Suchergebnisse

An analysis of the art, or rather of the abstractions, of Juzefa Čeičytė (b. 1922), which she produced in her spare time in the Soviet period, may serve to reflect the threat and the gaps in the complex ideological apparatus of the Soviet system. This paper tries to penetrate the recurrent and ostensibly undisputed claims that the paintings of Čeičytė, kept from outsiders for a long time, are "identity documents" produced as "evidence of an unruly soul". The artist's existential positions and intentions, which profess the old modern model that deems that creation is a mysterious uncalculated work leading to who knows where, are closer to the Western ideas of that period. It is very clear, however, where the structures in Čeičytė's works lead to. How she manages not to overstep her limited square – the black theatre box – and how she manages to arrange herself within it, result in works that all merit a great deal of attention. Paradoxically, abstract art is one of the negative Soviet statements that acquired a political aspect and became the great enemy of socialist realism – but in this case it was even praised in the official press, and occupied a particular position within the ideological system. The Soviet press could only state and follow its own fiction: praise socialist realist works of art, conceal strange new works of art, artificially organise educational discussions, or conceal unsolved problems. Therefore, once Čeičytė's abstract works entered the arena of. [to full text]

An analysis of the art, or rather of the abstractions, of Juzefa Čeičytė (b. 1922), which she produced in her spare time in the Soviet period, may serve to reflect the threat and the gaps in the complex ideological apparatus of the Soviet system. This paper tries to penetrate the recurrent and ostensibly undisputed claims that the paintings of Čeičytė, kept from outsiders for a long time, are "identity documents" produced as "evidence of an unruly soul". The artist's existential positions and intentions, which profess the old modern model that deems that creation is a mysterious uncalculated work leading to who knows where, are closer to the Western ideas of that period. It is very clear, however, where the structures in Čeičytė's works lead to. How she manages not to overstep her limited square – the black theatre box – and how she manages to arrange herself within it, result in works that all merit a great deal of attention. Paradoxically, abstract art is one of the negative Soviet statements that acquired a political aspect and became the great enemy of socialist realism – but in this case it was even praised in the official press, and occupied a particular position within the ideological system. The Soviet press could only state and follow its own fiction: praise socialist realist works of art, conceal strange new works of art, artificially organise educational discussions, or conceal unsolved problems. Therefore, once Čeičytė's abstract works entered the arena of. [to full text]

An analysis of the art, or rather of the abstractions, of Juzefa Čeičytė (b. 1922), which she produced in her spare time in the Soviet period, may serve to reflect the threat and the gaps in the complex ideological apparatus of the Soviet system. This paper tries to penetrate the recurrent and ostensibly undisputed claims that the paintings of Čeičytė, kept from outsiders for a long time, are "identity documents" produced as "evidence of an unruly soul". The artist's existential positions and intentions, which profess the old modern model that deems that creation is a mysterious uncalculated work leading to who knows where, are closer to the Western ideas of that period. It is very clear, however, where the structures in Čeičytė's works lead to. How she manages not to overstep her limited square – the black theatre box – and how she manages to arrange herself within it, result in works that all merit a great deal of attention. Paradoxically, abstract art is one of the negative Soviet statements that acquired a political aspect and became the great enemy of socialist realism – but in this case it was even praised in the official press, and occupied a particular position within the ideological system. The Soviet press could only state and follow its own fiction: praise socialist realist works of art, conceal strange new works of art, artificially organise educational discussions, or conceal unsolved problems. Therefore, once Čeičytė's abstract works entered the arena of. [to full text]