Search

The paper discusses the context of the two editions (1967 and 1982 respectively) of Drafting Modernism [ Modernizmo metmenys], a monograph by Lionginas Šepetys. It is argued that the five reviews of the 1967 edition and the two reviews of the 1982 edition that appeared in news media and cultural press of the time, are partially indicative of the levels of knowledge on modernist art the readers of the book had during the different times. An overview of the publications on modernist art gives an impression that, in order to justify a comprehensive presentation of the theoretical and methodological approaches in modern art, publishers and news media had to find ideological pretexts and make it look like they were following the guidelines of the soviet cultural policy. Hence, instead of being the actual means of implementing the ideological cultural policy, these cases were rather a result of the specific circumstances and the particular relations between people and nations. At that time, Drafting Modernism was the single most prominent Lithuanian publication dedicated to modern art, and the totality of its critical reviews forms a picture of the informational field of the time, allowing us to see what information was available to the expert reviewers that used to be commissioned by the cultural press. In order to recognise the significance of the publication within the information field of the time, the paper analyses the texts via the methods of knowledge sociology and critical discourse analysis. Only a small part of the soviet art theorists had access to the specialised information—these were usually the researchers and acknowledged dissertation authors trusted by the regime who were permitted access to the Western libraries or at least the special collections in the Moscow libraries. Lionginas Šepetys was one of those few researchers. It would be more accurate to say that many of those who, in the conditions of freely available information, might have been called experts, or whom soviet publishers and media regarded as experts, were what the knowledge sociologist Alfred Schütz called ‘well-informed citizens’. They had access to the special collections in the libraries of Moscow and Vilnius, and were able to summarise the opinions of both local and foreign experts. Meanwhile the authors who favoured the soviet regime used to create socialist narratives about the well-analysed artworks. Thus a large number of those wanting to become well informed citizens had to rely on the popular soviet literature which was too sparse for the readers to engage in an informed polemic that involved different points of view. In addition to that, an author did not have to be an expert—in principle, a work on popular science could have been published by a well-informed citizen who was capable of interpreting the research of experts, and yet the publications often did not list their information sources. This gives an impression that, from the standpoint of the publishers, this kind of literature was aimed not at a citizen who wants to be well-informed, but rather at the ‘man on the street’ who had no interest in the cultural principles and processes. In 1967, there were no experts capable of debating Šepetys as equals. Lacking in specialised knowledge and unable to rise to the level of experts, the local well-informed citizens were reviewing the monograph within the bounds of their limited knowledge based on the soviet art history and their enquiries into the notion of modernity according to the Lithuanian art theory. Meanwhile, the 1982 edition no longer holds its status as an indisputable source of expert information—with the advent of the alternative expert narratives, the new edition now featured source references, which was a telling sign of the shifting relations between the actors in the information field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Iconomachy, which has been fragmentarily addressed in Lithuanian scholarship, is usually linked to the Byzantine context. However, iconomachy as a fight over images is a latent phenomenon that has developed new forms of expression. The aim of this article is to outline a model of iconomachy that works in contemporary Lithuania through the analysis of two cases that have attained most attention since 1990: the Green Bridge Sculptures in Vilnius (1952) and Embankment Arch by Vladas Urbanavičius (2009). The analysis of the public discourse regarding these two cases has revealed that there are three fundamental contradictions between iconoclasts and iconodules in Lithuania: aesthetical value versus ideological value, relationship with the Other versus self-reflection, aesthetically and historically polysemous public space versus aesthetically and historically monosemous public space. The two cases are interconnected because of the ways used by both iconoclasts and iconodules: changing the titles of art objects on a verbal level, fighting not only against or for the sculptures but also against the opponents, attempting to politicize the images and use them as instruments of power. The research has helped to define a model of iconomachy in contemporary Lithuania: iconoclasts are to start the fight mainly on a verbal level. Iconodules join in when media or government has engaged in the dispute. Iconomachy is caused by new visual irritants or visual irritants that have developed a new meaning, stimulated by contradictory political, ethical and aesthetical values and finally ended with reconciliation with the fact that the image is eliminated from the public discourse or that it continues to exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including art criticism influenced by critical theories of feminism, post-colonialism, and discourse analysis.