Sovietmetis kaip meninio tyrimo objektas: Kęstučio Grigaliūno, Dainiaus Liškevičiaus ir Eglės Ulčickaitės atvejai

LTPastaruoju metu iškilusi meninio tyrimo sąvoka tarsi primeta menininkams užduotį metodiškai studijuoti tikrovę, kritiškai vertinti randamus faktus ir argumentuotai ginti savo teiginius, kartu pripažįstant, kad meno sukuriamos žinios yra neišbaigtos. Tačiau humanitariniuose moksluose dabar naudojami metodai ardo aiškias, binarinėmis sąvokomis grįstas schemas išryškindami reiškinių daugialypumą. Siekiant užčiuopti meninio ir mokslinio tyrimo sąsajas, straipsnyje nagrinėjami meno kūriniai, kalbantys apie sovietmetį – istorikus taip pat dominantį objektą. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Sovietmetis; Mikroistoriniai tyrimai; Meninis tyrimas; Kęstutis Grigaliūnas; Dainius Liškevičius; Eglė Ulčickaitė; Soviet period; Microhistory; Artistic research; Kęstutis Grigaliūnas; Dainius Liškevičius; Eglė Ulčickaitė.

ENThe term of artistic research that has dominated recent cultural debate seems to impose on the artists the task to seek the truth via rigorous methods, assess critically the discovered facts and support their statements with argument, meanwhile, admitting that the knowledge in artworks is incomplete, indefinite and too subjective, if compared to scholarly works. The methods currently used in humanities, however, also prevent researchers from constructing clear schemes founded on binary concepts and allow them to show the multiplicity and inconsistency of phenomena as well as their subjective meaning to various individuals who live in different times. Aiming to identify the links between artistic and scholarly research, the paper analyses works by Lithuanian artists of three different generations, Diaries of Death by Kęstutis Grigaliūnas (b. 1957), Museum by Dainius Liškevičius (b. 1970) and Landscape of Time by Eglė Ulčickaitė (b. 1989), that focus on the Soviet period, which is a hot topic in historical research as well. Artists, and historians alike, attempt to understand this complex period of the past. The three artworks cover and summarise three different stages of the Soviet period: the disposing of the past at the beginning (Grigaliūnas), people’s efforts to live as freely as possible in the present of the totalitarian system (Liškevičius) and the inability to delete the past now, which is still affecting the present (Ulčickaitė).The artworks prove to be complex instruments to create knowledge and have links to other disciplines. On the one hand, artistic research has manifest analogies with microhistorical research carried out by young Lithuanian historians who treat the Soviet society as a horizontal network of individuals rather than the binary system of the dictators and the oppressed. This concept penetrates the structure of reading the meaning of art, because artists push their audiences to participate in the creation of meaning. On the other hand, artists who are not restricted by rigorous requirements of objectivity create Deleuzian time-images, which actualise the past in the complex process of becoming. The memory of Soviet repressions evoked by Grigaliūnas is inseparable from everyday life pulsating in found photographs and in the texts being written for his books. Exhibits emanating the style of the past in Liškevičius’s Museum are being immediately transformed through his performances into entities commenting on the present. Ulčickaitė has captured anonymous reminiscences of the Soviet period in the transparent layer of paint, which seems to be fading as a temporary and alien memory. A detailed and consistent analysis of such works could reveal the deeper structures of the Soviet period and its legacy to the present time. [From the publication]