Industrial heritage in Russia and abroad: traditions and innovations of the interdisciplinary direction

Gasanov Arsenii Master of arts, Historical Information Science Department, Lomonosov Moscow State University 119991, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Lomonosovskii Prospekt, 27 k.4, Istoricheskii fakul'tet quat@bk.ru Other publications by this author

The history of studying industrial heritage dates back to the second half of the 20th century, when, as a result of changes in production technologies, many unclaimed industrial buildings appeared. Old industrial buildings and their equipment thus became part of history, but their value was not immediately recognized. To study historical industrial sites, a new direction has appeared - industrial archaeology, which brought together specialists from historians, anthropologists, ethnologists, engineers, architects and economists. The purpose of industrial archaeology was to study the material evidence of industrial production processes (buildings, objects of labor, mechanisms, landscape) in combination with people's memories ^{[1, p. 214; 2, p. 186]}.

         The term "industrial archaeology" was coined by a professor at the University of Birmingham, D. Dudley was used by him regarding archaeological excavations in Belgium in the first half of the 1950s, and appeared in print in a publication by M. Rix in 1955 ^{[3; 4, p. 298]} The first book devoted to industrial archaeology was written in 1963 by K. Hudson, and in 1967 the work of the same name by M. Rix was published. ^[5-6] In a more modern sense (regarding industrial heritage sites), the term "industrial archaeology" was subsequently used by the British scientist R. A. Buchenon ^[7-9].

         In the 1960s, the desire to study industrial heritage gave rise to a movement for its preservation - groups of enthusiasts appeared who advocated for the protection of historical industrial sites. Significant episodes for this period were the campaign to preserve the "Euston Arch" - the arch at the entrance to the Euston Stadium (later the station) in London, which was nevertheless demolished in 1972, and the opening of the Ironbridge Gorge Museum at the Ironbridge Bridge in Shorpshire, England, in 1967, which It became one of the first examples of museification of industrial facilities ^{[1, p. 214; 2, p. 187; 9, p. 9-10; 10, p. 5-6]}. In 1973, the movement was further developed in the form of the first International Congress on the Preservation of Industrial Monuments in Ironbridge, which resulted in the creation of the International Committee for the Preservation of Industrial Heritage – TICCIH (The International Committee for the Conservation of the Industrial Heritage) in 1978 in Stockholm.

         As an international non-governmental organization, TICCIH regularly holds conferences, symposiums and meetings, publishes its newsletter, supports and organizes the work of specialists interested in the preservation and study of industrial heritage. Since the 1980s, TICCIH has been an advisor to the World Heritage Committee, part of the International Council for the Protection of Monuments and Historical Sites ICOMOS, which in turn is an advisor to UNESCO. ^[10]

         In European historiography in the 1980s, many works devoted to industrial heritage were already written - the Association of Industrial Archaeology (AIA), founded in 1973, has been regularly publishing (and still publishes) the journal Industrial Archaeology Review since 1976 ^[11], monographs devoted entirely to industrial heritage have been published, examining industrial monuments and accumulated the experience of studying them. The topic was developed to the greatest extent in its historical homeland, Great Britain ^[12-16]. The Society for Industrial Archaeology (SIA) was organized in the USA, which also held conferences on industrial monuments and published its own journal, as did the AIA in the UK. As a result, two main approaches appeared – the British "bottom-up", when the works were written mainly by enthusiasts, and the American, more centralized "top-down", when the research was conducted by established specialists. The first approach was adopted by Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, and the second was peculiar to Australia, France and Russia ^[17]. Many industrial monuments have gained a "new life" - for example, the industrial buildings of Manchester, England, which have been actively preserved and repurposed since the 1970s, including the Liverpool Road station, later transformed into the Museum of Science and Technology ^[18], the Sloss Furnaces metallurgical plant in Alabama, converted into a museum, Fundidora Park ("Parque Fundidora") in Mexico, opened on the site of a metallurgical plant, the Orsay Museum in Paris, located in the former building of the railway station. ^[17]

In the USSR, this topic was poorly developed – the old seemed unnecessary and outdated ^{[19, p. 6]}. Nevertheless, there are counterexamples when specialists, primarily architects, turned to the industrial heritage and pointed out its important role. It is worth noting the book by N. S. Alferov "Architects of the Old Urals", published in 1960 ^[20], and the textbook "Architectural reconstruction of historically established industrial enterprises" authored by L. P. Kholodova, which pays great attention to the preservation of the historical appearance of industrial structures and complexes during reconstruction, analyzes and classifies architectural styles of industrial facilities ^[21]. Back in the 1930s, R. P. Podolsky wrote about industrial architecture ^[22-23], in the 1970s and 80s - A. A. Starikov ^[24], E. F. Shumilov ^[25], L. P. Kholodova ^{[21, 26]}, and M. S. Stieglitz ^[27-28]. There were also the first examples of museification of former industrial enterprises – for example, in 1987 the Nizhny Tagil Plant-Museum of the History of Ural Metallurgy was opened ^[29], in 1989 the blast furnace shop of the Seversk Pipe Plant was opened for visitors, which was subsequently decorated in 2009 as the museum complex "Staraya Domna" ^{[19, 30]}. In the 1970s, special sections of monuments of the labor glory of the Soviet people and monuments of the history of science and technology were organized as part of the All-Russian Society for the Protection of Historical and Cultural Monuments. Their goals were to identify, study, describe and preserve monuments of industrial heritage ^[31].

Thus, it cannot be said that the study and preservation of industrial heritage did not take place in the Soviet Union, but the scale of work in this direction was incomparable with that in subsequent periods. An understanding of the concept and value of industrial heritage was rather in the formative stage, it was necessary to have a larger number of specialists interested in this issue, as well as to study the existing Western experience. Already at this stage, the Ural region becomes the flagship of industrial heritage in Russia, which is due to the industrial orientation of the region – the cities of the Urals are often called factory cities, and their historical and cultural appearance is largely determined by industrial monuments.

         The situation changed significantly in the 1990s, an initiative group of historians, architects, engineers and local historians gathered in the Urals under the leadership of Academician V. V. Alekseev, which initiated the study of industrial heritage in Russia ^[19]. Important works of this period were the publications of V. V. Alekseev, which included a general review of the history and tasks of the direction, as well as the collection and publication of materials for subsequent study ^[32-33], L. P. Kholodova on architecture and understanding the world experience in studying industrial monuments ^[34-35], R. M. Lotareva on the architecture of factory cities ^[36-37]. I would like to mention the publications of M. S. Stieglitz devoted to the industrial heritage of St. Petersburg ^[38-39].

In 1994, Russia officially joined TICCIH, at the same time the Association for the Preservation of Cultural Heritage was established with a center in Yekaterinburg, where the bulletin of the Russian National Representative Office of TICCIH began to be published. Academician V. V. Alekseev became the official representative of Russia in TICCIH. In 1993, two international TICCIH congresses were held in Yekaterinburg and in 2003 in Moscow, Yekaterinburg and Nizhny Tagil. At the XII Congress in Nizhny Tagil, the Nizhny Tagil Charter of Industrial Heritage was adopted, which became an important document for the Committee. At the same time, Professor V. V. Zapariy became the new national representative of Russia ^{[2, 40, 41]}.

During this period, the main issues and problems of industrial heritage were formulated – the need for large-scale work on its study, preservation and museification. Issues of conservation and museumification were complicated by a lack of public knowledge and attention to industrial heritage. Theses were put forward about the lack of specialists in the field of industrial heritage, the need to adopt Western experience accumulated in this area, and the lack of legislation that allows systematic identification, assessment and preservation of industrial monuments. The history of studying the industrial heritage of the Urals was previously considered in detail in the works of V. V. Alekseev and O. A. Shipitsyna ^{[32, 42]}. The historiography of the study of industrial heritage in Russia in the 1970s and 1990s was considered in the article of the same name by E. S. Lakhtionova ^[43].

While the Russian school of industrial heritage was in its formative stage, there was a discussion in the Western school about whether the main goal of the direction was the preservation of industrial monuments or academic research. The interdisciplinary interaction of specialists from different fields – archaeologists, historians, architects, museum specialists and engineers - also caused difficulties, and, in this regard, the question arose about the boundaries of the scientific field. By the end of the 1990s, the tendency to expand these boundaries prevailed ^{[17, 44-45]}. The landmark works of this period were the monographs "Industrial archaeology: principles and practice" by M. Palmer ^[46] and "The texture of industry: an archaeological view of the industrialization of North America" by R. B. Gordon and P. M. Malone ^[47], which remain relevant to this day. In the field of preservation and popularization of industrial heritage, an important event was the appearance of the European Industrial Heritage Route (ERIH) in 1999, which includes the most significant industrial monuments in Europe, open to tourists ^{[17, 48]}.

In the 2000s and 2010s, the direction of industrial heritage in Russia continued its development. In a number of publications, V. V. Zaparia received a detailed consideration of the concept of industrial heritage, the problems of this area and the activities of TICCIH ^{[1, 10, 19, 40]}. I would especially like to highlight the idea that institutions dealing with cultural heritage, as a rule, determine the value of an object by age, aesthetic characteristics and its uniqueness. At the same time, the objects of industrial heritage are primarily functional, their appearance was formed by the practical necessity of a particular production. The objects of industrial heritage, therefore, are not always unique, they are often repeatable, the equipment for them was produced, as a rule, in large quantities and therefore was not considered as valuable by descendants. In this regard, V. V. Zapariy points out that industrial facilities should be selected for preservation according to the principle of the greatest representativeness ^[1]. This provision does not negate the value of unique industrial monuments with a rich history and unambiguous architectural value. Such objects have a greater chance of being among the preserved ones, even if the specifics of the industrial heritage are not taken into account. V. V. Zapari also notes the need to involve public opinion in the issues of industrial heritage, the use of industrial monuments in the field of tourism, the inclusion of a course on the history of science and technology in educational programs, the adoption of laws and the organization of state programs for the preservation and rehabilitation of objects industrial heritage ^[10].

Activities were carried out in relation to the organization of systematic protection of monuments of industrial heritage. The legal basis here is the law "On objects of cultural Heritage (historical and cultural monuments) of the peoples of the Russian Federation" of 2002. In St. Petersburg, systematic work on the preservation of industrial monuments is carried out by a specialized department of the VOOPIK, dozens of historical industrial sites of the Sverdlovsk region have been taken under state protection, but such practices have still not spread to the entire country, as the researcher of industrial heritage A. E. Kurlaev wrote ^[49].

To a greater extent, the study of industrial heritage in Russia has gone beyond the Urals – the works of M. S. Stieglitz on St. Petersburg industrial monuments ^{[9, 50]} and A. A. Chadovich on industrial cities of the Moscow region ^[51-52]. Considerable experience has been accumulated in the field of museumification and redevelopment of former industrial sites, which is also reflected in the publications of researchers of industrial heritage. Famous examples in Russia are the Krasnaya Gorka Museum-Reserve in Kemerovo, created on the territory of a former coal mine, the Winery center for contemporary art, located in the buildings of the former brewery (then wine factory) "Moscow Bavaria", the ARTPLAY design center in Moscow on the territory of the industrial zone in Syromyatniki, the Red October confectionery factory" in Moscow, now accommodating media spaces, restaurants and offices, Loft project FLOORS in St. Petersburg in a former bakery building and a kitchen factory in Samara, converted into exhibition spaces ^[53-55].

A new word in the field of preservation of industrial monuments has become virtual 3D reconstruction, which has been used for some time for more classic cultural heritage sites. The pioneers here were E. A. Kurlaev and Y. M. Baranov ^[56-57]. Through their efforts, a virtual 3D reconstruction of the Mazuevsky plant was carried out in 1722, which included the restoration of the equipment used and the production processes that took place. The work of R. M. Zhitin, devoted to modeling the buildings of the working settlement of the Novo-Pokrovsky sugar factory, belongs to the same direction ^[58].

In the West, back in the 1990s and 2000s, educational programs in higher educational institutions dedicated to industrial archaeology, industrial heritage, the history of technology, repurposing and preservation of cultural monuments appeared. Among the universities that have opened such programs are the Ironbridge Institute, the University of Leicester, the Michigan University of Technology, and the Free University of Amsterdam ^[17]. Russia has yet to adopt such a practice – this would be a very important step for the further development of the direction.

In 2016, the TICCIH organization published a collection of articles by many reputable researchers covering various aspects of industrial heritage – "Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation" ^[59]. While the UK still holds a leading position in the number of publications on the topic of industrial heritage, interest in it has spread to various countries in Europe, America and beyond – to China, Japan, India, etc. ^[60-64].

Projects on 3D reconstruction of industrial heritage sites are being implemented in different countries of the world - works on the reconstruction of the old power plant in Piestani in Slovakia ^[65-66], the railway depot in Cajo in Santander, Spain ^[67], a number of former factories in France ^[68], a brick factory in Sampieri, Italy ^[69] have been published. For museum purposes, the reconstruction of the old brewery, one of the points of the European route of industrial heritage, in Viski, Poland was carried out ^{[48, 70-71]}.

To date, the topic of industrial heritage in Russia is at the peak of its development – every year a number of works on various aspects of industrial heritage are published - from the study of individual objects to the application of industrial monuments in various spheres of life and science under the authorship of specialists of various fields, domestic and foreign experience is actively considered ^[72-79]. Separately, we should focus on the article by E. V. Alekseeva, where the accumulated experience of repurposing and revalorizing industrial heritage sites is considered and comprehended, and, as a result, its classification is given. Requiring an individual approach, former industrial buildings, with a competent approach, take on recreational, ecological and rehabilitation, cultural and educational, commercial, sports and recreation and other functions, while maintaining their cultural significance as part of the historical urban environment ^[73].

The topic of virtual 3D reconstructions of industrial heritage has been developed to a greater extent - with the support of an RNF grant in 2020-2022, a large–scale project for the three-dimensional reconstruction of the city of Yekaterinburg for 1733 is being implemented. Industrial buildings make up a significant part of the city's development, therefore this project can be called the most ambitious virtual reconstruction of the Russian industrial heritage at the moment ^[80]. The author of this review also carried out a virtual reconstruction of the industrial heritage site – the production building of the Trekhgorny Brewery in Moscow at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries ^[81-82]. Taking into account the accumulated experience in this field, it becomes possible to carry out some typologization of projects for virtual 3D reconstruction of industrial heritage. The first type includes modeling the architectural appearance of heritage sites, whether they are individual buildings or entire industrial complexes. The second type is the reconstruction of historical industrial equipment and modeling of production processes of the past. A separate third type would like to highlight the use of virtual reality technologies that allow the user of a VR application to immerse themselves in the historical production environment and even sometimes take part in the production process. It is possible to combine these types – so, the author's work on the virtual reconstruction of the production building of the Trekhgorny brewery combines all three.

***

The post-industrial development characteristic of the 19th century leads to the end of the life cycle of a large number of industrial facilities, which turn out to be unclaimed due to changes in production processes and, thus, the loss of their original functions by objects. The question remains open as to how the future fate of former industrial buildings should develop.

The study of industrial heritage has come a long way in a relatively short period of time – from individual initiatives of individual enthusiasts and rare publications, to organized activities within the framework of a formed scientific direction, regular research and publications, thematic congresses and conferences, and the use of the latest technologies.

There are many examples of the preservation of industrial heritage sites – their successful museification and repurposing. There has also been some progress in the legislative aspect, but researchers see the need for more extensive work in this direction.

New opportunities have opened up in this direction with the beginning of the use of virtual 3D reconstruction methods, which allows, in addition to the physical preservation of objects, to capture their visual appearance in the form of virtual models. It is also a way to revive lost monuments. In addition, thanks to digitalization, the accessibility of cultural and industrial heritage to the general public is expanding. VR and AR technologies expand the possibilities to visualize historical production processes, making the user of a VR application a direct participant in virtual industrial production.

I would also like to express my gratitude for the guidance and assistance to the head of the Department of Historical Informatics of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences, corresponding member. To L.I. Borodkin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, as well as to the Deputy General Director of DIMICENTER LLC, Doctor of Economics Yu.Yu. Yumasheva for the links and materials provided.