Suchergebnisse

The dissertation examines change of critical paradigm in contemporary art in Lithuania from the end of the 80s to the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century and investigates political, social, economic and cultural factors which had an impact on the transformation of artists' critical positions and artistic themes. Considering the social criticism of the second half of the 20th century as a critique based on progressive ideas that challenge status quo of the positivist thinking that shapes public life, it is possible to think of art practices based on similar intentions as a manifestation of social criticism. The transformations of social critique in contemporary art in Lithuania analysed in this dissertation are associated with the political and intellectual breaking points: the "Rebirth" period between the 1980s and the 1990s, the strife between conservative nationalists and liberals regarding the vision of society and culture's evolution during the 1990s, and the epistemological transformation in Lithuania's intellectual and cultural life which began in the late 1990s and is to be associated with the dissemination of Western critical social philosophy's ideas of the latter half of the 20th century in Lithuania. The aspect of social criticism in contemporary art in Lithuania lacks systematically summarized approach in Lithuania, even though extensive attention to this aspect is given in Western art historiographies of the latter half of the 20th century. Considering this situation in research field of contemporary art in Lithuanian, this study may be one of the first attempts to systematically analyse socially critical artistic practices as a phenomenon and the circumstances that formed it.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

Lithuanian authors have challenges to study Russia's politics of history. The analysis is complicated because of a few factors. Diplomatic disputes and informative wars between Lithuania and Russia concerning historical questions have encouraged researches by historians but not by political scientists. In Lithuania, the questions of who and how is forming the history politics of Russia, what is its content and the function it accomplishes, remain unexamined. The analysis is further complicated by disagreement among Russian political scientists, historians, journalists, and politicians over the existence of such politics. The present analysis demonstrates that post-soviet Russia perceives the importance of historical memory, i.e. it understands that historical memory and its forms depend on the states' politics. Russia's political history genesis testifies that trends of such politics depend on the geopolitical orientation of its government. The end of the Cold War did not manage to conceal the fundamental differences between Europe and Russia. The wave of liberalism and democracy, which spread over Central and Eastern Europe as well as Russian Federation, has caused tension in Russia ruled by B. Yeltsin. Yeltsin's Russia was not able to tackle this problem by using measures of history politics in order to lessen the distance between Russia and the West. V. Putin undertook to find the solution to this situation, and he did. By using changes of international politics, he builds the image of Russia as a great power. Politics of history are subordinated to build this image; also, it is used as an instrument in domestic politics. The history politics of Russia has taken the shape of a manipulative form and serves the interests of V. Putins's power.

The intensification of historical consciousness in 1988 encouraged the questioning of the remains of the Soviet epoch and the search for heroic examples in the remote history of the state. After the first memoirs were published during the first years of independence, various forms of social memory appeared: a list of memorable days and founding of new museums. But at the period of the rebirth the collective memory was more consensual. The reconstructed monuments of the prewar period became the products of collective memory, the ideological content of which equally satisfied both the post-Soviet elite, aiming for the legitimization, and the nation, thirsty for freedom. At that time the monuments became the instruments of the socio-political power used to legitimize authority, to construct individual and collective memory. The signs of the public places witnessed the configuring of heritage that helped to determine the spirit and direction of the newly established nation-state. Therefore it became a meaningful part of the politics of memory.

The intensification of historical consciousness in 1988 encouraged the questioning of the remains of the Soviet epoch and the search for heroic examples in the remote history of the state. After the first memoirs were published during the first years of independence, various forms of social memory appeared: a list of memorable days and founding of new museums. But at the period of the rebirth the collective memory was more consensual. The reconstructed monuments of the prewar period became the products of collective memory, the ideological content of which equally satisfied both the post-Soviet elite, aiming for the legitimization, and the nation, thirsty for freedom. At that time the monuments became the instruments of the socio-political power used to legitimize authority, to construct individual and collective memory. The signs of the public places witnessed the configuring of heritage that helped to determine the spirit and direction of the newly established nation-state. Therefore it became a meaningful part of the politics of memory.

The intensification of historical consciousness in 1988 encouraged the questioning of the remains of the Soviet epoch and the search for heroic examples in the remote history of the state. After the first memoirs were published during the first years of independence, various forms of social memory appeared: a list of memorable days and founding of new museums. But at the period of the rebirth the collective memory was more consensual. The reconstructed monuments of the prewar period became the products of collective memory, the ideological content of which equally satisfied both the post-Soviet elite, aiming for the legitimization, and the nation, thirsty for freedom. At that time the monuments became the instruments of the socio-political power used to legitimize authority, to construct individual and collective memory. The signs of the public places witnessed the configuring of heritage that helped to determine the spirit and direction of the newly established nation-state. Therefore it became a meaningful part of the politics of memory.

Sources on our most ancient history are scattered historians neighbouring countries one and the same things name different names. Briefly written down facts can on a miscellaneous speaks and sometimes records contradict the friend another a lot of mess in history of balts tribes have brought the jatviagians B the name in Russian and Polish chronicles is mentioned describing military campaigns of princes in this countries aspiring to enslave jatviagians, to force them to pay, to make their submitted. From the beginning of XIX century to historians and researchers of historical geography who again was necessary to find out these jatviagians where they lived. Linguists have established that jatviagians were group of the Baltic tribes, that their language is close to Prussian language. Therefore they belong to western balts. But admits, that their language родственнен to the Lithuanian language Only after there were works of historians, St.Zajaczkowskio, A. Kaminskio, V. Pasutos archeologists E.Antoniewicziaus, J.Jaskanio, M.Kaczynskio, J.Okulicziaus, V.Sedovo linguists K.BugosV.Maziulio, J.Nalepos and others, it was accepted jatviagians to divide into 4 groups:jotvingiai, dainaviai, polekėnai and sūduviai. In the work I have shown a cut societies jatviagians, their attitudes with neighbours Lithuanians, Russian, Poles and crusaders The chosen period XIII very narrow in historical scale. Its choice was defined with quantity of written sources. Also the important place in my work is borrowed jatviagians with territory, scientific dispute between A. Tautaviciaus and V.Sedovo. Other purpose which I put before myself, it is the further jatviagians destiny Though chronicles consider 1383 the end of their history, but it raises the doubts. Where they send away. Why some chronicles mention them till XVI century. On such questions I searched for answers.

Sources on our most ancient history are scattered historians neighbouring countries one and the same things name different names. Briefly written down facts can on a miscellaneous speaks and sometimes records contradict the friend another a lot of mess in history of balts tribes have brought the jatviagians B the name in Russian and Polish chronicles is mentioned describing military campaigns of princes in this countries aspiring to enslave jatviagians, to force them to pay, to make their submitted. From the beginning of XIX century to historians and researchers of historical geography who again was necessary to find out these jatviagians where they lived. Linguists have established that jatviagians were group of the Baltic tribes, that their language is close to Prussian language. Therefore they belong to western balts. But admits, that their language родственнен to the Lithuanian language Only after there were works of historians, St.Zajaczkowskio, A. Kaminskio, V. Pasutos archeologists E.Antoniewicziaus, J.Jaskanio, M.Kaczynskio, J.Okulicziaus, V.Sedovo linguists K.BugosV.Maziulio, J.Nalepos and others, it was accepted jatviagians to divide into 4 groups:jotvingiai, dainaviai, polekėnai and sūduviai. In the work I have shown a cut societies jatviagians, their attitudes with neighbours Lithuanians, Russian, Poles and crusaders The chosen period XIII very narrow in historical scale. Its choice was defined with quantity of written sources. Also the important place in my work is borrowed jatviagians with territory, scientific dispute between A. Tautaviciaus and V.Sedovo. Other purpose which I put before myself, it is the further jatviagians destiny Though chronicles consider 1383 the end of their history, but it raises the doubts. Where they send away. Why some chronicles mention them till XVI century. On such questions I searched for answers.

Sources on our most ancient history are scattered historians neighbouring countries one and the same things name different names. Briefly written down facts can on a miscellaneous speaks and sometimes records contradict the friend another a lot of mess in history of balts tribes have brought the jatviagians B the name in Russian and Polish chronicles is mentioned describing military campaigns of princes in this countries aspiring to enslave jatviagians, to force them to pay, to make their submitted. From the beginning of XIX century to historians and researchers of historical geography who again was necessary to find out these jatviagians where they lived. Linguists have established that jatviagians were group of the Baltic tribes, that their language is close to Prussian language. Therefore they belong to western balts. But admits, that their language родственнен to the Lithuanian language Only after there were works of historians, St.Zajaczkowskio, A. Kaminskio, V. Pasutos archeologists E.Antoniewicziaus, J.Jaskanio, M.Kaczynskio, J.Okulicziaus, V.Sedovo linguists K.BugosV.Maziulio, J.Nalepos and others, it was accepted jatviagians to divide into 4 groups:jotvingiai, dainaviai, polekėnai and sūduviai. In the work I have shown a cut societies jatviagians, their attitudes with neighbours Lithuanians, Russian, Poles and crusaders The chosen period XIII very narrow in historical scale. Its choice was defined with quantity of written sources. Also the important place in my work is borrowed jatviagians with territory, scientific dispute between A. Tautaviciaus and V.Sedovo. Other purpose which I put before myself, it is the further jatviagians destiny Though chronicles consider 1383 the end of their history, but it raises the doubts. Where they send away. Why some chronicles mention them till XVI century. On such questions I searched for answers.

Sources on our most ancient history are scattered historians neighbouring countries one and the same things name different names. Briefly written down facts can on a miscellaneous speaks and sometimes records contradict the friend another a lot of mess in history of balts tribes have brought the jatviagians B the name in Russian and Polish chronicles is mentioned describing military campaigns of princes in this countries aspiring to enslave jatviagians, to force them to pay, to make their submitted. From the beginning of XIX century to historians and researchers of historical geography who again was necessary to find out these jatviagians where they lived. Linguists have established that jatviagians were group of the Baltic tribes, that their language is close to Prussian language. Therefore they belong to western balts. But admits, that their language родственнен to the Lithuanian language Only after there were works of historians, St.Zajaczkowskio, A. Kaminskio, V. Pasutos archeologists E.Antoniewicziaus, J.Jaskanio, M.Kaczynskio, J.Okulicziaus, V.Sedovo linguists K.BugosV.Maziulio, J.Nalepos and others, it was accepted jatviagians to divide into 4 groups:jotvingiai, dainaviai, polekėnai and sūduviai. In the work I have shown a cut societies jatviagians, their attitudes with neighbours Lithuanians, Russian, Poles and crusaders The chosen period XIII very narrow in historical scale. Its choice was defined with quantity of written sources. Also the important place in my work is borrowed jatviagians with territory, scientific dispute between A. Tautaviciaus and V.Sedovo. Other purpose which I put before myself, it is the further jatviagians destiny Though chronicles consider 1383 the end of their history, but it raises the doubts. Where they send away. Why some chronicles mention them till XVI century. On such questions I searched for answers.

The French Minister of Culture suggested extending to a European level the "Monuments' Open Doors" initiative launched in France in 1984. Several European countries, such as The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Malta, Belgium, the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Sweden soon set up similar events. In 1991, the Council of Europe officially launched the European Heritage Days (EHDs) with the support of the European Commission. In 1999, this initiative became a joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Throughout Europe, during the weekends of September, the European Heritage Days open the doors of numerous monuments and sites, many of them usually closed to the public, allowing Europe's citizens to enjoy and learn about their shared cultural heritage and encouraging them to become actively involved in the safeguard and enhancement of this heritage for present and future generations. Today, the European Heritage Days can be considered an essential instrument for fostering a tangible experience of European culture and history in addition to raising the awareness of the public about the multiple values of our common heritage and the continuous need for its protection. All 49 States parties to the European Cultural Convention actively take part in the initiative and the number of annual visitors is now estimated to be around 20 million at more than 30,000 participating monuments and sites. The EHDs have succeeded in stimulating civil society's participation, the specific involvement of youth, voluntary work and cross-border cooperation, thereby promoting the core principles of intercultural dialogue, partnership and civic responsibility. Like in the rest of Europe, in its European Heritage Days Lithuania is trying to draw attention to a certain area of our national heritage, to make us able to gain a deeper recognition of the long-term role and potential of heritage in the context of modern civilisation and culture. In particular, Heritage Days focus on youth thus hoping to inspire in them more aspirations and interest in the cultural history of their own and neighbouring European countries which have become as close as never before. As regards municipalities and other responsible or involved organisations, these events should become a stimulus to preserve and nurture cultural heritage of Lithuania more carefully and take a more innovative approach as regards its integration into information flows of European cultural heritage, as well as promote cultural tourism. In Lithuania European heritage days began only at 1995 and lasts till now already for 12 years. The themes were: jewish heritage in Lithuania, wooden, technical heritage, parks and gardens, cultural tourism and others. This year European heritage days will be – "Europe: common heritage. Cultural routes". With the support of the Council of Europe, the Photo experience from 1995 allows young people, in the framework of the European Heritage Days, to become familiar with the richness of their heritage, their history and their environment, from the past and from today. The international photo contest is a very good experience for young people. In Lithuania the campaign started at 1999.

The French Minister of Culture suggested extending to a European level the "Monuments' Open Doors" initiative launched in France in 1984. Several European countries, such as The Netherlands, Luxemburg, Malta, Belgium, the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Sweden soon set up similar events. In 1991, the Council of Europe officially launched the European Heritage Days (EHDs) with the support of the European Commission. In 1999, this initiative became a joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Throughout Europe, during the weekends of September, the European Heritage Days open the doors of numerous monuments and sites, many of them usually closed to the public, allowing Europe's citizens to enjoy and learn about their shared cultural heritage and encouraging them to become actively involved in the safeguard and enhancement of this heritage for present and future generations. Today, the European Heritage Days can be considered an essential instrument for fostering a tangible experience of European culture and history in addition to raising the awareness of the public about the multiple values of our common heritage and the continuous need for its protection. All 49 States parties to the European Cultural Convention actively take part in the initiative and the number of annual visitors is now estimated to be around 20 million at more than 30,000 participating monuments and sites. The EHDs have succeeded in stimulating civil society's participation, the specific involvement of youth, voluntary work and cross-border cooperation, thereby promoting the core principles of intercultural dialogue, partnership and civic responsibility. Like in the rest of Europe, in its European Heritage Days Lithuania is trying to draw attention to a certain area of our national heritage, to make us able to gain a deeper recognition of the long-term role and potential of heritage in the context of modern civilisation and culture. In particular, Heritage Days focus on youth thus hoping to inspire in them more aspirations and interest in the cultural history of their own and neighbouring European countries which have become as close as never before. As regards municipalities and other responsible or involved organisations, these events should become a stimulus to preserve and nurture cultural heritage of Lithuania more carefully and take a more innovative approach as regards its integration into information flows of European cultural heritage, as well as promote cultural tourism. In Lithuania European heritage days began only at 1995 and lasts till now already for 12 years. The themes were: jewish heritage in Lithuania, wooden, technical heritage, parks and gardens, cultural tourism and others. This year European heritage days will be – "Europe: common heritage. Cultural routes". With the support of the Council of Europe, the Photo experience from 1995 allows young people, in the framework of the European Heritage Days, to become familiar with the richness of their heritage, their history and their environment, from the past and from today. The international photo contest is a very good experience for young people. In Lithuania the campaign started at 1999.

The main purpose of this thesis is to examine condition of the Sámi historical memory in Sweden. This is done by analysing and comparing Sámi history representations in two museums: Nordiska museum, which reflects Swedish perspective and Ájtte museum, which reflects Sámi perspective. Sweden receives a lot of criticism from international organs (such as United Nations and Council of Europe) regarding restrictions of Sámi rights and influence. Sámi communities are concerned about failed inclusion of Sámi history into the major narrative. Nowadays stories about Sámi people history are heard more often but despite that criticism does not disappear. By examining narratives of the chosen museums I will try to understand why it is so. In this research I apply qualitative method and perform comparative analysis of two exhibitions, I also conduct interviews with museums' representatives and visitors. Theoretical base that I construct for this research consists of collective memory and cultural trauma theories. They provide a framework which allows to understand history representations, as well it predicts possible perpetrators' and survivors' narratives. In this case it appeared that they did not reflect actual narratives, which says that chosen representations have to be analysed in consideration of what mnemonic actor present them. It also shows that cultural trauma that develops out of longstanding history of the routine harm is not so different from trauma process which begin with some sort of shock. In the end they both produce similar narratives. Museums' narratives can be understood as attempts to cope with historical trauma. In Ájtte museum it is done by creating a new narrative for Sámi people, which do not include Sweden as a main actor and trauma as a main process. Nordiska museum choose a different approach – it reveals history of Sámi oppression and reflects how the museum was part of it. It seems that these narratives should lead to conciliation, but actually they do not make a difference. Why Sámi people are still disappointed about how they history is treated? There are two reasons: first of all, it is because of representations itself. Even though Nordiska talks about the oppression, in most cases representations are shallow, they lack deeper analysis and personal stories, and furthermore, Sámi are seen in relation with the state and Swedish society, which do not reflect them as active actors in their own history. Second of all, this new narrative of the perpetrators do not affect official state position and politics in any way.