Teorinės ornamentikos tyrimų prieigos: nuo Immanuelio Kanto iki Jurgio Baltrušaičio

LTStraipsnyje pirmą kartą glaustai apžvelgiamos XVIII-XIX a. Vakarų menotyrininkų ir filosofų teorinės įžvalgos, kurios galėtų būti pritaikytos interpretuojant XVI-XVIII a. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės ir XIX a. - XX a. I pusės Lietuvos ornamentikos paveldą. Įvairios teorijos susistemintos trim aspektais: ornamento sampratos, jo funkcijos ir sąveikos su dekoruojamu objektu. Pagrindinė problema - ornamento bei jo interpretacijų santykis su kultūros kontekstais. Analizuojamos ir kai kurių šiuolaikinių autorių publikacijos, taikyrinos istorinio paveldo teorinei interpretacijai.

ENThe article briefly reviews theoretical insights of Western art researchers and philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries which may be used in the interpretations of the ornamentation heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania of 16th to 18th centuries and of Lithuania from the 19th century to the first half of 20th century. Various theories have been systematised based on three aspects: the concept of ornament, its functions and its interaction with the object it is decorating. The main problem is the relationship of the ornament and its interpretations and cultural contexts. Several publications of modern authors that can be used for the theoretical approach of historic heritage are also analysed. Three prevailing concepts of ornament can be identified. The first of them representing the most popular opinion states that an ornament is a means of decorating or "framing" an architectural object or an artwork. An ornament is understood as the parergon of the "main item". Some representatives of this classic concept (Vitruvio, Leon Battista Alberti) expand it with an idea that an ornament not only finalises, but also supplements the main idea of the whole composition. The second group of theoreticians reflecting on the functions of decor accentuated another aspect: an ornament is not only capable of framing and supplementing the beauty but can itself be the source of aesthetic satisfaction for a beholder. The second approach was supported by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Karl Boeticher, the representatives of German Romanticism and their followers.The third group of authors (Immanuel Kant and aestheticians of the 20th century) maintained that an ornament, as is commonly believed, may be considered the parergon of the "greater" work of art. However, in .some cases it may itself become an independent artwork of free non-functional form. The supporters of the functionalistic approach to an ornament emphasise the relationship between an ornament and the structural entirety of an art item because it is only through this relationship that the ornament can become acceptable and complete. A number of theoreticians including Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel maintained that an ornament gives an artistic expression (decorative form) to an architectural structure and thus finalises its artistic image. They believed that undecorated building fulfils its practical function but it is neither artistic nor beautiful. It still remains "untold" because its meaning is direct and utilitarian. This opinion was dominant in the 19th century architectural practice. Only by the end of the 19th century and in the 20th century it was discovered that, in addition to purely visual function, an ornament can perform other significant roles. This approach was influenced by the investigations of non-European heritage. Pluralistic approach to culture was unfolded by Owen Jones, John Ruskin and, in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, was further developed by Alois Riegl, Wilhelm Worringer, Jurgis Baltrušaitis, and Oleg Grabar. Modern theoretical studies of ornament are promoted by the spread of cultural and social sciences [...].