Search

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama socrealizmo indoktrinacija pokario lietuvių dailėje ir dailės kritikoje. Siekiama atskleisti manipuliacines strategijas, kurias taikė kultūros lauko veikėjai: viena vertus, valstybės kultūros politiką vykdantys socrealizmo indoktrinuotojai, kita vertus – dailininkai bei dailės kritikai, siekę apsaugoti kūrybą nuo ideologinio angažuotumo kraštutinumų. Pastarieji netruko perprasti socrealizmo indoktrinuotojų manipuliacines strategijas ir, formaliai neprieštaraudami doktrinai, kompromiso būdu stengėsi neatsisakyti estetinio vertingumo kriterijaus, saugoti dailės meninį lygį bei žanrinę įvairovę. Article analyses the socrealistic indoctrination of the Lithuanian art and art criticism in the postwar period. It attempts to reveal the strategies of manipulation which were used by the players of cultural field: the socrealistic doctrinaires implementing the state cultural policy from one side, and the artists and art critics, which attempted to safeguard their creative activity from the ideological excesses, from the other. The latter soon recognized the manipulative strategies of the doctrinaires and, though formally adapting to the doctrine, through the use of compromise strived to retain the criteria of aesthetic value, maintain the level of the art, and its variety of genres.

Straipsnis skirtas svarbiai tarpukario Lietuvos estetinės minties temai – dailės proceso ir ideologijos ryšiui. Nagrinėjama marksistine meno klasinės prigimties teorija besivadovavusių meno kritikų meno socialinio determinuotumo samprata, siekiama atskleisti jos, kaip dailės kritikos metodologinio atspirties taško, vaidmenį. Išryškinami realizmo / modernizmo priešstatos padariniai vertinant lietuvių dailės procesą ir raidos kryptį. The topic of the article is the interconnection between processes of the fine arts and the ideologies. This issue was of great importance to the aesthetic thought of the interwar Lithuania. The author analyses the views on the social determination of arts that have been declared by art critics, who represented the political left, and derived their outlooks from the Marxian theory of a class-based nature of the arts. The article is an attempt to reveal the role, which the art criticism, based on the methodological approach of social determination, played in the process of valuation of the Lithuanian fine arts. The author concludes that while the social criticism called for the engagement of the fine arts, this requirement supposed contraposition of realism to modernism. Keeping in mind the context of the young generation of Lithuanian artists – representatives of lyrical expressionism – that succeeded in their aspirations to create national art, this contraposition is a clear evidence of methodological weakness of leftist art criticism.

XX a. 9 deš. pradžioje Lietuvos fotografijos lauke išryškėjo dvi „nesusikalbančios“ frakcijos. Sovietų Sąjungoje ir už jos ribų išgarsėjusių fotomeno klasikų karta suvokė fotografiją kaip menišką realybės interpretaciją ir nepriėmė jaunosios kartos požiūrio į fotografiją kaip į procesą, kurį galima paversti performansu, reflektuoti, ardyti, perkonstruoti. Tiriant jų kūrybos recepciją, straipsnyje aiškinamasi, kaip menininkų ir menotyrininkų dėmesys ne tik padėjo įsitvirtinti fotomeno lauko atmestiems fotografams, bet ir integravo fotografiją į šiuolaikinio meno lauką bei tarptautinį kontekstą. At the beginning of the 1980s, two factions misunderstanding each other emerged in the field of Lithuanian art photography. The generation of photo artists, who had become famous in the Soviet Union and abroad, conceived photography as an artistic interpretation of reality and did not accept the young generation’s idea of photography as a process that may be turned into a performance, become reflexive, disrupted or reconstructed. The paper investigates the reception of works by Alfonsas Budvytis, Gintaras Zinkevičius, Alvydas Lukys, Gintautas Trimakas, Remigijus Treigys, Saulius Paukštys, Vidmantas Ilčiukas and Snieguolė Michelkevičiūtė trying to answer the following question: how has the attention of Lithuanian and foreign artists and art historians helped the young photographers to strengthen their position and to become integrated into the field of contemporary art and the international context? The analysis of documentation of group exhibitions that showcased the aforementioned photographers in 1987–1994 reveals that the discourse of recognition differed remarkably in Lithuania and abroad. In Lithuania, photographers still had to overcome the ideologically imposed Soviet view that photography was a document of reality. Thus, photographers attempted to emphasise the specific characteristics of the photographic medium, the ways it distanced the image from reality and the artificiality of art photography. The young generation of art historians to whom photography’s attachment to reality was no longer a problem read this formal language learning from their experience of modernist art. Meanwhile, foreign curators were interested in the manifestations of creative freedom under the conditions of political repressions and recognised them in the works of some young Lithuanian photographers. Critics who wrote about their exhibitions saw formal experimentation as a phenomenon of the past, thus they were more impressed with impersonal evidence of historical reality without apparent means of artistic expression. The work of Vytautas V. Stanionis who appropriated his father’s photos for Soviet passports seemed to conform to the method invented by Bernd and Hilla Becher, which was widespread by then as the dominating principle in photography. Thus, even though the work by Stanionis was older in terms of the time the passport photographs were taken and he did not understand the implications of his own action, it looked more up-to-date than the experiments of young photographers in the West. Yet the success of young photographers remained unnoticed in the field of art photography in Lithuania, which was still upholding the reportage method. Thus, Lithuanian photography "caught up" with the processes in the West, although it did not affect the institutionalised tradition of art photography at home.

The work's object - the Lithuanian art critics discourse community. The subject is provoked by present-days discussions about the crisis of art criticism and trying to discuss the phenomenon of art criticism in social context. The aim of analysis is to name conventions and practices of discourse and to discuss power relations in the Lithuanian art scene. The analysis is done in three aspects. First, by the institutional aspect, the margins of art critics trajectories are defined. Second, by the thematic aspect, the subjects, which are conditioned by hierarchy of the objects of the field of reflection, are defined. Third, by the mental aspect, the effect of art criticism field margins is defined for the art critics texts.