Russia went through two fundamental changes in the last century, with very little remaining of the previous state or culture associated with it. So yes, an art object from 1900 that went through a revolution, a world war and a collapse of soviet union is a valuable artefact.
To add:
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property’ means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories:
.
.
.
(e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; (f) objects of ethnological interest;
(g) property of artistic interest, such as:
(i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand);
Russia is not unique in that. i'm just saying it's weird to imagine a time and place that's so vivid in our memory today could be in the same category as 'real' history. it's not advocacy for pinching a russian painting
Althrough i am sure there are people over a hundred years alive today, i sincerely doubt russian empire is vivid in anyone's memory. Where do you think "real" history starts at?
i can watch movies and listen to music recorded then. there's objects and buildings that old all over. you can read what people back then wrote almost effortlessly. there's millions of photographs!
That still doesent change the interternational definitions of a cultural property. I dont get why you are so stubborn about it. It is called cultural property, not ancient.
i don't know why you chose to interpret 'a century doesn't feel that old to me' comment as some kind of attack on the concept of protecting cultural objects, but here we are. i was never arguing with you
Russia went through two fundamental changes in the last century, with very little remaining of the previous state or culture associated with it. So yes, an art object from 1900 that went through a revolution, a world war and a collapse of soviet union is a valuable artefact.
To add: Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the term `cultural property’ means property which, on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each State as being of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and which belongs to the following categories: . . . (e) antiquities more than one hundred years old, such as inscriptions, coins and engraved seals; (f) objects of ethnological interest; (g) property of artistic interest, such as: (i) pictures, paintings and drawings produced entirely by hand on any support and in any material (excluding industrial designs and manufactured articles decorated by hand);
https://theblueshield.org/defining-cultural-heritage-and-cultural-property/
Russia is not unique in that. i'm just saying it's weird to imagine a time and place that's so vivid in our memory today could be in the same category as 'real' history. it's not advocacy for pinching a russian painting
Althrough i am sure there are people over a hundred years alive today, i sincerely doubt russian empire is vivid in anyone's memory. Where do you think "real" history starts at?
i can watch movies and listen to music recorded then. there's objects and buildings that old all over. you can read what people back then wrote almost effortlessly. there's millions of photographs!
That still doesent change the interternational definitions of a cultural property. I dont get why you are so stubborn about it. It is called cultural property, not ancient.
i don't know why you chose to interpret 'a century doesn't feel that old to me' comment as some kind of attack on the concept of protecting cultural objects, but here we are. i was never arguing with you
Your original comment seemed mildly insensitive to me