Suchergebnisse

Unlike a number of decades ago, in the contemporary world museums are assessed not on the variety of their collections or the amount of received fnancing or their upto-date equipment, but on their importance and the value provided to society. Te aim of this article is to discuss the major changes in the museum sector over the last decades, which changed the role of the museum and its relation to society, to analyse the reasons for this transformation and to present the newest concepts of contemporary museum, the established models of cooperation of the Western museums and the example of cooperation between Lithuanian museum and the community. Despite strong critical voices, doubting the capacity of the museums to adapt quickly to the changing needs of society and the scepticism about the possibilities of museum cooperation with the diferent groups of society (considering that the involvement of the society becomes crucial for the survival of the museum, the fscal health of the museum depends on it, etc.), a larger part of museum studies researchers admit the need to change the power balance between the museum and society. A nearly unanimous agreement has been reached that this institution can no longer stay an enclosed, elite and non-social structure, since the museum unavoidably participates in dynamics of (in)equality and power relations, constructing and transmitting dominant social narratives. Tus it remains to answer the question of what political role the museums could undertake to support equal possibilities and pluralistic values. [.]

Unlike a number of decades ago, in the contemporary world museums are assessed not on the variety of their collections or the amount of received fnancing or their upto-date equipment, but on their importance and the value provided to society. Te aim of this article is to discuss the major changes in the museum sector over the last decades, which changed the role of the museum and its relation to society, to analyse the reasons for this transformation and to present the newest concepts of contemporary museum, the established models of cooperation of the Western museums and the example of cooperation between Lithuanian museum and the community. Despite strong critical voices, doubting the capacity of the museums to adapt quickly to the changing needs of society and the scepticism about the possibilities of museum cooperation with the diferent groups of society (considering that the involvement of the society becomes crucial for the survival of the museum, the fscal health of the museum depends on it, etc.), a larger part of museum studies researchers admit the need to change the power balance between the museum and society. A nearly unanimous agreement has been reached that this institution can no longer stay an enclosed, elite and non-social structure, since the museum unavoidably participates in dynamics of (in)equality and power relations, constructing and transmitting dominant social narratives. Tus it remains to answer the question of what political role the museums could undertake to support equal possibilities and pluralistic values. [.]

Unlike a number of decades ago, in the contemporary world museums are assessed not on the variety of their collections or the amount of received fnancing or their upto-date equipment, but on their importance and the value provided to society. Te aim of this article is to discuss the major changes in the museum sector over the last decades, which changed the role of the museum and its relation to society, to analyse the reasons for this transformation and to present the newest concepts of contemporary museum, the established models of cooperation of the Western museums and the example of cooperation between Lithuanian museum and the community. Despite strong critical voices, doubting the capacity of the museums to adapt quickly to the changing needs of society and the scepticism about the possibilities of museum cooperation with the diferent groups of society (considering that the involvement of the society becomes crucial for the survival of the museum, the fscal health of the museum depends on it, etc.), a larger part of museum studies researchers admit the need to change the power balance between the museum and society. A nearly unanimous agreement has been reached that this institution can no longer stay an enclosed, elite and non-social structure, since the museum unavoidably participates in dynamics of (in)equality and power relations, constructing and transmitting dominant social narratives. Tus it remains to answer the question of what political role the museums could undertake to support equal possibilities and pluralistic values. [.]

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.

Dissertation thesis analyses the ideological processes of art discourse in the last decade of the 20th century – the formation and decline of different value related and ideological orientations, and their correlation, which makes an influence upon the changing conception of art and artist. These processes are analyzed referring to the reviews of the exhibitions of the discussed period, the exhibitions themselves, the declarations by the artists, who actively participated on the art scene, and their works, which were shaping the public art life. A separate attention is devoted to various layers of the artistic field – to the sociopolitical context, the works of art, the institutional exhibitions, and to the texts in cultural periodicals. The main aim of the thesis is to make a thorough analysis of the ideological and value related changes, which took place in the Lithuanian art discourse in the 1990s, and by underlining the artistic, institutional and sociopolitical contexts to reveal the changing content of symbolic constructions and their influence on the struggles for legitimization in the artistic field. The tasks of the research are: to define the role of the postsoviet intellectual (artist) in the Lithuanian art processes during the Rebirth period and in the years of independence; to explore the forms of politics of memory, which were established in the public discourse; to define the specificity of the concept of ideology in the postsoviet society; to analyze the ideological nature of modernist art in the postsoviet society; to define the ideological attitudes of the main art institutions; to disclose the character and reasons of the ideological collisions of the institutions; to make a thorough analysis of the most significant exhibitions and to reveal the ideological implications of the narratives being constructed by them; to reveal the most important mechanisms of art legitimization, which were implanted in the cultural periodicals of this period; to make a thorough analysis of strongly ideologically engaged discourses and the connections of ideological collisions with the politics of institutional domination.

Dissertation thesis analyses the ideological processes of art discourse in the last decade of the 20th century – the formation and decline of different value related and ideological orientations, and their correlation, which makes an influence upon the changing conception of art and artist. These processes are analyzed referring to the reviews of the exhibitions of the discussed period, the exhibitions themselves, the declarations by the artists, who actively participated on the art scene, and their works, which were shaping the public art life. A separate attention is devoted to various layers of the artistic field – to the sociopolitical context, the works of art, the institutional exhibitions, and to the texts in cultural periodicals. The main aim of the thesis is to make a thorough analysis of the ideological and value related changes, which took place in the Lithuanian art discourse in the 1990s, and by underlining the artistic, institutional and sociopolitical contexts to reveal the changing content of symbolic constructions and their influence on the struggles for legitimization in the artistic field. The tasks of the research are: to define the role of the postsoviet intellectual (artist) in the Lithuanian art processes during the Rebirth period and in the years of independence; to explore the forms of politics of memory, which were established in the public discourse; to define the specificity of the concept of ideology in the postsoviet society; to analyze the ideological nature of modernist art in the postsoviet society; to define the ideological attitudes of the main art institutions; to disclose the character and reasons of the ideological collisions of the institutions; to make a thorough analysis of the most significant exhibitions and to reveal the ideological implications of the narratives being constructed by them; to reveal the most important mechanisms of art legitimization, which were implanted in the cultural periodicals of this period; to make a thorough analysis of strongly ideologically engaged discourses and the connections of ideological collisions with the politics of institutional domination.

Dissertation thesis analyses the ideological processes of art discourse in the last decade of the 20th century – the formation and decline of different value related and ideological orientations, and their correlation, which makes an influence upon the changing conception of art and artist. These processes are analyzed referring to the reviews of the exhibitions of the discussed period, the exhibitions themselves, the declarations by the artists, who actively participated on the art scene, and their works, which were shaping the public art life. A separate attention is devoted to various layers of the artistic field – to the sociopolitical context, the works of art, the institutional exhibitions, and to the texts in cultural periodicals. The main aim of the thesis is to make a thorough analysis of the ideological and value related changes, which took place in the Lithuanian art discourse in the 1990s, and by underlining the artistic, institutional and sociopolitical contexts to reveal the changing content of symbolic constructions and their influence on the struggles for legitimization in the artistic field. The tasks of the research are: to define the role of the postsoviet intellectual (artist) in the Lithuanian art processes during the Rebirth period and in the years of independence; to explore the forms of politics of memory, which were established in the public discourse; to define the specificity of the concept of ideology in the postsoviet society; to analyze the ideological nature of modernist art in the postsoviet society; to define the ideological attitudes of the main art institutions; to disclose the character and reasons of the ideological collisions of the institutions; to make a thorough analysis of the most significant exhibitions and to reveal the ideological implications of the narratives being constructed by them; to reveal the most important mechanisms of art legitimization, which were implanted in the cultural periodicals of this period; to make a thorough analysis of strongly ideologically engaged discourses and the connections of ideological collisions with the politics of institutional domination.