Museums and Public Law

Abstract

The article tackles the problem of the legal measures aiming to protect the cultural and historical heritage. The Legal act of 15^th February 1962 on the Protection of the Goods of Culture and Museums, nevertheless novelized, still leaves the place  for improvement.  First of all, its definitions are not precise and legible (ex. evident cultural goods). Secondly, the supremacy of the state economy over cultural functions results in using the historical objects, nationalized after 1946, regardless their historical values. Thirdly, the museums’ deposits are endangered by lack of proper organization, since the emphasis is put on the expositional function of the museums and not on the other important functions as: storage, conservation and inventorying, cataloguing and gathering documentation.  Moreover, the role of the museums is often underestimated, both by the government and by the public.

The Law of 26^th April 1984 on popularisation of culture and culture popularising employees’ rights and obligations determines the educative role of museums, but the main problem identified is lack of financial and infrastructural resources. The space of the museums is too small to accommodate both the exhibitions and storage of goods and insufficient salaries are not motivating the employees to devote to their work. What’s more, the main, national museums are overcrowded, while the local ones are empty.

The significant for the museum’s proper operating is evaluation of possessed pieces of art. The criteria taken into account during the evaluation process are listed and analysed in the further part of the article.  Among them we find: historical (basing on age and hence rarity), artistic (strictly connected with the sense of beauty), scientific (being potential objects of research), cultural (importance for cultural heritage and social growth) and material (value measurable in means of payment) value.

Other  question raised in the article, is extremely extended protection of every good that is considered to have a museum value. In practice, it causes the prohibition of export of every good produced before the 9th May 1945, regardless its real value, without special licence obtained from the Minister of Culture and Art. It concerns also goods owned by private persons.

The conclusion of the article highlights that public administration may interfere in culture only in a very limited sphere and it is essential to create self-managing local museums. The second conclusion is the public law’s influence should be limited to the regulation of the management problems, testing of employees and experts and the responsibility for the treasure owned by public institutions.