The Heritage of Tsarist Russia’s Military Forts as an Object of Postcolonial Revision: Case of the Kaunas School of Art Building 1922–1923

Abstract

The aim of the article is to rethink which objects in contemporary Lithuania are worth being European cultural heritage and which are not — as many of them are now being used by the neighboured aggressive country as examples (politicised arguments) for today’s Russia’s imperial historical narratives. Results of the research demonstrate that the discussion on mitigations of Tsarist Russia’s military forts heritage is a new topic, as the recent decades in Lithuania have shown that the heritage of military forts’ architecture in the post-soviet decades is being protected even more than in Soviet Russia’s occupation period. So, this trend in Lithuanian cultural Heritage research emerges as an object worth deeper postcolonial revision. Significant is building the future from the past. Within this frame of thinking, the article invites us to remember the national history and select well-known cases from the country’s past as most valuable for national and cultural identity. The example of the famous 100-year-old Art School building in Kaunas city (which in the interwar period 1918–1940 was the temporary capital of the Republic of Lithuania) was chosen as the article’s main case study. After 100 years, there are no longer any doubts or debates as to how much the area of the 9th battery in Kaunas Oaks Hill (Ąžuolų kalnas) has “suffered” due to the fact that the complex of buildings of the Lithuanian national Art School was built in a Tsarist Russia military fortress plot. This is evidenced by the other mentioned cases — today outstanding national cultural heritage objects were built a century ago replacing Tsarist Russia’s military architecture, meanwhile, according to the laws in force today — these buildings should be protected. Conclusions. Russia’s war against Ukraine, it’s the right time to reassess countries’ critical heritage: in which situations it is worth, how much it is worth, and in which it is no longer worth protecting the architectural heritage of military power formed by Tsarist Russia, especially when it is ruined and too difficult to adapt it to the needs of modern people.