Suchergebnisse

In a democratic system of government the politicisation of art can be defined as a process when art enters the field of politics and becomes an instrument capable of influencing or even changing the social political reality. In the modern day, both art and politics acquired an autonomy which was determined by their close interaction. According to the philosopher Boris Groys, the radical autonomy of art is shown precisely through radical political engagement. But only that which is absolutely free and autonomous can engage in something. It is not by accident that the concept of political engagement came into being in the context of French existentialism, which declared the individual's freedom from social and political violence. But art cannot be politically engaged if it is already political. There was little difference between real non-conformist iconography and the European art of the 20th century. Motifs of violence or confinement were frequently represented, as were monsters or colossi; fantastic beasts, which in European art often represented the horrors of war, became allegories of the Soviet regime in non-conformist art. Motifs of Christian iconography, which expressed "internal emigration" in European art during periods of dictatorship, were also common.36 According to von Beyme, the struggle for abstraction, together with archaism, exotism, or infantilism in certain circumstances can also be understood as a protest against the regime. It was exactly these forms of. [to full text]

In a democratic system of government the politicisation of art can be defined as a process when art enters the field of politics and becomes an instrument capable of influencing or even changing the social political reality. In the modern day, both art and politics acquired an autonomy which was determined by their close interaction. According to the philosopher Boris Groys, the radical autonomy of art is shown precisely through radical political engagement. But only that which is absolutely free and autonomous can engage in something. It is not by accident that the concept of political engagement came into being in the context of French existentialism, which declared the individual's freedom from social and political violence. But art cannot be politically engaged if it is already political. There was little difference between real non-conformist iconography and the European art of the 20th century. Motifs of violence or confinement were frequently represented, as were monsters or colossi; fantastic beasts, which in European art often represented the horrors of war, became allegories of the Soviet regime in non-conformist art. Motifs of Christian iconography, which expressed "internal emigration" in European art during periods of dictatorship, were also common.36 According to von Beyme, the struggle for abstraction, together with archaism, exotism, or infantilism in certain circumstances can also be understood as a protest against the regime. It was exactly these forms of. [to full text]

In a democratic system of government the politicisation of art can be defined as a process when art enters the field of politics and becomes an instrument capable of influencing or even changing the social political reality. In the modern day, both art and politics acquired an autonomy which was determined by their close interaction. According to the philosopher Boris Groys, the radical autonomy of art is shown precisely through radical political engagement. But only that which is absolutely free and autonomous can engage in something. It is not by accident that the concept of political engagement came into being in the context of French existentialism, which declared the individual's freedom from social and political violence. But art cannot be politically engaged if it is already political. There was little difference between real non-conformist iconography and the European art of the 20th century. Motifs of violence or confinement were frequently represented, as were monsters or colossi; fantastic beasts, which in European art often represented the horrors of war, became allegories of the Soviet regime in non-conformist art. Motifs of Christian iconography, which expressed "internal emigration" in European art during periods of dictatorship, were also common.36 According to von Beyme, the struggle for abstraction, together with archaism, exotism, or infantilism in certain circumstances can also be understood as a protest against the regime. It was exactly these forms of. [to full text]

In a democratic system of government the politicisation of art can be defined as a process when art enters the field of politics and becomes an instrument capable of influencing or even changing the social political reality. In the modern day, both art and politics acquired an autonomy which was determined by their close interaction. According to the philosopher Boris Groys, the radical autonomy of art is shown precisely through radical political engagement. But only that which is absolutely free and autonomous can engage in something. It is not by accident that the concept of political engagement came into being in the context of French existentialism, which declared the individual's freedom from social and political violence. But art cannot be politically engaged if it is already political. There was little difference between real non-conformist iconography and the European art of the 20th century. Motifs of violence or confinement were frequently represented, as were monsters or colossi; fantastic beasts, which in European art often represented the horrors of war, became allegories of the Soviet regime in non-conformist art. Motifs of Christian iconography, which expressed "internal emigration" in European art during periods of dictatorship, were also common.36 According to von Beyme, the struggle for abstraction, together with archaism, exotism, or infantilism in certain circumstances can also be understood as a protest against the regime. It was exactly these forms of. [to full text]

In this article, the novel "Chameleono spalvos" (Lith. Colours of a Chameleon) (1979) by Jonas Avyžius is dealt with on the ground of the historical cultural and interpretational methods, "read" in the paradigm of the popular literature, singling out the canons of time and space: a city, cafes, restaurants, studios – these are the spaces in the novel revealing the life style of artists in the 1960s–1970s. A café is the main place for characters to meet; its environment is simpler and more democratic. Here they meet, talk, socialise. Food and drinks reflect the particular time, however, eating and drinking are not the most important purpose for the meetings. An artist's studio is also a place for such meetings, discussions, secret rendezvouz, bohemian get-togethers until early morning, usually substituting public spaces. It is obvious that the city in the novel is not only a background for events but also an object being depicted. On the ground of spaces being mentioned, i.e. street names, architectural monuments, geographical references, we recognise Vilnius and its life in the 1960s–1970s. Limited space and time, ironic assessment, mixture of various styles of narration, caricatured portraits of characters could be treated as features of popular literature in the novel. This fi ction piece displays active writer's relation to the reality being depicted. A reader is also actively involved into the city life picture being created by the author.

In this article, the novel "Chameleono spalvos" (Lith. Colours of a Chameleon) (1979) by Jonas Avyžius is dealt with on the ground of the historical cultural and interpretational methods, "read" in the paradigm of the popular literature, singling out the canons of time and space: a city, cafes, restaurants, studios – these are the spaces in the novel revealing the life style of artists in the 1960s–1970s. A café is the main place for characters to meet; its environment is simpler and more democratic. Here they meet, talk, socialise. Food and drinks reflect the particular time, however, eating and drinking are not the most important purpose for the meetings. An artist's studio is also a place for such meetings, discussions, secret rendezvouz, bohemian get-togethers until early morning, usually substituting public spaces. It is obvious that the city in the novel is not only a background for events but also an object being depicted. On the ground of spaces being mentioned, i.e. street names, architectural monuments, geographical references, we recognise Vilnius and its life in the 1960s–1970s. Limited space and time, ironic assessment, mixture of various styles of narration, caricatured portraits of characters could be treated as features of popular literature in the novel. This fi ction piece displays active writer's relation to the reality being depicted. A reader is also actively involved into the city life picture being created by the author.

While 1970s were marked by creation of intermediary (regional) levels of government in Western Europe the wave of administrative reforms reached Eastern Europe in the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s. Lithuania was not an exception. From 1994 until July, 2010 the public administration system was deconcentrated to County Governors' Administrations and decentralized to local governments in Lithuania. As it was declared in political and legal documents, the reform of County Governors' Administrations abolishment was aimed to improve public administration and decentralize public governance system in Lithuania, but its results were quite controversial. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the reform conducted in Lithuania in 2010s. The main sources of information are semi-structured expert interviews and secondary data.

While 1970s were marked by creation of intermediary (regional) levels of government in Western Europe the wave of administrative reforms reached Eastern Europe in the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s. Lithuania was not an exception. From 1994 until July, 2010 the public administration system was deconcentrated to County Governors' Administrations and decentralized to local governments in Lithuania. As it was declared in political and legal documents, the reform of County Governors' Administrations abolishment was aimed to improve public administration and decentralize public governance system in Lithuania, but its results were quite controversial. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the reform conducted in Lithuania in 2010s. The main sources of information are semi-structured expert interviews and secondary data.

While 1970s were marked by creation of intermediary (regional) levels of government in Western Europe the wave of administrative reforms reached Eastern Europe in the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s. Lithuania was not an exception. From 1994 until July, 2010 the public administration system was deconcentrated to County Governors' Administrations and decentralized to local governments in Lithuania. As it was declared in political and legal documents, the reform of County Governors' Administrations abolishment was aimed to improve public administration and decentralize public governance system in Lithuania, but its results were quite controversial. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the reform conducted in Lithuania in 2010s. The main sources of information are semi-structured expert interviews and secondary data.

While 1970s were marked by creation of intermediary (regional) levels of government in Western Europe the wave of administrative reforms reached Eastern Europe in the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s. Lithuania was not an exception. From 1994 until July, 2010 the public administration system was deconcentrated to County Governors' Administrations and decentralized to local governments in Lithuania. As it was declared in political and legal documents, the reform of County Governors' Administrations abolishment was aimed to improve public administration and decentralize public governance system in Lithuania, but its results were quite controversial. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the reform conducted in Lithuania in 2010s. The main sources of information are semi-structured expert interviews and secondary data.

Although Lithuanian agricultural settlements were built on the basis of socialist directives, they had some characteristic features. Socialist, political, economic directives and impersonalised creations were represented in the same way as was the striving for Western ideas during the information blockade, and the contraposition vis-a-vis the threat of assimilation [fig. 6]. Another important feature of Lithuanian agricultural settlements was determined by the absence of deportees from other Soviet republics. Volunteer colonists preferred bigger towns to agricultural settlements (unlike the expatriates in Siberia, Kazakhstan, or elsewhere). In the 1960s and 1970s, Dainava (Ukmergė D.), Klausučiai (Jurbarkas D.), Skaistgirys (Joniškis D.), and Kabiškės (Vilnius D.) were illustrative examples of Lithuanian agricultural settlements. Undoubtedly, such newly developed functions had a certain influence on the further evolution of these towns, and the situation in some of them has undergone marked changes.

Although Lithuanian agricultural settlements were built on the basis of socialist directives, they had some characteristic features. Socialist, political, economic directives and impersonalised creations were represented in the same way as was the striving for Western ideas during the information blockade, and the contraposition vis-a-vis the threat of assimilation [fig. 6]. Another important feature of Lithuanian agricultural settlements was determined by the absence of deportees from other Soviet republics. Volunteer colonists preferred bigger towns to agricultural settlements (unlike the expatriates in Siberia, Kazakhstan, or elsewhere). In the 1960s and 1970s, Dainava (Ukmergė D.), Klausučiai (Jurbarkas D.), Skaistgirys (Joniškis D.), and Kabiškės (Vilnius D.) were illustrative examples of Lithuanian agricultural settlements. Undoubtedly, such newly developed functions had a certain influence on the further evolution of these towns, and the situation in some of them has undergone marked changes.

The transformation process of political system occures in today's world, too. It can be illustrated by the Color or Flower Revolutions in post-communist states. During those revolutions the authoritarian political system is changed into democratic political system. The alternation of political system shows that society is not contented with present government which is realized as corrupt and repressive. Such political transformations occured in the South America in 1970s- 1980s. During this transformations the political system of the South American countries was changed into democratic ones. But those democratic systems are not very stable and credible in nowadays like democracys in the Europe because the South American countries have many internal problems like big poverty, unstable economical situation, criminality, government corruption and etc. In this work is analysed Argentina's and Brazil's political systems transformations and influence of international actors in transformation process. Till 1980s both countries were ruled by military juntas. The rule of military governments were not stable because there were disagreements inside military juntas how to rule the countries. The permanent alternation of governments was the main reason for unstable political system and for distrust of foreign countries in Argentina and Brazil. Futhermore, there were frequent economical crises, large-sized repressions. The authoritarian regimes collapsed when in the countries started mass protests against military juntas. Those protests were strongly supported by international actors like the human rights organizations, the United Nations, by the international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In Argentina very important were international political parties, too. The democratization processes was supported by the USA although her role was very ambiguous because in 1960s-1970s the USA supported authoritarian governments. The USA was afraid of the spread of socialism ideas in the South America. The political system change in Argentina and Brazil is linked with the third wave of democratization in the world especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important factors in the transformation processes of political systems in both countries were internal factors like disagreements inside military juntas, social movements which were strongly supported by international actors.

The transformation process of political system occures in today's world, too. It can be illustrated by the Color or Flower Revolutions in post-communist states. During those revolutions the authoritarian political system is changed into democratic political system. The alternation of political system shows that society is not contented with present government which is realized as corrupt and repressive. Such political transformations occured in the South America in 1970s- 1980s. During this transformations the political system of the South American countries was changed into democratic ones. But those democratic systems are not very stable and credible in nowadays like democracys in the Europe because the South American countries have many internal problems like big poverty, unstable economical situation, criminality, government corruption and etc. In this work is analysed Argentina's and Brazil's political systems transformations and influence of international actors in transformation process. Till 1980s both countries were ruled by military juntas. The rule of military governments were not stable because there were disagreements inside military juntas how to rule the countries. The permanent alternation of governments was the main reason for unstable political system and for distrust of foreign countries in Argentina and Brazil. Futhermore, there were frequent economical crises, large-sized repressions. The authoritarian regimes collapsed when in the countries started mass protests against military juntas. Those protests were strongly supported by international actors like the human rights organizations, the United Nations, by the international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In Argentina very important were international political parties, too. The democratization processes was supported by the USA although her role was very ambiguous because in 1960s-1970s the USA supported authoritarian governments. The USA was afraid of the spread of socialism ideas in the South America. The political system change in Argentina and Brazil is linked with the third wave of democratization in the world especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important factors in the transformation processes of political systems in both countries were internal factors like disagreements inside military juntas, social movements which were strongly supported by international actors.

The transformation process of political system occures in today's world, too. It can be illustrated by the Color or Flower Revolutions in post-communist states. During those revolutions the authoritarian political system is changed into democratic political system. The alternation of political system shows that society is not contented with present government which is realized as corrupt and repressive. Such political transformations occured in the South America in 1970s- 1980s. During this transformations the political system of the South American countries was changed into democratic ones. But those democratic systems are not very stable and credible in nowadays like democracys in the Europe because the South American countries have many internal problems like big poverty, unstable economical situation, criminality, government corruption and etc. In this work is analysed Argentina's and Brazil's political systems transformations and influence of international actors in transformation process. Till 1980s both countries were ruled by military juntas. The rule of military governments were not stable because there were disagreements inside military juntas how to rule the countries. The permanent alternation of governments was the main reason for unstable political system and for distrust of foreign countries in Argentina and Brazil. Futhermore, there were frequent economical crises, large-sized repressions. The authoritarian regimes collapsed when in the countries started mass protests against military juntas. Those protests were strongly supported by international actors like the human rights organizations, the United Nations, by the international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. In Argentina very important were international political parties, too. The democratization processes was supported by the USA although her role was very ambiguous because in 1960s-1970s the USA supported authoritarian governments. The USA was afraid of the spread of socialism ideas in the South America. The political system change in Argentina and Brazil is linked with the third wave of democratization in the world especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important factors in the transformation processes of political systems in both countries were internal factors like disagreements inside military juntas, social movements which were strongly supported by international actors.