Suchergebnisse

In 1914, the Samogitian Jews were exposed to the first adverse consequences of World War I. Thus, the town centre of Žemaičių Naumiestis was burnt down; more than 50 local Jewish libraries were destroyed from fire. In 1915, deportations of the Jewish population into the depths of Russia began. More intense activities by the German troops on the borderline resulted in huge material and human losses. The period in question was marked by cases of thefts and wilful destruction of Jewish documentary heritage. However, in most cases Jews' belongings and assets perished in the fire together with their houses that had been set fire to. More significant losses incurred as a result of military actions were experienced in the spring of 1915 by the Jews living in Paprūsė (Podlesi region), Šiauliai country and the Courland border. During the research, 92 cases of losing the Jewish documentary heritage were established. Relevant data were collected on the essential aspects of preserving and losing documentary heritage in the period of 1914–1918. More in-depth analysis was conducted on the losses of Jewish documentary heritage in Gruzdžiai, Jurbarkas, Kelmė, Kuršėnai, Raseiniai, Leckava, Seredžius, Švėkšna, Tirkšliai, Tauragė ir Žemaičių Naumiestis. The total value of these losses amounts to 96 thousand roubles. Among the most valuable were the manuscript libraries collected by Torah and Jewish communities as well as archival collections. The Jews were known to have established a great number of libraries; even the illiterate Jews had personal collections of books. Quite a few Jewish libraries stored a 1000 and more volumes of books. Due to the significant losses of both archival documents and human demography, the author could not further develop the reconstruction of this heritage on a larger scale. However, the material collected made it possible to identify and evaluate the common problems of preserving and losing Samogitian Jews' documentary heritage during World War I.

In 1914, the Samogitian Jews were exposed to the first adverse consequences of World War I. Thus, the town centre of Žemaičių Naumiestis was burnt down; more than 50 local Jewish libraries were destroyed from fire. In 1915, deportations of the Jewish population into the depths of Russia began. More intense activities by the German troops on the borderline resulted in huge material and human losses. The period in question was marked by cases of thefts and wilful destruction of Jewish documentary heritage. However, in most cases Jews' belongings and assets perished in the fire together with their houses that had been set fire to. More significant losses incurred as a result of military actions were experienced in the spring of 1915 by the Jews living in Paprūsė (Podlesi region), Šiauliai country and the Courland border. During the research, 92 cases of losing the Jewish documentary heritage were established. Relevant data were collected on the essential aspects of preserving and losing documentary heritage in the period of 1914–1918. More in-depth analysis was conducted on the losses of Jewish documentary heritage in Gruzdžiai, Jurbarkas, Kelmė, Kuršėnai, Raseiniai, Leckava, Seredžius, Švėkšna, Tirkšliai, Tauragė ir Žemaičių Naumiestis. The total value of these losses amounts to 96 thousand roubles. Among the most valuable were the manuscript libraries collected by Torah and Jewish communities as well as archival collections. The Jews were known to have established a great number of libraries; even the illiterate Jews had personal collections of books. Quite a few Jewish libraries stored a 1000 and more volumes of books. Due to the significant losses of both archival documents and human demography, the author could not further develop the reconstruction of this heritage on a larger scale. However, the material collected made it possible to identify and evaluate the common problems of preserving and losing Samogitian Jews' documentary heritage during World War I.

In 1914, the Samogitian Jews were exposed to the first adverse consequences of World War I. Thus, the town centre of Žemaičių Naumiestis was burnt down; more than 50 local Jewish libraries were destroyed from fire. In 1915, deportations of the Jewish population into the depths of Russia began. More intense activities by the German troops on the borderline resulted in huge material and human losses. The period in question was marked by cases of thefts and wilful destruction of Jewish documentary heritage. However, in most cases Jews' belongings and assets perished in the fire together with their houses that had been set fire to. More significant losses incurred as a result of military actions were experienced in the spring of 1915 by the Jews living in Paprūsė (Podlesi region), Šiauliai country and the Courland border. During the research, 92 cases of losing the Jewish documentary heritage were established. Relevant data were collected on the essential aspects of preserving and losing documentary heritage in the period of 1914–1918. More in-depth analysis was conducted on the losses of Jewish documentary heritage in Gruzdžiai, Jurbarkas, Kelmė, Kuršėnai, Raseiniai, Leckava, Seredžius, Švėkšna, Tirkšliai, Tauragė ir Žemaičių Naumiestis. The total value of these losses amounts to 96 thousand roubles. Among the most valuable were the manuscript libraries collected by Torah and Jewish communities as well as archival collections. The Jews were known to have established a great number of libraries; even the illiterate Jews had personal collections of books. Quite a few Jewish libraries stored a 1000 and more volumes of books. Due to the significant losses of both archival documents and human demography, the author could not further develop the reconstruction of this heritage on a larger scale. However, the material collected made it possible to identify and evaluate the common problems of preserving and losing Samogitian Jews' documentary heritage during World War I.

In 1914, the Samogitian Jews were exposed to the first adverse consequences of World War I. Thus, the town centre of Žemaičių Naumiestis was burnt down; more than 50 local Jewish libraries were destroyed from fire. In 1915, deportations of the Jewish population into the depths of Russia began. More intense activities by the German troops on the borderline resulted in huge material and human losses. The period in question was marked by cases of thefts and wilful destruction of Jewish documentary heritage. However, in most cases Jews' belongings and assets perished in the fire together with their houses that had been set fire to. More significant losses incurred as a result of military actions were experienced in the spring of 1915 by the Jews living in Paprūsė (Podlesi region), Šiauliai country and the Courland border. During the research, 92 cases of losing the Jewish documentary heritage were established. Relevant data were collected on the essential aspects of preserving and losing documentary heritage in the period of 1914–1918. More in-depth analysis was conducted on the losses of Jewish documentary heritage in Gruzdžiai, Jurbarkas, Kelmė, Kuršėnai, Raseiniai, Leckava, Seredžius, Švėkšna, Tirkšliai, Tauragė ir Žemaičių Naumiestis. The total value of these losses amounts to 96 thousand roubles. Among the most valuable were the manuscript libraries collected by Torah and Jewish communities as well as archival collections. The Jews were known to have established a great number of libraries; even the illiterate Jews had personal collections of books. Quite a few Jewish libraries stored a 1000 and more volumes of books. Due to the significant losses of both archival documents and human demography, the author could not further develop the reconstruction of this heritage on a larger scale. However, the material collected made it possible to identify and evaluate the common problems of preserving and losing Samogitian Jews' documentary heritage during World War I.

It is inexpedient now to talk about is photography an art, or it isn't. It's a result of the concordance that there are some kind of symbiosis between artistry and documentary in photography. Additionally, photography has modified the protocol with industry, with science, with advertising, with journalism, with communication, with art, with everyday life… Consequently photography can't yet be studied as an autonomous discipline. It is more productive to look at it in its applications in other fields. For this reason it is necessary to analyze the photographs of Antanas Sutkus, the famous Lithuanian photographer, in the fields of anthropology, of social and communication sciences and of art. The other problem is that various European countries, to say nothing of whole continents (for example so called Third World), have been left on the fringes of the histories of photography. To avoid this mistake it is purposeful to look at the photographs of Antanas Sutkus also in the context of the Western countries that have their own photographic traditions. Furthermore, there are some principal filters – cultural, ideological and political – that have determined the dominant historiographic models and the photographic tradition itself. The major part of Antanas' Sutkus' photographs were made when Lithuania was the constituent of the Soviet Union. Consequently it is imperative to talk about Soviet ideology that carried authority on the creation of Antanas Sutkus and on the entire Lithuanian photographic tradition. Not a barrel of these contexts can show that a documentary and an artistry coexist in the photography of Antanas Sutkus. This coexistence seems evident when some transformations take part. For example, when the press photo, which was closely subordinated with text, appears in the galleries or in the photo albums that can change its original meaning. There again, the relevant political-social substance of photography can become a conformation of the photographer's creative interpretation. Therefore it is possible to say, that photographs of Antanas Sutkus can not be only an object of study, because it is also an instrument of study. Not only history makes photography of this famous Lithuanian photographer, but also his photography produces history.

It is inexpedient now to talk about is photography an art, or it isn't. It's a result of the concordance that there are some kind of symbiosis between artistry and documentary in photography. Additionally, photography has modified the protocol with industry, with science, with advertising, with journalism, with communication, with art, with everyday life… Consequently photography can't yet be studied as an autonomous discipline. It is more productive to look at it in its applications in other fields. For this reason it is necessary to analyze the photographs of Antanas Sutkus, the famous Lithuanian photographer, in the fields of anthropology, of social and communication sciences and of art. The other problem is that various European countries, to say nothing of whole continents (for example so called Third World), have been left on the fringes of the histories of photography. To avoid this mistake it is purposeful to look at the photographs of Antanas Sutkus also in the context of the Western countries that have their own photographic traditions. Furthermore, there are some principal filters – cultural, ideological and political – that have determined the dominant historiographic models and the photographic tradition itself. The major part of Antanas' Sutkus' photographs were made when Lithuania was the constituent of the Soviet Union. Consequently it is imperative to talk about Soviet ideology that carried authority on the creation of Antanas Sutkus and on the entire Lithuanian photographic tradition. Not a barrel of these contexts can show that a documentary and an artistry coexist in the photography of Antanas Sutkus. This coexistence seems evident when some transformations take part. For example, when the press photo, which was closely subordinated with text, appears in the galleries or in the photo albums that can change its original meaning. There again, the relevant political-social substance of photography can become a conformation of the photographer's creative interpretation. Therefore it is possible to say, that photographs of Antanas Sutkus can not be only an object of study, because it is also an instrument of study. Not only history makes photography of this famous Lithuanian photographer, but also his photography produces history.

It is inexpedient now to talk about is photography an art, or it isn't. It's a result of the concordance that there are some kind of symbiosis between artistry and documentary in photography. Additionally, photography has modified the protocol with industry, with science, with advertising, with journalism, with communication, with art, with everyday life… Consequently photography can't yet be studied as an autonomous discipline. It is more productive to look at it in its applications in other fields. For this reason it is necessary to analyze the photographs of Antanas Sutkus, the famous Lithuanian photographer, in the fields of anthropology, of social and communication sciences and of art. The other problem is that various European countries, to say nothing of whole continents (for example so called Third World), have been left on the fringes of the histories of photography. To avoid this mistake it is purposeful to look at the photographs of Antanas Sutkus also in the context of the Western countries that have their own photographic traditions. Furthermore, there are some principal filters – cultural, ideological and political – that have determined the dominant historiographic models and the photographic tradition itself. The major part of Antanas' Sutkus' photographs were made when Lithuania was the constituent of the Soviet Union. Consequently it is imperative to talk about Soviet ideology that carried authority on the creation of Antanas Sutkus and on the entire Lithuanian photographic tradition. Not a barrel of these contexts can show that a documentary and an artistry coexist in the photography of Antanas Sutkus. This coexistence seems evident when some transformations take part. For example, when the press photo, which was closely subordinated with text, appears in the galleries or in the photo albums that can change its original meaning. There again, the relevant political-social substance of photography can become a conformation of the photographer's creative interpretation. Therefore it is possible to say, that photographs of Antanas Sutkus can not be only an object of study, because it is also an instrument of study. Not only history makes photography of this famous Lithuanian photographer, but also his photography produces history.

It is inexpedient now to talk about is photography an art, or it isn't. It's a result of the concordance that there are some kind of symbiosis between artistry and documentary in photography. Additionally, photography has modified the protocol with industry, with science, with advertising, with journalism, with communication, with art, with everyday life… Consequently photography can't yet be studied as an autonomous discipline. It is more productive to look at it in its applications in other fields. For this reason it is necessary to analyze the photographs of Antanas Sutkus, the famous Lithuanian photographer, in the fields of anthropology, of social and communication sciences and of art. The other problem is that various European countries, to say nothing of whole continents (for example so called Third World), have been left on the fringes of the histories of photography. To avoid this mistake it is purposeful to look at the photographs of Antanas Sutkus also in the context of the Western countries that have their own photographic traditions. Furthermore, there are some principal filters – cultural, ideological and political – that have determined the dominant historiographic models and the photographic tradition itself. The major part of Antanas' Sutkus' photographs were made when Lithuania was the constituent of the Soviet Union. Consequently it is imperative to talk about Soviet ideology that carried authority on the creation of Antanas Sutkus and on the entire Lithuanian photographic tradition. Not a barrel of these contexts can show that a documentary and an artistry coexist in the photography of Antanas Sutkus. This coexistence seems evident when some transformations take part. For example, when the press photo, which was closely subordinated with text, appears in the galleries or in the photo albums that can change its original meaning. There again, the relevant political-social substance of photography can become a conformation of the photographer's creative interpretation. Therefore it is possible to say, that photographs of Antanas Sutkus can not be only an object of study, because it is also an instrument of study. Not only history makes photography of this famous Lithuanian photographer, but also his photography produces history.

The aim of the research is to ground the statement that exile memoirs changed from documentary and political works to subjective ones, analyzing personal problems. The object of the work is the memoirs by exile writers. Analytical, descriptive and hermeneutical methods are used. The theory of autobiography by French theoretician Philippe Lejeune (1989) and the theoretical insights while analyzing autobiographical texts by Vytautas Kavolis (1998) were chosen as the theoretical background. In the research, the memoir books were divided into memoirs and genre transformations. Memoirs are subdivided into documentary and literary. The documentary memoirs start dominating around 1940, when Lithuanian was occupied by soviets. This fact is commented by the writers-politicians V. Krėvė, L. Dovydėnas and I. Šeinius, who closely observed the situation. Their memoirs are distinct because of relevant topics for the time, i.e. the abundance of facts, historical events and political details. Around 1950-1965, politics in the memoirs is changed by the problem of the relationship between the person and time or history. A distinctive feature of these texts is the abundance of tropes, figurative details, fictional elements and they are quite subjective (M. Vaitkus, J. Aistis, St. Yla, etc). The research emphasizes that at the end of the XX century (1965-2000) subjectivity becomes the main feature in order to describe memoirs. In the memory books, the focus is on the person and other people; the peculiarities of personal life get the most attention and change history and politics (J. Narūnė, M. Aukštaitė, E. Juodvalkė ir kt.). The transformations of the memoir genre (Pulgis Andriušis, J. Savickis, P. Orintaitė, B. Raila) are more common in the 6-7 decades of the XX century. This means the development of the usual genre, when the term memoirs is not sufficient to define the genre of the books. Fictionality and a double expression of the events, memoir and autobiography, essay or diary, are common for the texts.

The aim of the research is to ground the statement that exile memoirs changed from documentary and political works to subjective ones, analyzing personal problems. The object of the work is the memoirs by exile writers. Analytical, descriptive and hermeneutical methods are used. The theory of autobiography by French theoretician Philippe Lejeune (1989) and the theoretical insights while analyzing autobiographical texts by Vytautas Kavolis (1998) were chosen as the theoretical background. In the research, the memoir books were divided into memoirs and genre transformations. Memoirs are subdivided into documentary and literary. The documentary memoirs start dominating around 1940, when Lithuanian was occupied by soviets. This fact is commented by the writers-politicians V. Krėvė, L. Dovydėnas and I. Šeinius, who closely observed the situation. Their memoirs are distinct because of relevant topics for the time, i.e. the abundance of facts, historical events and political details. Around 1950-1965, politics in the memoirs is changed by the problem of the relationship between the person and time or history. A distinctive feature of these texts is the abundance of tropes, figurative details, fictional elements and they are quite subjective (M. Vaitkus, J. Aistis, St. Yla, etc). The research emphasizes that at the end of the XX century (1965-2000) subjectivity becomes the main feature in order to describe memoirs. In the memory books, the focus is on the person and other people; the peculiarities of personal life get the most attention and change history and politics (J. Narūnė, M. Aukštaitė, E. Juodvalkė ir kt.). The transformations of the memoir genre (Pulgis Andriušis, J. Savickis, P. Orintaitė, B. Raila) are more common in the 6-7 decades of the XX century. This means the development of the usual genre, when the term memoirs is not sufficient to define the genre of the books. Fictionality and a double expression of the events, memoir and autobiography, essay or diary, are common for the texts.

The aim of the research is to ground the statement that exile memoirs changed from documentary and political works to subjective ones, analyzing personal problems. The object of the work is the memoirs by exile writers. Analytical, descriptive and hermeneutical methods are used. The theory of autobiography by French theoretician Philippe Lejeune (1989) and the theoretical insights while analyzing autobiographical texts by Vytautas Kavolis (1998) were chosen as the theoretical background. In the research, the memoir books were divided into memoirs and genre transformations. Memoirs are subdivided into documentary and literary. The documentary memoirs start dominating around 1940, when Lithuanian was occupied by soviets. This fact is commented by the writers-politicians V. Krėvė, L. Dovydėnas and I. Šeinius, who closely observed the situation. Their memoirs are distinct because of relevant topics for the time, i.e. the abundance of facts, historical events and political details. Around 1950-1965, politics in the memoirs is changed by the problem of the relationship between the person and time or history. A distinctive feature of these texts is the abundance of tropes, figurative details, fictional elements and they are quite subjective (M. Vaitkus, J. Aistis, St. Yla, etc). The research emphasizes that at the end of the XX century (1965-2000) subjectivity becomes the main feature in order to describe memoirs. In the memory books, the focus is on the person and other people; the peculiarities of personal life get the most attention and change history and politics (J. Narūnė, M. Aukštaitė, E. Juodvalkė ir kt.). The transformations of the memoir genre (Pulgis Andriušis, J. Savickis, P. Orintaitė, B. Raila) are more common in the 6-7 decades of the XX century. This means the development of the usual genre, when the term memoirs is not sufficient to define the genre of the books. Fictionality and a double expression of the events, memoir and autobiography, essay or diary, are common for the texts.

The aim of the research is to ground the statement that exile memoirs changed from documentary and political works to subjective ones, analyzing personal problems. The object of the work is the memoirs by exile writers. Analytical, descriptive and hermeneutical methods are used. The theory of autobiography by French theoretician Philippe Lejeune (1989) and the theoretical insights while analyzing autobiographical texts by Vytautas Kavolis (1998) were chosen as the theoretical background. In the research, the memoir books were divided into memoirs and genre transformations. Memoirs are subdivided into documentary and literary. The documentary memoirs start dominating around 1940, when Lithuanian was occupied by soviets. This fact is commented by the writers-politicians V. Krėvė, L. Dovydėnas and I. Šeinius, who closely observed the situation. Their memoirs are distinct because of relevant topics for the time, i.e. the abundance of facts, historical events and political details. Around 1950-1965, politics in the memoirs is changed by the problem of the relationship between the person and time or history. A distinctive feature of these texts is the abundance of tropes, figurative details, fictional elements and they are quite subjective (M. Vaitkus, J. Aistis, St. Yla, etc). The research emphasizes that at the end of the XX century (1965-2000) subjectivity becomes the main feature in order to describe memoirs. In the memory books, the focus is on the person and other people; the peculiarities of personal life get the most attention and change history and politics (J. Narūnė, M. Aukštaitė, E. Juodvalkė ir kt.). The transformations of the memoir genre (Pulgis Andriušis, J. Savickis, P. Orintaitė, B. Raila) are more common in the 6-7 decades of the XX century. This means the development of the usual genre, when the term memoirs is not sufficient to define the genre of the books. Fictionality and a double expression of the events, memoir and autobiography, essay or diary, are common for the texts.

The aim of the research is to ground the statement that exile memoirs changed from documentary and political works to subjective ones, analyzing personal problems. The object of the work is the memoirs by exile writers. Analytical, descriptive and hermeneutical methods are used. The theory of autobiography by French theoretician Philippe Lejeune (1989) and the theoretical insights while analyzing autobiographical texts by Vytautas Kavolis (1998) were chosen as the theoretical background. In the research, the memoir books were divided into memoirs and genre transformations. Memoirs are subdivided into documentary and literary. The documentary memoirs start dominating around 1940, when Lithuanian was occupied by soviets. This fact is commented by the writers-politicians V. Krėvė, L. Dovydėnas and I. Šeinius, who closely observed the situation. Their memoirs are distinct because of relevant topics for the time, i.e. the abundance of facts, historical events and political details. Around 1950-1965, politics in the memoirs is changed by the problem of the relationship between the person and time or history. A distinctive feature of these texts is the abundance of tropes, figurative details, fictional elements and they are quite subjective (M. Vaitkus, J. Aistis, St. Yla, etc). The research emphasizes that at the end of the XX century (1965-2000) subjectivity becomes the main feature in order to describe memoirs. In the memory books, the focus is on the person and other people; the peculiarities of personal life get the most attention and change history and politics (J. Narūnė, M. Aukštaitė, E. Juodvalkė ir kt.). The transformations of the memoir genre (Pulgis Andriušis, J. Savickis, P. Orintaitė, B. Raila) are more common in the 6-7 decades of the XX century. This means the development of the usual genre, when the term memoirs is not sufficient to define the genre of the books. Fictionality and a double expression of the events, memoir and autobiography, essay or diary, are common for the texts.

The aim of the research is to ground the statement that exile memoirs changed from documentary and political works to subjective ones, analyzing personal problems. The object of the work is the memoirs by exile writers. Analytical, descriptive and hermeneutical methods are used. The theory of autobiography by French theoretician Philippe Lejeune (1989) and the theoretical insights while analyzing autobiographical texts by Vytautas Kavolis (1998) were chosen as the theoretical background. In the research, the memoir books were divided into memoirs and genre transformations. Memoirs are subdivided into documentary and literary. The documentary memoirs start dominating around 1940, when Lithuanian was occupied by soviets. This fact is commented by the writers-politicians V. Krėvė, L. Dovydėnas and I. Šeinius, who closely observed the situation. Their memoirs are distinct because of relevant topics for the time, i.e. the abundance of facts, historical events and political details. Around 1950-1965, politics in the memoirs is changed by the problem of the relationship between the person and time or history. A distinctive feature of these texts is the abundance of tropes, figurative details, fictional elements and they are quite subjective (M. Vaitkus, J. Aistis, St. Yla, etc). The research emphasizes that at the end of the XX century (1965-2000) subjectivity becomes the main feature in order to describe memoirs. In the memory books, the focus is on the person and other people; the peculiarities of personal life get the most attention and change history and politics (J. Narūnė, M. Aukštaitė, E. Juodvalkė ir kt.). The transformations of the memoir genre (Pulgis Andriušis, J. Savickis, P. Orintaitė, B. Raila) are more common in the 6-7 decades of the XX century. This means the development of the usual genre, when the term memoirs is not sufficient to define the genre of the books. Fictionality and a double expression of the events, memoir and autobiography, essay or diary, are common for the texts.

The auditor must represent the public interest when auditing the financial reports and publishing the audit report publicly. It is important that the auditor has not only subject and intellectual competences, but also social and personal competences relating to ethics and values. The scientific problem posed by this article is to find out how compliance with the principles of professional ethics of auditors affects the reliability of audit findings and the quality of audits. The subject of the research is the auditor's professional ethics and its violations. The purpose of the study is to uncover violations of the auditors' professional ethics and to propose preventive measures to address ethical issues, after examining the auditor's professional ethics and regulating its principles. Research methods used: scientific and normative literature, analysis and synthesis of legislation; logical analysis; documentary analysis