Architektų modernistų profesinis savivaizdis sovietmečio Lietuvoje ir jo nūdienis vertinimas.

The article explores the self-image of modernist architects during the Soviet period, viewing it as an intrinsic self-referential system within the professional community. It aims to illuminate the self-image of the earliest post-war generation of professional architects, who graduated in architecture in Lithuania between 1950 and 1969 (referred to as "the eldest"), and to analyze how subsequent professional generations either perpetuated or rejected this self-image. The study draws upon the findings of sociological research, which involved semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 prominent Lithuanian architects. Data analysis was conducted using qualitative thematic analysis methods. From a contemporary standpoint, members of the earliest generation of professional Soviet architects selectively construct an idealized self-image of the Soviet modernist architect. They depict this archetype as a multifaceted artist and an ambitious individual creator, characterized by a sense of moral obligation and dedication to humanity, while also being valued by the state and society. This generation tends to regard the Soviet era as a period of "professional normalcy," shaped by modernist ideology, the scope of professional opportunities within the Soviet totalitarian regime, and positive public reception. However, the challenges of adapting to the post-Soviet transformation have led them to perceive this change negatively, viewing it as the demise of the "professional normalcy" they once knew. Consequently, they experience a sense of disillusionment with the present and harbour nostalgia for the past. While researchers regard the narratives of Soviet modernist architects as self-constructed myths, the responses from subsequent generations of architects vary and depend heavily on their experiences practicing during the Soviet era. The younger professional cohort, graduating between 1990 and 2009 and lacking direct exposure to Soviet-era practices, unequivocally rejects the idealized perception of architects portrayed by the eldest generation. Conversely, the intermediate elder generation, graduating between 1970 and 1989 and having navigated both Soviet and independent Lithuanian contexts as architecture professionals, tends to reassess the self-image of the Soviet architect. They often align themselves closely with the perspectives of either the eldest or the youngest generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]