Cseri Miklós, Füzes Endre (szerk.): Ház és ember, A Szabadtéri Néprajzi Múzeum évkönyve 18. (Szentendre, Szabadtéri Néprajzi Múzeum, 2005)

JÉKELY BERTA: 20. századi falusi épületek műemlékvédelmi problémái

Berta Jékely THE PROBLEMS OF MONUMENT PROTECTION CONCERNING 20

th CENTURY RURAL BUILDINGS The eassy mentions a few aspects of monument protection concerning the conservation of rural architecture and not just those houses, which were built on the basis of standard plans. For monument protection, the problem is not the fact that the buildings belong to types, but that they are from the 20

th century. Among the monuments there are hardly any 20

th century folk architectural buildings. The folk monument protection is interested in archaic forms, but the maintenance of rural buildings built before the 20

th century, can be possible only with museum functions, so the folk monument protection has worked together with ethnographic museology so far. The essay construes the aspects and methods on the basis of which monument protection can be realised concerning 20

th century rural buildings, following the aims of monument protection. 1. Uniform professional approach. In the inventarisation of monument protection, a uniform work has begun, which expands to the whole settlement. Thereby, those folk buildings which are on the border-line of monument protection and have been left out of consideration (mainly the architecture of the market towns and of the peasantry, which changed to be middle-class). 2. The construction of periods, the borderlines of protection. According to the ethnographic scientific literature the process of becoming middle-class in terms of folk architecture happened before World War I. Nevertheless, the research of the author in County Tolna proved that it was still going on in the 1920s-1940s thanks to the American guest workers and the economic boom before World War II. The 1950s is a turning point in the rural architecture, after this, a period of uniformity started, although there are still some local differences. The cubeshaped houses of this era may get into the focus of attention in a few years for monument protection. 3. The range of buildings apt for protection. What are the aspects of choice concerning 20

,h century rural buildings, where types can be established? According to the author, there is no such value category, on the basis of which a choice could be made in a settlement. The main significance of these buildings is that they stand together and that is why whole complexes are to be protected and kept together: uniform streets and settlement parts. 4. The expansion of protection. The 20

lh century rural buildings are appropriate to content the modern demands, so a greater number of them could be protected. For monument protection, this makes possible to leave the ethnographic museology and concentrate on built environment and the protection of the architectural heritage. By protection of complexes, it is easier to apprehend these units spatially, socially and in the context of time. Thereby, the village would show a rather dynamic picture instead of a static one about the folk culture. This is in harmony with the mainstream of monument protection nowadays, which is characterised by integrated protection, in a larger scale, not just spatially, but economically and socially too.