Meistraujantis žmogus: Marcelijaus Martinaičio poetinė antropologija

LTŠi knyga - tai tik vienas, vienoks, įvairialypės Marcelijaus Martinaičio (1936-2013) kūrybos supratimas ir aiškinimas. Martinaičio poezija, eseistika, publicistika čia skaitoma ir interpretuojama drauge su kitomis jo socialinėmis veiklomis. Domėjimasis tautosaka, etnokultūra, dalyvavimas paminklosaugos judėjime, tautodailinis pomėgis skutinėti margučius, meistrauti iš medžio, apsisprendimas parsivežti tėvų namą iš numelioruoto Žemaitijos kaimo ir autentiškas jo atstatymas sodyboje šalia Vilniaus - visa tai traktuojama kaip tos pačios kūrybiškumo savybės daugiaplanis veikimas. Antropologai sako, kad kūryba yra universalus žmogiškas polinkis savaip įprasminti gyvenamą aplinką ir asmeninį autentišką buvimą, todėl kūrybiškumas būdingas kiekvienam žmogui ir reiškiasi visose gyvenimo srityse nepriklausomai nuo to, ar kūryba išsikristalizuoja į nemirštamus meno kūrinius, ar lieka glūdėti privačiuose išgyvenimų momentuose. Todėl kūrybiškumo tyrinėjimas, nors analizei labiausiai prieinamas būtent per menininkų kūrybą, išreikštą universaliai suprantama forma, pirmiausiai skirtas atverti bendražmogiškus gyvenimo aspektus ir konkrečios istorinės visuomenės paveikslą. [Iš Įvado]

ENThis book presents one possible interpretation of and an insight into the work of Marcelijus Martinaitis (1936-2013), one of the most famous and significant Lithuanian poets of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In this monograph, I read and interpreted Martinaitis's poetry, essays, and journalism, along with his other community work. I included his interest in folklore and ethnic culture, his work with the monument protection movement, his interest in the traditional art of etching patterns on Easter eggs and woodwork, and his decision to transport his parents' home from a Samogitian village that had undergone land development, to a farmstead near Vilnius, where it was restored to its authentic form. I see all these interests as expressions of Martinaitis's multifaceted creativity. According to anthropologists, creativity is the universal way humans make unique sense of their environment and their own authentic existence. Therefore, creativity is typical of every individual and manifests itself in all areas of their life, regardless of whether it manifests itself as unforgettable works of art or is left hidden in private moments of personal experience. Thus, even though the study of creativity is most accessible through the work of artists, its foremost function is to reveal the interpersonal aspects of life and the picture of a specific historical society.For an integral analysis of Martinaitis's work, I chose the theory and method of literary anthropology. As hinted in the title, the word 'anthropology' is especially important in this monograph. Anthropology is the study of the individual within culture: the individual engages in culture both by creating and by being shaped by culture as such. It explores all that is human: the behaviours and practices of individuals and communities, relationship models, and community structures; how (and why) people lived in different eras. In this monograph, the concept of anthropology is useful on several levels. On the one hand, I use anthropology as a method for studying literature (literary anthropology); on the other, from the perspective of the object of this study, anthropology serves as a conceptual metaphor that helped me in understanding and explaining Martinaitis's creative position, which I refer to as his poetic anthropology. An anthropological approach allows two spheres (the creative and the social) to connect into a cohesive cultural text. In my writing, I try to follow the literary footsteps of Martinaitis's creativity from the very beginning of his artistic path and to reconstruct his creative intentions by analysing his writings, in particular his poetry. I attempt to describe what he, as the subject of aesthetic activity, does in his creative world, what his goals are, and what they tell about the times he lived in, coinciding first with the Soviet occupation and then with maturing of an independent society.Martinaitis grew up in post-war Lithuania and experienced the decline of traditional agrarian culture, as well as the construction of a modern, almost futuristic, world spurred by Soviet ideology. Instead of identifying with the paradigms of either of these two lifestyles or identities, Martinaitis resolves to be an intermediary: a witness of the signs of archaic cultures and their re-interpreter for the contemporary world. What Martinaitis does in his artistic world can resemble gathering up the rubble left in the wake of a disaster and trying to create a more or less tidy image out of it. He knows it is only an imitation, a naive self-deceit, but it is also a metonymy of the destroyed world, which was lost so suddenly and unexpectedly, without the chance of properly saying goodbye or inheriting it with dignity. [...]. [From the publication]