Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Series Historia et Sociologia, 35, 2025, 3 UDK 009 Annales, Ser. hist. sociol., 35, 2025, 3, pp. 237-392, Koper 2025 ISSN 1408-5348 KOPER 2025 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Series Historia et Sociologia, 35, 2025, 3 UDK 009 ISSN 1408-5348 e-ISSN 2591-1775 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 ISSN 1408-5348 UDK 009 Letnik 35, leto 2025, številka 3 e-ISSN 2591-1775 UREDNIŠKI ODBOR/ COMITATO DI REDAZIONE/ BOARD OF EDITORS: Roderick Bailey (UK), Gorazd Bajc, Simona Bergoč, Furio Bianco (IT), Aleksandr Cherkasov (RUS), Lucija Čok, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko Darovec, Devan Jagodic (IT), Aleksej Kalc, Urška Lampe, Avgust Lešnik, John Jeffries Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), Darja Mihelič, Vesna Mikolič, Luciano Monzali (IT), Edward Muir (USA), Vojislav Pavlović (SRB), Peter Pirker (AUT), Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (MNE), Andrej Rahten, Žiga Oman, Vida Rožac Darovec, Mateja Sedmak, Lenart Škof, Polona Tratnik, Boštjan Udovič, Marta Verginella, Špela Verovšek, Tomislav Vignjević, Paolo Wulzer (IT), Salvator Žitko Glavni urednik/Redattore capo/ Editor in chief: Darko Darovec Odgovorni urednik/Redattore responsabile/Responsible Editor: Salvator Žitko Uredniki/Redattori/Editors: Urška Lampe, Boštjan Udovič, Žiga Oman, Veronika Kos Prevajalka/Traduttrice/Translator: Cecilia Furioso Cenci (it.) Oblikovalec/Progetto grafico/ Graphic design: Dušan Podgornik , Darko Darovec Tisk/Stampa/Print: Založništvo PADRE d.o.o. Založnika/Editori/Published by: Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Società storica del Litorale - Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for Research, Development and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della società, cultura e ambiente© Sedež uredništva/Sede della redazione/ Address of Editorial Board: SI-6000 Koper/Capodistria, Garibaldijeva/Via Garibaldi 18 e-mail: annaleszdjp@gmail.com, internet: https://zdjp.si Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 30. 09. 2025. Sofinancirajo/Supporto finanziario/ Financially supported by: Javna agencija za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije (ARIS) Annales - Series Historia et Sociologia izhaja štirikrat letno. Maloprodajna cena tega zvezka je 11 EUR. Naklada/Tiratura/Circulation: 300 izvodov/copie/copies Revija Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / La rivista Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia è inserita nei seguenti data base / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexed in: Clarivate Analytics (USA): Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) in/and Current Contents / Arts & Humanities; IBZ, Internationale Bibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); Sociological Abstracts (USA); Referativnyi Zhurnal Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS (NL); Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). To delo je objavljeno pod licenco / Quest'opera è distribuita con Licenza / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY 4.0. Navodila avtorjem in vsi članki v barvni verziji so prosto dostopni na spletni strani: https://zdjp.si. Le norme redazionali e tutti gli articoli nella versione a colori sono disponibili gratuitamente sul sito: https://zdjp.si/it/. The submission guidelines and all articles are freely available in color via website https://zdjp.si/en/. ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca Puncer, Vesna Žegarac Leskovar & Peter Šenk: Preserving the Past for the Future: Architecture with the Legacy of Care and Aesthetics ...................................................... 237 Preservare il passato per il futuro: architettura con l'eredità della cura e dell'estetica Ohranjanje preteklosti za prihodnost: arhitektura z zapuščino skrbi in estetike Igor Sapač & Polona Vidmar: The Importance of Interdisciplinary Scientific Research for the Contemporary Interpretation and Revitalization of Neglected Architectural Heritage: The Case of Novo Celje Manor near Žalec (Slovenia) ................................. 251 L'importanza della ricerca scientifica interdisciplinare per l'interpretazione contemporanea e la rivitalizzazione del patrimonio architettonico trascurato: il caso del maniero di Novo Celje vicino a Žalec (Slovenia) Pomen interdisciplinarnega znanstvenega raziskovanja za sodobno interpretacijo in revitalizacijo zapostavljene stavbne dediščine: primer dvorca Novo Celje pri Žalcu (Slovenija) Nataša Smolič: Nastavki umetne inteligence v likovnosti in etika njihove uporabe ....................................... 273 Applicazioni dell'intelligenza artificiale nelle arti visive e l'etica del loro utilizzo Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Visual Arts and the Ethics of Their Use Katarina Oštrbenk, Tjaša Alegro, Alenka Černelič Krošelj & Maja Turnšek: Virtualni 360° ogledi kot orodje promocije kulturne dediščine: rezultati eksperimenta promocije Posavskega muzeja Brežice ................................... 289 Tour virtuali a 360° come strumento di promozione del patrimonio culturale: risultati di un esperimento di promozione del Museo Posavje di Brežice Virtual 360° Tours as a Tool for Promoting Cultural Heritage: Results from an Experiment at the Posavje Museum Brežice Danijel Germek: Razbitina nemške desantno transportne ladje (MFP) F 956 pri Piranu .................................. 305 Il relitto della motozattera tedesca (MFP) F 956 presso Pirano The Wreck of the German Lighter (MFP) F 956 near Piran Melita Lemut Bajec, Judita Giparaitė & Helena Bažec: Proverbs with the Word »Bee« in English, Italian, Lithuanian and Slovenian ...................................... 329 Proverbi contenenti la parola "ape" in inglese, italiano, lituano e sloveno Pregovori z besedo »čebela« v angleščini, italijanščini, litovščini in slovenščini Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS UDK 009 Volume 35, Koper 2025, issue 3 ISSN 1408-5348 e-ISSN 2591-1775 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije - Annali di Studi istriani e mediterranei - Annals for Istrian and Mediterranean Studies Marjan Horvat: Kultura, dediščina in trajnostni razvoj: deliberacija kot spodbujevalec družbene preobrazbe ............................................. 343 Cultura, patrimonio e sviluppo sostenibile: la deliberazione come motore di trasformazione sociale Culture, Heritage and Sustainable Development: Deliberation as a Driver of Social Transformation Petra Weingerl: Načelo lojalnega sodelovanja v Evropski uniji na področju državljanstva ......................................... 361 Il principio di leale cooperazione nell'Unione Europea nel campo della cittadinanza The Principle of Sincere Cooperation in the European Union in Nationality Matters Almedina Lozić: Operation of Power Through Gratefulness/Gratitude: Experiences of Syrian Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the United Kingdom ........................................ 375 Funzionamento del potere attraverso la gratitudine: esperienze di rifugiati e richiedenti asilo siriani nel Regno Unito Delovanje moči v hvaležnosti: izkušnje sirskih beguncev in prosilcev za azil v Veliki Britaniji Kazalo k slikam na ovitku ...................................... 391 Indice delle foto di copertina ................................. 391 Index to images on the cover ................................. 391 237 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 received: 2024-11-25 DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2025.17 PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS Mojca PUNCER University of Maribor, Faculty of Education, Department of Fine Arts, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: mojca.puncer@um.si Vesna ŽEGARAC LESKOVAR University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture Smetanova ulica 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: vesna.zegarac@um.si Peter ŠENK University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Architecture, Department of Architecture Smetanova ulica 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia e-mail: peter.senk@um.si ABSTRACT The aim of the article is to use a literature review to identify the dimensions of care from the perspective of heritage science, which is a highly interdisciplinary academic field. In this case, it includes philosophy, architec- tural theory and a broader theory of care that should be addressed for a comprehensive study of concepts of care in architecture and architecture-orientated art. In the analysis of selected architectural heritage interventions, special attention is given to aspects of care and aspects of aesthetics in order to develop a new methodology for identifying and evaluating interventions in the built environment. Keywords: heritage science, architecture, urban design, adaptive reuse, care, (philosophical) aesthetics, care aesthetics/aesthetics of care, care ethics, contemporary art practice PRESERVARE IL PASSATO PER IL FUTURO: ARCHITETTURA CON L'EREDITÀ DELLA CURA E DELL'ESTETICA SINTESI Quest’articolo ha lo scopo di identificare, tramite l’utilizzo di una revisione della letteratura scientifica, le dimensioni della cura dal punto di vista della scienza del patrimonio, un campo accademico altamente interdisciplinare. In questo caso, esso include filosofia, teoria dell'architettura ed una teoria della cura più ampia, che dovrebbe essere affrontata per uno studio completo dei concetti di cura nell'architettura e nell'arte orientata all'architettura. Nell'analisi della selezione di interventi sul patrimonio architettonico, è stata prestata particolare attenzione agli aspetti della cura e agli aspetti dell'estetica, al fine di sviluppare una nuova metodologia per identificare e valutare gli interventi nell'ambiente costruito. Parole chiave: scienza del patrimonio, architettura, progettazione urbana, riuso adattativo, cura, estetica (filosofica), estetica della cura, etica della cura, pratica artistica contemporanea 238 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 INTRODUCTION Care is in the title of numerous social policy practices (“care in the community”, “care homes”, “care packages”, “heritage care”) and so the “duty to care” for cultural heritage is enshrined in current laws and state structures. The history of object care in architecture and art, and especially in museums (dominance of the visual; museum care as protec- tion), is an important component of a comprehen- sive theory of care. Any analysis of cultural heritage care must recognize that it is always embedded in particular cultural norms and expectations. We therefore explore how the concept of care can help to provide new perspectives on our relationships with the historic environment and, in particular, practices of adaptive reuse of architectural her- itage.1 Furthermore, by exposing the concept of “care” instead of “protection” as a framework (cf. Veldpaus & Szemző, 2022) we can expand on the way we think about conservation as a care practice. Incidentally, there is no strict opposition between care and protection, for protection enables the as- sumption of care and as such is a necessary aspect of care. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to identify and evaluate innovative practices of care in the form of adaptive heritage reuse in Europe, focussing on social innovation, community engage- ment and empowerment, cooperative governance, and the aesthetic dimension of these processes. Dictionaries define the term “care” in relation to productive guardianship and the provision of what is needed for wellbeing, along with the notion of attentiveness and consideration (cf. Fischer, 2023, 94). Woodhead (2023) argues that the concept of care, particularly in the context of the ethics of care, is an appropriate lens through which we can examine cultural heritage. Because we care about the cultural heritage, there is a desire to care for it. “By approaching all cultural heritage through the lens of assessing how it is cared for, one can see how communities (local, national or international) recognise its importance, how they enjoy it and how they fulfil any responsibilities to current and future generations” (Woodhead, 2023, 3). More attention has recently been paid to the intangible elements of cultural heritage, as the central importance of par- ticipation and communities has been recognized: “Given the recognition of the human dimension to cultural heritage, participation of communities is central to the way in which cultural heritage is cared for” (Woodhead, 2023, 11). Care as an active process centred on relationships and communities provides the framework for communities of care 1 The article was written as part of the project “Heritage Science and Climate Change: New Research with an Interdisciplinary Approach and the Use of Artificial Intelligence”, which is supported by the University of Maribor. as an invaluable way of bringing together different systems concerned with heritage. The following theoretical introduction uses a lit- erature review to identify dimensions of care from the perspective of philosophy (philosophical aesthetics, political philosophy and ethics) and a broader theory of care that should be addressed for a comprehensive investigation of concepts of care in architecture and architecture-orientated art (aesthetics of care/care aesthetics, feminist care ethics) with regard to the care of cultural heritage. Care (the meaning) Given the growing interest in the idea and practice of care in the humanities, social sciences, architecture and the arts, especially in the last dec- ade, a number of different conceptualizations have been circulated. The political scientist Joan Tronto, to whom we also refer here, sees one of the main problems for all theorists of care in defining the term itself, because “‘care’ is a complicated term, with many meanings and connotations in English” (Tronto, 2013, 18). It is therefore necessary to first extract those meanings that provide a suitable basis for the planned research in the field of the architec- ture of care and its links with art, particularly from the perspective of caring for cultural heritage and the environment. In defining the term, it will be helpful to examine the etymology and historical genealogy of the word care. From the ancient Greek and Ro- man tradition comes the concept of care, which is associated with intellectual qualities and ethical life – defined by Foucault as “self-care”, represent- ing a (pre-modern) free subjectivity with a range of techniques of the self. In the background of this care is the labour of women (and slaves), i.e. this often in- visible material practice, which is otherwise the key to social reproduction, that has been emphasized by feminist-Marxist authors since the early 1970s (Silvia Federici et al.). According to Kunst, care is “a transversal concept that goes beyond these different concepts and articulations and is at the centre of the articulation of dependency-independence” (Kunst, 2021, 35). In the context of sustaining life, care becomes a particular and necessary form of struggle and thus politicized. Various definitions of care follow the appeal that the techniques of care must also be understood in terms of the consequences for other living beings and the environment – at this point feminist approaches to care are close to indigenous concepts of care in terms of the connection between the human and more-than-human. In defining the 239 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 concept of care, it is also necessary to point out the need to shake up the geopolitical context of the relationship between the crisis of care and the crisis of sustainability of life from the viewpoint of the consequences for functioning and global dynamics, including the fields of architecture and art, which are of particular interest to us here. When we think about the practices of contempo- rary art, we inevitably come across the dimension of care. The Latin word curare, which is the etymo- logical root of curating, broadly speaking, means to treat, to cure, to look after, to edit, or to organize (cf. Krasny & Perry, 2023, 4). As feminist theory and criticism emphasizes, this concept is constantly linked to social, sexual and bodily relationships (cf. Kunst, 2021, 65). Reasons for turning to care that extend far be- yond the realm of architecture and the arts include resistance to exploitative working conditions in the construction industry and the cultural sector, and the fact is that care is often an act of struggle and a means of change in the face of a particular crisis situ- ation. The COVID pandemic as a global crisis of care brought about the need for “a new kind of politics, and that is a politics of care” (Thompson, 2023, 4; cf. Krasny, 2023). The call to turn to care reminds us that it has been structurally relegated to invis- ibility, marginalized, feminized, racialized, denied or outsourced. Care in its broadest sense (domestic care labour, healthcare, childcare, elder care, etc.) is embedded in the political and economic systems that structure society, with differences in care lead- ing to highly stratified and inequitable conditions (cf. Krasny & Perry, 2023). AESTHETICS AND ETHICS: TOWARDS CARE AESTHETICS Aesthetics According to James Thompson, care aesthetics draws on two main areas of scholarship: aesthetics and care, and the two supporting arguments: (1) human relations can be considered for their aesthet- ics (human-to-human relations are a legitimate site of aesthetic experience); (2) care is an important source of ethics, which can also be understood as embodied or sensory practice, i.e. in aesthetic terms (Thompson, 2023, 9–10). To explain this, we need to return to the origins of aesthetic theory, where aesthetics is a study of sensory perception, before it becomes an approach to the arts. As it has been repeatedly pointed out, aesthetics and philosophy of art are very different disciplines, so questions about aesthetics are not strictly speaking (or not neces- sarily) about art (cf. Nanay, 2016, 6). The common meaning of the word “aesthetic” is a synonym for an artistic, beautiful or pleasant appearance, while the discipline of philosophical aesthetics deals with the nature of beauty, art, and taste in often ambiguous and complex ways. In order to better understand the aesthetic experience of care in relation to architecture, we must first examine the various ways in which aes- thetics can be defined in this context. Therefore, we will first look at the etymology of aesthetics and examine how the term has been expanded in contemporary aesthetic theory to open up a broad view of the subject. The etymological origin of the term “the aesthetic” was not related to beauty, but derived from the Greek word aisthesis, meaning sensation and sensory perception. When Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten introduced the concept of “aesthetics” to the philosophical context in 1735, what he meant by it was precisely what Nanay calls the “philosophy of perception: the study of sense perception (scientia cognitionis sensitivae)” (Nanay, 2016, 3). Recently “[t]he subject matter of aesthet- ics has expanded from the narrow focus on conven- tional forms of Western arts to incorporating a wide range of human activities, objects, environments and cultures” (Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019, 58). Accord- ing to Nanay (2019, 2), “[i]t includes much of what we care about in life”. Allen Carlson has likened the subject matter of environmental aesthetics to a con- tinuum of things ranging from nature, through the built environment to the very limits of traditional art forms (Carlson, 2000; 2019; cf. Brady & Prior, 2020). The aesthetics of architecture can be seen as a part of this environmental aesthetic continuum “in a very tangible way” (Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019, 58) and also as a paradigm for an aesthetic experi- ence (Berleant, 1992, 148; Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019, 61–62). The domain of environmental aesthetics, especially in the writing of Yuriko Saito (2008) on everyday aesthetics, provides a rewarding frame of reference that has been applied by different authors (Parson & Carlson, 2008; Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019; Thompson, 2023, etc.). Otherwise, one of the best- known theorists of everyday life was the French philosopher Michel de Certeau. For de Certeau, the politics of the everyday meant that people gained some control over their material context (by em- ploying “popular procedures” (de Certeau, 1984, xiv)) and were involved in creating “an esthetics of ‘tricks’ […] and ethics of tenacity” (de Certeau, 1984, 26; Italics in the original). In focusing on the everyday as a site of sociality, a place of connection or solidarities, it is more the process by which rela- tions between people are built and strengthened. According to Thompson, “[u]nderstanding care as an act of solidarity in the everyday means attention is drawn to collaborative acts” (Thompson, 2023, 142). Another French philosopher, Henri Lefebvre, 240 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 takes the “trivial” details of quotidian experience as his starting point and guide in his extensive work in three volumes titled Critique of Everyday Life (1991): although everyday life is colonized by the commodity and characterized by inauthenticity, it remains the only source of resistance and change. In this context, Lefebvre examines the links between aesthetics and ethics, which can also be considered from the perspective of care. This work by Lefebvre (1991) was a key text for the Situationist Interna- tional (SI): In it, he called for, among other things, an art that transforms everyday life (the idea that artistic activity should not be separate from revolu- tionary practise was accordingly advocated by the SI’s leading figure, Guy Debord). The SI also owes to Lefebvre the idea of “constructed situations” in eve- ryday life (cf. Bishop, 2012, 86, 306). Furthermore, the original concepts of dérive and “unitary urban- ism” as strategies for overcoming homogenised urban life are central to the theory and practise of the SI (cf. Knabb, 2006) and resonate in contempo- rary conflicts over space and architecture. As far as the aesthetics of everyday life is concerned, Katya Mandoki has provided a systematic overview in her book Everyday Aesthetics (2007). The recent domain of everyday aesthetics has further enlarged the field to include issues of care (Saito, 2022). Within the aesthetics of care, Saito identified a special aesthet- ics of repair(ing) (Saito, 2022, 147–151), which is also recognized as an important dimension in our research on care aesthetics. Putting the body at the centre of the aesthetic experience has led to new sub-disciplines of aesthetics, such as somaesthetics (Shusterman, 2008). Thompson, otherwise follow- ing a similar line in aesthetic theory, takes a criti- cal perspective on this field with a critique of the individualistic focus on body care in somaesthetics, and in particular he pays attention to phenomeno- logical (Merleau-Ponty, 2008; Hamington, 2004) and feminist work on the theme of embodiment and the ethics of care (Tronto, 2013). We also follow this line proposing body aesthetics and feminist and queer aesthetics (Irvin, 2016) as significant aspects of care aesthetics in our research. Thompson uses a turn to embodiment as a link to his case that care ethics also needs to recognize that the sensory ac- tions of the body have an important connection to aesthetics (Thompson, 2023, 10). Care aesthetics “seeks to reaffirm the practice of care as a preemi- nent location for ethical concerns, but then extends this to argue that it can also be a powerful source of aesthetic experience” (Thompson, 2023, 7). To better understand the full extent of contempo- rary aesthetic discourse and its impact on the study of architecture and care in terms of care aesthetics, the following current issues and concepts should be addressed: aesthetic experience, purposeful beauty (purposeful or “functional” aesthetics) and social aesthetic. (1) Aesthetic experience: one of the best- known characterizations of aesthetic experience is disinterestedness (disinterested aesthetic contem- plation), as proposed by Kant (a counterpart is the use of things guided by interests). The pragmatist philosopher John Dewey (2005) made a significant shift in focus to the quality of experience itself, as perceived by a subject when engaging with the object. The Kantian position has generated several interpretations and criticisms, including Berleant’s focus on social dimensions and aesthetic engage- ment, in which aesthetic experience is instead “per- formative” and “participatory” (Saito, 2022, 44). Different conceptions of the aesthetic experience are seen as a fundamental modus of how we react to the surrounding environment, and for a more recent exploration of the term see Nanay (2016; 2019). Ståhlberg-Aalto identified four dimensions by which the aesthetic experience can be sensed, including sensory qualities, contextual features, the social dimension and function (Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019, 15, 57). According to Thompson, “[a]n aesthetic experience is most frequently identified when a moment has a degree of sensory affect and strength of felt engagement” (Thompson, 2023, 31). The (art) production of affects is also of great importance for aesthetic experience, the so-called aesthetics of affects, in which “affects are moments of inten- sity, reaction in/on the body at the level of matter” (O’Sullivan, 2001, 126). (2) Purposeful (functional) beauty: the basic idea of the concept is that of a thing’s function being integral to its aesthetic character (the aesthetic qualities of a functional object within specific social and cultural context) (Parson & Carlson 2008; Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019; Thompson, 2023). The aesthetic is often reduced to the mere appearance of things, as perceived by the sense of sight but detached from contextual, moral, social or functional considerations (cf. Ståhlberg- Aalto, 2019, 13) – these considerations are an integral part of our concept of purposeful beauty and aesthetics as part of care aesthetics. (3) Social aesthetics has been proposed to explore the contex- tual character of aesthetic experience (cf. Berleant, 200; Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019, 68). For Thompson, care aesthetic is a form of “social aesthetics” (Thompson, 2023, 25), while Saito also explores “expressions of care in social aesthetics” (Saito, 2022, 77–119). The social dimension of aesthetics is especially relevant in architecture and is strongly related to the already mentioned everyday aesthet- ics (Saito, 2008). Within established concepts that generally support or are in line with this so-called social aesthetics are the most representative: rela- tional aesthetics (Bourriaud, 2002; cf. Saito, 2022, 52–59), the social turn in the arts (Bishop, 2012) 241 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 and dialogical (art) practices (dialogical aesthetics) (Kester, 2004). Relational aesthetics is, according to Bourriaud, an “[a]esthetic theory consisting in judging artworks on the basis of the inter-human relations which they represent, produce or prompt” (Bourriaud, 2002, 112). On the other hand, one can find a number of critiques of the so-called ethical turn in relational aesthetics and the arts (Rancière, 2009; Bishop, 2012; for further elaboration of this debate cf. Puncer, 2019; Saito, 2022, 82–83). These are scholarly arguments beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that the emphasis in care aesthetics is one of an aesthetic interdependence, of being bound within a social context. Care aesthetics is evaluative as well as descrip- tive (for the distinction among the classificatory or descriptive and honorific or evaluative category of care aesthetics, related to the division into excep- tional/everyday experience, cf. Thompson, 2023, 32–33), and in its evaluative form it is intended as a critique of the inadequacies related to care in dif- ferent contexts. Care ethics The ethics-of-care framework has been adopted for use in a wide range of disciplines, including architecture, urban studies, philosophy and the arts, as well as heritage science. Tronto noted a long line of discussions about the nature of care and its possible relationship to moral theory as a basis for the large international corpus on the ethics of care (cf. Tronto, 2013). In 1990, Tronto with her colleague Berenice Fisher offered this broad definition of care (Fisher & Tronto, 1990): “On the most general level, we suggest that caring be viewed as a species activity that includes everything that we do to maintain, continue, and repair our ‘world’ so that we can live in it as well as possible. That world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environment, all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining web” (also in Tronto, 2013, 19; Italics in the original). In the words of Puig de la Bellacasa, we need to reframe Tronto’s definition of care ethics behind that “we”: “care is everything that is done (rather than everything that ‘we’ do) to maintain, continue, and repair ‘the world’ so that all (rather than ‘we’) can live in it as well as possible” (Puig de la Bellacasa, 2017, 161) – she thus acknowledges the necessity of care in more than human relations. From this general level, some more narrow definitions of care are useful in narrower contexts, as is the case with the archi- tecture of care and architecture-oriented “careful” art (Thompson, 2023). So this broad definition of care offered by Fisher and Tronto suits a particular general account of the place and meaning of care in human life. Care needs to be further specified in a particular context, and one way of distinguishing a particular type of care is by its purpose. Caring practices can be “nested” in several ways. According to Tronto (2013), we can imagine caring practices as nested within one another, from more specific to broader purposes. Caring, as conceived by Fisher and Tronto (1990), is also a complex pro- cess (cf. Tronto, 2013, 23). They identified four steps in the processes of care: 1. caring about, 2. caring for, 3. care-giving, and 4. care-receiving. In order to think about democratic care, which is not on this level of generalization but a more particular kind of care, Tronto identified a fifth phase of care: 5. caring with. “This final phase of care requires that caring needs and the ways in which they are met need to be consistent with democratic commitments to justice, equality, and freedom for all” (Tronto, 2013, 23). Tronto also argued that care is always political as the relation between a care-giver and a care-receiver is a power relation (Tronto, 2019). Thompson adds a sixth phase in the definition of care to those proposed by Tronto, i.e. witnessing care that “needs to be in- cluded as an important aspect of contemporary care” (Thompson, 2023, 66). This approach to witnessing is embedded within an embodied spatial practice that follows a feminist lineage in emphasizing the centrality of the body alongside an investment in the way emotions circulate across difference, producing what was termed “affective witnessing” (Awan & Musmar, 2021, 165). We can also mention here the so-called “affective labour” related to feminist work about gendered forms of labour “that involve the affects in a central way – such as emotional labor, care, kin work, or maternal work” (Hardt, 2007, xi). Care aesthetics and care ethics Before confirming the connection, it is important to mention that the field of care ethics has been traditionally suspicious about aesthetics. There are accounts from the care ethics literature where the aesthetic nature of care is either denied or dispar- aged (cf. Thompson, 2023, 46, 64). Thompson explores how the history and current debates in the field of care ethics provide a point of departure for the claim that care can also be understood aestheti- cally (Thompson, 2023, 10). In his understanding, care aesthetics is part of a history of socially en- gaged art practice and scholarship, and scholarship in the fields of health and social care. One of the ambitions/aims of this article is thus to explore the ways in which an account of care ethics combined with care aesthetics can establish an overview of the latter that provides a firm enough basis for the analysis focusing on architecture and the architec- ture-oriented art practices. Building an aesthetics 242 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 of care based on her previous work on everyday aesthetics, Saito argues that aesthetic and ethical concerns are intimately connected in our everyday life (Saito, 2022). Specifically, she shows how aes- thetic experience embodies a care relationship with the world, and how the ethical relationship with others, whether humans, non-human creatures, environments, or artifacts, is guided by aesthetic sensibility and manifested through aesthetic means. The study touches on the role of care aesthetics in the overall perception of wellbeing and quality of life, which are also at the centre of care ethics: “Care ethics and aesthetic experience thus both define our mode of existence as relationality and interdependence” (Saito, 2022, 46). According to Krasny architecture is in constant need of care – “dependent on maintenance, cleaning and daily up- keep to sustain its existence” (Krasny, 2019b, 76). From its very beginning architecture is understood as creating shelter for the protection of human life (cf. Krasny, 2019b; 2022). This “interconnectedness of architecture and human life at the ontological, political and economic level” guides us towards the various issues of care (Krasny, 2019b, 76). CARE AND/IN ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHITECTURE-ORIENTED ART The concept of care has been used and presented in various contexts in the recent literature in rela- tion to architecture. Although architecture has not been considered a form of care in traditional his- tory and theory (Krasny, 2019a, 33), its position has been strengthened and brought to the attention of the public in recent literature, exhibitions and activist actions (Fitz & Krasny, 2019; Lepore et al., 2016; Utting, 2024). This exceeds the professional “standard of care”, which establishes the architects’ performance expectations regarding the required legal competence. In this context, architects are held accountable to comprehend and integrate regionally specific building codes, regulations, and construc- tion standards (Utting, 2024, 2). The cases of care in general and/or critical care in architecture in particular are presented as “alternative practices”. These approaches combine top-down and bottom- up strategies, engaging a diverse range of actors and agents. These include architects, planners, and developers, as well as municipalities, administrative bodies, various state agencies, housing companies, universities, and local community organizations. The focus of care has been set on disaster relief, water and land, public space, borderland, skills, repair 2 This project was largely based on artistic interventions in the degraded urban environment of the Nordbahnhof in Vienna and was additionally considered as one of the selected architectural (built environment) heritage interventions analysed in this ar- ticle (Fitz & Krasny, 2024). Furthermore, the Nordbahnhof area has been the subject of an extensive critical debate on urban development in Vienna (cf. Peer, 2015). and local production (Fitz & Krasny, 2019, 19–22) or, more generally, on legality, health, housing, play, environment, culture, science and education, food and work (Lepore et al., 2016). While these examples address the “traditional” architectural programmes, the focus and approach of the projects have shifted. Rather than representing a completely novel approach, these projects demonstrate a shift in perspective, exposing the inherent aim of the profes- sion and combining it with other disciplines in a way that is interdisciplinary and inclusive. In this sense, care in the built environment is not limited to traditional care environments, which are generally defined as “the physical environment in which a person in need of care is living as a resident or receiving treatment as a patient or client” (Ståhlberg- Aalto, 2019, 22). Beyond the specialization of care environments, they can be further distinguished as high-tech environments, such as hospitals or spe- cialized clinics, or low-tech environments, such as physical and psychiatric rehabilitation centres, nurs- ing homes for the elderly and patient support centres (Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019, 22). The term architectures of care encompasses a vast array of programmes, conceived, designed, and constructed with the explicit intention of providing care. These architectures engage with a multitude of themes, including ecology, labour, and economy. They often originate from or are centred upon the care of social aspects of the built environment, the common good, citizenship, active listening, self-organization, sharing, recycling, reuse, mainte- nance, solidarity, empowerment, and other related concepts. The built environment, architecture and the con- cept of care are therefore positioned in a complex re- lationship which, by demanding the transgression of historical patterns of the profession and resisting the pressures of the contemporary architecture market, can lead to “architecture as care” (Krasny, 2019a). Or, as Joan Tronto (2019, 26) has stated, this repre- sents “entirely new way of seeing the relationships among the built environment, nature and humans” that may enable caring architecture. Caring for architectural heritage In the next step the article examines the concept of care and aesthetics in architectural practice. We will use examples from architecture and urbanism, and also from architecture-orientated art (e.g. Fitz & Krasny, Care + Repair, Vienna, 2017;2 Schalk & Sustersic, Garden Service, Edinburgh, 2007, etc.) 243 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 that presents the cases which demonstrate the im- portance of care for the field of socially engaged (or participatory) arts (cf. Bishop, 2012), particularly those involving participatory processes (cf. Suster- sic, 2013; Thompson, 2023). We also pay attention to an aesthetics of care in art projects, in order to present how many arts processes demonstrate that care is realized through the activity of making and taking part in arts practices. Here we have the in- tegration of processes so that making art is also an act of care-taking (Thompson, 2023, 11). “Art that is based upon care aesthetics, thus, is process- and relationship-oriented and the aesthetic value is found in ‘co-created moments’ instead of a certain display or outcome” (Saito, 2022, 83). We follow the care aesthetics (evidently supported by relevant historical and more recent aesthetic discourses) which applies equally to arts practices and care processes. For Thompson (2023, 3), the relation he is discussing is not art about care or art in care set- tings, but the art of care. Such a care aesthetics is inspired by cases where acts of repair at least start the process of creating new network of embodied relationships (Thompson, 2023, 9; we already men- tioned the importance of “aesthetics of repair(ing)” for our investigation). Indeed, the act of repair is directly related to the recognition of the existing built environment as a value, which can be defined as heritage. The defini- tion and understanding of heritage and its manage- ment has evolved in recent decades. From an initial focus on the protection of monuments and cultural heritage areas as tangible heritage, it is now under- stood that the intangible attributes of tangible assets contribute greatly to them being considered heritage (Veldpaus & Pereira Roders, 2014). Moreover, the shift in the concept of heritage resulted in its more inclusive definitions. From the initial idea that herit- age has value for mankind, and therefore needs to be protected, the community-related values that relate to cultural diversity, the environmental and social issues have defined heritage in a more dynamic way as a constituent part of sustainable development: “As theory evolves from an understanding of heritage as something that contains value, to a perception of something that conveys value, to something that creates value, the importance of acknowledging lo- cal identity and diversity has become a main focus” (Veldpaus & Pereira Roders, 2014, 259). Advancing on the more inclusive understanding and activities in the built environment, Veldpaus and Szemző (2022) also argue that “that using ‘care’ instead of ‘protection’ as a frame for how we approach and deal with heritage can change how we conceptual- ize conservation”. Although not all built heritage is of a quality that calls for protection or conservation, it is community-related everydayness that calls on these environments to be treated as not-invaluable but still perhaps crucial to maintaining and strength- ening existing arrangements, as well as opening up potential future human and other-than-human ar- rangements for a sustainable future. While the issue of identified heritage and the call for its conserva- tion rely predominantly on material resources and specific historical narratives, they have also been conceptualized as “a process and practice of select- ing, interpreting, and presenting the past” (Veldpaus & Szemző, 2022, 195). Following the “matters of care” by María Puig de la Bellacasa (2017), Veldpaus and Szemző’s (2022) conceptual (re)framing of herit- age as a “matter-of-care” subsequently offers the re-framing of conservation practices as the ways we care about, for, or through heritage. ELEMENTS OF CARE IN ADAPTIVE REUSE: TYPES AND THEMES IN ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE REGENERATION In light of the aforementioned extended frame- work of care in architecture, this research is primar- ily concerned with the issue of heritage. In order to differentiate between various approaches to care in architecture and architecture-oriented art (spatial interventions), a selection of case studies from recent key literature addressing the topic of care in architec- ture and urbanism (Fitz & Krasny, 2019; Mueller et al., 2020; Onyszkiewicz & Sadowski, 2022; Schalk & Sustersic, 2009; Utting, 2024; Lepore et al., 2016) has been reviewed. The analysed case studies are presented in Ta- ble 1, which is divided in two parts. The first part (built heritage) presents a general description of the projects: type of built heritage intervention, and the programme before and after the intervention. The second part of the table (care) focuses on the topic of care. The objective was to recognize actors and agents (care givers) and to identify the global sustain- able development goals behind the selected projects dealing with built heritage interventions, as well as aspects of care and aspects of aesthetics as two im- portant areas within the subject under consideration. Firstly, following the method of TAMassociati (Lepore et al., 2016) we have considered the con- cerns and global ethical issues in the selected pro- jects throughout the strategic framework of United Nations Agenda 2030, which lists 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs): No poverty (SDG 1), Zero hunger (SDG 2), Good health and well-being (SDG 3), Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equal- ity (SDG 5), Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Reduced inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 244 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), Climate action (SDG 13), Life below wa- ter (SDG 14), Life on land (SDG 15), Peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16), and Partnerships for the goals (SDG 17). For each of the analysed projects we have determined the key sustainable development goals (SDGs) to which they respond. This revealed which global strategic orientations are most prevalent in projects that exemplify the concept of care in the built environment. Based on the study of the existing literature (Fitz & Krasny, 2019; Utting, 2024; Lepore et al., 2016), we formalized the prevalent aspects of care related to the steps of the concept of care (caring about and caring for), as follows: accessibility, afford- ability, arts & culture, common good, community cohesion, diversity, education & innovation, envi- ronmental responsibility, inclusiveness, liveability, playfulness, public health, public participation, resilience, safety, self-sufficiency and wellbeing. While there are numerous facets associated with the notion of care, for the purposes of this study we have chosen to focus on the selection of those that can be directly influenced by the actions of urban planning, architecture or artistic spatial interven- tions. Through a literature review, we identified the dimensions of care from the perspective of phi- losophy and a broader theory of care that should be addressed for a comprehensive examination of concepts of care aesthetics in architecture and architecture-oriented art. We explored the aesthetic dimensions of the observed built environment in terms of different approaches to the regeneration of architectural heritage. The aim is to offer an approximate typology and highlight the diversity of aesthetic issues in this context. The aesthetic is often reduced to the appearance of things, and the aesthetic features/dimensions of a care environment (such as spatial solutions, surface qualities and de- tails of the building) have been already investigated in previous empirical research (cf. Ståhlberg-Aalto, 2019). However, our approach is based on the theo- retical approach to multidimensional experience of the built environment, including functional, contex- tual and social dimensions. The concept of aesthet- ics is both multi-layered and ambiguous. Therefore, in order to better understand the experience of care aesthetics in relation to the built environment, the first task is to explore the different ways in which aesthetics (the aesthetic) can be defined in this con- text. The proposed typology of aesthetic dimensions as aspects of care for the built environment with regard to heritage care, which identifies a more specific care aesthetics (nine subcategories with the corresponding types of practices), does not claim to be exhaustive. Aspects of (care) aesthetics include the fol- lowing: purposeful aesthetics (a focus on the aesthetic properties of the utilitarian/functional objects that forms the so-called purpose-based beauty in specific social contexts); relational aesthetics (a focus on relational experience and social interactions in the arts, and the aesthet- ics of the socially engaged art: community art, new public art, pedagogical art projects, applied theatre, art interventions in space, artistic ser- vices, new performative art practices, etc.); social aesthetics (a focus on the social interactions and aesthetic experiences included in diverse social practices: temporary communities, participation, collaboration, experience of collective interac- tion, aesthetic conviviality – connections, meet- ings, encounters within various forms, such as workshops (for children), public discussions, walks, community dances, guided tours, shared meals, community cooking, public readings, film screenings, tea parties, garden parties, festivals, playing of board games, urban group workouts, etc.); environmental aesthetics (including non- art objects as well as the large environments and environments that blend the natural and human, such as gardens and sites of environmental art, thoroughly urban environments, and the spaces, places, and activities of everyday life); more-than- human aesthetics, the experience of human (and more-than-human) interdependence); everyday aesthetics (everyday culture, micro-aesthetic experiences in everyday life: food aesthetics, nursing practices, everyday creativity); aesthetics of repair(ing) (visible and invisible repairing in architecture, art and everyday life; maintenance art); body aesthetics (body practices and bodywork (executed through touch – tactile aesthetics), also so-called somaesthetic practices: a vast variety of pragmatic methods designed to improve our experience and use of our bodies: various diets, forms of grooming and decoration (including body painting, piercing, and scarification, as well as more familiar modes of cosmetics, jewellery, and clothing fashions), dance, yoga, hatha yoga, tai chi, massage, aerobics, bodybuilding, calisthen- ics, martial and erotic arts, and modern psycho- somatic disciplines like the Alexander technique and Feldenkrais method; an embodied sense of connection: e.g. urban group workouts); feminist and queer aesthetics (shared identity, alternative modes of sociality, social activism: parades, dem- onstrations, public space interventions); aesthet- ics of affects (aesthetics of affective experience: emotional and affective labour (also overlapping with “immaterial” labour), affective witnessing; affective laboratories/experiments in curatorial/art practices, production of affects in the arts). 245 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Table 1: Aspects of care and aspects of aesthetics in built environment heritage interventions (Fitz & Krasny, 2019; Mueller et al., 2020; Onyszkiewicz & Sadowski, 2022; Schalk & Sustersic, 2009; Utting, 2024; Lepore et al., 2016). Table 1: Aspects of care and aspects of aesthetics in built environment heritage interventions (Fitz & Krasny, 2019; Mueller et al., 2020; Onyszkiewicz & Sadowski, 2022; Schalk & Sustersic, 2009; Utti g, 2024; L pore et al., 2016). 246 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 Figure 1: Frequency of appearance of aspects of care and aspects of aesthetics in selected projects (the visualization was created with the aid of the AI-based tool ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI). 247 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 DISCUSSION Table 1 shows that the group of care givers com- prises a heterogeneous set of actors & agents, with noteworthy contributions from the creative professions of architects, urban planners and artists, who play a pivotal role in each project. Furthermore, the analysis of the strategic orien- tations reveals that SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities) is a pervasive element across all pro- jects, thereby demonstrating a consistent commitment to urban resilience and sustainability. This finding in- dicates that creating sustainable urban environments is a central objective within the strategic goals of the majority of projects. It is noteworthy, however, that SDG 13 (Climate action) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals) are also prominent strategic orienta- tions. SDG 17 is present in eight of the ten projects, thereby underscoring the pivotal role of partnerships in propelling these projects forward. Meanwhile SDG 13 is present in six of the ten, reflecting the growing significance of confronting climate-related chal- lenges. The analysis indicates the absence of several key SDGs, including SDG 1 (No poverty), SDG 7 (Af- fordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth) and SDG 14 (Life below water). This may be indicative of specific thematic focuses or gaps in the scope of these projects. It also indicates a potential avenue for future projects to enhance their engagement with underrepresented SDGs, particu- larly in light of the increasing interconnectedness of global challenges. In order to identify the dominant elements of the aesthetics of care, it is essential to analyse the fre- quency of occurrence of aspects of care in aspects of aesthetics (Figure 1). The aspects of care most frequently represented in the projects analysed are the common good, community cohesion, liveability and wellbeing. These elements are present in nine of the ten projects. These aspects point to the collective focus on creating spaces that foster social inclusion, quality of life, and shared benefits for all stakehold- ers. Other aspects that appear with some regularity in more than half of the projects are accessibility, playfulness, public participation, arts and culture, education and innovation, and environmental re- sponsibility. However, other aspects emerge as more specifically pertinent to certain projects, reflecting tailored responses to particular local or contextual challenges. In examining the aspects of aesthetics, it becomes evident that purposeful aesthetics and social aesthet- ics are pervasive across all projects, reinforcing a commitment to meaningful design that not only serves functional purposes but also fosters social connec- tion. Additionally, environmental aesthetics emerge with notable frequency, manifesting in nine projects, which reflects the growing awareness of integrating natural elements into built environments. The aesthet- ics of repair(ing) is also discernible in over half of the projects, suggesting that regenerative approaches to existing structures are gaining importance. The remaining aspects, including relational aesthetics, everyday aesthetics, body aesthetics and feminist and queer aesthetics are less common but are associated with the distinctive character of specific projects. They may therefore offer a more nuanced exploration of the relationship between users and spaces. We thus might agree with Thompson (2023, 2) that a focus on aesthet- ics teaches us about micro-relations that are important for the quality of our lives, but also powerful means for critical evaluation of the quality of care. CONCLUSION The objective of this paper was to define the con- cepts of care aesthetics and care ethics and to relate them to the wider scope of understanding of (built en- vironment) heritage interventions within the framework of interdisciplinary heritage science. Additionally, the objective was to identify and present the aspects of care and aesthetics in built heritage interventions within the context of global strategic orientations, while also trac- ing their local specificities. Furthermore, the objective was to ascertain the frequency with which the various elements of care and aesthetics were observed in the selected case studies. It can be concluded that certain aspects of care and aesthetics are consistent across projects, while others are more context-specific. It can be observed that there is a broad acceptance of socially and environmentally pertinent issues in heritage interventions and regenera- tions, as evidenced by both care-related and aesthetic aspects. The aspects of care and aesthetics that are less prevalent and more specific are those that cater pre- dominantly to minor target groups and interests. Nev- ertheless, they offer a higher diversity and showcase better inclusiveness. This suggests that future projects could benefit from a more comprehensive integration of these elements to further enhance the holistic and regenerative nature of the built environment. Concur- rently, the objective was to devise a methodology that could be employed by planners, architects, and all the aforementioned stakeholders (actors and agents) to identify and assess interventions in the built environ- ment in terms of care and aesthetics. This methodology can then be used in the planning of socially oriented projects that are inclusive and socially oriented. 248 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 OHRANJANJE PRETEKLOSTI ZA PRIHODNOST: ARHITEKTURA Z ZAPUŠČINO SKRBI IN ESTETIKE Mojca PUNCER Univerza v Mariboru, Pedagoška fakulteta, Oddelek za likovno umetnost, Koroška cesta 160, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija e-mail: mojca.puncer@um.si Vesna ŽEGARAC LESKOVAR Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo, prometno inženirstvo in arhitekturo, Oddelek za arhitekturo Smetanova ulica 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija e-mail: vesna.zegarac@um.si Peter ŠENK Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo, prometno inženirstvo in arhitekturo, Oddelek za arhitekturo Smetanova ulica 17, 2000 Maribor, Slovenija e-mail: peter.senk@um.si POVZETEK Namen članka je s pregledom referenčne literature identificirati razsežnosti skrbi z vidika dediščinske znano- sti kot izrazito interdisciplinarnega področja. V tem primeru to vključuje filozofijo (filozofska estetika, politična filozofija in etika), arhitekturno teorijo in širšo teorijo skrbi, ki jih je potrebno zajeti v raziskavo za celovito obravnavo konceptov skrbi v arhitekturi in arhitekturno usmerjeni umetnosti (estetika skrbi, feministična etika skrbi). Izhodiščno vprašanje je, kako lahko koncept skrbi prispeva k preoblikovanju našega dojemanja praks prilagojene ponovne rabe grajene/arhitekturne dediščine. Pri tem uporaba koncepta »skrbi« namesto koncepta »varstva« kot okvira prinaša spremembe v razumevanje ohranjanja tovrstne dediščine kot prakse skrbi. V skladu s tem je cilj identificirati in ovrednotiti inovativne prakse skrbi pri prilagojeni ponovni rabi arhitekturne dedišči- ne v Evropi, s poudarkom na družbenih inovacijah, angažiranosti in opolnomočenju skupnosti, kooperativnem upravljanju, vključevanju umetnosti in tehnologije ter estetskih razsežnostih teh procesov. Namesto prizadevanja za popolnoma nov pristop avtorje zanimajo projekti/primeri, ki kažejo na premik v perspektivi in arhitekturno stroko povezujejo z drugimi disciplinami na interdisciplinaren in vključujoč način. Premik v konceptu (ne le) arhitekturne dediščine vključuje vrednote, ki temeljijo na skupnosti in se nanašajo na kulturno raznolikost, okolje in družbena vprašanja ter bolj dinamično opredeljujejo dediščino kot sestavni del trajnostnega razvoja. Cilji članka so identificirati vidike skrbi in estetike pri analizi izbranih posegov v arhitekturno dediščino (grajeno okolje), določiti pogostost pojavljanja različnih vidikov in ugotoviti, ali obstaja skladnost med temi vidiki in globalnimi strateškimi usmeritvami. Poleg tega članek razvija novo metodologijo, ki bi jo lahko načrtovalci, arhitekti in različni deležniki (akterji in agenti) uporabili za prepoznavanje in vrednotenje posegov v grajeno okolje z vidika skrbi in estetike. Ključne besede: dediščinska znanost, arhitektura, urbanistično oblikovanje, prilagojena ponovna raba, skrb, (filozofska) estetika, estetika skrbi, etika skrbi, sodobna umetniška praksa 249 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Awan, Nishat & Aya Musmark (2021): Affective Witnessing: [Trans]posing the Western/Muslim Di- vide to Document Refugee Spaces. In: Jobst, Marko & Hélène Frichot (eds.): Architectural Affects after Deleuze and Guattari. London – New York, Routledge, 163–174. Berleant, Arnold (1992): The Aesthetics of Envi- ronment. Philadelphia, Temple University Press. Berleant, Arnold (2005): Ideas for a Social Aes- thetic. In: Light, Andrew & Jonathan M. Smith (eds.): The Aesthetics of Everyday Life. New York, Columbia University Press, 23–38. Bishop, Claire (2012): Artificial Hells: Participa- tory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London – New York, Verso. Bourriaud, Nicholas (2002): Relational Aesthetics. Dijon, Les Presses du Reél. Brady, Emily & Jonathan Prior (2020): Environ- mental Aesthetics: A Synthetic Review. People and Nature, 2, 2, 254–266. Carlson, Allen (2000): Aesthetics of the Environ- ment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architec- ture. London, Routledge. Carlson, Allen (2019): Environmental Aesthetics. In: Zalta, Edward (ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy. Stanford, Stanford University. de Certeau, Michel (1984): The Practice of Every- day Life. Berkely, University of California Press. Dewey, John (2005 [1934]): Art as Experience. London, Penguin. Fischer, Berit (2023): A Laboratory of Care: Active Micropolitics, Joyfulness, and Affectivity. In: Krasny, Elke & Lara Perry (eds.): Curating with Care. Abing- don, Routledge, 94–106. Fisher, Berenice & Joan Tronto (1990): Toward a Feminist Theory of Caring. In: Emily K. Abel & Marga- ret K. Nelson (eds.): Circles of Care: Work and Identity in Women’s Lives. Albany, SUNY Press, 36–54. Fitz, Angelika & Elke Krasny (eds.) (2019): Critical Care: Architecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Vienna – Cambridge – London, Architekturzentrum Wien – The MIT Press. Fitz, Angelika & Elke Krasny (2024): Research Interview (Architekturzentrum Wien, 21. 8. 2024). Dictaphone recording held by the author Mojca Puncer. Hamington, Maurice (2004): Embodied Care: Jane Addams, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Feminist Ethics. Chicago, University of Illinois Press. Hardt, Michael (2007): What Affects are Good for. In: Ticineto Clough, Patricia & Jean Halley (eds.): The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham – Lon- don, Duke University Press, ix–1. Irvin, Sherri (ed.) (2016): Body Aesthetics. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Kester, Grant (2004): Conversation Pieces: Com- munity and Communication in Modern Art. Berkely, University of California Press. Knabb, Ken (2006) (ed.): Situationist International Anthology. Berkely, Bureau of Public Secrets. Krasny, Elke (2019a): Architecture and Care. In: Fitz, Angelika & Elke Krasny (eds.): Critical Care: Ar- chitecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Vienna – Cambridge – London, Architekturzentrum Wien – The MIT Press, 33–41. Krasny, Elke (2019b): Care. AA Files, 76, 38–39. Krasny, Elke (2022): Scales of Concern: Feminist Spatial Practices. In: Beitin, Andreas, Koch, Katha- rina & Uta Ruhkmp (eds.): Empowerment. Art and Feminism. Wolfsburg, Kunstmuseum Wolfsburg, 184–186. Krasny, Elke (2023): Living with an Infected Planet: COVID-19, Feminism, and the Global Fron- tier of Care. Biefeld, Transcript Verlag. Krasny, Elke & Lara Perry (2023): Introduction. In: Krasny, Elke & Lara Perry (eds.): Curating with Care. Abingdon, Routledge, 1–10. Kunst, Bojana (2021): Življenje umetnosti: prečne črtne skrbi [The Life of Art: Transversal Lines of Care]. Ljubljana, Maska. Lefebvre, Henri (1991): Critique of Everyday Life. Volume 1: Introduction. London – New York, Verso. Lepore, Massimo, Pantaleo, Raul & Simone Sfriso (eds.) (2016): Taking Care: Designing for the Common Good. Padova, BeccoGiallo. Mandoki, Katya (2007): Everyday Aesthetics: Prosaic, the Play of Culture and Social Identities. Aldershot – Burlington, Ashgate. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (2008 [1962]): Phe- nomenology of Perception. London, Routledge. Mueller, Natalie, David Rojas-Rueda, Haneen Khreis, Marta Cirach, David Andrés, Joan Ballester, Xavier Bartoll, Carolyn Daher, Anna Deluca, Cynthia Echave, Carles Milà, Sandra Márquez, Joan Palou, Katherine Pérez, Cathryn Tonne, Mark Stevenson, Salvador Rueda & Mark Nieuwenhuijsen (2020): Changing the Urban Design of Cities for Health: The Superblock Model. Environment International, 134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105132 (last access: 2024-09-15). Nanay, Bence (2016): Aesthetics as Philosophy of Perception. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Nanay, Bence (2019): Aesthetics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Onyszkiewicz, Jakub & Kajetan Sadowski (2022): Proposals for the Revitalization of Prefab- ricated Building Facades in terms of the Principles of Sustainable Development and Social Participa- tion.  Journal of Building Engineering,  46. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103713 (last access: 2024-09-15). 250 ANNALES · Ser. hist. sociol. · 35 · 2025 · 3 Mojca PUNCER et al.: PRESERVING THE PAST FOR THE FUTURE: ARCHITECTURE WITH THE LEGACY OF CARE AND AESTHETICS, 237–250 O’Sullivan, Simon (2001): The Aesthetics of Af- fect. Thinking Art Beyond Representation. Angelaki, 6, 3, 125–135. Parson, Glenn & Allen Carlson (2008): Func- tional Beauty. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Peer, Christian (2015): The Shape of Knowledge Re- distribution within Planning Cultures. The Question of Resistance in the Case of a Large-scale Urban Develop- ment Project in Vienna. http://dx.medra.org/10.17418/ planext.2015.1vol.01 (last access: 2024-09-15). Puig de la Bellacasa, Maria (2017): Matters of Care: Speculative Ethics in More than Human Worlds. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Puncer, Mojca (2019): Participatory Art, Philoso- phy and Criticism. Filozofski Vestnik, 40, 3, 241–260. Rancière, Jacques (2009): Aesthetics and its Discontent. Cambridge – Malden, Polity Press. Saito, Yuriko (2008): Everyday Aesthetics. Ox- ford, Oxford University Press. Saito, Yuriko (2022): Aesthetics of Care: Practice in Everyday Life. London, Bloomsbury Academic. Schalk, Maike & Apolonija Sustersic (2009): Taking Care of Public Space. Architectural Research Quarterly, 13, 2, 141–49. Shusterman, Richard (2008): Somaesthetics and Care of the Self: The Case of Foucault. In: Shuster- man, Richard (ed.): Body Consciousness: A Philoso- phy of Mindfulness and Somaesthetics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 15–48. Ståhlberg-Aalto, Freja (2019): The Aesthetics and Architecture of Care Environments: A Q Methodo- logical Study of Ten Care Environments in Japan and the European Countries of Finland, Sweden, The UK, France and Austria. Doctoral Dissertations. Aalto, School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Department of Architecture, Aalto University, Aalto ARTS Books. Sustersic, Apolonija (2013): Hustadt, Inshallah: Learning from a Participatory Art Project in a Trans- local Neighbourhood. Doctoral Thesis (artistic). Malmö, Faculty of Fine and Performing Arts, Malmö Art Academy, Lund University. Thompson, James (2023): Care Aesthetics: For Artful Care and Careful Art. London – New York, Routledge. Tronto, Joan, C. (2013): Caring Democracy: Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York, NYU Press. Tronto, Joan, C. (2019): Caring Architecture. In: Fritz, Angelika & Elke Krasny (eds.): Critical Care: Architecture and Urbanism for a Broken Planet. Vienna – Cambridge – London, Architekturzentrum Wien – The MIT Press, 26–32. Utting, Brittany (ed.) (2024): Architectures of Care: From the Intimate to the Common. London – New York, Routledge. Veldpaus, Loes & Ana Pereira Roders (2014): Learning from a Legacy: Venice to Valletta. Change Over Time, 4, 2, 244–263. Veldpaus, Loes & Hanna Szemző (2022): Herit- age as a Matter of Care, and Conservation as Caring for the Matter. In: Gabauer, Angelika, Knierbein, Sabine, Cohen, Nir, Lebuhn, Henrik, Trogal, Kim, Viderman, Tihomir & Tigran Haas (eds.): Care and the City: Encounters with Urban Studies. New York – London, Routledge, 194–203. Woodhead, Charlotte (2023): Caring for Cultural Heritage. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.