Dailės kritikos laikysenos: kas yra objektas?

LTKlausimą kas yra objektas galima pateikti ir kitaip - ar yra objektas. Kalbant apie dailės kritiką, kurią šiuo atveju tapatinsime su rašytiniais tekstais ir dar siauriau - su recenzijos žanru - kasdieniškiausia, ir todėl gerokai nualinta forma, klausti galima: apie ką rašoma? Ar kritika yra rašymas apie ką nors, ar ji yra pavaldi tekstui, laikomam pirmesnių jos pačios atžvilgiu? Šie klausimai, inicijuoti prancūzų poststruktūralistų ir į teorinius vandenis paleisti daugiau nei prieš trisdešimt metų, Lietuvos dailės kritikos atveju tampa aktualūs antroje praėjusio amžiaus paskutinio dešimtmečio pusėje, kuomet spaudoje pasirodo vis daugiau „eksperimentiniais" vadinamų straipsnių, kuriuos rašo jauniausios kartos autoriai. Kartu su šiais tekstais bei jų pačių atžvilgiu kultūriniuose savaitraščiuose pirmą kartą užmenamas ir klausimas kas yra objektas, reiškiantis ne tiek asociatyvias Michelio Foucault rūpesčiais užsikrėtusio klausiančiojo refleksijas, kiek įtarią kintančias dailės kritikos strategijas stebinčiojo retoriką [p. 9].

ENThe paper discusses the attitudes of art criticism with respect to its object - the work of art, as revealed in the discourse of contemporary Lithuanian art criticism. For a long time, the definition of the object of the criticisms imply coincided with the frame of the work of art, it was limited to the totality of formal and iconographical characteristics, and the text of art criticism used to be understood as subordinate to the primary text - the work of art. However, the last decade witnessed the emergence of new ways of critical talk in Lithuania, influenced by a different conception of the function of the critical text as well as a differently projected reflective field. The article analyses two types of the strategies and relationships with the object the art criticism has, thus revealing the variety of contemporary Lithuanian art criticism. The first type is based on the understanding of the object as a consistent, self-identical totality, whose conceptual centre lies in the system of signs. In this case the foundation of the strategy of art criticism is interpretation - establishment / attribution of meaning in the attempt to legitimise the work of art in the cultural space. The texts by Alfonsas Andriuškevičius, one of the most important figures in Lithuanian interpretational art criticism, are offered as an example of such criticism.The second type refuses representation of visual material in the verbal text. Such criticism does not decipher the meaning hidden in the work of art and the target of such criticism is not defined, its actions are reminiscent not so much of reading as reading-as-writing strategies. Both texts - the visual one having the priority, and the critical one - emerge as two simultaneous practices related by an allegorical link. Criticism, although not losing its object out of sight, identifies itself rather with creation and not with a means to learn about, explain or establish. In terms of such a criticism, the object is not a storehouse of meanings, but a possibility for those meanings to create themselves. The possibility realised by various discourses, the texts of criticism among them. This type of criticism is remarkable in the texts of the youngest generation. The emergence of the second type criticism reveals, in a sense, the condition of criticism in contemporary culture. It seems that new states of self-consciousness marked by the syndrome of helplessness force to change the attitude towards one's own object. Criticism becomes too weak to establish and monopolise meanings (and thus, according to Jacques Derrida, to appropriate the work of art and to seek symbolical power by ascribing meanings to it) in the too pluralist and unstable discourse lacking any points of reference. It is not worth to appropriate, it is rather more worth to participate in the project of "deferred meaning", without undertaking most usual duties of criticism.