Search

The paper offers a general overview of the Lithuanian art historical research published during the three decades of Independence (1990-2020). The paper discusses the changes in institutional and academic life, the spectrum of methodological approaches, as well as the key art theoretical publications and their authors. The overview aims to assess the current situation in the art historical discipline and fascilitate the debates around the question whether Lithuania has managed to develop its own school of art theory. The analysis of the publications (mostly monographs) by the Lithuanian art theorists has conclusively shown that such school does already exist. In terms of its organisation, Lithuanian art theoretical school matches all the academic criteria: education is provided at all levels, and the dissemination and continuity of research, both empirical and theoretical, are ensured. The school has already gone through two or even three phases of development. The first stage, spanning between 1990 and 1998/99, was rich with significant achievements in the sector of education: it saw the launch of the first art theory doctorate programme in Lithuania, as well as the establishment of the Institute of Art Research, and the Vilnius Academy of Arts Publishing House. During the period, Kaunas Vytautas Magnus University launched their art theory programme, while the Culture and Art Institute in Vilnius had acquired two art theory departments. The second stage (2000-2010/12) saw a rapid growth of the number of publications, widening of the art theoretical specialisation, and further development of research methodologies. Along with the formal analysis and methodologies of iconography and iconology, came the outlines of social art history. All the spheres of art history became equipped with various methods of source research and interpretation. Among the main fields of research were the history of ecclesiastic and devotional art (patronage and heritage of mansions and urbanite art). One of the leading research problems of the time - the relation of text and image. The third stage covers the period of 2010-2020, and instead of the focus on the oldest examples of art historical heritage to the art of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In Lithuania, the methodological innovations started gradually taking root only after the year 2000, therefore there are still many possibile routes to explore. Most texts emoploy a combination of different methodologies, varying between iconology, phenomenology, and semiotics. This helps the research to better grasp the multiplicitous nature of the analysed phenomena, although this sometimes comes at the expense of the narrational coherence and constructiveness of conclusions. The Lithuanian school is predominantly national-based. This has many advantages, although sometimes this makes it difficult to distribute the research internationally. Despite all the developments within the Lithuanian art history as a discipline, international collaboration via conferences, projects, publishing, and media still leaves much to be desired. Due to the reliability of documented information, Lithuanian art historians are able to produce a particularly high level of in their work with sources. Rather than emerging as a circle of followers around a particular prominent individual, the Lithuanian art theoretical school is a result of a number of colleagues - art historians and critics - practicing mutual support and exchange of ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the aspects of anationhood in art theory and culture have already been thoroughly investigated, the relatively young discipline of cinema theory is only beginning to grapple with the notion of nationality in cinema. The earliest attempts to define 'national cinema' go back as far as the soviet and the early Independence periods, as seen in the works of Marijona Malcienė, Laimonas Tapinas, and Živilė Pipinytė. The paper aims to build on these early debates and develop a new interpretation of the notion of national cinema, offer its contemporary historiography with the pluralist understanding of the notion, and therefore ask the following series of questions: is it only the cultural texts about the host country that can be considered 'national'? does 'nationality' depend on the nationality of the artist? what criteria determine the value and significance of cinema? is it just the films with high artistic quality that are worthy of our attention? how about other factors that determine the culture of cinema (audience, distribution, screening)? how does the integration of these factors change our understanding of 'national cinema'? The paper addresses these questions in three parts. In the first one, I use key authors (Andrew Higson, John Hill, and Stephen Croft) to discuss the development of the notion of 'national cinema' while paying more attention to its modern interpretation due to its relevance to the contemporary cinema theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]