Menininkas, epocha ir suvokėjas: atminties vietų paradoksai

LTStraipsnio objektas yra paveldo objektai - paminklai (skulptūros) miestų viešosiose erdvėse, jų santykis su suvokėjais. Telkiamasi į paveldo materialumo ir nematerialumo, kuriuos sieja glaudūs tarpusavio ryšiai, suvokimą. Aktualizuojamas naratyvinis nematerialumo aspektas kaip svarbus prasmės bei vertės išsaugojimo ir perdavimo procesas. Teigiama, kad vaizdo ir pasakojimo vientisumas svarbus, ypač žvelgiant paveldo valdymo, panaudojimo, interpretavimo, komunikavimo aspektu. Empiriniame tyrime remiamasi konkrečiais paminklų pavyzdžiais, esančiais miestų viešosiose erdvėse, darant prielaidą, kad jų materialusis būvis, nepaisant vizualumo teikiamų suvokimo galimybių, be nematerialumo per naratyvinį lygmenį, praranda prasmę. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Viešosios erdvės; Paminklai; Skulptūros; Kultūros paveldas; (Ne)materialumas; Naratyvai; Suvokėjai; Public spaces; Monuments; Sculptures; Cultural heritage; (In)tangibility; Narratives; Perceivers.

ENThe object of this article is heritage objects - monuments (sculptures) in city public spaces, and their relationship with their perceivers. Regardless of when they were created, standing in squares, courtyards and parks they unavoidably become a common object belonging, seen and perceived by everyone. For their stable, visible nature, they also have another invisible side. The deeper perception of the tangibility and intangibility of heritage, both being related by close mutual bonds. Greater relevance is afforded to the narrative intangible aspect as an important process in the preservation and transfer of meaning and value. It is said that uniformity in image and narrative is important, especially in terms of heritage management, use, interpretation and communication. The empirical research is based on specific examples of monuments located in city public spaces, forming the provision that their tangible existence, regardless of the potential for perception through their visual aspect, aside from their intangibility as viewed through the narrative level, loses meaning. The case analysis selected two works by well-known Lithuanian artists - monument/sculptures that today exist in Lithuania’s larger cities and are considered heritage objects. They are Dalia Matulaitės Stumbras (Auroch) in Ąžuolyno (Oak) Park in Kaunas and Vladas Vildžiūnas’ Lietuviška baladė (Lithuanian ballad) in a square near the Vilnius Archcathedral.The works have some things in common: they were created during the Soviet period, in the 1970s, yet they lack the ideological symbols and signs characteristic of the period. The works are not typical and testify that the sculptors managed to avoid the Soviet stereotypes, provisions and themes handed down from above. When creating these sculptures, the artists faced some difficulties associated with the realisation of the task, even though the works were completed in the end. While the stories of their creation and existence have been overlooked somewhat, they are certainly not extinguished; we can find their reflections in various books, memoirs and open internet sites. The relationship between the visual and the narrative opens up various opportunities for reading the works. However, standing in public city spaces, the monuments become significant through the public’s relationship with them, through their impact not just on memory but on identity as well. That is why it is just as important to ask what narratives they reveal (or do not reveal) today? Is it possible to be a cultural heritage resource of today while also being a part of public city spaces? The relationship between the artist, the epoch and the perceiver, and the city space, public commonality and place of memory is revealed in the research as a paradoxical situation. The results of the research showed that uniformity between the image and the narrative is important, yet as heritage objects they are in effect silent, and their communication with their audience is insufficient. Thus, the understanding that we are speaking about common, public spaces, is static, being stuck only in the visual and material perception. Younger members of the public have a much weaker relationship with them.Today, the narrative function in Lithuania’s cultural context is echoed in activities such as education and cultural tourism. However, that is insufficient, which is why we should identify the lack of a universal approach, drawing attention to heritage information, communication and management. [From the publication]