Discussions about monuments usually revolve not around the visual and aesthetic expression of monuments. Looking at the ongoing debate, one can assume that it is about how we understand what Lithuania is and what Lithuania is not – what we need to remember and what we need to forget in the narrative of Lithuania represented through monuments. In other words, they are related to certain collective images of Lithuania and the world around it. Although this assumption is made in the public debate, it is not verified at academic level. The objective of the research is to analyze what kind of identity of the Lithuanian state is created and represented through the monuments that stand in the public spaces of Lithuania. The author seeks to reveal the theoretical possibilities of the participation of monuments in the formation and representation of state identity and to show the role of monuments as identity construction practices in Lithuania. An analysis of monumental practices reveals that the debate about monuments is primarily shaped by political factors.
The aim to identify the types of political relationship among monuments can be defined as the main goal of the article. Regarding the ongoing debate about the politicization of monuments in Lithuania, the article seeks to find out what features and functions of monuments make them the subject of political controversy and political discussion. The analysis starts with theoretical assumptions distinguishing the types of relationship between monuments and politics that dominate the theoretical level. After the review of the theoretical level, the typology of the relationship between politics and monuments in Lithuania is explained highlighting the exceptions of the Lithuanian case by going through the typological analysis of the Lithuanian academic discourse.
The aim to identify the types of political relationship among monuments can be defined as the main goal of the article. Regarding the ongoing debate about the politicization of monuments in Lithuania, the article seeks to find out what features and functions of monuments make them the subject of political controversy and political discussion. The analysis starts with theoretical assumptions distinguishing the types of relationship between monuments and politics that dominate the theoretical level. After the review of the theoretical level, the typology of the relationship between politics and monuments in Lithuania is explained highlighting the exceptions of the Lithuanian case by going through the typological analysis of the Lithuanian academic discourse.
The aim to identify the types of political relationship among monuments can be defined as the main goal of the article. Regarding the ongoing debate about the politicization of monuments in Lithuania, the article seeks to find out what features and functions of monuments make them the subject of political controversy and political discussion. The analysis starts with theoretical assumptions distinguishing the types of relationship between monuments and politics that dominate the theoretical level. After the review of the theoretical level, the typology of the relationship between politics and monuments in Lithuania is explained highlighting the exceptions of the Lithuanian case by going through the typological analysis of the Lithuanian academic discourse.
Monuments can be treated as an empirical entry point into the symbolism of national politics and the formation of national identity. Following the elitist perspective on monuments by Forest and Johnson (2002), Begic and Mraovic (2014) and Atkinson and Cosgrove (1998), different political elites and regimes should cause change in monuments that, in turn, lead to change in the construction of national identity. The aesthetic analysis of monuments in Lithuania reveals the contrary: that there are some constant aesthetic characteristics, i.e. visual canons that can be observed in the monuments built in different political regimes and elites. In this context, the main task of this article is to answer how we can account for both the continuities and the changes in monuments. To do so, an analysis of monuments in Vilnius, the capital city of Lithuania, was conducted using the discourse analysis of documents representing the analyzed monuments together with the semiotic analysis looking the discursive level of monuments and especially their figurative and thematic aspects.
The aim to identify the types of political relationship among monuments can be defined as the main goal of the article. Regarding the ongoing debate about the politicization of monuments in Lithuania, the article seeks to find out what features and functions of monuments make them the subject of political controversy and political discussion. The analysis starts with theoretical assumptions distinguishing the types of relationship between monuments and politics that dominate the theoretical level. After the review of the theoretical level, the typology of the relationship between politics and monuments in Lithuania is explained highlighting the exceptions of the Lithuanian case by going through the typological analysis of the Lithuanian academic discourse. ; Šiame straipsnyje pristatomas paminklų ir politikos santykis. Pasitelkiant klasikinius paminklų politiškumą aiškinančius autorius ir praktinių atvejų užsienyje pavyzdžius, apibrėžiami pagrindiniai teoriniu lygmeniu pateikiami paminklų ir politikos santykio tipai. Atsispiriant nuo teorinių prielaidų, taikant tipologinės analizės principą, įgyvendinama Lietuvos akademinio diskurso analizė, leidžianti pristatyti Lietuvoje egzistuojančią politikos ir paminklų santykio tipologiją, padedančią suprasti, kodėl paminklai tampa politinių nesutarimų ir politinių diskusijų objektu.
Monuments can be treated as an empirical entry point into the symbolism of national politics and the formation of national identity. Following the elitist perspective on monuments by Forest and Johnson (2002), Begic and Mraovic (2014) and Atkinson and Cosgrove (1998), different political elites and regimes should cause change in monuments that, in turn, lead to change in the construction of national identity. The aesthetic analysis of monuments in Lithuania reveals the contrary: that there are some constant aesthetic characteristics, i.e. visual canons that can be observed in the monuments built in different political regimes and elites. In this context, the main task of this article is to answer how we can account for both the continuities and the changes in monuments. To do so, an analysis of monuments in Vilnius, the capital city of Lithuania, was conducted using the discourse analysis of documents representing the analyzed monuments together with the semiotic analysis looking the discursive level of monuments and especially their figurative and thematic aspects.
The aim to identify the types of political relationship among monuments can be defined as the main goal of the article. Regarding the ongoing debate about the politicization of monuments in Lithuania, the article seeks to find out what features and functions of monuments make them the subject of political controversy and political discussion. The analysis starts with theoretical assumptions distinguishing the types of relationship between monuments and politics that dominate the theoretical level. After the review of the theoretical level, the typology of the relationship between politics and monuments in Lithuania is explained highlighting the exceptions of the Lithuanian case by going through the typological analysis of the Lithuanian academic discourse.
Monuments can be treated as an empirical entry point into the symbolism of national politics and the formation of national identity. Following the elitist perspective on monuments by Forest and Johnson (2002), Begic and Mraovic (2014) and Atkinson and Cosgrove (1998), different political elites and regimes should cause change in monuments that, in turn, lead to change in the construction of national identity. The aesthetic analysis of monuments in Lithuania reveals the contrary: that there are some constant aesthetic characteristics, i.e. visual canons that can be observed in the monuments built in different political regimes and elites. In this context, the main task of this article is to answer how we can account for both the continuities and the changes in monuments. To do so, an analysis of monuments in Vilnius, the capital city of Lithuania, was conducted using the discourse analysis of documents representing the analyzed monuments together with the semiotic analysis looking the discursive level of monuments and especially their figurative and thematic aspects.
The aim to identify the types of political relationship among monuments can be defined as the main goal of the article. Regarding the ongoing debate about the politicization of monuments in Lithuania, the article seeks to find out what features and functions of monuments make them the subject of political controversy and political discussion. The analysis starts with theoretical assumptions distinguishing the types of relationship between monuments and politics that dominate the theoretical level. After the review of the theoretical level, the typology of the relationship between politics and monuments in Lithuania is explained highlighting the exceptions of the Lithuanian case by going through the typological analysis of the Lithuanian academic discourse.
Monuments can be treated as an empirical entry point into the symbolism of national politics and the formation of national identity. Following the elitist perspective on monuments by Forest and Johnson (2002), Begic and Mraovic (2014) and Atkinson and Cosgrove (1998), different political elites and regimes should cause change in monuments that, in turn, lead to change in the construction of national identity. The aesthetic analysis of monuments in Lithuania reveals the contrary: that there are some constant aesthetic characteristics, i.e. visual canons that can be observed in the monuments built in different political regimes and elites. In this context, the main task of this article is to answer how we can account for both the continuities and the changes in monuments. To do so, an analysis of monuments in Vilnius, the capital city of Lithuania, was conducted using the discourse analysis of documents representing the analyzed monuments together with the semiotic analysis looking the discursive level of monuments and especially their figurative and thematic aspects.
This article aims to take a closer look at conceptual art practices as platforms for expressing political attitudes. Conceptual art practices shifted the emphasis of art-making away from static, individual objects towards the presentation of a new relationship in space, time, and context. Moreover, conceptual art represents "institutional critique" in the sense of critically reflecting the art practices within galleries, including the opposition to understanding arts as consumerism. Despite the fact that conceptual art is recognised as one of the most political branches of art, there is a strong relationship between political expressions and local context. There is a wide scientific agreement that local political, social, historical, economic, and cultural conditions are the main factors responsible for political attributes. In the empirical approach evidence of visual similarities between US, West Europe, East Europe, and Latin America, the conceptual practices are explored, but the political, ideological, and social concepts are recognised as radically different. Considering the differences of political interpretations of conceptual art that depend on a particular region and the differences between individual Eastern European countries, Lithuanian case must be analysed in its own terms. However, social and political scientists are still reluctant to show more interest in the political and social field of art practices in Lithuania. This article seeks to identify the types of political implications that are being communicated in the Lithuanian conceptual art and why artists select certain attitudes and attributes at certain times. The framing of the article is designed to emphasize and outline the local specificity and political identity of artistic works that were made in Lithuania. The analysis attempts to situate the term "conceptual art" in Lithuania. Later, it leads to the isolation of four directions of political implications in the realm of Lithuanian conceptual practices. The first direction is related to the criticism of internal politics of the art world. The second one reveals a strong relationship between conceptual art practices and current problems in the public sphere, such as ecology, human rights, and environmental protection. The third direction leads to the legitimization of conceptual practices and critiques of regime, as well as pursuing and proclaiming certain political goals on the local political, social, and cultural stage. And the last one can be defined as institutionalisation and routinisation of conceptual art in Lithuania with the elimination of internal and external elements of political critique. All in all, the aim to problematize the dynamics of political communication in Lithuanian conceptual art can be defined as the main goal of this article. It reveals that artistic practices have the potential to create the subtle expressions of political and social attitudes as well as spaces for political protest in Lithuania. ; Šiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamos politinės implikacijos Lietuvos konceptualiajame mene. Analizuojama, kokios politinės implikacijos būdingos šio meno praktikoms Lietuvoje, susiformavusioms devinto dešimtmečio antroje pusėje–dešimto dešimtmečio pradžioje. Identifikuojamos konceptualiojo meno atsiradimo aplinkybės, konceptualių meninių praktikų pobūdis ir dinamika, protesto politikos įteisinimo procesas, konceptualiojo meno formų institucionalizavimasis, eliminavęs protesto, kritikos elementus komunikuojančius konceptus. Straipsnyje skiriamos keturios pagrindinės politinių implikacijų kryptys, orientuojantis į specifinį konceptualių meninių praktikų turinį, pobūdį ir įvairovę Lietuvoje. Analizėje atsižvelgiama į lokalaus konteksto įtaką, stipriai veikusią šios meno krypties idėjų turinį, jo raišką ir aiškinimą ne tik skirtinguose regionuose, bet ir Rytų Europos regione.
