Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ART EXHIBITIONS
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Establishment of an authoritarian regime in Latvia was neither a surprise nor exception in the European context. After World War I democracy had power and high reputation in all European countries. But the practice showed that democratic form of government was too ineffective to deal with the acute problems of the post-war period. Economical and social issues were not resolved and governments - too weak. Economical decline of the 1930s enhanced the sense of disappointment in democracy. Movements campaigning for authoritarian government emerged in almost all European countries. In Latvia there was no experience of political democracy at all and this burdened the success of this system. After Prime Minister Karlis Ulmanis realised a coup d'etat on 15 May 1934 and abolished the constitution, the state was reformed to create a completely new system, founding trade chambers. There were six chambers in total. In May 1938 the last two chambers were established - the Latvian Chamber of Writing and Art (Rakstu un makslas kamera) and the Chamber of Professions (Profesiju kamera). They completed the process of involving each inhabitant of Latvia in the sphere of competence represented by the chambers. The Latvian Chamber of Writing and Art was opened in the Riga Latvian Society hall on 15 December 1938. According to the law, the Chamber of Writing and Art consisted of six sections representing literature, publishers and dealers, fine art, music, theatre and folklore. Groups (former artists' societies) could exist as sections. The Section of Fine Art received 19 posts. Founding of the chambers was carried out together with closing down of the former societies. On 14 November 1938 a meeting was organised at the Independent Artists' Society (Neatkarigo makslinieku vieniba) building and residence, bringing together boards of former artists' societies to decide about consolidation and passing regulations of the new society.
EN
The interwar years are a very distinctive period in the modern history of Lithuania. Once an idle province of the Russian Empire, Lithuania experienced particularly intensive and swift growth. In culture, as in other spheres, radical changes occurred that transformed the state into a modern European country. When we talk about the artistic life of independent Lithuania it is impossible to dissociate it from its organizational and institutional aspects. The struggle of artistic views and ideas was inseparable from the discussions on the problems of the artist's social status, possible forms of artistic patronage and other similar questions. Despite noticing the weak powers of state patronage, artists did not reject their own artistic conception brought from the 19th century. On the other hand, very few of the older generation understood in which direction the attitude of society towards art and its function was moving. Only when the Lithuanian President himself announced, during a congress of the ruling Tautininkai (Nationalists) party, that 'art and science had to have practical significance, they had to serve the nation', thereby stating clearly for what the state was ready to pay artists, the ideal of romanticism began to be reconsidered. With a few exceptions, artists could not earn a living from their art alone. The structure of state commissions and tenders, copyrights and the social status of artists - all these urgent problems could be resolved only by the united efforts and forces of the whole art community. The vision of a modern state was combined with the characteristics of the country's historical past particularly emphasizing the grandeur of the Middle Ages. The Lithuanian state began to understand the importance of art for the representation and propaganda of the image of the country. On the other hand, the brevity of the national culture and insufficient possibilities for its patronage did not allow for different artistic trends to develop and for a critical discourse to appear.
EN
Financial support is one criterion which helps to assess the true attitude of the state towards cultural heritage and creative processes. During the first period of Latvia's independence, the Culture Foundation (Kulturas fonds) established at the Ministry of Education on 18 November 1920, played an important part in this respect. Incoming money was spent to support science, education, cultural workers and institutions, for premiums and stipends, educative foreign travels and popularization of science and art. The article aims to browse the main functions, guidelines and priorities with particular regard to supporting fine arts. During the early period cultural processes in the countryside were in the focus of attention: community halls were arranged or built anew, a wide net of libraries was established in numerous towns. To foster creative processes, the Culture Foundation granted travel stipends and supported studies abroad. Creative travels stimulated assimilation of Western European cultural experience and development of Latvian art in general. Culture Foundation Premiums in different branches of art - painting, sculpture (monumental and stand sculpture), graphics, stage design and applied arts - were signs of recognition on the national level. Such artists as Gederts Eliass, Ludolfs Liberts, Janis Kuga, Niklavs Strunke, Ansis Girulis, Vihelms Purvitis, Janis Roberts Tillbergs, Karlis Zale, Eduards Kalnins and Teodors Zalkalns had received these premiums two or three times. Considering the premium winners from the distance of time, different kinds of art had been praised in respect to both quality and social significance, ranging from artworks - signs and symbols of their time - to mediocre or even poor works. After the coup d'etat realized by Karlis Ulmanis on 15 May 1934, the role of culture changed, becoming a representative voice of the state. During this period, administrative structures of institutions also tended towards authoritarianism. The Ministry of Education that supervised the Culture Foundation took the lead of organizing cultural life, choosing such priorities as financial support for huge buildings and monuments.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.