Suchergebnisse

This study (The Focuses of Attention in Lithuanian Literary Criticism (1991 – 2005), Marginalia, Canon of Analysis and Taboo) demonstrates the critical connection to Lithuanian science of literature and Lithuanian literary criticism. The attention is concentrated on traditional strategies of literary discursivity, which functioning is very intensive in our surroundings. Critic is directed over the "high literature canon", which is hegemonisated, absoluted, mistificated. Author is regarded as the important institute, which produces meanings – sytems of signification. These meanings are connected with the author as a transcendental subject. So traditional literary criticism lay a stress on the interflow of ethics and aesthetics. That is why value politics do not tolerate popculture, as if was felt longing for the former "general strategies", reasoning about historical monolithic, general limitings and meanings. The new (post)modern aesthetic experience surpasses the limits of aesthetics, established by the traditional Western metaphysics; so the limits of the contemporary aesthetics were considerably expanded and deprived of distinct determinations. But despite that traditional critics unflaggingly persist in the analysis of literature, predicated on hierarchical dualism. It's maintained, that there is ability to resist against such "uniting" position just creating self-critical discourses, modernly determinating the role of Lithuanian literature and culture. It's important to explane, which discourses help to appear for the new political / nationspaces, which models of the fetishistic discursivity limit them, narrow the disperse of general identities.

This study (The Focuses of Attention in Lithuanian Literary Criticism (1991 – 2005), Marginalia, Canon of Analysis and Taboo) demonstrates the critical connection to Lithuanian science of literature and Lithuanian literary criticism. The attention is concentrated on traditional strategies of literary discursivity, which functioning is very intensive in our surroundings. Critic is directed over the "high literature canon", which is hegemonisated, absoluted, mistificated. Author is regarded as the important institute, which produces meanings – sytems of signification. These meanings are connected with the author as a transcendental subject. So traditional literary criticism lay a stress on the interflow of ethics and aesthetics. That is why value politics do not tolerate popculture, as if was felt longing for the former "general strategies", reasoning about historical monolithic, general limitings and meanings. The new (post)modern aesthetic experience surpasses the limits of aesthetics, established by the traditional Western metaphysics; so the limits of the contemporary aesthetics were considerably expanded and deprived of distinct determinations. But despite that traditional critics unflaggingly persist in the analysis of literature, predicated on hierarchical dualism. It's maintained, that there is ability to resist against such "uniting" position just creating self-critical discourses, modernly determinating the role of Lithuanian literature and culture. It's important to explane, which discourses help to appear for the new political / nationspaces, which models of the fetishistic discursivity limit them, narrow the disperse of general identities.