Dailininkas ir visuomenė 1832-1852 m. Vilniaus periodikoje
LTPrieš pradedant gvildenti dailininko ir visuomenės problematiką, tenka atsakyti į klausimą - ar buvo Vilniuje šiuo XIX a. dvidešimtmečiu leidžiama periodika? Ar galima periodika vadinti vienintelį Vilniaus dienraštį „Kurjer wileński” - valdžios laikraštį? Ar galima periodikai priskirti gausius 4-ojo ir 5-ojo dešimtmečio tęstinius leidinius, kurių žanrą leidėjai ir redaktoriai apibūdindavo terminais „pismo zbiorowe” (rinktiniai raštai) ir „książka składkowa” (sudėtinė knyga)? Ar galima laikyti visą aibę 4-ojo dešimtmečio pabaigoje pasirodžiusių kalendorių ir almanachų periodiniais leidiniais? Į kiekvieną iš šių klausimų negalima atsakyti tvirtai, be abejonių. Ir ne dėl to, kad Vilniaus leidyboje nebuvo susiformavusios aiškios ribos tarp periodinių, tęstinių leidinių, laikraščių, žurnalų ar knygų. Leidėjai ar redaktoriai paantraštėje visada parašydavo leidinio žanrą: laikraštis, žurnalas, „tęstiniai raštai” ar almanachas. Nebuvo tai ir periodinės leidybos Vilniuje pradžia - pirmasis laikraštis mieste išleistas 1760 m. Per aštuoniasdešimt melų pasirodė arti trisdešimties įvairaus tipo, apimties, pakraipos, trukmės vienos ar kitos kultūrinės institucijos leidžiamų laikraščių ar žurnalų. Vieni jų teėjo vieną dieną, kiti - keliolika metų. Jie buvo leisti lotynų, lenkų, prancūzų, hebrajų kalbomis. Ypač dosnūs Vilniaus periodikai buvo 1815-1822 m. Tai buvo politikos. moralės, medicinos, mokslo ir kultūros savaitraščiai, dvisavaitraščiai, mėnesiniai leidiniai. Taigi 1832 m. jau buvo galima kalbėli apie Vilniaus periodikos tradicijas.. [p. 153].
ENThe period of 1832-1852 is the first period in the culture of Vilnius that saw an abundancy in articles on the arts. About 60 of them appeared in various continued publications. All these texts testify to the prevalence of historical thinking: the criteria of evaluation were based on the past, the meaning of life was searched for, and the visions of the future were created. The notion of a purpose-oriented evoliution and of a „rational" time was made more concrete: it was associated with the Vilnius region. Russia, Poland, and Europe. One attempted to parallel oneself to the world. Distinctiveness was searched for and was found in the history, the present, ant the future, as well as in the realms of both the ideas and practical work. The insight into oneself frcqently dazzled the evaluators of art, dulling the vision of the future. The same should be said about an infinite desire to find everything that was and remained the best in the „civilized nations". This desire gradually formed the sense of cultural backwardness. The complex of provinciality manifested itself first of all in the evaluations of the current state of society. The questions of national history, national school of art, relations between the artist and society, artist's and society's obligations, as well as those of the place and role of the arts in culture were the essential in the said articles. It was the time ofsocially engaged and postulative art critique. It was a time of philosophically oriented critique and criticizing philosophy of art. In the press of those years, the genres of writing about fine art were not formed yet, as there were no rules and schemes of writing about the arts and their history. However, the first attempts to form them were already noticeable. The authors did not distinguish between art theory, history, and critique. People of various professions, or, to be more exact, of various occupations wrote about the arts.Writing itself was still not considered to be a profession. Physicians, lawyers, writers, publishers, literary critics, and artists were engaged in writing. For many of them it was just a leisure occupation. It would be more precise to call them art lovers, collectors, artists' friends, or persons who awakened intellectual activities. The fine arts represented a variety of intellectual activities. The attitudes of these writers were not consistent or systematic, rather, they were eclectic. The values of romanticism are quite distinct in their thinking: national culture was perceived as the one expressing the spirit of nation, epoch, and artist, while the arts - as the reflection of talent, imagination, and inspiration, and as one of the highest achievements of mankind. Those who wrote about fine arts tried to inculcate these notions upon the reading part of society by explaining and educating, urging and scolding. The beliefs of the enlighteners not connected with artistic attitudes of the classicists also manifested themselves in the ideas that the arts could and had to enlighten, educate, perfect people and direct them towards historical progress and that the artist was fated to be an enlightener, educator, teacher, representative of the nation and culture, as well as an example to be followed. Though the authors of the articles did not approve of the tendency of the work of art becoming a commodity, they had stated more than once spiritual and material independence of the artist, as well as the necessity to abandon outdated relations of the class society, traditional evaluations of the role of artist and his works in society, and the obsolete system of relations between artist and customer, artist and user. In their texts, they propagated a model of relations between artists and customers-users that was more up-to-date and flexible, i. e. a collective or corporate patronage.Nevertheless, the central place in the arts was occupied by the class society which was under permanent critique - its attitudes and its culture received most attention. The matter was that the former model was as if not existing any more: there was almost no support on the part of the state, the church was financially weak, while more modern forms of patronage (municipalities, townsmen) and new kinds of communication (exhibitions, art showrooms) were still not active. Private orders given by noblemen or minor landowners intended for the commemoration or glorification of the family were not capable of changing much. The artists who had lost a number of previous customers did not have anything to fill up the void. The arts did not overstep the limits of their traditional location and remained behind the walls of the manor houses, palaces and churches. They did not move to the urban and social space, therefore they did not develop the need of the public for more modern forms of cultural communication. A rather wide gap between the image of art and artists that was fostered by the intellectuals of those times and the one that prevailed in the society was reflected by the press. An abyss existed between the cultural elite and the needs of „educated" society, between what was imagined and what was actually possible. If one tried to answer the question as to which of the formulas, or the systems of artistic thinking of the middle of the 19th century was closer to the „representatives of culture" who published their articles in the periodicals of Vilnius - „art for art" or „art for society", - one would state that the conception of national culture, art, and artist was closer to that of the German philosophers, whereas the way of solving socialized problems - to the French thinkers. The French slogan acquired a slightly different meaning and different emphasis for the authors of Vilnius press. [...].
