Dailės mecenatystės kryptys Lietuvoje XIX a. pirmoje pusėje
LTDailės mecenatystės pobūdžio ir reikšmės Lietuvos kultūroje klausimai mūsų meno istorijoje ilgą laiką specialiai nenagrinėti. Straipsniuose, liečiančiuose dailės mokymą Vilniaus universitete, paprastai skiriama daugiau dėmesio mokymo programoms, dėstytojų ir studentų kūrybai, o mecenatystės problemos, nors faktai dažnai pateikiami, neakcentuojamos. Plačiau šiuo klausimu rašyta lenlkų mokslinėje literatūroje - pradedant J. Bielinskio veikalu, baigiant K. Bartnickos studija. Apie atskirus dailininkus, globojusius mecenatus, randame duomenų biografiniuose straipsniuose ar platesnėse XIX a. dailės istorijos studijose. Antrojo trisdešimtmečio dailės klausimai minimu aspektu gan prabėgomis aptariami bendresnio pobūdžio, kultūrinį krašto gyvenimą liečiančiose studijose ir straipsniuose. Specifinius dailininkų visuomeninės padėties kitimo ir su tuo susijusius klausimus nagrinėja I. Svirida. Lietuvių menotyroje apie dailės mecenatą rašyta E. Aleksandravičiaus. Šiame straipsnyje jau skelbtų publikacijų, to meto spaudos ir archyvinių šaltinių pagrindu apžvelgiamos dailės mecenatystės pasireiškimo formos iki 1863 m., išskiriant dvi pagrindines sritis: profesionalių dailininkų rengimo ir jų kūrybos realizavimo.XIX a. I pusės Lietuvos meniniame gyvenime tam tikru mastu atsispindėjo daugelis bendresnių to meto Europos kultūrai būdingų bruožų: viešų dailės galerijų kūrimas, dailininko laipsniškas išsivadavimas iš aristokratinio mecenato globos, parodų organizavimas, meno kritikos atsiradimas, meno mecenatų ir vartotojų socialinės sudėties išsiplėtimas. Lemiamos reikšmės tų veiksnių atsiradimui turėjo dailės studijų pradžia. Vilniaus universiteto dailės katedros, nors apimtimi ir organizacija neprilygo Europoje egzistavusioms meno akademijoms, savo tikslais ir mokymo sistema siekė nuo jų neatsilikti, nors dažniausiai tai priklausė nuo pavienių asmenų pastangų, dažnai susiduriančių su Universiteto vadovybės abejingumu ar netgi priešiškumu [p. 180-181].
ENThe article gives a review of the forms of art patronage manifestations in Lithuania (prior to 1863), distinguishing two main spheres: preparation of professional artists and realization of their creation. The Chair of Art at Vilnius University was concerned with the preparation of local artists in the first three decades of the 19th century. Their activities mostly depended on the efforts of separate persons. The curator A. J. Čartoriskis showed much concern for the teaching problems - on his initiative sculpture and drawing chairs were established; art professors under his inspiration developed projects for chair reformation or even the establishment of a separate art school. However, most of these projects were not implemented because of the lack of money. Since there were means lacking constantly, lecturers themselves would become a sort of Maecenas, working without payment or receiving low salaries. For example, K. Jelskis in 1811-1813 gave lectures on sculpture free of charge, later for inconsiderable payment; he bought for his own money new models of gypsum or presented his own works to the sculpture study. J. Rustemas, in 1816-1819 taught painting free of charge and during vacations paid his own money to models. M. Podolinskis in 1818-1820 worked without any payment at the drawing chair. Means, allocated by the University management, were not enough to accumulate good art collections, therefore in this sphere the support of richer patrons was also needed. A. Chreptavičius, A. J. Čartoriskis, S. Kostka-Potockis donated paintings and drawings to the studies of art chairs. Quite a number of students, who were descents from poor gentry or townsfolk, when already starting their studies had no money for living. The ways were searched to grant them allowances or maintenance from the State treasury.J. Saundersas, seeking to atract more students to the speciality of drawing, was the first to get scholarships for his students after much trouble (three scholarships 50 silver roubles per annum each). The condition for obtaining a grant was the obligation to study 6 years. Since 1817 due to the efforts of J. Rustemas 4 places were given to his students at the teachers' college (200 silver roubles each grant). Would-be teachers of drawing had to study 3 years, then to work for 6 years at schools they were distributed. One-time bonuses for advanced learning were used as a means of stimulation and material support then applied in all art academies (since 1808), the awarding of works that won at competitions (since 1818), scholarships for advanced learning in St. Petersburg and West European art academies (since 1816). However, all these measures could not satisfy the needs of those eager to study art. Many a young man had to search for patrons among professors and gentry. J. Saundersas, J. Rustemas, J. Volfgangas, A. Chreptavičius, M. Dluskis, A. Gūntheris, the Tiškevičiai, etc. supported their favourite students. Thus, even though the University as a State institution formally pretended to the role of a State Maecenas, in reality the development and professional training of artists in the first half of the 19th century mostly depended on the individual patron. In the course of the second three decades of the century art education practically remained in the sphere of Maecenas activity. During this period the alumni of Vilnius University the lack of art schools attempted to compensate by establishing private studies in their workshops (K. Ruseckas. V. Dmachamskas. K Ripinskis, the Romeriai). The protectors (L. Petkevičius. B. Tiškevičius, etc.) paid up the studies in art academies for certain artists, sometimes a group of people by joint means supported the selected student.The latter form of patronage started to form already at the beginning of the century, e. g., in the activity of the mason lodge, but was not developed. The artists themselves, who already at the University won the place among the intellectual elite, started to feel their value as free creators. The striving to liberate from the aristocratic Maecenas in the sphere of creation was accompanied by an attempt to include info the number of art consumers the broader strata of the public, especially the petty gentry. Most of the local artists descended from this stratum and it was this stratum that gave hopes to meet a Maecenas whose ideals and taste woul coincide with the ideals of the artists themselves. The works of the local artists reached the collections of art in several ways: together with the European art collection as a result of the patronage of one or several artists of their own land; as a result of purposeful and conscious promotion of local artists and the collectioning of their works; in the form of family portraits or estate landscapes. Gradually, the purchasing of the works by local masters, as, in general, the support of local culture, it was started to attribute to the praiseworthy public merits. The estates commonly had one artist who worked there for a longer period in the capacity of an estate artist, painting portraits, maintaining a picture gallery, decorating estate buildings and a church, performing the functions of a home teacher in drawing, etc. We have got some information that the Puslovskiai, the Oštorpai, the Moniuškos, the Tiškevičiai, P. Sapiega, K. Prozoras, J. Kobylinskis, A. Chreptavičius, A. Gūntheris, etc. were patrons of one or several artists. The form of group or anonimous Maecenas was also used by Charity and Medical societies, Archaeological Commission. [...].
