Architektūros studijos Vilniaus universitete 1773-1832 metais

LTXVIII a. vid.-XIX a. pirmosios pusės architektūros edukaciją galima apibrėžti kaip konservatyvių tradicinių ir institucine bei programine prasme naujų, Apšvietos epochos inspiruotų ugdymo būdų koegzistavimo laikotarpį; kaip etapą, kuriame dėl Apšvietos idėjų poveikio pamažu transformavosi senųjų mokymo formų turinys. XVIII a. pabaigoje Vilniaus universitete įsikūrusi Architektūros katedra, kaip ir kitų dailės disciplinų katedros, organizacine sandara ir veiklos principais buvo artimos Europos dailiųjų menų akademijų institucinei sanklodai. Beveik du dešimtmečius ši katedra buvo pirmoji ir vienintelė aukštoji profesinė architektūros mokykla buvusios Lenkijos-Lietuvos valstybės teritorijoje. Universitetas tapo rimta atsvara tradiciniams architektūros studentų iš Lietuvos traukos centrams užsienyje (Prahoje, Romoje, Bolonėje, Paryžiuje), užpildė aukštojo profesinio architektūros mokymo spragą, patenkino kvalifikuotų architektų poreikį krašte. Architektūros katedros didaktika rėmėsi pažangiausia, tiesiogiai iš Paryžiaus École Polytechnique perimta metodika, kurios svarbiausias nuopelnas buvo modernus teorijos ir praktikos sintezės būdo diegimas, aiškiai suvokta dualistinė architektūros prigimtis - kaip mokslo ir meno, teorijos ir praktikos dermė. Kryptinga ir gerai organizuota Architektūros katedros didaktika davė svarių rezultatų: jos absolventai, kurių aktyviausio veikimo laikotarpis buvo XIX a. 2-7 dešimtmečiai, pasižymėjo aukštu profesiniu pasirengimu, buvo pagrindinė šalies architektūros projektuotojų ir inžinierių pajėga.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Vilniaus universitetas (VU; Vilnius University); Vilniaus universitetas (VU; Vilnius University); L. Gucevičius; M. Šulcas; M. Kado; K. Podčašinskis; Depertament of architecture in the Vilnius university; L. Gucevichius; M. Schulz; K. Podchashinskis; Kražių mokykla; Kremenecio licėjus; Edukacinė komisija; Stanislovas Augustas Poniatovskis (Stanisław August Poniatowski); Ignotas Jokūbas Masalskis; Martynas Knakfusas; Laurynas Stuoka-Gucevičius; Mykolas Šulcas; Karolis Podčašinskis; Mykolas Kado; Jonas Ursinas Šantyras; Teodoras Narbutas (Teodor Narbutt).

EN[...] Defining the current level of the studies of architecture education in Lithuania in the 18t h - the first half of the 19th centuries, it may be stated that first, the sphere has not been investigated in its totality, and second, the investigations have been limited to the history of the Department of Architecture, which was founded in 1793, and a modest overview of its 'pro-history' in the Jesuit Academy. The Department of Architecture was believed to be the only centre of the studies of architecture in Lithuania in the given period, and its genesis was identified exclusively with the university tradition that is defined as an isolated phenomenon, like stemming only from 'itself. Such interpretation does not give the picture of architecture education in Lithuania and its institutional development. Separate forms of institutionalised studies and institutions before the 19th century are not treated in historiography, while the same is true about what was happening outside Vilnius University in the 19th century. Their role and significance of the development of architecture didactics, theory and, in general, culture has not been clarified yet. [...] The architecture education of the mid-18th - the first half of the 19th centuries can be defined as the period of coexistence of conservative traditional and, in institutional and curriculum terms, new tuition methods that were inspired by the Enlightenment; also as the stage when the old type of curricula were gradually transformed under the influence of the ideas of the Enlightenment. The following architecture education elements of the second half of the 18t h century are considered to be traditionally conservative. [...].The Department of Architecture that was founded in Vilnius University at the end of 17th century, as well as other departments, such as arts, were close to the European visual art academies in their institutional framework and activity. These divisions of the so-called Vilnius Art School performed the functions of an academy on the national scale as it facilitated the cultural life of the state and exercised supervision in education institutions. [...] Under the impact of the social-economic and cultural realities of the state as well as the traditions and centres of architecture education of Europe, the 19th century saw the crystallisation of the concept of architecture education in Lithuania. In Vilnius University Department of Architecture, headed by K. Podchashinski, reached its maturity in respect of its syllabus and the rate of institutional development of almost the same level as architecture education in the leading cultural centre - Paris. [...] It bridged the gap in architecture education and met the need for qualified architects in the country. [...] Vilnius University was characterised by more attention for art education that was practical established as the result of 1773, 1797, 1803 reforms and had direct influence on educational programmes of subordinate non-university educational institutions. It was on this lowest level of institutionalised education that aesthetics, drawing and architecture courses were launched. [...] Teaching architecture at a university level gave an impulse for the development of architecture theory in Lithuania. [...] Lithuania did not produce any original theoretical concept during the period under discussion, the treatises written in the local environment were essentially interpretations or compilations of Western European masters of architecture, which was supplemented with original notes.[...] Vilnius University and its environment in Lithuania was the key nucleus of adapting, developing, applying and popularising the Neo-classical architectural theory. The Lithuanian architectural theory of the 18th century rested on the works by Vitruvius, Italians and Renaissance scholars (from Alberti to Scamozzi) and on their tradition that permeated the French (C. Perrault) and German (Ch. Wolff, N. Goldmann) classicists of the 17th century. Pursuant to this tradition, architecture was interpreted as a science characterised by certain aesthetic laws; the concept of beauty as the most important architectural category was rationalistic, supposedly preconditioned by symmetry and the system of proportions. The impact of the theory of Neo-classicism of the Enlightenment age (Laugier, Briseux, J.F. Blondel) was predominant in the last decade of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century Lithuanian architectural theory (L. Gucevichius, M. Schulz). It encouraged a step away from Vitruvius' theme of anthropomorphic speculation orders. An idea to classify architecture as an art and to apply the same criteria of aesthetics to it was adopted in Lithuania, however the technical and engineering aspect of architecture was stressed. Criticism of taste showing signs of subjectivity was prevalent in the concept of beauty. The theory of the first half of the 19th century (K. Podchashinskis) did not follow the tradition of the architecture based on Classical orders and Vitruvius's orthodoxy and offered possibilities for the appearance of the critics of the classical aesthetics and architecture that was not based on classical orders. In comparison to K. Podchashinskis' theory, the programmes of his predecessors L. Gucevichius and M. Schulz were more uniform and methodologically consistent from a conceptual perspective. [From the publication]