it as binding for all
its members while respecting all democratic principles.
These and a number of other reasons led the Association
of Restorers to the elaboration of a draft Law on the
Restoration Chamber, on exactly the same principles as
are founded a whole series of similar professional chambers
today already anchored in the Legal Code – at random one
might mention the Medical, Veterinary and Advocates´Chambers,
those of commercial lawyers, experts, interpreters, auditors,
architects, responsible engineers and many others. The
draft law was elaborated for practically a year with consultations
with a wide professional public, the Ministry and
other bodies of state administration at regional level.
In the final form it represented a complex proposal for
the legal regulation of the restoration of works of art,
corresponding to the simultaneously prepared draft of
the new Law on Cultural Heritage, in the creation of which
the Association of Restorers also participated intensively.
The draft Law on the Chamber defines restoration for the
first time in our Legal Code and in agreement with the
internationally recognised definitions it clearly defines
the basic qualification requirements for authorisation
to carry out restoration activity, establishes the Chamber
of Restorers as an independent guild organisation of restorers
of works of art which, in the framework of its activity,
shares in the fulfilment of public interest in the protection
of the cultural heritage, in particular through guaranteeing
the professional and ethical abilities of restorers –
for this purpose in transferred activity in the execution
of state administration it considers and confirms the
fulfilment of conditions for the carrying out of the activity
of a restorer and keeps a register of persons authorised
to carry out this activity, as well as a number of other
functions. It will also introduce the institution of a specialised
restoration examination and oath, with which the restorer
will pledge to fulfil the basic moralethical professional
postulates. It further formulates the regulations for
the recognition of the authorisation of a restorer as
an expression of special and exceptional professional
skill in a given specialisation. In relation to owners
it conceives a completely new institution of the
right of owner of work of art to its restoration and thus
guarantees these persons the fulfilment of their legal
responsibility of care for these works of cultural-historical
value even when, in spite of all efforts, the execution
of restoration activity has been repeatedly refused them.
The draft Law thus conceived also corresponds to the responsibility
of the state for the cultural heritage as declared in
the preamble to the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
We are convinced that because the state could fulfil this
function, not just formally in a declaration, but
practically, it must, sooner or later, delegate some highly
specialised professional guaranteeing to professionally
competent institutions without depriving itself in so
doing of the possibility of influencing the activity of
these institutions – by the execution of legislative power
it itself sets die rules of the game and has the right
to amend these rules at any time if they are unsuitable,
through executive power it plays a direct part in the
making of decisions by the competent bodies of the chamber
without, however, the occurrence of illegible splintering
of authority and the responsibility arising from it, legal
power then deals with the failure to respect the set rules.
The draft law in the form of principles, in keeping with
the legislative process, was discussed in the committees
of the Czech National Council in the first half of 1992.
On the basis of the objections made we elaborated a paragraphed
version which, however, was not discussed due to the occupation
of Parliament with more important laws and the approaching
elections. At least a minimal amendment was adopted
to the Law on State Care for the Cultural Heritage which
enabled the execution of restoration by physical persons
instead of organisations. The authorisation to restore
continues, then, to be issued by the Ministry of Culture
on the basis of the opinion of a professional commission
which has also created its criteria for the consideration
of individual applications. These criteria, however, are
not legally based and it is a paradox that practically
anyone who appeals against the first possible refusal
to award authorisation and fulfils the absurd qualification
requirements still applying from the unchanged executive
decree of the Law on Care for the Cultural Heritage, has
in fact a legal right to the awarding of authorisation.
This system has proved its own nonviability and we believe
that it will perhaps in the foreseeable future be replaced
by a new system based on the indicated approximations.
Certain signs perhaps justify us in this hope. The time
which has been and still is to be lost, however, and the
damage arising from this cannot be replaced. It should
be added that this was uselessly wasted time and unnecessary
damage, even allowing for the immense burden imposed on
responsible bodies by the general transformation of all
levels of contemporary life. Perhaps it is a form of professional
deformation, nevertheless I consider that attention could
and should have been devoted earlier to questions of care
for the cultural heritage.
The preparation and promotion of the Law on the Chamber
were not the only activities of the Association in the
legislative sphere. No less important was our cooperation
in the creation of a completely new Cultural Heritage
Law with which the draft law of the chamber was directly
connected and a number of other activities which there
is no room to mention here – with the exception of one.
In cooperation with the Union of Artists and die Law Faculty
of Charles University a Bill was elaborated and submitted
on the express inclusion of the restoration of works of
art in the Copyright Law, formulating the right of restorers
as a moral right to protection of authorship – in other
words, legal recognition of the creative artistic nature
of this activity of restorers. This definition, if it
is accepted, will be the fulfilment of almost fifty years
of effort by the restorers´ profession and a basic prerequisite
for further steps.
I am sure that my very brief and general information has
given you at least a basic idea of the intentions and
aims of the Association of Restorers in the legal sphere.
I also hope that at some future symposium I shall be able
to acquaint you not with ideas, but with reality, or that
it will not be necessary to deal with these long solved
questions at all and we shall be able to talk about the
professional problems of restoration itself.
 author
Martin Pavala, AHVT A 051
|
|
