LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjamas dailės muziejaus kaip nacionalinio tapatumo konstravimo ir palaikymo priemones vaidmuo. Straipsnio tikslas - apžvelgti nacionalinių dailės istorijos vaizdinių kaitą muziejuje ir atskleisti, kaip kintančios dailės interpretacijos susijusios su besikeičiančia nacionalinio tapatumo samprata. Tyrimo objektas - tapybos kūrinių rinkiniai dviejose nacionalinės XX a. pirmosios pusės dailės ekspozicijose (1988 ir 2009 m.) Lietuvos dailės muziejuje. Nagrinėjama, kokios lietuviško nacionalinio tapatumo sampratos atspindėtos šiose skirtingas politinės epochas reprezentuojančiose dailės istorijos vizualizacijose. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Nacionalinis tapatumas; Muziejus; XX a. pirmosios pusės Lietuvos dailė; Tapyba; National identity; Museum; Lithuanian art of the first half of the 20th century; Painting.
ENAn art museum is not only a space designed for expositions and the preservation of cultural heritage, but it is also a place where the collective memory of a community can be preserved. It is also an instrument, which can be used to construct identity. National identity is formed here by separating national schools and by creating an order of exhibits that conveys a certain national message, including the exhibits that create or sustain national images. Because of changes in the political, social and cultural environment and the concurrent changes in the conception of national identity, museum exhibitions have been reshaped to place emphasis on those new focus points that are significant for the definition of identity. The examples of two exhibitions (of 1988 and 2009) at the Lithuanian Art Museum, which represent two different political epochs, provide ample evidence to the changes in the national "myths" of art history. Until the restoration of independence, Lithuanian art was divided into Lithuanian and non-Lithuanian art (Vilnius artists of Russian and Polish origin), which provided little exhibition space for the works of non-Lithuanian artists, by leaving only an episodic and "marginal" role to them in the general narrative of art history. In the new exhibition, attempts to create a more integrated picture of Lithuanian art were made by presenting the works of non-Lithuanian artists in a broader context and by searching for stylistic and thematic links between this art and the Lithuanian art heritage. Simultaneous attempts have been made to recast the canon of the national history of art as a reflection of Western modernism, one that is specifically related to the artistic environment in Kaunas of the 1920s - 1930s.The number of genres represented in those exhibitions differs: in the new exhibition, the number of compositions and portraits is almost equal to the number of ethnic landscapes, the style that was dominant in the Soviet version of art history. Such interpretational slips in art history are witness to the decreasing need to empathise, on the one hand, with Western culture, and on the other hand, with ethnic "Lithuanian" culture. [From the publication]