The declaration of 2026 as the “Year of Urban Planning and Architecture” in Azerbaijan is an important political and ideological message indicating the priorities of the country's cultural strategy. For Azerbaijan, a country with historical roots, a multi-layered culture, and geographical diversity, architecture is one of the main platforms where national identity is formed. In this regard, it is no secret that the state's special attention to this field is, in fact, aimed at preserving national memory in a globalizing world.
Azerbaijan's architectural landscape has historically been shaped under the influence of various civilizations. The synthesis of Eastern and Western architectural traditions, religious tolerance, and a multicultural environment are clearly evident in this field. The capital, Baku, is the most striking example of this diversity. It is one of the rare cities where Renaissance, Baroque, and Neoclassical styles, alongside modern architectural examples, have developed in parallel. This diversity demonstrates Azerbaijan's cultural richness and its unique position in the region.
However, in the modern era, the standardization trend brought about by globalization poses a serious threat to national architectural identities. Rapid modernization in the urban environment, the dominance of new constructions, and a tendency towards uniformity in visual aesthetics lead to the marginalization of historical heritage. This process is not limited to physical changes but also causes erosion in society's attitude towards historical memory and cultural values.
Today, the graffiti drawn on the walls of the Nizami Cinema Center could become the fate of another historical monument tomorrow. If such incidents are approached with indifference, what is lost is not merely the aesthetic appearance of the building, but rather the memory, identity, and history of an entire nation.
Culture is not formed by chance, and its preservation is the responsibility not only of the state but of every citizen. The attitude towards historical monuments is an indicator of society's attitude towards its past, values, and future. In this regard, it is necessary not to downplay the issue as “mischief” but to accept it as a serious social problem and take both legal and educational steps to prevent it.
It must not be forgotten that cultural heritage is not something inherited by us, but a trust passed on from us to future generations. Protecting this trust is not a choice, but a duty. Otherwise, the graffiti drawn on the walls today will become traces erased from our history tomorrow.
In this context, the drawing of graffiti on the building of the Nizami Cinema Center should be regarded as an act of vandalism and a broader cultural problem. Constructed in 1934, this building holds a special place in Baku's architectural history and is one of the most characteristic examples of Soviet-era Neoclassical style. The symmetry, monumental columns, and decorative elements observed on its facade create aesthetic pleasure and demonstrate our historical richness. Such an intervention on an architectural monument should, in fact, be considered a blow aimed at national heritage and collective memory.
Another important aspect of the issue concerns the causes of such incidents. Is this merely the irresponsible behavior of a few young people? No, the root of the problem is deeper. The core of this problem is a lack of patriotism, a failure to understand one's history.
Recently, the film “Nargin: Mysterious to the End” was screened at the Nizami Cinema Center. The film tells the story of Turkish prisoners held by Tsarist Russia on Nargin Island in Baku between 1915 and 1917, and the life of Azerbaijani Sona Khanum Hajiyeva, who showed dedication in their liberation. The Nizami Cinema Center has, until now, also become a carrier of cultural and historical memory for people who watch such films there. But the building that protects our history is under attack today.
Providing mild explanations such as “mischief” or “youthful behavior” in response to such incidents means downplaying the essence of the problem. Every intervention against cultural heritage must be seriously evaluated from both a legal and public perspective. Because this heritage is a national treasure belonging not to the present generation, but to future generations.
