Suchergebnisse

The object of the article refers to the main focus of the Lithuanian pavilion at the sculpture of The Christ in distress created by Juozas Mikėnas (1901-1964). The article explores the creation history of this exhibit as well as cultural circumstances of the given period which determined the choice of the main subject for that exhibit. The paper also specifies a possible prototype of the J. Mikėnas' Christ in Distress sculpture. About 1936 a small sculpture of The Christ in Distress created by a folk artisan was found behind the High altar in Šiluva. According to the witness of this event Zigmas Toliušis, namely this sculpture carved by an unknown folk artist became the source of inspiration for the sculptor J. Mikėnas. The choice of The Christ in Distress subject for the main exhibit of the Lithuanian pavilion at the 1937 Paris World Exhibition was determined by the political and cultural situation of the fourth decade of the 20th century. The image of Lithuania as "the country of the Christ in Distress" formed in the second and third decades of the 20th century, became an unquestionable affirmation in the fourth decade of that century. The 1937 Paris World Exhibition turned to be one of the major "stages" in consolidating these ideas in the world. In spite of controversial evaluations in the press of that period, the work of the sculptor J. Mikėnas marks the whole cultural epoch of interwar independent Lithuania and also remains one of the most important works in the sculptor's oeuvre.

The object of the article refers to the main focus of the Lithuanian pavilion at the sculpture of The Christ in distress created by Juozas Mikėnas (1901-1964). The article explores the creation history of this exhibit as well as cultural circumstances of the given period which determined the choice of the main subject for that exhibit. The paper also specifies a possible prototype of the J. Mikėnas' Christ in Distress sculpture. About 1936 a small sculpture of The Christ in Distress created by a folk artisan was found behind the High altar in Šiluva. According to the witness of this event Zigmas Toliušis, namely this sculpture carved by an unknown folk artist became the source of inspiration for the sculptor J. Mikėnas. The choice of The Christ in Distress subject for the main exhibit of the Lithuanian pavilion at the 1937 Paris World Exhibition was determined by the political and cultural situation of the fourth decade of the 20th century. The image of Lithuania as "the country of the Christ in Distress" formed in the second and third decades of the 20th century, became an unquestionable affirmation in the fourth decade of that century. The 1937 Paris World Exhibition turned to be one of the major "stages" in consolidating these ideas in the world. In spite of controversial evaluations in the press of that period, the work of the sculptor J. Mikėnas marks the whole cultural epoch of interwar independent Lithuania and also remains one of the most important works in the sculptor's oeuvre.

The object of the article refers to the main focus of the Lithuanian pavilion at the sculpture of The Christ in distress created by Juozas Mikėnas (1901-1964). The article explores the creation history of this exhibit as well as cultural circumstances of the given period which determined the choice of the main subject for that exhibit. The paper also specifies a possible prototype of the J. Mikėnas' Christ in Distress sculpture. About 1936 a small sculpture of The Christ in Distress created by a folk artisan was found behind the High altar in Šiluva. According to the witness of this event Zigmas Toliušis, namely this sculpture carved by an unknown folk artist became the source of inspiration for the sculptor J. Mikėnas. The choice of The Christ in Distress subject for the main exhibit of the Lithuanian pavilion at the 1937 Paris World Exhibition was determined by the political and cultural situation of the fourth decade of the 20th century. The image of Lithuania as "the country of the Christ in Distress" formed in the second and third decades of the 20th century, became an unquestionable affirmation in the fourth decade of that century. The 1937 Paris World Exhibition turned to be one of the major "stages" in consolidating these ideas in the world. In spite of controversial evaluations in the press of that period, the work of the sculptor J. Mikėnas marks the whole cultural epoch of interwar independent Lithuania and also remains one of the most important works in the sculptor's oeuvre.

The object of the article refers to the main focus of the Lithuanian pavilion at the sculpture of The Christ in distress created by Juozas Mikėnas (1901-1964). The article explores the creation history of this exhibit as well as cultural circumstances of the given period which determined the choice of the main subject for that exhibit. The paper also specifies a possible prototype of the J. Mikėnas' Christ in Distress sculpture. About 1936 a small sculpture of The Christ in Distress created by a folk artisan was found behind the High altar in Šiluva. According to the witness of this event Zigmas Toliušis, namely this sculpture carved by an unknown folk artist became the source of inspiration for the sculptor J. Mikėnas. The choice of The Christ in Distress subject for the main exhibit of the Lithuanian pavilion at the 1937 Paris World Exhibition was determined by the political and cultural situation of the fourth decade of the 20th century. The image of Lithuania as "the country of the Christ in Distress" formed in the second and third decades of the 20th century, became an unquestionable affirmation in the fourth decade of that century. The 1937 Paris World Exhibition turned to be one of the major "stages" in consolidating these ideas in the world. In spite of controversial evaluations in the press of that period, the work of the sculptor J. Mikėnas marks the whole cultural epoch of interwar independent Lithuania and also remains one of the most important works in the sculptor's oeuvre.

Master thesis analyses the objectives that influence U.S. climate policy and its decisions to participate in multilateral agreements on climate change. The objective is to determine the differences between climate change policy framing in rethoric of U.S. presidents: George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, when talking about international multilateral agreements. Also, to determine whether the framing reflects the factual objectives that influence national climate policy. The research problem is to find out how U.S. presidents – G. Bush, B. Obama and D. Trump – frame their own decision of (non)participation in cases of Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accord in order to legitimize political decisions. Master thesis seeks to prove that factual objectives that influence U.S. climate policy do not change or change slowly and gradually. Therefore, cardinally different climate policy pivots – (non)participation in Kyoto Protocol, leadership in Paris Accord and withdrawal from Paris Accord can only be explained by discourse and framing. U.S. climate policy drivers are liberal market economy, presidential system, dependency on carbon energy and growing population. These factors mostly reflect in president D. Trump's discourse. By theory, these climate policy drivers prevent U.S. from implementing strict environmental regulations. Therefore, the only way to reach Paris objectives is to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy. B. Obama's discourse analysis shows that this path is the most convenient for the States. However, in the conclusions the idea is formulated that multi-track approach recommended by the theory, in reality becomes an object of political manipulation, especially with powerful countries like U.S. The decision made by president D. Trump to withdraw U. S. from Paris Accord is an example of that. President's discourse analysis proves it.

Master thesis analyses the objectives that influence U.S. climate policy and its decisions to participate in multilateral agreements on climate change. The objective is to determine the differences between climate change policy framing in rethoric of U.S. presidents: George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, when talking about international multilateral agreements. Also, to determine whether the framing reflects the factual objectives that influence national climate policy. The research problem is to find out how U.S. presidents – G. Bush, B. Obama and D. Trump – frame their own decision of (non)participation in cases of Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accord in order to legitimize political decisions. Master thesis seeks to prove that factual objectives that influence U.S. climate policy do not change or change slowly and gradually. Therefore, cardinally different climate policy pivots – (non)participation in Kyoto Protocol, leadership in Paris Accord and withdrawal from Paris Accord can only be explained by discourse and framing. U.S. climate policy drivers are liberal market economy, presidential system, dependency on carbon energy and growing population. These factors mostly reflect in president D. Trump's discourse. By theory, these climate policy drivers prevent U.S. from implementing strict environmental regulations. Therefore, the only way to reach Paris objectives is to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy. B. Obama's discourse analysis shows that this path is the most convenient for the States. However, in the conclusions the idea is formulated that multi-track approach recommended by the theory, in reality becomes an object of political manipulation, especially with powerful countries like U.S. The decision made by president D. Trump to withdraw U. S. from Paris Accord is an example of that. President's discourse analysis proves it.

Master thesis analyses the objectives that influence U.S. climate policy and its decisions to participate in multilateral agreements on climate change. The objective is to determine the differences between climate change policy framing in rethoric of U.S. presidents: George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, when talking about international multilateral agreements. Also, to determine whether the framing reflects the factual objectives that influence national climate policy. The research problem is to find out how U.S. presidents – G. Bush, B. Obama and D. Trump – frame their own decision of (non)participation in cases of Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accord in order to legitimize political decisions. Master thesis seeks to prove that factual objectives that influence U.S. climate policy do not change or change slowly and gradually. Therefore, cardinally different climate policy pivots – (non)participation in Kyoto Protocol, leadership in Paris Accord and withdrawal from Paris Accord can only be explained by discourse and framing. U.S. climate policy drivers are liberal market economy, presidential system, dependency on carbon energy and growing population. These factors mostly reflect in president D. Trump's discourse. By theory, these climate policy drivers prevent U.S. from implementing strict environmental regulations. Therefore, the only way to reach Paris objectives is to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy. B. Obama's discourse analysis shows that this path is the most convenient for the States. However, in the conclusions the idea is formulated that multi-track approach recommended by the theory, in reality becomes an object of political manipulation, especially with powerful countries like U.S. The decision made by president D. Trump to withdraw U. S. from Paris Accord is an example of that. President's discourse analysis proves it.

Master thesis analyses the objectives that influence U.S. climate policy and its decisions to participate in multilateral agreements on climate change. The objective is to determine the differences between climate change policy framing in rethoric of U.S. presidents: George Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, when talking about international multilateral agreements. Also, to determine whether the framing reflects the factual objectives that influence national climate policy. The research problem is to find out how U.S. presidents – G. Bush, B. Obama and D. Trump – frame their own decision of (non)participation in cases of Kyoto Protocol and Paris Accord in order to legitimize political decisions. Master thesis seeks to prove that factual objectives that influence U.S. climate policy do not change or change slowly and gradually. Therefore, cardinally different climate policy pivots – (non)participation in Kyoto Protocol, leadership in Paris Accord and withdrawal from Paris Accord can only be explained by discourse and framing. U.S. climate policy drivers are liberal market economy, presidential system, dependency on carbon energy and growing population. These factors mostly reflect in president D. Trump's discourse. By theory, these climate policy drivers prevent U.S. from implementing strict environmental regulations. Therefore, the only way to reach Paris objectives is to invest in energy efficiency and clean energy. B. Obama's discourse analysis shows that this path is the most convenient for the States. However, in the conclusions the idea is formulated that multi-track approach recommended by the theory, in reality becomes an object of political manipulation, especially with powerful countries like U.S. The decision made by president D. Trump to withdraw U. S. from Paris Accord is an example of that. President's discourse analysis proves it.

In this article it is aimed to tell about a person, which was unduly forgotten in the history of the Vilnius University, though among his other activities, he did a lot to support and help the astronomers, coming to Paris and London from Vilnius. A former jesuit, talented preacher, professor of Rhetorics and other disciplines in Vilnius academy, Remigian Korwin Kossakowski (1730–1780) wrote a lot of letters to Vilnius (and perhaps to Warsaw too), from 1774 on, while working in Paris as the representative of the National Comission of Education of the Commonwealth of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The letters which are kept in Vilnius university library, mainly addressed to the astronomers Marcin Poczobut and Andrzej Strzecki (1737–1797) are mainly connected with the scientific journey of Strzecki in 1778 to Paris and London and the circumstances of election of Poczobut as a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. Letters are filled with digressions, reminding of gawenda literary genre, providing the researcher with data on the details of everyday life in the second half of XVIII century, political and ideological views of the addressee, his nostalgy for the Grand Duchy and Poland and his exceptional gift of expressing his feelings. The style of these letters show us that the human who wrote them was well educated, highly critical, curious and well-spoken, and the contents testify the not so well known side of the history of science relations between Vilnius, Warsaw and Paris.

In this article it is aimed to tell about a person, which was unduly forgotten in the history of the Vilnius University, though among his other activities, he did a lot to support and help the astronomers, coming to Paris and London from Vilnius. A former jesuit, talented preacher, professor of Rhetorics and other disciplines in Vilnius academy, Remigian Korwin Kossakowski (1730–1780) wrote a lot of letters to Vilnius (and perhaps to Warsaw too), from 1774 on, while working in Paris as the representative of the National Comission of Education of the Commonwealth of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The letters which are kept in Vilnius university library, mainly addressed to the astronomers Marcin Poczobut and Andrzej Strzecki (1737–1797) are mainly connected with the scientific journey of Strzecki in 1778 to Paris and London and the circumstances of election of Poczobut as a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. Letters are filled with digressions, reminding of gawenda literary genre, providing the researcher with data on the details of everyday life in the second half of XVIII century, political and ideological views of the addressee, his nostalgy for the Grand Duchy and Poland and his exceptional gift of expressing his feelings. The style of these letters show us that the human who wrote them was well educated, highly critical, curious and well-spoken, and the contents testify the not so well known side of the history of science relations between Vilnius, Warsaw and Paris.

In this article it is aimed to tell about a person, which was unduly forgotten in the history of the Vilnius University, though among his other activities, he did a lot to support and help the astronomers, coming to Paris and London from Vilnius. A former jesuit, talented preacher, professor of Rhetorics and other disciplines in Vilnius academy, Remigian Korwin Kossakowski (1730–1780) wrote a lot of letters to Vilnius (and perhaps to Warsaw too), from 1774 on, while working in Paris as the representative of the National Comission of Education of the Commonwealth of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The letters which are kept in Vilnius university library, mainly addressed to the astronomers Marcin Poczobut and Andrzej Strzecki (1737–1797) are mainly connected with the scientific journey of Strzecki in 1778 to Paris and London and the circumstances of election of Poczobut as a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. Letters are filled with digressions, reminding of gawenda literary genre, providing the researcher with data on the details of everyday life in the second half of XVIII century, political and ideological views of the addressee, his nostalgy for the Grand Duchy and Poland and his exceptional gift of expressing his feelings. The style of these letters show us that the human who wrote them was well educated, highly critical, curious and well-spoken, and the contents testify the not so well known side of the history of science relations between Vilnius, Warsaw and Paris.

In this article it is aimed to tell about a person, which was unduly forgotten in the history of the Vilnius University, though among his other activities, he did a lot to support and help the astronomers, coming to Paris and London from Vilnius. A former jesuit, talented preacher, professor of Rhetorics and other disciplines in Vilnius academy, Remigian Korwin Kossakowski (1730–1780) wrote a lot of letters to Vilnius (and perhaps to Warsaw too), from 1774 on, while working in Paris as the representative of the National Comission of Education of the Commonwealth of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The letters which are kept in Vilnius university library, mainly addressed to the astronomers Marcin Poczobut and Andrzej Strzecki (1737–1797) are mainly connected with the scientific journey of Strzecki in 1778 to Paris and London and the circumstances of election of Poczobut as a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris. Letters are filled with digressions, reminding of gawenda literary genre, providing the researcher with data on the details of everyday life in the second half of XVIII century, political and ideological views of the addressee, his nostalgy for the Grand Duchy and Poland and his exceptional gift of expressing his feelings. The style of these letters show us that the human who wrote them was well educated, highly critical, curious and well-spoken, and the contents testify the not so well known side of the history of science relations between Vilnius, Warsaw and Paris.

The French writer and jornalist Jean Mauclère (1887–1951), who developed an interest in Lithuania in his youth, visited Lirhuania twice, and devoted much of his writing to it. His interest in Lithuania bloomed into books on history and literature, transcripts of folktales, travel books, a number of articles in French media. They received positive critical reception in France at time. The article discusses the image of Lithuania in Jean Mauclèreʾs travel books Sous le ciel pâle de Lithuanie (Paris, Plon-Nourrit, 1926) and Gens et routes de Lithuanie (Paris, A. Redier, Librairie de la Revue française, 1931). As the narrator travels through Lithuania, he meets politicians, public figures, writers, artists and so-called common people. He discusses the economic (industry, agriculture) and cultural (education, literature, art) developments in Lithuania, reflects on Lithuaniaʾs landscape, the physical type of its resident, and the features of the Lithuanian language. The narrator notes the regional differences; he not only focuses on the nation at large, but also considers national minorities. The narrative on Lithuania, wchich at the time was undergoing the process of modernization, captures the images of the past, legends, the continuous relationship between past and present. The narrator offers an absorbing parallel between the two most important Lithuanian cities of Kaunas and Vilnius. The narrator of travel books, an educated writer and journalist, representative of Western Europe, reflects on Lithuania in a favourable and optimistic manner. He emphasizes the European character of Lithuania, its modernity, dwells on its exotic nature. The narrator suggests that the latter feature defines Lithuania's authenticity among other Wester European states. The analysis of the image of Lithuania in Mauclère's travel books draws on the premises of comparativist imagology (Yves Clavaron, Jean-Marc Moura, Daniel Henry Pageux, Pierre Rajotte etc.).

The French writer and jornalist Jean Mauclère (1887–1951), who developed an interest in Lithuania in his youth, visited Lirhuania twice, and devoted much of his writing to it. His interest in Lithuania bloomed into books on history and literature, transcripts of folktales, travel books, a number of articles in French media. They received positive critical reception in France at time. The article discusses the image of Lithuania in Jean Mauclèreʾs travel books Sous le ciel pâle de Lithuanie (Paris, Plon-Nourrit, 1926) and Gens et routes de Lithuanie (Paris, A. Redier, Librairie de la Revue française, 1931). As the narrator travels through Lithuania, he meets politicians, public figures, writers, artists and so-called common people. He discusses the economic (industry, agriculture) and cultural (education, literature, art) developments in Lithuania, reflects on Lithuaniaʾs landscape, the physical type of its resident, and the features of the Lithuanian language. The narrator notes the regional differences; he not only focuses on the nation at large, but also considers national minorities. The narrative on Lithuania, wchich at the time was undergoing the process of modernization, captures the images of the past, legends, the continuous relationship between past and present. The narrator offers an absorbing parallel between the two most important Lithuanian cities of Kaunas and Vilnius. The narrator of travel books, an educated writer and journalist, representative of Western Europe, reflects on Lithuania in a favourable and optimistic manner. He emphasizes the European character of Lithuania, its modernity, dwells on its exotic nature. The narrator suggests that the latter feature defines Lithuania's authenticity among other Wester European states. The analysis of the image of Lithuania in Mauclère's travel books draws on the premises of comparativist imagology (Yves Clavaron, Jean-Marc Moura, Daniel Henry Pageux, Pierre Rajotte etc.).

The French writer and jornalist Jean Mauclère (1887–1951), who developed an interest in Lithuania in his youth, visited Lirhuania twice, and devoted much of his writing to it. His interest in Lithuania bloomed into books on history and literature, transcripts of folktales, travel books, a number of articles in French media. They received positive critical reception in France at time. The article discusses the image of Lithuania in Jean Mauclèreʾs travel books Sous le ciel pâle de Lithuanie (Paris, Plon-Nourrit, 1926) and Gens et routes de Lithuanie (Paris, A. Redier, Librairie de la Revue française, 1931). As the narrator travels through Lithuania, he meets politicians, public figures, writers, artists and so-called common people. He discusses the economic (industry, agriculture) and cultural (education, literature, art) developments in Lithuania, reflects on Lithuaniaʾs landscape, the physical type of its resident, and the features of the Lithuanian language. The narrator notes the regional differences; he not only focuses on the nation at large, but also considers national minorities. The narrative on Lithuania, wchich at the time was undergoing the process of modernization, captures the images of the past, legends, the continuous relationship between past and present. The narrator offers an absorbing parallel between the two most important Lithuanian cities of Kaunas and Vilnius. The narrator of travel books, an educated writer and journalist, representative of Western Europe, reflects on Lithuania in a favourable and optimistic manner. He emphasizes the European character of Lithuania, its modernity, dwells on its exotic nature. The narrator suggests that the latter feature defines Lithuania's authenticity among other Wester European states. The analysis of the image of Lithuania in Mauclère's travel books draws on the premises of comparativist imagology (Yves Clavaron, Jean-Marc Moura, Daniel Henry Pageux, Pierre Rajotte etc.).