Архитектура Армений и Грузий

[Armenian Genocide]

And thank you for understanding what I was trying to say!

1000 years ago they were capable of building beautiful churches, however, now neither the Georgian Church or the Armenian Church have shown themselves capable of undertaking the preservation of those same ancient monuments under their control. Both churches are extremely avaricious and grasping, and display severe inferiority and persecution complexes.

This, in Georgia, is probably the core reason for all this elimination of anything non-Georgian (such as Armenian inscriptions within a building) that the Georgian Church sees as threatening its "God-given" historical position.

In Armenia it reveals itself in the total lack of care shown towards ancient monuments by the Armenian Church. The only thing the Armenian Church cares about in an historic ruined church is whether it can be rebuild in order for them to stick one of their priests in it.

Steve

←

Steve, if a prayer is not recited in an Armenian church, then it is not a church any more. The church is not onlt the building, but also the spirit and faith.

[Karmir]

Having 200 churches damaged in Artsakh IS damage on a massive scale!!

And how can you complain about destruction in regions where it can be expected to occur, while entirely washing your hands of the problem when it also occurs in regions under Armenian control and where one would expect that the buildings should be safe.

I don't know where have you heared about 200 churches damaged in Artsakh.

But I want to remember that In Soviet times, Artsakh was a part of Azerbaijani SSR, and Azeri government held the politics of complete destruction of Armenian cultural monuments.

And lots of churches were destructed or rebuilted as cinema, barracs e t. c. But this arcitectural terror was the line of Azeri government, and we were unable to do anything at that time.

But nowadays, in Armenia and Artsakh ancient and medieval churches and monasteries are being restored and are under governmental care. Many churches were restored and repaired during the last 10-15 years. Yes, there still are lots of ruins and churches in bad condition, but there is the question of finances, very large sums of money are needed to held these works in full power.

Some restoration works are held by European students-volunteers, some - by several Italian funds and some my Armenian government.

I admire that sometimes qualification of arcitectures and restorators may be not very high and it can badly affect on historical value of the building but I hope that these are just isolated cases.

[Kompot.sys V1.02]

Having 200 churches damaged in Artsakh IS damage on a massive scale!!

And how can you complain about destruction in regions where it can be expected to occur, while entirely washing your hands of the problem when it also occurs in regions under Armenian control and where one would expect that the buildings should be safe.

←

I don't think you are uninformed. But maybe you don't know that destruction of the armenian christian historic monuments was politics of Azerbaijan during 70 years. And just now also. In addition it's possible the some churches have been damaged by Azerbaijan's army during Azerbaijan's aggression.

It's impossible to speak about 200 damaged churches in Artsakh. I hardly think that you have the true statistics. In future all monuments will be restored because they are relics of Armenian culture .

Anyway it's necessary to have time and money to restore damaged monuments.

[СИМОН]

Колокольня около Самебы.

[СИМОН]

Церковь Кавшети, Тбилиси.

[Karmir]

Steve, here there are some articles & pics about "destructed" Tsitsernavank. It was restorated and there were some scientifical researches at the side in 2000-2001 (some of the links are translated with e-dictionary):

http://www.artsakhworld.com/Eng/provinces/...h/tzitzern.html

http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?l...3&psubmit2.y=13

http://www.odigitria.ru/iso.php?iso_id=1812

http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/iaa_a...itsernavank.htm

http://www.translate.ru/url/tran_url.asp?l...7&psubmit2.y=15

[Karmir]

Кармир, твои информация нечем не доказана. не основывается на фактах. Ты прекрасно знаешь, что если бы это было не так, что  строительство шло на месте Храма ваш каталикос, ту бы заявил, а почему, а потому что вашего каталикоса, если ты знаешь не очень любят, и ели бы он прамолчал, то ему бы пришлось бы несладко, если ты знаешь его во пряки воле большей части армянских еписком все равно утвердили на сан (выбрали), хотя большинство ваших священников было против. Это вобще тебе дополнительная инфа, поэтому замалчивать в любом случае он бы нестал, боясь же за свой имидж. Какой же это имидж духовного пастыря, когда он в соеседней стране не защищает армянские интересы. Кто ему запретил бы молчать А с учетом того, что армяне любят делать из мухи слона и именно кричать и паникерствать, я представляюю, что было бы если бы это было бы на самом деле, но как ты можешь убедиться в интернете на эту тему очень мало информации, поэтому что если есть только от таких провакаторов как ты.

Строительство храма идет не один год, но самое нитересное вы армяне молчите, потому что предъвить нечего нет доказательств.

Ты в самом деле такой наивный, или прикидываешься? Скорее, второе

После того, как наш Католикос якобы одобрил строительство этого собора, вся эта история с собором на костях всплыла наружу и несмотря на все попытки грузин её замолчать, Эчмиадзин официально заявил, что он никогда не давал одобрения строительства собора. Но это не всё.

Армянская общественость Грузии находится в плачевном состоянии, и вы просто этим пользуетесь. Но даже несмотря на отсутсвие нормальной общинной жизни, и в Грузии, и вне её пределов, армянская пресса неоднократно обсуждала и изобличала факт строительства собора на месте армянских захоронений, и учёные неоднократно подтверждали этот факт.

Также говорилось о том, что это не первый случай измывательств по отношению к армянских могилам, и обо всём этом я тут тоже писал.

Так что, косить под дурачка пжлст не надо

[bell-the-cat]

Steve, here there are some articles & pics about "destructed" Tsitsernavank. It was restorated and there were some scientifical researches at the side in 2000-2001 (some of the links are translated with e-dictionary):

Thank you for the links. But, none of them actually show the "restoration". photographs that I have seen of the destructive "restoration" reveal that, to allow access for cars, a new entrance of about 5 metres wide was hacked through the monastery wall (presumably because the priests and their paymasters were too lazy to actually walk to the church entrance), and that large sections of the masonry of the church were badly rebuilt using a stone that was a completely different colour from the original masonry.

[bell-the-cat]

Steve, sitting in your armcahir outside of Armenia and singing about the "mass destruction" of churches in Armenia is not only ironical but also illiterate.

Some churches in Armenia are in bad conditions, but the Armenian church is taking steps to restore as many churchs as possible. I cannot understand your unreasonable bias.

In this topic we were talking about a systematic and planned vandalism against Armenian cultural monuments in Georgia, not about churches that need restoratioan and preservation.

IF you are really concerned about the restoration of the churches in Armenia and Artsakh, organize a find-raising in Diaspora and send the money to Armenia for church preservation.

←

Nemesis, your views on the preservation of historic architecture are so outdated that it is hard to know where to begin!

It is not even possible for me to dismiss those views by assuming that they are just a result of backward thinking from Soviet times because, actually, Soviet Armenia was, on the whole, very good at properly preserving its architectural treasures.

You, and others, casually throw about words like "restore" without having any concept of what they mean. ALL RESTORATION IS IN PRINCIPLE WRONG. A building should be preserved by the consolidation of the existing structure only. Nothing new should be added unless it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of that original structure. IT SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED. Restoration = destruction! Please, get out of the 19th century and start living in the 21st century. Try to understand modern practices of architectural conservation.

Steve

[Karmir]

Alas, partly due to the influence over the Armenian press by both Church and State and powerful individuals, little has been written on the destruction. The cover-up of the disgraceful stone-quarrying operations opposite Ani are a prime example of this.

The pathetic "Disneyfication" of the Zvartnots site is the most easily seen example of the destruction within Armenia. However, most of the destruction seems to have been committed in Artsak. The dreadful over-restoration of the famous church of Tzitzernavank (Dsidernavank) is the most prominant example there. Other examples include the virtual destruction by "restoration" of the 6th century church of Vankasar.

In an article in Azg, dated 6th Nov 2004, Slava Sargsian, head of Department of Preservation and Study of Monuments of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, says that "the state of the monuments of Artsakh is far from being satisfactory". The article further says that "around 200 monuments were repaired since 1988. Most of them were repaired by the Artsakh diocese of the Armenian church. Sargsian complains of the quality of repair. He thinks that the monuments should not be repaired, partially because of money shortage and the absence of specialists. Often repair changes a monument's looks, alienating it from its historic roots or even making it into an ultramodern building".

As for Vankasar, this medieval beautiful Armenian church war "restored" early in 1980-by complete destriction and changed its face. This vandalistic "reconstruction", as far as I know, was made by Azerbaijani government, and in 1993 Vankasar was completely another church, with another architecture. See more here

[Karmir]

Thank you for the links. But, none of them actually show the "restoration". photographs that I have seen of the destructive "restoration" reveal that, to allow access for cars, a new entrance of about 5 metres wide was hacked through the monastery wall (presumably because the priests and their paymasters were too lazy to actually walk to the church entrance), and that large sections of the masonry of the church were badly rebuilt using a stone that was a completely different colour from the original masonry.

Is it a historical wall or a new one? May be it was not a part of the arcitectural complex but an ordinary wall. I wonder who was taking the restoration works in the monastery...

If these photos are in the Net, please, post the links.

[bell-the-cat]

I don't know where have you heared about 200 churches damaged in Artsakh.

They are from the article that I quoted - written by head of Department of Preservation and Study of Monuments of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

But I want to remember that In Soviet times, Artsakh was a part of Azerbaijani SSR, and Azeri government held the politics of complete destruction of Armenian cultural monuments.

And lots of churches were destructed or rebuilted as cinema, barracs e t. c. But this arcitectural terror was the line of Azeri government, and we were unable to do anything at that time.

I do know about this - that Artsakhworld website you quoted - I have a book version of it, in which many examples of the Azeri destructions are illustrated. But it is a different issue. And it is an historical problem, one that we all hope will never return to Artsakh.

But nowadays, in Armenia and Artsakh ancient and medieval churches and monasteries are being restored and are under governmental care. Many churches were restored and repaired during the last 10-15 years.

It is the activities of those "restorers" that is now the greatest threat to the architecture of Artsakh!!

[bell-the-cat]

As for Vankasar, this medieval beautiful Armenian church war "restored" early in 1980-by complete destriction and changed its face. This vandalistic "reconstruction", as far as I know, was made by Azerbaijani government, and in 1993 Vankasar was completely another church, with another architecture. See more here

←

Yes, after restoration it was "completely another church".

But are you sure of the rest. If the church was being "restored" in 1986 then this was before the war. And the restoration does not seem much harsher than the restoration of other Armenian churches done in the 1990s and in the present decade.

Incidently, there are some textual diferences between the printed version and the web version. In the printed version, for this church, the word restoration is written in inverted commas like this: "restoration". If it were an entirely Azeri-sponsored "restoration" then I think that the criticism in the book would be much harsher than just using some inverted commas!

Edited December 10, 2004 by bell-the-cat

[Karmir]

You, and others, casually throw about words like "restore" without having any concept of what they mean. ALL RESTORATION IS IN PRINCIPLE WRONG. A building should be preserved by the consolidation of the existing structure only. Nothing new should be added unless it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of that original structure. IT SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED. Restoration = destruction! Please, get out of the 19th century and start living in the 21st century. Try to understand modern practices of architectural conservation.

Steve, there are 2 views on this question: soviet arcitectural school recieved re-building of the object as a type of its saving, while Western tradition prefers conservation of the exact condition for save it untouched.

[bell-the-cat]

Is it a historical wall or a new one? May be it was not a part of the arcitectural complex but an ordinary wall. I wonder who was taking the restoration works in the monastery...

If these photos are in the Net, please, post the links.

←

It was cut through the historical fortified wall that surrounds the whole site. There are pictures on the net somewhere, but I don't know where. I think that the restoration was paid for by private funds and the monument was, as usual, "given" to the Armenian Church after completion.

[bell-the-cat]

Steve, there are 2 views on this question: soviet arcitectural school recieved re-building of the object as a type of its saving, while Western tradition prefers conservation of the exact condition for save it untouched.

←

There are accepted international standards for the conservation of historic buildings - though I do realise that those "standards" do change over time. There is a UN treaty on it, from 1964, which Soviet Russia, and probably now Armenia, signed up to.

It is called the "International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites" or the "Venice Charter" and it is administered by ICOMOS, the International Council of Monuments and Sites. Article 9 specifically disaproves of restoration involving conjectural and unnecesary rebuilding. Also, the history of the building must always be respected - this means that restoration which destroys all the natural signs of age in a building is forbidden. The destruction seen in Georgia is also, of course, specifically forbidden, under article 11, which states that the contributions from all periods of a buildings history must be respected.

Edited December 10, 2004 by bell-the-cat

[Armenian Genocide]

Nemesis, your views on the preservation of historic architecture are so outdated that it is hard to know where to begin!

It is not even possible for me to dismiss those views by assuming that they are just a result of backward thinking from Soviet times because, actually, Soviet Armenia was, on the whole, very good at properly preserving its architectural treasures.

You, and others, casually throw about words like "restore" without having any concept of what they mean. ALL RESTORATION IS IN PRINCIPLE WRONG. A building should be preserved by the consolidation of the existing structure only. Nothing new should be added unless it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of that original structure. IT SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED. Restoration = destruction! Please, get out of the 19th century and start living in the 21st century. Try to understand modern practices of architectural conservation.

Steve

←

Steve,restoration is preservation (but not in all cases, indeed) and sometimes we have to restore monuments for preservation.

You are being unreasonable deontologist. Consider the outcome, not the "right action."

Regards

[СИМОН]

Кавшети, Тбилиси.

[СИМОН]

Греми, Кахетия, Грузия.

[СИМОН]

Исторические районы современной территиории Грузии, без учета грузинских земель в нынешнем Азербайджане, Армении, Турции.

Взято с БСЭ.

Edited December 24, 2004 by -СИМОН-

[ARI ASEM]

Хе... и что тут кроме грузинской нет архитектуры ... Хе..

Есть и еще какая....

[ARI ASEM]

И далее...

[ARI ASEM]

и.............

[СИМОН]

А никто и не говорит что нет. Да еще какой.

[ARI ASEM]

И.........