Abstract
ushbu maqolada tarixiy me’moriy meros tarkibidagi tasviriy san’at elementlarining — ornament, naqqoshlik, ganch va yog‘och o‘ymakorligi, devoriy tasvir, koshinkor bezak, epigrafika, haykaltaroshlik, rang-kompozitsiya va ramziy ikonografiyaning — identitet yaratishdagi roli tizimli ravishda tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqotning maqsadi tarixiy me’moriy obyektlarda badiiy qatlamning faqat estetik bezak emas, balki makonning ma’noviy kodi, kollektiv xotira tashuvchisi, hududiy mansublik belgisi va ijtimoiy identifikatsiya mexanizmi ekanini ilmiy asoslashdan iborat. Maqolada identitetning individual, guruhiy, mahalliy, milliy va sivilizatsion darajalari ajratilib, tasviriy san’at elementlari ushbu darajalarning shakllanishida qanday ishlashi ko‘rsatib beriladi. Tadqiqot metodologiyasi integrativ xarakterga ega bo‘lib, normativ-huquqiy hujjatlar, UNESCO va ICOMOS konseptual hujjatlari, Faro konvensiyasi, zamonaviy heritage studies adabiyoti, arxitektura nazariyasi hamda urban xotira bo‘yicha ilmiy tadqiqotlar qiyosiy va hermenevtik tahlil qilindi. Natijada tasviriy san’at elementlari tarixiy me’moriy merosning semantik o‘qiluvchanligini kuchaytirishi, joyga tegishlilik hissini mustahkamlashi, madaniy uzluksizlikni ko‘rinadigan shaklga keltirishi, turistik va ta’limiy kommunikatsiyani boyitishi, shu bilan birga, noto‘g‘ri talqin yoki yuzaki stilizatsiya sharoitida identitetni soddalashtirish va kommodifikatsiya qilish xavfini ham yuzaga keltirishi aniqlashtirildi. Maqolada identitet yaratishning ko‘p qatlamli modeli taklif etilib, unda tarixiy makonning moddiy shakli, badiiy belgilar tizimi, foydalanuvchi talqini, institutsional himoya va zamonaviy qayta ishlatish amaliyotlari o‘rtasidagi bog‘liqlik ochib beriladi. Tadqiqot xulosalariga ko‘ra, tarixiy me’moriy merosni asrash va rivojlantirish siyosatida tasviriy san’atni “qo‘shimcha dekor” sifatida emas, balki merosning identitet ishlab chiqaruvchi yadro komponenti sifatida baholash zarur.References
1. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Qonuni. Madaniy meros obyektlarini muhofaza qilish va ulardan foydalanish to‘g‘risida. 30.08.2001, №269-II.
2. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. Paris: UNESCO General Conference, 2011.
3. Council of Europe. Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention). Faro, 2005.
4. ICOMOS. Cultural Heritage, the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the New Urban Agenda. Paris: ICOMOS, 2016.
5. Bo L., et al. The Value of Current Sense of Place in Architectural Heritage. Buildings. 2025;15(6):903.
6. Tweed C., Sutherland M. Built cultural heritage and sustainable urban development. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;83(1):62–69.
7. Architecture in National Identities: A Critical Review. National Identities. 2020.
8. Liang W., et al. The development of the concept of architectural heritage over time. Heritage Science. 2023;11:103.
9. Li N., et al. Investigating the Visual Behavior Characteristics of Rural Architectural Heritage and Its Influencing Elements. Buildings. 2022;12(7):1058.
10. Zhang X., et al. Identifying modes of managing urban heritage. City, Culture and Society. 2024;36:100590.
11. Zhang X., et al. Digital Protection and Utilization of Architectural Heritage in the Metaverse Based on Knowledge Graphs. Buildings. 2022;12(10):1604.
12. López-Chao V., et al. Aesthetical Appeal and Dissemination of Architectural Heritage on Social Networks. Buildings. 2020;10(12):225.
13. Quintana D.C., et al. Architectural and cultural heritage as a driver of social change in rural areas. Tourism Management Perspectives. 2022;43:100997.
14. ICOMOS. Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites. Québec, 2008.
15. UNESCO. Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO, 2003/updated resource page.
16. UNESCO. The historic urban landscape approach explained. Paris: UNESCO, 2013.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Bahodirjon O'lmasovich Qochqorov (Author)
