Kas tildė modernizmą? Apie dailės lauko ypatumus sovietiniuose Vakaruose

Direct Link:
Mokslo publikacijos / Scientific publications
Document Type:
Straipsnis / Article
Lietuvių kalba / Lithuanian
Kas tildė modernizmą? Apie dailės lauko ypatumus sovietiniuose Vakaruose
Alternative Title:
What made Modernism so quiet? The particularities of the art field in the Soviet West
In the Journal:
Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis [AAAV]. 2019, t. 95, p. 14-28. Ar buvo tylusis modernizmas Lietuvoje?
Reikšminiai žodžiai: Sovietmečio dailė; Modernizmas; Cenzūra; Oficialusis menas; Antisistemiškumas; Soviet art; Modernism; Censorship; Official art; Anti-systematicity.
20 amžius; Antisistemiškumas; Cenzūra; Dailė / Art; Modernizmas / Modernism; Oficialusis menas.
Anti-systematicity; Censorship; Official art; Soviet art.
Summary / Abstract:

LTStraipsnyje siekiama atskleisti dailės lauko specifiką sovietų Lietuvoje, pagrįsti tezę, kad jis niekaip netelpa į dvilypės schemos rėmus, kur aiškiai skiriama riba tarp oficialiojo (nemodernistinio) meno ir tyliojo (nematomo) modernizmo. Viena vertus, mėginta parodyti, kodėl dailės reiškiniai, paprastai apibūdinami talpiu tyliojo modernizmo terminu, turėtų būti išskaidyti į tris segmentus: ,,tyliąją“ sisteminę, ,,šešėlinę“ nesisteminę ir antisisteminę dailę. Antra vertus, bandoma suprasti, kodėl pirmasis iš jų sovietų Lietuvoje buvo itin talpus, o kiti du labai siauri. [Iš leidinio]

ENThe paper aims to clarify the specificity of the art field in the Soviet Lithuania, and argues that the latter cannot be exhausted by the dichotomous approach based on a clear-cut separation between the official (non-modernist) art and the ‘quiet’ (invisible) modernism. The paper focuses on the art phenomena that, until now, have been referred to via a rather lofty umbrella term ‘quiet modernism’, and breaks them down into three segments: ’quiet’ systemic art, ‘shadowy’ non-systemic art, and anti-systemic art. Compared to the ideological control of other arts, fine art censorship in Soviet Lithuania was relatively weak, with only the mass-oriented genres having been subjected to closer scrutiny. The control of easel painting was delegated to the art professionals themselves, while the experts and audiences were fully trusted in setting the boundaries of artistic expression. Meanwhile, during the late period, the Soviet regime itself became much more tolerant of the possibilities of artistic expression. Here we can highlight several factors that contributed to the fact that, having been a less visible and yet fully established within the bounds of the official, the quiet systemic art in Soviet Lithuania not only completely ‘overshadowed’ the non-systemic art, but also left no place for the anti-systemic art production.First, with regards to the problematic territory where public dissent was still rife and unchecked, Soviet government felt it important to divert the potential opposition through relatively harmless channels such as the spaces of limited visibility, decorative applied art, and art export. Second, during the late soviet era, the soviet republics of the Baltic region were looking for the ways to reach out for the lost world of Western art by strengthening their cultural ties with exiles and neighbouring countries west of the Iron Curtain, which was another important factor that modified the rules of the game. Third, local party elite quickly realised that they could strengthen their administrative powers by exploiting the work of Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian artists who, particularly in the sphere of applied arts, were largely inspired by West and therefore freer in expression—party leaders were using this kind of art as a regional business card both inside the soviet empire, and abroad. [From the publication]

Related Publications:
2020-04-14 12:03:14
Views: 18    Downloads: 6